What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Anyone see SSOG? (1 Viewer)

P Boy

Footballguy
Just curious to see if he'll show up & admit that he could be wrong after he so empatically stated how the DEN RB situation was going to shake out for the rest of the year, and told anyone who thought the situation was still undecipherable and had the temerity to disagree with him how wrong they were.In the meantime - the DEN RB situation? :yucky: How could anyone without bye week issues have started Bell vs WAS, and now do you start Anderson and/or Bell vs NE. DEN is the #2 rushing O in the NFL, is #2 in 20+ yd runs, is #3 in rushing FDs, and is tied for #7 in rushing TDs. NE in the meantime is the #20 rush D in the NFL, has not given up a 20+ yd run, is #23 in giving up rushing FDs, and is #25 in giving up rushing TDs.This ought to be a very good matchup for DEN, especially with DEN at home and also wanting to run the clock & control the ball to keep Brady off the field. But with the RBs in complete flux right now? Do both guys merit a start?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

P Boy

Footballguy
For more debate:

Link to RMN article today on Bell

Boastful Bell backs up talk

After saying he'll win No. 1 job, back has breakout game

By Lee Rasizer, Rocky Mountain News

October 11, 2005

ENGLEWOOD - Tatum Bell was standing by his locker at Dove Valley talking with a reporter last week when he uttered a pronouncement off the cuff, but no less heartfelt: Give him a couple weeks and he would be the starting running back for the Denver Broncos.

Bell might prove prescient soon enough.

The speedy second-year pro's 127-yard performance on 12 carries against the Washington Redskins on Sunday included nifty touchdown runs of 34 and 55 yards.

The effort might not yet be enough to displace Mike Anderson, but it's difficult to ignore the fact that Bell's 6.2-yards-a-carry average is the league's best among running backs with more than 15 carries.

That big-play dimension has been lacking for the Broncos' 21st-ranked offense during their 4-1 start.

Bell wasn't about to back off his pregame prediction Monday.

"What week is this coming up?" he asked. "Week 6? Like I said, by Week 6, 7, or at the latest Week 8, I'll be the starter."

It isn't bragging if it can't be backed up.

........

"Give me at least 10 carries and I'll be happy," Bell said. "As long as I get 60, 70 or 80 yards or the long touchdowns and get 10 carries and can be productive, that's cool with me - and do what I've got to do on special teams. As long as I help either way, I ain't trippin'. "

That shouldn't be construed as meaning the starting job is unimportant to Bell. He ranked fourth in the NFL among rookies with 396 yards on 75 attempts last season but hasn't started in the Broncos backfield. Reuben Droughns was the starter for most of last season, and Anderson's strong off-season kept him atop that perch in 2005.

"I don't think he has anything against Mike or anything because Mike's shown each and every one of those guys the ropes. It's just Tatum's confidence," Broncos right tackle George Foster said.

"And he should have that kind of confidence."

The public pronouncement won't come as a surprise to Anderson because he repeatedly has been told by Bell he's angling to take his job.

The veteran merely laughed off Bell's boasts and has been able to answer every one of the young player's challenges on the field.

"He's like, 'Whatever. Same old. Same old,' " Bell said. "I tell all the backs the same thing. They know. It just makes us work harder."

 

Varmint

Footballguy
For more debate:

Link to RMN article today on Bell

Boastful Bell backs up talk

After saying he'll win No. 1 job, back has breakout game

By Lee Rasizer, Rocky Mountain News

October 11, 2005

ENGLEWOOD - Tatum Bell was standing by his locker at Dove Valley talking with a reporter last week when he uttered a pronouncement off the cuff, but no less heartfelt: Give him a couple weeks and he would be the starting running back for the Denver Broncos.

Bell might prove prescient soon enough.

The speedy second-year pro's 127-yard performance on 12 carries against the Washington Redskins on Sunday included nifty touchdown runs of 34 and 55 yards.

The effort might not yet be enough to displace Mike Anderson, but it's difficult to ignore the fact that Bell's 6.2-yards-a-carry average is the league's best among running backs with more than 15 carries.

That big-play dimension has been lacking for the Broncos' 21st-ranked offense during their 4-1 start.

Bell wasn't about to back off his pregame prediction Monday.

"What week is this coming up?" he asked. "Week 6? Like I said, by Week 6, 7, or at the latest Week 8, I'll be the starter."

It isn't bragging if it can't be backed up.

........

"Give me at least 10 carries and I'll be happy," Bell said. "As long as I get 60, 70 or 80 yards or the long touchdowns and get 10 carries and can be productive, that's cool with me - and do what I've got to do on special teams. As long as I help either way, I ain't trippin'. "

That shouldn't be construed as meaning the starting job is unimportant to Bell. He ranked fourth in the NFL among rookies with 396 yards on 75 attempts last season but hasn't started in the Broncos backfield. Reuben Droughns was the starter for most of last season, and Anderson's strong off-season kept him atop that perch in 2005.

"I don't think he has anything against Mike or anything because Mike's shown each and every one of those guys the ropes. It's just Tatum's confidence," Broncos right tackle George Foster said.

"And he should have that kind of confidence."

The public pronouncement won't come as a surprise to Anderson because he repeatedly has been told by Bell he's angling to take his job.

The veteran merely laughed off Bell's boasts and has been able to answer every one of the young player's challenges on the field.

"He's like, 'Whatever. Same old. Same old,' " Bell said. "I tell all the backs the same thing. They know. It just makes us work harder."
He shouldn't have said THAT... :eek: Shanahan will start Anderston just to prove to Bell who's calling the shots...

Bets??

 

Banger

Footballguy
He shouldn't have said THAT... :eek:

Shanahan will start Anderston just to prove to Bell who's calling the shots...

Bets??
Shanny will play whoever gives him the best chance of winning. Bell won the game for the Bronco's and is finally playing himself into playing time. I don't expect Bell to start but "starting" doesn't really matter as long as he can keep producing. That being said I don't think either Bell or MA are startable options unless you are desperate.
 

Rushmore

Footballguy
I have both of these guys, need to pick one, and am still back and forth on who to start. I would love for Bell to just take the job and run with it, considering his big play ability.

 

Varmint

Footballguy
He shouldn't have said THAT...   :eek:

Shanahan will start Anderston just to prove to Bell who's calling the shots...

Bets??
Shanny will play whoever gives him the best chance of winning. Bell won the game for the Bronco's and is finally playing himself into playing time. I don't expect Bell to start but "starting" doesn't really matter as long as he can keep producing. That being said I don't think either Bell or MA are startable options unless you are desperate.
Bell played himself right OUT of the starting position before too...didn't he?Anderson has never been anything but a starter...

He VOLUNTARILY got moved to FB even though he had proven himself as a starting TB the year before..

T. Bell at the goal line reminds me of a sperm trying to bust through a rubber...

Anderson can break a run every bit as good as Bell...oh, and HE can bust that rubber.

Oh, and I don't own either...just a Broncos season ticket holder since 1970...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
C

CrossEyed

Guest
With Anderson obviously having blocking skills (they moved him to FB once) why not just play them both? Anderson would be a good lead blocker for Bell and could run often enough to keep teams off balance.

 

joffer

Footballguy
Just curious to see if he'll show up & admit that he could be wrong after he so empatically stated how the DEN RB situation was going to shake out for the rest of the year, and told anyone who thought the situation was still undecipherable and had the temerity to disagree with him how wrong they were.

