CJ Anderson (1 Viewer)

[Louche]

People keep talking about "risk" with CJ Anderson.

How many less risky dynasty RBs are there right now? 5?

There is risk with all RBs but CJA has a very short resume to be priced as a mid/low dynasty RB1, and he only got an opportunity last season after both Ball and Hillman got injured. Hillman had a couple 100+ yard games as well last season but everyone seems to totally overlook him. The smart money is obviously on CJA to be and remain the starter, but I would have much preferred if his backups were something like Shonn Greene and Jacquizz Rogers where there was no doubt that CJA was THE guy.

I don't have anything against CJA but he's going in the 4th round of dynasty startups and at that price I'm uncomfortable with the "risk". I would rather target other positions and get one of the more proven top tier RBs or target guys like J-Stew, Gore, Martin and Spiller that go much later. When considering ADP I would rather take a shot at Ball in the 14th round than CJA in the 4th.

However, if I picked up CJA from waivers a year ago I'm laughing all the way to the bank, and if my team is loaded but short on RBs I will consider trading for CJA at his current price...but in a startup I'm very happy to let someone else take him.

 

[renesauz]

Definately over-priced atm. Would not buy at his current price unless he came with Ball as a cuff. Ball has been written off too quickly.

IN the one league I do own him, I won't move him easily though (I have Ball there to cuff him anyway, so if his value went down, Ball's went up and I'm ok with that.)

 

[ghostguy123]

People keep talking about "risk" with CJ Anderson.

How many less risky dynasty RBs are there right now? 5?

There is risk with all RBs but CJA has a very short resume to be priced as a mid/low dynasty RB1, and he only got an opportunity last season after both Ball and Hillman got injured. Hillman had a couple 100+ yard games as well last season but everyone seems to totally overlook him. The smart money is obviously on CJA to be and remain the starter, but I would have much preferred if his backups were something like Shonn Greene and Jacquizz Rogers where there was no doubt that CJA was THE guy.

I don't have anything against CJA but he's going in the 4th round of dynasty startups and at that price I'm uncomfortable with the "risk". I would rather target other positions and get one of the more proven top tier RBs or target guys like J-Stew, Gore, Martin and Spiller that go much later. When considering ADP I would rather take a shot at Ball in the 14th round than CJA in the 4th.

However, if I picked up CJA from waivers a year ago I'm laughing all the way to the bank, and if my team is loaded but short on RBs I will consider trading for CJA at his current price...but in a startup I'm very happy to let someone else take him.

So then you are just basically saying you don't value very many RBs in the top 4 rounds??? If so fine, but that isn't really a CJ thing, it's a RB thing.

 

[Bayhawks]

Battling Broncos: Ball chasing down Anderson for Denver's starting RB job

Headline is very misleading, likey done intentionally to generate clicks and buzz from ff players like us. The headline says Ball is ""chasing down" Anderson for the starting job, though nowhere in the article is their any evidence whatsoever that Ball has actually gained any ground at all. In fact, based on quotes from Kubiak, Anderson, and Ball themselves the article paints the picture that the opposite is true, and that what we've thought all along remains the case. CJ Anderson will be the starting RB in Denver, and the workhorse in Kubiak's system. Montee Ball will be the change of pace/relief back, and all of them seem to be content with this scenario.Kubiak- Who is going to be the bell cow? Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out. C.J. showed the flashes of doing that. The fact that they are young, I like that. So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out. Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things".

Kubiak does make reference to letting all three backs have a chance, but based on his praise of Anderson in the same quote the "competition" sounds more like motivational coach speak more than anything.

Ball- "C.J. deserves the starting spot right now based on what he did toward the end of the season helping the team. But Im right there on his heels. We need two backs in this system.

Here, Ball clearly states that he understands Anderson is the lead dog, and that his role is a supporting one, albeit one that he intends to make the most of.

The article goes on to say "Strangely enough, Anderson agrees. He says he knows he and Ball will be splitting carries or at least that both with get a decent workload."

Here, Anderson says he and Ball will be "splitting carries", but the rest of the sentence clarifies that remark. Both will get at least get a "decent" workload. Well, it's been established that Kubiak wants a workhorse and by definition a workhorse will get much more than a "decent" workload. In essence, all Anderson is really doing here is stating the obvious, that he's the workhorse but Ball, like any backup RB on a run heavy team, will get a decent workload too. He's being a team player, and supporting his friend and backup RB, Ball.

Sounds to me like they all understand their roles and are all on the same page. Kubiak wants a workhorse, and the three of them agree that Anderson has earned that role based on last years performance. It was earlier reported that Kubiak told Anderson to show up to camp and carry himself as the starter. Anderson showed up to camp in great physical condition, and motivated to repeat last year's performance. Ball seems to have accepted his role as the #2 RB in this offense, but it's a role that could be highly productive and ressurect his career. He'll also be ready for his shot should Anderson miss time due to injury.

Many in the fantasy football world seem to want this picture to be cloudy, yet it seems crystal clear. A motivated CJ Anderson is going to be the workhorse in a proven, highly successful offensive scheme playing for a coach who has a history of churning out highly productive RBs. Montee Ball has embraced his role as a strong backup RB in this system, and will be a great ff handcuff who may even have occasional value as a flex. Hard to not be reminded of Arian Foster/Ben Tate.