In the meantime - the DEN RB situation? :yucky:

How could anyone without bye week issues have started Bell vs WAS, and now do you start Anderson and/or Bell vs NE. DEN is the #2 rushing O in the NFL, is #2 in 20+ yd runs, is #3 in rushing FDs, and is tied for #7 in rushing TDs. NE in the meantime is the #20 rush D in the NFL, has not given up a 20+ yd run, is #23 in giving up rushing FDs, and is #25 in giving up rushing TDs.

This ought to be a very good matchup for DEN, especially with DEN at home and also wanting to run the clock & control the ball to keep Brady off the field. But with the RBs in complete flux right now? Do both guys merit a start?
just waiting for the new and improved Ron Dayne to get the call
 

Sweeper

Footballguy
I think that you guys may very well be overlooking the fact possibility that the denver running game HAS panned out!WE have all seen this with shannahan before, the only difference is that injuries are playing less of a roll in his decision making this year. It is quite likely that this is what Denver considers a perfect situation. WIth MA you get your "banger" that will pound between the tackles, handles short yardage situations, and blocks effectively. And with Bell he gets that explosive speed that can break for the long TD anytime, anywhere. It helps them balance more effectively, change up speeds to throw off the D and will open up the field for the passing game. I mean, cummon ... we hve been watching this in denver for years. Did anyone truly think that Denver was going to fall in love with one back and use that one back all year? Now that would have been THE SURPRISE! Face it .... like the running game in Denver for at least the past 5 years, it will be a committee and if you need to start one of the backs, just be prepared for the possibility "the other back" has all the production that day.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
I mean, cummon ... we hve been watching this in denver for years. Did anyone truly think that Denver was going to fall in love with one back and use that one back all year? Now that would have been THE SURPRISE! Face it .... like the running game in Denver for at least the past 5 years, it will be a committee and if you need to start one of the backs, just be prepared for the possibility "the other back" has all the production that day.
:rolleyes: I hope this is a fishing trip, and not just a completely uninformed opinion that requires the obligatory debunking yet again...- On the other hand, this is starting to smell like Shanahan's first venture into intentional RBBC for the first time in his tenure as HC of DEN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gzilla

Footballguy
Just curious to see if he'll show up & admit that he could be wrong after he so empatically stated how the DEN RB situation was going to shake out for the rest of the year, and told anyone who thought the situation was still undecipherable and had the temerity to disagree with him how wrong they were.

In the meantime - the DEN RB situation? :yucky:

How could anyone without bye week issues have started Bell vs WAS, and now do you start Anderson and/or Bell vs NE. DEN is the #2 rushing O in the NFL, is #2 in 20+ yd runs, is #3 in rushing FDs, and is tied for #7 in rushing TDs. NE in the meantime is the #20 rush D in the NFL, has not given up a 20+ yd run, is #23 in giving up rushing FDs, and is #25 in giving up rushing TDs.

This ought to be a very good matchup for DEN, especially with DEN at home and also wanting to run the clock & control the ball to keep Brady off the field. But with the RBs in complete flux right now? Do both guys merit a start?
No offense, but don't you need to admit a few things yourself...http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...183870&hl=watch

In fact, I always assumed that SSOG was just a Pony Boy alias.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
No offense, but don't you need to admit a few things yourself...http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...183870&hl=watchIn fact, I always assumed that SSOG was just a Pony Boy alias.
I have no problem admitting when I am wrong - and I've been saying since last year that this whole issue is completely foggy. I liked Bell (quite a bit actually) after watching him play at the end of last season, but then he came into the preseason this year looking like he had regressed significantly. I liked Anderson this season until he got hurt with the ribs - then I thought Dayne would get the nod over Bell (which I still think would have happened at the time had Anderson not played through the injury - but that is pure speculation). I didn't expect Anderson to be able to play through that injury so well, and I was wrong there. Anderson performed like a champion after being injured in week 1.Now it looks like Bell "gets it" again - he is hitting his holes more quickly & more importantly - he is starting to pass block again. But I'd have to say that it sure looks like Anderson & Bell will split time (and I'll probably be wrong about that too).The only thing I have been definitive & adamant about in the DEN RB situation over the past 2 years has been that Griffin was a turd - even when he was annoited the starter at the start of last season (and even then I publicly ate my share of crow when he went off vs KC, but stuck to my guns with that opinion).I'm curious to see if SSOG will sack up after his posturing about his allegedly superior knowledge about DEN RBs and the way he has roundly dismissed all other opinions despite so much evidence to the contrary to his claims.
 

Banger

Footballguy
He shouldn't have said THAT...   :eek:

Shanahan will start Anderston just to prove to Bell who's calling the shots...

Bets??
Shanny will play whoever gives him the best chance of winning. Bell won the game for the Bronco's and is finally playing himself into playing time. I don't expect Bell to start but "starting" doesn't really matter as long as he can keep producing. That being said I don't think either Bell or MA are startable options unless you are desperate.
Bell played himself right OUT of the starting position before too...didn't he?Anderson has never been anything but a starter...

He VOLUNTARILY got moved to FB even though he had proven himself as a starting TB the year before..

T. Bell at the goal line reminds me of a sperm trying to bust through a rubber...

Anderson can break a run every bit as good as Bell...oh, and HE can bust that rubber.

Oh, and I don't own either...just a Broncos season ticket holder since 1970...
I disagree that Bell played himself out of the position. My understanding and as you point out yourself is that MA was starter (and always has been) this year (he was hurt last year) and Bell didn't outperform him in the preseason by his own admission and that of the coaches. Thus, MA the starter is preseason, outperforms Bell and stays the starter, therefore Bell didn't lose anything because he never had it to begin with. The problem was that many annointed Bell the starter or assumed he would take over in the preseason.As far as your goal line back comments MA has not been a good goal line runner this year despite your assertion. To date, he's had 7 carries inside the 5 with 0 td's. Not exactly a great goal line ratio.

I respect the fact that you are a season ticket holder and probably follow the team very closely but I don't really see how you can say that MA can break a run every bit as good as Bell. Bell is in there for his homerun ability if he wasn't he wouldn't get a carry because that is the only thing at this point he can do better than MA. MA is there for his consistency, he doesn't historically turn the ball over, gets positive yardage, good at blitz p/u and blocking, good wr, etc. but Bell as shown last week is there because he can do what MA cannot and that is take it to the house on any play. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jurb26

Footballguy
Bell looked great in that game, anyone who says or thinks otherwise should be ignored on the topic for the rest of the year IMO.

 

j3r3m3y

Footballguy
Bell is in there for his homerun ability if he wasn't he wouldn't get a carry because that is the only thing at this point he can do better than MA. MA is there for his consistency, he doesn't historically turn the ball over, gets positive yardage, good at blitz p/u and blocking, good wr, etc. but Bell as shown last week is there because he can do what MA cannot and that is take it to the house on any play. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say...
Bell has always been a better pure runner than Anderson, particularly between the 20's. Everyone knows Bell has more "homerun" ability.What Bell has not been able to do is prove to Shanny that he can be relied on to pick up the blitz and block well. It would be more accurate to say that Anderson has been the starter up to this point because he can do what Bell can not, block and read the defense.

My guess is Bell has been more consistant at this in practice and is being given the chance to prove it on the field. If he continues to do this well he will be the starter and Anderson will be spelling Bell.

And I agree, where is SSOG? He was proud enough of himself to start his own thread earlier, now he is no where to be seen?

What was it SSOG? 3-4 defense?

It is time for him to subject himself to the public ridicule he said he would in his sig :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Varmint

Footballguy
He shouldn't have said THAT...   :eek:

Shanahan will start Anderston just to prove to Bell who's calling the shots...

Bets??
Shanny will play whoever gives him the best chance of winning. Bell won the game for the Bronco's and is finally playing himself into playing time. I don't expect Bell to start but "starting" doesn't really matter as long as he can keep producing. That being said I don't think either Bell or MA are startable options unless you are desperate.
Bell played himself right OUT of the starting position before too...didn't he?Anderson has never been anything but a starter...

He VOLUNTARILY got moved to FB even though he had proven himself as a starting TB the year before..

T. Bell at the goal line reminds me of a sperm trying to bust through a rubber...

Anderson can break a run every bit as good as Bell...oh, and HE can bust that rubber.

Oh, and I don't own either...just a Broncos season ticket holder since 1970...
I disagree that Bell played himself out of the position. My understanding and as you point out yourself is that MA was starter (and always has been) this year (he was hurt last year) and Bell didn't outperform him in the preseason by his own admission and that of the coaches. Thus, MA the starter is preseason, outperforms Bell and stays the starter, therefore Bell didn't lose anything because he never had it to begin with. The problem was that many annointed Bell the starter or assumed he would take over in the preseason.I respect the fact that you are a season ticket holder and probably follow the team very closely but I don't really see how you can say that MA can break a run every bit as good as Bell. Bell is in there for his homerun ability if he wasn't he wouldn't get a carry because that is the only thing at this point he can do better than MA. MA is there for his consistency, he doesn't historically turn the ball over, gets positive yardage, good at blitz p/u and blocking, good wr, etc. but Bell as shown last week is there because he can do what MA cannot and that is take it to the house on any play. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say...
Bell's biggest problem is his inability to hang onto the football..that's the biggest reason why he "played himself out of the position". THAT, along with his inability to break the plane against goal-line defenses is the reason you see Offensive Tackles making catches from the 1yd line.If ever there was a team who's going the RBBC method, it's the Broncos. Anderson will be "the man" while Bell will be the "change of pace" back. The fact that Bell can" take it to the house on any play" is proof (in Shanahan's mind) that this method works. Defenses play Anderson. They get used to Anderson and then Bell gets in...goes off tackle (as opposed to a sweep by Anderson), hits the hole, makes one cut..and he's off to the races.

Next week you may very well see Anderson score 2 TD's with 125 yds rushing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Banger

Footballguy
He shouldn't have said THAT...   :eek:

Shanahan will start Anderston just to prove to Bell who's calling the shots...

Bets??
Shanny will play whoever gives him the best chance of winning. Bell won the game for the Bronco's and is finally playing himself into playing time. I don't expect Bell to start but "starting" doesn't really matter as long as he can keep producing. That being said I don't think either Bell or MA are startable options unless you are desperate.
Bell played himself right OUT of the starting position before too...didn't he?Anderson has never been anything but a starter...

He VOLUNTARILY got moved to FB even though he had proven himself as a starting TB the year before..

T. Bell at the goal line reminds me of a sperm trying to bust through a rubber...

Anderson can break a run every bit as good as Bell...oh, and HE can bust that rubber.

Oh, and I don't own either...just a Broncos season ticket holder since 1970...
I disagree that Bell played himself out of the position. My understanding and as you point out yourself is that MA was starter (and always has been) this year (he was hurt last year) and Bell didn't outperform him in the preseason by his own admission and that of the coaches. Thus, MA the starter is preseason, outperforms Bell and stays the starter, therefore Bell didn't lose anything because he never had it to begin with. The problem was that many annointed Bell the starter or assumed he would take over in the preseason.I respect the fact that you are a season ticket holder and probably follow the team very closely but I don't really see how you can say that MA can break a run every bit as good as Bell. Bell is in there for his homerun ability if he wasn't he wouldn't get a carry because that is the only thing at this point he can do better than MA. MA is there for his consistency, he doesn't historically turn the ball over, gets positive yardage, good at blitz p/u and blocking, good wr, etc. but Bell as shown last week is there because he can do what MA cannot and that is take it to the house on any play. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say...
Bell's biggest problem is his inability to hang onto the football..that's the biggest reason why he "played himself out of the position". THAT, along with his inability to break the plane against goal-line defenses is the reason you see tackles making catches from the 1yd line.If ever there was a team who's going the RBBC method, it's the Broncos. Anderson will be "the man" while Bell will be the "change of pace" back. The fact that Bell can" take it to the house on any play" is proof (in Shanahan's mind) that this method works. Defenses play Anderson. They get used to Anderson and then Bell gets in...goes off tackle (as opposed to a sweep by Anderson), hits the hole, makes one cut..and he's off to the races.

Next week you may very well see Anderson score 2 TD's with 125 yds rushing.
Holding onto the ball has been an issue but they both have one fumble on the year and while MA has had more carries fumbling hasn't really hampered him so far this year.SSOG has clearly pointed out (in much detail) the fact that the Bronc's have historically not been a RBBC in the past under Shanny. At this point I believe it's a RBBC of convenience since each guy brings something to the table that the other doesn't. If Bell can improve upon the things that were/are lacking the opportunity is there for him to take the job IMO.

Bell can clearly run better than MA, but there are several if's that he will have to overcome to be the starting back. If can stay healthy (tbd), if he can hang onto the ball (so far so good), and the big if - if he can block/pass protect (seems to be getting better). The good thing is that besides health (of which MA has not exactly been the model of health) these are learned skills that he can improve on, MA on the other hand at 32 is not going to become faster or more talented.

Anyway you cut it MA is NOT the back of the future of this team, he's a solid stop gap. I do think Bell has the chance to be that back if he can improve or stay consistent in those few areas. The talent is clearly there.

 
Bell owner in multiple leagues. I like the trend, but doubt Anderson has lost the job yet. His play has been more than adequate to keep him in there.The interesting information disclosed above, at least to me, is that George Foster is speaking out publically on behalf of Bell. Bronco linemen are loath to speak at all, something Shanahan encourages. The fact that he had positive words for Bell may indicate that the team would not see it as a betrayal of Anderson for Bell to get the nod. That, to me is important info since no coach wants a riff in the team if he sits a productive vet.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
clearly MA played better than many expected in pre-season & he deserved starting job. there is a consensus that bell seems at times behind the curve on becoming a complete back (being able to block & catch as well as run) and this has blunted his development & chance to be on the field.bell probably isn't as good an inside runner as MA... though in MIA game, it didn't look like there was anyplace to run, & i'm not sure MA would have done any better... it could be argued that running it repeatedly right up the gut was not the best play call mix as far as playing to bells strengths on that goal line stand.bell has been getting increased carries & he has made the most of his opportunity... what else could the coaches or fans ask? at least, his recent play merits an increase in carries, though it still may be RBBC for a while.per the blocking issue raised a lot, some reports i read at broncos board said that he appeared better in pass blocking this week & he may be "getting it"... the light may be coming on. if true, one large obstacle & impediment to his starting may have been removed. it is hard to disentangtle all the pros & cons... few players were the cause of as much controversy & dissension (fantasy index) as bell... but he definitely has had his advocates & proponents. kiper gave him a very high grade from the 2004 class (#3?) & said he might have the best "pure" running skills in his RB draft class. he was one of the fastest prep RBs in the nation (10.2 100 m i think) & was the strongest RB at combine (25 reps... better than some linemen & LBs). there were also rumors that if he had been on the board, parcells would have taken him ahead of julius jones, who has emerged as one of the top RBs from the class. imo, bell will be given increased carries in next 2-3 weeks, to the point where he gets as many or more than MA, & anderson is soon spelling bell. i don't think this will happen as fast as this game, but it would not surprise me if bell becomes defacto starter within the approximate timeframe mentioned above.* edit/add - if he continues to be inconsistent at picking up the blitz in pass pro, all bets could be off. but if he continues to give the broncos the explosive, game breaking dimension bell brings to the table, he will be hard to ignore & keep off the field.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