You're really putting your own spin on those quotes.If you can get Ball cheap, he's a good flier. IF he's finally healthy, AND he gets a chance, he could do well.

This article is mostly fluff, but youre only going ti find "evidence" that Anderson's the man if you are looking for it here.

Honestly, I'm not trying to spin at all. Just the opposite. I'm trying to slow down the spin that's been gaining steam around the ff world by taking a realistic view of the situation based on actual quotes and history from those involved. Of course, dissecting quotes requires a certain level of interpretation, but I think my interpretation is very straight forward. Any other interpretation would be the spin.I think a direct quote from Kubiak stating he wants a workhorse, and a direct quote from Ball saying "C.J. deserves the starting spot right now based on what he did toward the end of the season helping the team." is evidence supporting the position that Anderson is indeed the man. If there was really some kind of actual competition going on, Ball wouldn't have said that. He knows Anderson is the man because he earned it.

There's not a competition. I don't think that's been said or implied. Ball wants to get more PT, Kubiak said the RBs will sort out who is going to get the most work. Nowhere is competition mentioned.

The headline of the article is "Battling Broncos: Ball chasing down Anderson for Denver's starting RB job". I think that implies sone kind of competition, and that's my point. People are spinning this situation into something it's not. Everything out of Kubiak/Denver indicates that CJ Anderson will be the 3 down back, yet some in the ff world seem to want there to be some uncertainty.Edited to add that Kubiak saying that "the RBs can sort out who the 3 down back will be" could clearly be cause for uncertainty, but only if you haven't really been paying attention. There have been multiple indications and quotes that Anderson is going to be the lead back, and no indications to the contrary. Sure, Ball may want to be the lead back, but even he concedes that Anderson earned it. I think if you watched Anderson last year and been following along since then, it's pretty clear that he will be the lead back. Why else would Kubiak tell Anderson to come into camp like the starter, but not say that to Ball? Why would Ball be saying Anderson is the starter? If there was really any uncertainty, Kubiak would've just declared it an open competition. That's why I see his comment "let the RBs sort out who will be the 3 down back" as nothing more than motivational coach speak, and pretty transparent at that. It's to everyone's benefit to have them all looking over their shoulder, but does anyone really believe that after last year's performance by Anderson that Kubiak is going to sit him on the bench to give Ball a shot? Kubiak would get killed by fans, media, etc not to mention it would just be dumb. You don't put lightning back in the bottle.

BTW-it's to everyone's benefit to have them looking over their shoulder? Then why no similar quotes about Peyton? Why no similar quotes about D Thomas or Sanders? Because their roles ARE secure.Also, please share any of the "multiple" quotes tht say Anderson is going to be lead back; provided they are from some member of the Denver coaching staff. Thanks.

Look man, if you aren't aware that Kubiak officially named Anderson the starter coming into training camp then you're way behind the curve. Either that or just being contrarian and trying to argue semantics. It takes about 5 seconds to google & find the quotes you're looking for. Kubiak named Anderson the starter and as long as he continues working hard and picks up where he left off last year he should be headed for a tremendous season. I don't know what else needs to be said about this situation.

Look man, if you aren't aware that Kubiak named the starter, FOR OTA's & said he's have to keep the job on a daily basis from there, then you're way behind the curve. That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying: he's the man now, but his job isn't as secure as the top RBs. If he gets hurt/falters, Kubiak doesn't have any built in loyalty to him & he might not get his job back.

You seem to want to think he's a lock for stud numbers, and you are spinning quotes, focusing on snippets that support that idea & dis-regarding information that doesn't fit that criteria as "coach-speak."

 

[satch]

Battling Broncos: Ball chasing down Anderson for Denver's starting RB job

Headline is very misleading, likey done intentionally to generate clicks and buzz from ff players like us. The headline says Ball is ""chasing down" Anderson for the starting job, though nowhere in the article is their any evidence whatsoever that Ball has actually gained any ground at all. In fact, based on quotes from Kubiak, Anderson, and Ball themselves the article paints the picture that the opposite is true, and that what we've thought all along remains the case. CJ Anderson will be the starting RB in Denver, and the workhorse in Kubiak's system. Montee Ball will be the change of pace/relief back, and all of them seem to be content with this scenario.Kubiak- Who is going to be the bell cow? Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out. C.J. showed the flashes of doing that. The fact that they are young, I like that. So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out. Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things".

Kubiak does make reference to letting all three backs have a chance, but based on his praise of Anderson in the same quote the "competition" sounds more like motivational coach speak more than anything.

Ball- "C.J. deserves the starting spot right now based on what he did toward the end of the season helping the team. But Im right there on his heels. We need two backs in this system.

Here, Ball clearly states that he understands Anderson is the lead dog, and that his role is a supporting one, albeit one that he intends to make the most of.

The article goes on to say "Strangely enough, Anderson agrees. He says he knows he and Ball will be splitting carries or at least that both with get a decent workload."