gzilla

Footballguy
Bell looked great in that game, anyone who says or thinks otherwise should be ignored on the topic for the rest of the year IMO.
Agreed.To me the question is do you believe Bell will continue to play the way that he played over the last couple of weeks. I'm not talking statistically; it's easy to say if he keeps breaking off 60 yard runs. I'm talking about being that consistent threat without any negative effects (fumbling, pass protection). I'm pretty sure Shanahan knows he's the better runner. He's a threat on every play and you can see it when he's in the game.

IMO, if he continues down that road, this will not be a RBBC.

If he can't be a complete back, then RBBC is a likely conclusion.

 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
I think all we know is that we will be tuned in next week. I don't have Tatum Bell, so I am starting Mike Anderson. Hopefully I am right!

 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
calling out fellow board members by name is not good to do around here (Dodds excepted with the Burning Sensation sitch)That said, I am prety sure there is a "search for all posts by member" function - and PM's work very well to see if someone has been online.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
calling out fellow board members by name is not good to do around here (Dodds excepted with the Burning Sensation sitch)

That said, I am prety sure there is a "search for all posts by member" function - and PM's work very well to see if someone has been online.
Yeah, I searched before I posted. Like the title states - noticeably absent.This is a bed of SSOG's own making, Marc. Lord knows I've been wrong enough in the past, but I'll try to see other's views, particularly when they are well based with some facts - and I'll take my medicine when I've earned it. That's part of posting, isn't it?

The guy posted a novel any time anyone disagreed with him about Anderson, telling them exactly how wrong they were. I'd like to see him show up and at least admit that there was a possibility that he could be wrong given what happened the past weekend.

I'm hoping that there is a legit reason he's not here, and not that he's skating away from his position. But shoot, isn't some trash talking & the adversarial process part of what makes the board fun - as long as it is done in a good natured spirit? I'd like to think so.

 

SSOG

Moderator
I'm curious to see if SSOG will sack up after his posturing about his allegedly superior knowledge about DEN RBs and the way he has roundly dismissed all other opinions despite so much evidence to the contrary to his claims.
Why? Because Bell had a better game? So I suppose we should just ignore the fact that Anderson had a better game the week before that? I think we all remember what happened to Ron Dayne after he had a great week.Anderson has started every single game for Denver. Bell has started none. And that trend isn't going to change next week, either. You might want to remind yourself of that fact before going off the deep end based on one week. Especially since Bell was the #3 tailback during all the practices last week. He just got hot and got the ball a lot.

And as for this evidence to the contrary... what evidence again? I challenged people time and time again to provide evidence to the contrary of my claim- that Anderson was the starter, and the starting RB in Denver is a stud- and no one could. That was the whole crux of the arguement, is that no one could come up with a decent counterpoint to my position.

Bell has always been a better pure runner than Anderson, particularly between the 20's. Everyone knows Bell has more "homerun" ability.
Bell has NEVER been a better pure runner than Anderson. He's always had more ability to take it to the house, and less ability to consistantly move the chains. In an offense designed on sustaining long drives and consistantly moving the chains, that would make Anderson the better "pure runner". He's also the better "pure blocker" and better "pure receiver", too. Can that change? Of course, it happens all the time in the NFL. People step up, and people step down. Claiming that Bell is the better pure runner, though, is just factually incorrect.
And I agree, where is SSOG? He was proud enough of himself to start his own thread earlier, now he is no where to be seen?

What was it SSOG? 3-4 defense?

It is time for him to subject himself to the public ridicule he said he would in his sig :lmao:
Where is SSOG? Out in the real world, where it's not really feasible to check in on a message board 5 times a day every day of the week. And how dare you bring up the 3-4 defense arguement, because I was RIGHT ON with that arguement, and I have been PROVEN to be right on with that arguement time and time again.Against Miami- 20 rushes, 70 yards, 3.5 per carry.

Against SD- 26 rushes, 98 yards, 3.8 per carry.

Against KC- 37 rushes, 221 yards, 6.0 yards per carry.

Against Jax- 44 rushes, 188 yards, 4.3 yards per carry.

Against Was- 28 rushes, 165 yards, 5.9 per carry.

Oh, wait, so in other words, against the 3-4 defense, Denver's averaging 23 rushes, 84 yards, and 3.65 yards per carry, and against the 4-3 defense, Denver's averaging 36 rushes, 191 yards, and 5.27 per carry? Even though two of those 4-3 rushing defenses were the highly regarded Jacksonville defense and the VERY highly regarded Washington defense?

My claims about Denver's struggles against the 3-4 was DEAD ON, and EXTREMELY insightful, so how about you just shut up about it already, okay? I'd like to see you contribute something as useful to the Fooballguys boards rather than just ragging on the people who do.

SSOG - where are you????

:popcorn:
Ummm... right here?
calling out fellow board members by name is not good to do around here (Dodds excepted with the Burning Sensation sitch)

That said, I am prety sure there is a "search for all posts by member" function - and PM's work very well to see if someone has been online.
Yeah, I searched before I posted. Like the title states - noticeably absent.This is a bed of SSOG's own making, Marc. Lord knows I've been wrong enough in the past, but I'll try to see other's views, particularly when they are well based with some facts - and I'll take my medicine when I've earned it. That's part of posting, isn't it?

The guy posted a novel any time anyone disagreed with him about Anderson, telling them exactly how wrong they were. I'd like to see him show up and at least admit that there was a possibility that he could be wrong given what happened the past weekend.

I'm hoping that there is a legit reason he's not here, and not that he's skating away from his position. But shoot, isn't some trash talking & the adversarial process part of what makes the board fun - as long as it is done in a good natured spirit? I'd like to think so.
I'm skating away from nothing. Last week was a bad week for my "Mike Anderson is a stud" theory, but as far as I know, he's still a starter, and I stand by my claim that the starting RB in Denver is a stud. Could we see more of Bell going forward? Of course we could... just like we COULD have seen more of Dayne after he rushed for 5 yards per carry on the game-saving drive against the Chargers. But we didn't. Anderson stayed the starter after that, and he's still the starter after this. If you want to try gloating and telling me how wrong I was, how about we wait until Anderson actually loses the starting job. I mean, what all these guys pimping Bell are failing to mention when they discuss Bell outperforming Anderson is that the week before, Anderson outperformed Bell. And he's still a better receiver, and he's still better in short yardage, and he's still a better blocker. And Bell is still a "Change of Pace" back. And Anderson is still the Denver RB to start in every single scoring format next week.I'm concerned about Anderson's ability to get 25+ carries a game. I don't think that's going to happen very frequently anymore. However, I still think he'll be getting 20 a game, and I still think he'll be a huge part of the receiving game, and very few RBs in the NFL are going to be worth more points per touch than a Denver RB. Any day where my featured RB gets me 20 touches is a successful game- and I still think that Anderson is the guy who is going to be getting 20+ touches a game.

 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I'm curious to see if SSOG will sack up after his posturing about his allegedly superior knowledge about DEN RBs and the way he has roundly dismissed all other opinions despite so much evidence to the contrary to his claims.
Why? Because Bell had a better game? So I suppose we should just ignore the fact that Anderson had a better game the week before that? <<<yadda yadda yadda>>>
The guy posted a novel any time anyone disagreed with him about Anderson, telling them exactly how wrong they were.
I see what you mean, Pony.
 

P Boy

Footballguy
I'm curious to see if SSOG will sack up after his posturing about his allegedly superior knowledge about DEN RBs and the way he has roundly dismissed all other opinions despite so much evidence to the contrary to his claims.
Why? Because Bell had a better game? So I suppose we should just ignore the fact that Anderson had a better game the week before that? <<<yadda yadda yadda>>>
The guy posted a novel any time anyone disagreed with him about Anderson, telling them exactly how wrong they were.
I see what you mean, Pony.
:lmao:
 

SSOG

Moderator
Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.

 

Lemmiwinks

Footballguy
Woah, SSOG is definetly in denial. There is an easy solution to the Denver RB situation. Make MA the fullback and start bell. That way you utilize MA's superior blocking skill, he can catch passes out of the backfield where he'd match up well with the LB. He can get a few short yardage carries as well.Plus, MA has experience at fullback. He's also an unselfish player who is willing to take on a reduced or different role to benefit the team. Bell is clearly the most explosive playmaker on a pretty vanilla offense. Keeping him in the game all the time would force the defense to respect the big play, opening up opportunities for the other players on the team.

 

Das Boot

Footballguy
SSOG makes pretty good sense to me, and backs it up with details instead of one liner quips.It's silly for anyone to take one game (like Bell this week) and think it means an instant paradigm shift. It's a long season. MA is the best bet I'd say to be the most valuable Den fantasy RB.Boot. :popcorn:

 

Lemmiwinks

Footballguy
Before Bell's big game:Bell: 4.67 YPCAnderson 4.31 YPCAfter:Bell: 6.2 YPCAnderson: 4.1 YPCEven if you discount bell's big game (which you shouldn't) he's been moving the ball better than anderson this year.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.
You mean like this claim you made in an earlier thread Linky:
Actually, neither of your theories holds any water at all.

1. The guy who is named the starter before the game WILL get the most carries, unless he is lost due to injury.

2. The guy who is named the starter before the game WILL get the most goal line carries, unless he is lost due to injury.

Find ONE EXAMPLE of a game during Shanahan's tenure where he named the starter, and that guy wasn't lost to injury, but didn't get the majority of carries, including goal line carries. Nobody is arguing that at all. Some people are arguing that they won't know who starts for the entire season, but nobody as arguing that the starter won't get the majority of the carries, or the majority of the goal line carries.
In which I responded with (Updated to add this past Sunday:):Sorry, I couldn't find just 1 (and I only went back to 2001):

Week 5, 2005 vs WAS Anderson starts, gets 11 carries. Bell gets 12 carries.

Week 15, 2004 vs KC Droughns starts, gets 4 carries. Hearst gets 5 carries. Bell gets 9 carries.

Week 17, 2004 vs IND Droughns starts, gets 15 carries. Bell gets 16 carries.

Week 3, 2002 vs BUF Anderson starts for injured Gary, gets 7 carries. Portis gets 18 carries.

Week 4, 2002 vs BAL Gary starts, gets 5 carries. Anderson gets 5 carries. Portis gets 8 carries. Portis becomes the week 5 starter.

Week 3, 2001 vs BAL Gary starts, gets 6 carries. Anderson gets 12 carries.

Week 4, 2001 vs KC Gary starts, gets 9 carries. Anderson gets 22 carries. Anderson becomes week 5 starter.

Do the situations in 2001 & 2002 look vaguely familiar to what is going on in DEN in 2005 to anyone else besides me? Shanahan starts a vet early in the season because of loyalty, the vet doesn't perform particularly well and gets outplayed in early games by a new player, the new player takes over in week 5 for the rest of the year.

May not work out this way this year, of course, but the parallels are striking.

****************************************

And of course you completely ignored my response, because it didn't fit with your version of the "truth" and "facts".

All you're doing is reinforcing the notion that you really don't understand Denver's running situation at all.
:bye: Glad you're back, SSOG. It's actually quite informative arguing with such an orange-colored glasses wearing homer, even if you can't admit that you might possibly in some remote chance be wrong.

:lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SSOG

Moderator
Woah, SSOG is definetly in denial. There is an easy solution to the Denver RB situation. Make MA the fullback and start bell. That way you utilize MA's superior blocking skill, he can catch passes out of the backfield where he'd match up well with the LB. He can get a few short yardage carries as well.

Plus, MA has experience at fullback. He's also an unselfish player who is willing to take on a reduced or different role to benefit the team. Bell is clearly the most explosive playmaker on a pretty vanilla offense. Keeping him in the game all the time would force the defense to respect the big play, opening up opportunities for the other players on the team.
I'm in denial? Isn't Anderson still the starting RB in Denver? Isn't Denver's starting RB still a fantasy stud?I don't think moving Anderson back to fullback is the solution. First, Anderson moved to fullback after 2001 because there were no good fullbacks on the roster. Now Denver has 2- Kyle Johnson and Cecil Sapp. Both are playing well. There's no reason for Anderson to move. Besides, moving Anderson leaves Denver with 3 FBs and 2 RBs on their 53 man roster, which is, to put it quite bluntly, just crazy.

I agree that Anderson would be willing to move to FB, and I agree that he'd be very good at the position, but I disagree that it's the best option for Denver. Yes, Bell gets lots of long runs, but it's not just the few short-yardage situations that Denver needs Anderson for. Anderson is better on first down than Bell. He's better on second down than Bell. He's better on third down than Bell. He's just a better fit for Denver's offense. He always gets positive yardage- something Bell struggles with- and Denver's entire offense revolves around the running game getting positive yardage and setting up 2nd-and-short, 3rd-and-short situations. He is, at the moment, simply a better fit for what Denver needs to do on offense.

That's not to trivialize Bell's contributions. Bell is a great home-run threat. The threat of Bell forces the defense to prepare and defend differently. Bell is great at *changing the pace of the game* and changing the defensive landscape. He is a great *change of pace* runningback. And as a Denver fan, I love seeing him get 10 carries a game, because our running game is better as a result. He opens things up, he keeps the defense on its heels, and presents an entirely different look. He is the quintessential *change of pace* runningback. But he's not a featured back.

This whole arguement, to me, smacks of Priest Holmes vs. Larry Johnson after week 1. Johnson had a better game, and people were going off the deep end, trying to get Johnson so he could be a starting RB on their fantasy teams. Johnson simply doesn't get enough carries to have much consistant fantasy value, the occasional explosive game notwithstanding. Bell is the same way. He'll have some amazing games (such as 10 yards per carry and 2 TDs, nearly identical to Larry Johnson's week 1), but he's not going to get enough carries to be valuable. Meanwhile, Anderson, like Holmes, and like every RB in the NFL, will have some bad games, but he's where the carries are going to be, and he's going to be the consistant performer as a result.

Repeat after me. Mike Anderson is the starting RB in Denver. Denver's starting RB is a stud. Priest Holmes is the starting RB in KC. KC's starting RB is a stud. It's the same situation, and I expect the same results.

 

SSOG

Moderator
Before Bell's big game:

Bell: 4.67 YPC

Anderson 4.31 YPC

After:

Bell: 6.2 YPC

Anderson: 4.1 YPC

Even if you discount bell's big game (which you shouldn't) he's been moving the ball better than anderson this year.
Denver's offense isn't about ypc. Bell's career ypc is higher than Terrell Davis's in even his best season. Are you about to say that Bell is a better RB than TD?I've said elsewhere, but a runningback who gets exactly 3.4 yards on every single carry would go down in history as the best runningback to ever play the game of football. Denver's offense is based on consistantly getting positive yardage, which Anderson does better than Bell. Bell has the higher ypc because he has more long gainers, but Denver's offense isn't based on the long gainers. It's based on moving the chains, which Bell doesn't do as well because he gets stopped for no gain more frequently than Anderson.

Also, you can't compare the backup RB's ypc to the starter's. Why not? Because backup RBs tend to play more in third-and-long situations, where EVERY RB averages more yards per carry. They also tend to be fresher, and defenses tend to pay less attention to them. It is not at all uncommon for a backup RB to have a higher ypc than a starting RB. That doesn't mean they're better at running the ball.

Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.
You mean like this claim you made in an earlier thread Linky:
Actually, neither of your theories holds any water at all.

1. The guy who is named the starter before the game WILL get the most carries, unless he is lost due to injury.

2. The guy who is named the starter before the game WILL get the most goal line carries, unless he is lost due to injury.

Find ONE EXAMPLE of a game during Shanahan's tenure where he named the starter, and that guy wasn't lost to injury, but didn't get the majority of carries, including goal line carries. Nobody is arguing that at all. Some people are arguing that they won't know who starts for the entire season, but nobody as arguing that the starter won't get the majority of the carries, or the majority of the goal line carries.
In which I responded with (Updated to add this past Sunday:):Sorry, I couldn't find just 1 (and I only went back to 2001):

Week 5, 2005 vs WAS Anderson starts, gets 11 carries. Bell gets 12 carries.

Week 15, 2004 vs KC Droughns starts, gets 4 carries. Hearst gets 5 carries. Bell gets 9 carries.

Week 17, 2004 vs IND Droughns starts, gets 15 carries. Bell gets 16 carries.

Week 3, 2002 vs BUF Anderson starts for injured Gary, gets 7 carries. Portis gets 18 carries.

Week 4, 2002 vs BAL Gary starts, gets 5 carries. Anderson gets 5 carries. Portis gets 8 carries. Portis becomes the week 5 starter.

Week 3, 2001 vs BAL Gary starts, gets 6 carries. Anderson gets 12 carries.

Week 4, 2001 vs KC Gary starts, gets 9 carries. Anderson gets 22 carries. Anderson becomes week 5 starter.

Do the situations in 2001 & 2002 look vaguely familiar to what is going on in DEN in 2005 to anyone else besides me? Shanahan starts a vet early in the season because of loyalty, the vet doesn't perform particularly well and gets outplayed in early games by a new player, the new player takes over in week 5 for the rest of the year.

May not work out this way this year, of course, but the parallels are striking.

****************************************

And of course you completely ignored my response, because it didn't fit with your version of the "truth" and "facts".

All you're doing is reinforcing the notion that you really don't understand Denver's running situation at all.
:bye: Glad you're back, SSOG. It's actually quite informative arguing with such an orange-colored glasses wearing homer, even if you can't admit that you might possibly in some remote chance be wrong.

:lmao:
I never responded to that post because I never saw that post. I fail to see what any of that has to do with the claim you quoted. Mike Anderson is the starting RB in Denver, and the starting RB in Denver is a stud. Let me repeat it. Mike Anderson is the starting RB in Denver, and the starting RB in Denver is a stud. Do you want to argue either of those two premises?
 

P Boy

Footballguy
Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.
Wakey, wakey.Unless you are claiming that Olandis Gary & Quentin Griffin are studs. In that case, you can go back to sleep. Both were starting RBs for DEN, if I'm not mistaken.

 

Lemmiwinks

Footballguy
Woah, SSOG is definetly in denial. There is an easy solution to the Denver RB situation. Make MA the fullback and start bell. That way you utilize MA's superior blocking skill, he can catch passes out of the backfield where he'd match up well with the LB. He can get a few short yardage carries as well.

Plus, MA has experience at fullback. He's also an unselfish player who is willing to take on a reduced or different role to benefit the team. Bell is clearly the most explosive playmaker on a pretty vanilla offense. Keeping him in the game all the time would force the defense to respect the big play, opening up opportunities for the other players on the team.
I'm in denial? Isn't Anderson still the starting RB in Denver? Isn't Denver's starting RB still a fantasy stud?I don't think moving Anderson back to fullback is the solution. First, Anderson moved to fullback after 2001 because there were no good fullbacks on the roster. Now Denver has 2- Kyle Johnson and Cecil Sapp. Both are playing well. There's no reason for Anderson to move. Besides, moving Anderson leaves Denver with 3 FBs and 2 RBs on their 53 man roster, which is, to put it quite bluntly, just crazy.

I agree that Anderson would be willing to move to FB, and I agree that he'd be very good at the position, but I disagree that it's the best option for Denver. Yes, Bell gets lots of long runs, but it's not just the few short-yardage situations that Denver needs Anderson for. Anderson is better on first down than Bell. He's better on second down than Bell. He's better on third down than Bell. He's just a better fit for Denver's offense. He always gets positive yardage- something Bell struggles with- and Denver's entire offense revolves around the running game getting positive yardage and setting up 2nd-and-short, 3rd-and-short situations. He is, at the moment, simply a better fit for what Denver needs to do on offense.

That's not to trivialize Bell's contributions. Bell is a great home-run threat. The threat of Bell forces the defense to prepare and defend differently. Bell is great at *changing the pace of the game* and changing the defensive landscape. He is a great *change of pace* runningback. And as a Denver fan, I love seeing him get 10 carries a game, because our running game is better as a result. He opens things up, he keeps the defense on its heels, and presents an entirely different look. He is the quintessential *change of pace* runningback. But he's not a featured back.

This whole arguement, to me, smacks of Priest Holmes vs. Larry Johnson after week 1. Johnson had a better game, and people were going off the deep end, trying to get Johnson so he could be a starting RB on their fantasy teams. Johnson simply doesn't get enough carries to have much consistant fantasy value, the occasional explosive game notwithstanding. Bell is the same way. He'll have some amazing games (such as 10 yards per carry and 2 TDs, nearly identical to Larry Johnson's week 1), but he's not going to get enough carries to be valuable. Meanwhile, Anderson, like Holmes, and like every RB in the NFL, will have some bad games, but he's where the carries are going to be, and he's going to be the consistant performer as a result.

Repeat after me. Mike Anderson is the starting RB in Denver. Denver's starting RB is a stud. Priest Holmes is the starting RB in KC. KC's starting RB is a stud. It's the same situation, and I expect the same results.
Comparing Anderson to Holmes is borderline insanity. Sorry, I know the KC system and the DEN system create good RB's but that's where the comparison ends. Holmes is better in every facet of the game than Anderson and is probably a top 3 real life RB. In short, it's a lot harder to bump a guy of Holmes' status than a guy of Anderson's status. Anderson should be better in short yardage situations than bell, but he has been a spectacular failure there this year. If you want proof that Shanny agrees, look who was in the game on a critical early 4th and 1... Bell was, and he took it to the house. If we're making comparisons, I'd say Bell resembles Portis. There's a reason older denver RB's hit the bench when portis came to town, the reason is, you can't keep a talent like that on the bench. A home run hitter like portis or bell needs 15+ carries to break his big run. If you give Bell 20 carries a game, I bet anything he breaks one for over 20 yards each game. I can't say that for anderson. Shanahan has recently sung the praises of bell's improvement as a pass protector, which was really the only thing holding bell back.

Listen, independent of fantasy football, don't you think bell gives the broncos a better chance to win? A guy who moves the chains can keep you in the game but a guy who can break big ones can win it for you. And as I said, a breakaway back needs a good amount of carries to break the big run. When he does, the complexion of the game has changed. The other team is demoralized. I mean, if Bell doesn't come through last week, Denver loses. Period.

 

SSOG

Moderator
Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.
Wakey, wakey.Unless you are claiming that Olandis Gary & Quentin Griffin are studs. In that case, you can go back to sleep. Both were starting RBs for DEN, if I'm not mistaken.
Olandis Gary *was* a stud. He averaged 100 yards per game for as long as he was a starter. And Quentin Griffin may have BEGUN the season as the starter, but he didn't REMAIN the starter. No, Reuben Droughns took over the starting job, and proceeded to become a fantasy stud, again averaging over 100 yards per game. And Clinton Portis, and Terrell Davis, and Mike Anderson himself... all have been starting RBs for Denver over the majority of at least one season, and all have finished those seasons as fantasy studs, getting AT LEAST 110 yards per start. AT LEAST.Which just further reinforces my claim that the starting RB in Denver is a stud. No RB has started more than 10 games for Denver in a season and averaged fewer than 110 yards per game. It just hasn't happened. Unless Terrell Davis did it in 2001, I forget just how many times Davis and Anderson each wound up starting that season.

If we're making comparisons, I'd say Bell resembles Portis. There's a reason older denver RB's hit the bench when portis came to town, the reason is, you can't keep a talent like that on the bench. A home run hitter like portis or bell needs 15+ carries to break his big run. If you give Bell 20 carries a game, I bet anything he breaks one for over 20 yards each game. I can't say that for anderson. Shanahan has recently sung the praises of bell's improvement as a pass protector, which was really the only thing holding bell back.

Listen, independent of fantasy football, don't you think bell gives the broncos a better chance to win? A guy who moves the chains can keep you in the game but a guy who can break big ones can win it for you. And as I said, a breakaway back needs a good amount of carries to break the big run. When he does, the complexion of the game has changed. The other team is demoralized. I mean, if Bell doesn't come through last week, Denver loses. Period.
No, I do *NOT* think that Bell gives my team the better chance of winning. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with that statement. If Tatum Bell carries for 0, 0, 2, 0, 3, 5, -2, 2, 4, and 36 yards, then he's averaging 5 yards per carry... but he also stranded Jake Plummer in a third-and-10, a third-and-8, failed to convert a 3rd-and-2, and then broke the big one. That means 3 out of 4 drives were failures with him in. Meanwhile, let's say Anderson carries for 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 6, 1, 5, and 9 yards... sure, he's averaging 1 fewer yard per carry, but he left Plummer in a 3rd-and-3, a 3rd-and-4, a 3rd-and-4, a 3rd-and-3, and picked up a first down in two tries. And Plummer (and the bootleg) THRIVE on third-and-short. Meanwhile, leaving Plummer in 3rd-and-long is a recipe for disaster.I agree 100% that if Bell doesn't come through last week, Denver loses. That doesn't mean he's the best back on the roster. Heck, if Joe Jurevicious doesn't come through for Seattle last week, they lose, but he's still just the third best receiver on the team.

Everyone gets far too enamored with guys who can break the big one. Denver's offense is based on SUSTAINING DRIVES. If Anderson and Bell were WRs, you know who they'd be? Mike Anderson would be Rod Smith and Tatum Bell would be Ashley Lelie. Yes, Lelie has that home-run threat. Sure, he can change the way the defense plays. Of course, if you throw it to him enough times you're going to get a huge game-altering play. Lelie is going to have some games where he is the difference between winning and losing, yes. But despite all that, Rod Smith is WAAAAY more valuable to Denver's offense, because he's dependable, and because he goes out and consistantly gets the yardage the offense needs to keep the drives alive. Denver can live without Ashley Lelie. I'm not sure they can live without Rod Smith. In the end, for every amazing game Lelie puts up, he's also going to completely disappear another time, and Denver can't afford to have its starting RB, its workhorse RB, just completely disappear.

 

ghosttothepost

Footballguy
Call me crazy (and I am a MA owner), but isn't there a big difference between SSOG now claiming his point is that

the starting RB in Denver is a stud
and what he previously claimed (as noted in his sig), that
Mike Anderson is a STUD for as long as he is healthy and in Denver
??? :unsure:
 

Lemmiwinks

Footballguy
'ghosttothe]Call me crazy (and I am a MA owner) said:
the starting RB in Denver is a stud
and what he previously claimed (as noted in his sig), that
Mike Anderson is a STUD for as long as he is healthy and in Denver
??? :unsure:
[/QUOTE]You're not crazy. Mike anderson is only the starter FOR NOW. He's 32 years old, with a history of injuries and a young stud clamoring for more PT. Anderson's hold on the job is tenuous, at best.
 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
no doubt MA is better blocker... but supposedly bell is making strides in this area.MA is reputedly better catching out of the backfield... but when i looked up the stats he only has 8 receptions in 5 games... bell has 3 in 4 games... actually, MA didn't play too much week 1 against MIA, & bell DNP week 2 or 3, so it would be fair for comparison purposes to say that they accumulated their receiving stats (such as they are) in 4 games each... if we had reversed the roles of starter backup, though, it is quite possible bell could have 8 receptions & MA 3. maybe there is a marked difference in their respective skills sets in practice, but in how they have been utilized to date in games, i don't see a massive difference in receiving production. its not like MA is being deployed like circa '99-'01 faulk or westbrook.your point is well taken that bell's impressive YPC (approx 50% higher than MA?) may not be whole story... if he gets 0 yards on 14 straight carries & gets 90 on carry 15, that is a 6.0 average but on the tradeoff you get one big play but 14 bad ones & potentially kill a lot of drives. lets just say, though... HYPOTHETICALLY... if bell for the near future gets an identical number of carries to MA, continues to average 6.0+ YPC to MA's 4.0, while breaking multiple explosive plays for big chunks of yardage that change the complexion of games... AND THEY CONTINUE TO WIN... and he becomes more proficient at blitz pick up (i realize this is a lot of ifs)... at which point bell begins to get the majority of carries...at what point would you say bell has become the starter (or feature back in a RBBC)... 2 games... 4... 8... couple years? i am being facetious, but i think you get the drift... even though you currently may have an entrenched belief that MA is better (don't want to make it sound too subjective or opinion based... maybe it is based on fact & you are "right"), we still have to account for possibility that mike could look old at some point in future as he is 32, & bell could improve (for instance, at aforementioned blitz pickup, catching the ball, hitting the right hole so as to get at least 3-4 yard plays as often as possible, etc.)... what is your "tipping point"... what would it take in terms of games with bell getting more carries than MA, for you to concede that, regardless of what you may think, in the bronco's & shanahan's estimation, bell is superior RB?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Footballguy
Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.
Mike Anderson is currently the #29 running back by points per game. Even if you throw out game 1, he doesn't crack the top 20. Therefore, one of your statements is false. QED.
 

Lemmiwinks

Footballguy
No, I do *NOT* think that Bell gives my team the better chance of winning. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with that statement. If Tatum Bell carries for 0, 0, 2, 0, 3, 5, -2, 2, 4, and 36 yards, then he's averaging 5 yards per carry... but he also stranded Jake Plummer in a third-and-10, a third-and-8, failed to convert a 3rd-and-2, and then broke the big one. That means 3 out of 4 drives were failures with him in. Meanwhile, let's say Anderson carries for 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 6, 1, 5, and 9 yards... sure, he's averaging 1 fewer yard per carry, but he left Plummer in a 3rd-and-3, a 3rd-and-4, a 3rd-and-4, a 3rd-and-3, and picked up a first down in two tries. And Plummer (and the bootleg) THRIVE on third-and-short. Meanwhile, leaving Plummer in 3rd-and-long is a recipe for disaster.

I agree 100% that if Bell doesn't come through last week, Denver loses. That doesn't mean he's the best back on the roster. Heck, if Joe Jurevicious doesn't come through for Seattle last week, they lose, but he's still just the third best receiver on the team.

Everyone gets far too enamored with guys who can break the big one. Denver's offense is based on SUSTAINING DRIVES. If Anderson and Bell were WRs, you know who they'd be? Mike Anderson would be Rod Smith and Tatum Bell would be Ashley Lelie. Yes, Lelie has that home-run threat. Sure, he can change the way the defense plays. Of course, if you throw it to him enough times you're going to get a huge game-altering play. Lelie is going to have some games where he is the difference between winning and losing, yes. But despite all that, Rod Smith is WAAAAY more valuable to Denver's offense, because he's dependable, and because he goes out and consistantly gets the yardage the offense needs to keep the drives alive. Denver can live without Ashley Lelie. I'm not sure they can live without Rod Smith. In the end, for every amazing game Lelie puts up, he's also going to completely disappear another time, and Denver can't afford to have its starting RB, its workhorse RB, just completely disappear.
Interestingly enough, take away Bell's 2 long runs in that last game and his YPC is still better than MA's for the same game. So Bell can move the chains as well.
 

Clayton Gray

Just call me Carlton
Staff member
Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.
Mike Anderson has two weeks of 10+ fantasy points this season.Mike Anderson has one TD this season.

Mike Anderson has one 100+ yard game.

What's your definition of a stud?

 

Varmint

Footballguy
You shouldn't go trashing on SSOG...

There are plenty of people here who want to be the one who makes the prediction that makes him a fantasy demi-god. We've all seen it.

All he's guilty of is taking a controversial topic and making a zealous stand....something that goes on all the time.

I have even been one to try to settle him down...

LINK

He's not "wrong" by any means. Anderson is a GOOD back. I like Anderson and truth be told, I like him better than Tatum.

Is Anderson the back of the future? No...he's too old.

Bell will more than likely be the one...that is, until he thinks he's THAT good and DEMANDS a new contract or a trade...then, we do it all over again.

What have I learned by having season tickets in my family since I was 10 yrs old?

You can LOVE the Broncos...but don't bet your fantasy season on a Denver backfield....you'll ALWAYS be wrong.

 

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
just stating something for the record in case it isn't obvious...while at least thread starter was calling him out, realize that sometimes participation in the thread may not necessarily connote "trashing"...sometimes it could be a legit question about positions taken WITHIN THE THREAD, that at times come off as intransigent. thats all.speaking for myself, even though i can't agree with ssog with part of his take on the DEN backfield, i respect the fact that he has a command of the recent relevant history and he uses facts to support his argument.history & facts are extremely important, don't get me wrong. but it happens when people are making scouting judgements based on film (or games), that they can be looking at the exact same thing, but see completely different things. or so i thought. i guess the whole idea of different individuals looking at the EXACT same thing involving as complex a phenomena as the respective skill set of two different RBs is ludicrous. people look at different things, & unsurprisingly come up with different interpretations & conclusions. about FACTS, like how fast bell & MA are, how many times they fumbled & caught the ball, how many games into portis rookie season he started... their can be no dispute (not much, there are discrepancies even on the stuff of quants like 40 times all the time... fast track, windy day, hand-timed or electronic, controlled environment with unbiased testers... lets just say bell is pretty freakin fast).when i looked at troy williamson highlights, i saw a guy who caught the ball away from his body with his hands... others saw a body catcher. others saw a pedestrian guy who didn't do much after catch... i saw explosive RAC potential & a guy (with limited opportunities) who was looking to take it to the house.since we THINK we are looking at same thing but inevitably notice [& filter out] different things contingent on our perceptiveness, inclination, training, history, chance... & probably a thousand other things, it can create for controversy & is a situation that is rife with misunderstanding... when we don't see the same thing counter to some expectations.but it is the norm & we should expect it. it would be darned strange if it were anything otherwise, if you think about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Banger

Footballguy
Alright, fine, I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version. Mike Anderson is still the starting RB in Denver. The starting RB in Denver is still a stud. Wake me when either of those two claims is no longer true.
MA is still the starting RB = True, in name only but carries over last two game are nearly equal. MA 23 + 11 = 34 and Bell 15 + 12 = 27. Starting RB is a stud = False. The Denver backfield together is a stud. MA's ppg week 1 - 0, week 2 - 8, week 3 - 15, week 4 - 13, week 5 - 4 for an average of 8 ppg. NOT STUDLY.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

hardcoredx

Footballguy
"Mike anderson is a stud"..LMAZZOFF. Sure looks like it....Bell has more FF points already."The starting RB of Denver is a stud" Sure MA is..OMG He couldn't take the starting job for 5 freakin years from certain Hall of famers like Griffin and Gary and all of the sudden this dip#### thinks he's a stud...OK. They need Bell and his breakway abilty to win, they are not going to win if MA is starting. He is not a legit RB in the NFL and has sucked for many, many years.. However, as a fullback , he is very viable. The best playmaker on the Broncos is Bell -END OF DISCUSSION

 

P Boy

Footballguy
even money on neither Bell or MA getting 1k yards, but some other Den RB
Actually, I think this is a good opportunity to see the 4th tandem in NFL history of 2 1000+ yd rushers on the same team in the same season with Anderson & Bell.This week ought to be interesting. It looks like Shanahan is going to give both guys a shot early in the game & go with the hot hand. If that's true, it really sucks for we FFers, but it really increases DEN's running effectiveness this season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

stbugs

Footballguy
"Mike anderson is a stud"..LMAZZOFF. Sure looks like it....Bell has more FF points already.

"The starting RB of Denver is a stud" Sure MA is..OMG

He couldn't take the starting job for 5 freakin years from certain Hall of famers like Griffin and Gary and all of the sudden this dip#### thinks he's a stud...OK. They need Bell and his breakway abilty to win, they are not going to win if MA is starting. He is not a legit RB in the NFL and has sucked for many, many years.. However, as a fullback , he is very viable. The best playmaker on the Broncos is Bell -END OF DISCUSSION
Interesting. Then how come they are 4-1 after he has started all 5 games. 4-1 is pretty good and seems indicative of what people in the NFL like to call winning. At that pace, they will finish 13-3, not bad, eh? Or is 13-3 not good enough for you?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top