Here, Anderson says he and Ball will be "splitting carries", but the rest of the sentence clarifies that remark. Both will get at least get a "decent" workload. Well, it's been established that Kubiak wants a workhorse and by definition a workhorse will get much more than a "decent" workload. In essence, all Anderson is really doing here is stating the obvious, that he's the workhorse but Ball, like any backup RB on a run heavy team, will get a decent workload too. He's being a team player, and supporting his friend and backup RB, Ball.

Sounds to me like they all understand their roles and are all on the same page. Kubiak wants a workhorse, and the three of them agree that Anderson has earned that role based on last years performance. It was earlier reported that Kubiak told Anderson to show up to camp and carry himself as the starter. Anderson showed up to camp in great physical condition, and motivated to repeat last year's performance. Ball seems to have accepted his role as the #2 RB in this offense, but it's a role that could be highly productive and ressurect his career. He'll also be ready for his shot should Anderson miss time due to injury.

Many in the fantasy football world seem to want this picture to be cloudy, yet it seems crystal clear. A motivated CJ Anderson is going to be the workhorse in a proven, highly successful offensive scheme playing for a coach who has a history of churning out highly productive RBs. Montee Ball has embraced his role as a strong backup RB in this system, and will be a great ff handcuff who may even have occasional value as a flex. Hard to not be reminded of Arian Foster/Ben Tate.

You're really putting your own spin on those quotes.If you can get Ball cheap, he's a good flier. IF he's finally healthy, AND he gets a chance, he could do well.

This article is mostly fluff, but youre only going ti find "evidence" that Anderson's the man if you are looking for it here.

Honestly, I'm not trying to spin at all. Just the opposite. I'm trying to slow down the spin that's been gaining steam around the ff world by taking a realistic view of the situation based on actual quotes and history from those involved. Of course, dissecting quotes requires a certain level of interpretation, but I think my interpretation is very straight forward. Any other interpretation would be the spin.I think a direct quote from Kubiak stating he wants a workhorse, and a direct quote from Ball saying "C.J. deserves the starting spot right now based on what he did toward the end of the season helping the team." is evidence supporting the position that Anderson is indeed the man. If there was really some kind of actual competition going on, Ball wouldn't have said that. He knows Anderson is the man because he earned it.

There's not a competition. I don't think that's been said or implied. Ball wants to get more PT, Kubiak said the RBs will sort out who is going to get the most work. Nowhere is competition mentioned.

The headline of the article is "Battling Broncos: Ball chasing down Anderson for Denver's starting RB job". I think that implies sone kind of competition, and that's my point. People are spinning this situation into something it's not. Everything out of Kubiak/Denver indicates that CJ Anderson will be the 3 down back, yet some in the ff world seem to want there to be some uncertainty.Edited to add that Kubiak saying that "the RBs can sort out who the 3 down back will be" could clearly be cause for uncertainty, but only if you haven't really been paying attention. There have been multiple indications and quotes that Anderson is going to be the lead back, and no indications to the contrary. Sure, Ball may want to be the lead back, but even he concedes that Anderson earned it. I think if you watched Anderson last year and been following along since then, it's pretty clear that he will be the lead back. Why else would Kubiak tell Anderson to come into camp like the starter, but not say that to Ball? Why would Ball be saying Anderson is the starter? If there was really any uncertainty, Kubiak would've just declared it an open competition. That's why I see his comment "let the RBs sort out who will be the 3 down back" as nothing more than motivational coach speak, and pretty transparent at that. It's to everyone's benefit to have them all looking over their shoulder, but does anyone really believe that after last year's performance by Anderson that Kubiak is going to sit him on the bench to give Ball a shot? Kubiak would get killed by fans, media, etc not to mention it would just be dumb. You don't put lightning back in the bottle.

BTW-it's to everyone's benefit to have them looking over their shoulder? Then why no similar quotes about Peyton? Why no similar quotes about D Thomas or Sanders? Because their roles ARE secure.Also, please share any of the "multiple" quotes tht say Anderson is going to be lead back; provided they are from some member of the Denver coaching staff. Thanks.

Look man, if you aren't aware that Kubiak officially named Anderson the starter coming into training camp then you're way behind the curve. Either that or just being contrarian and trying to argue semantics. It takes about 5 seconds to google & find the quotes you're looking for. Kubiak named Anderson the starter and as long as he continues working hard and picks up where he left off last year he should be headed for a tremendous season. I don't know what else needs to be said about this situation.

Look man, if you aren't aware that Kubiak named the starter, FOR OTA's & said he's have to keep the job on a daily basis from there, then you're way behind the curve. That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying: he's the man now, but his job isn't as secure as the top RBs. If he gets hurt/falters, Kubiak doesn't have any built in loyalty to him & he might not get his job back. You seem to want to think he's a lock for stud numbers, and you are spinning quotes, focusing on snippets that support that idea & dis-regarding information that doesn't fit that criteria as "coach-speak."

You're doing exactly what I'm talking about. You're taking a situation that's pretty clear and throwing a bunch of semantics and "what if's" out there to create this percieved level of "risk" with CJ Anderson. Thanks to guys like you, many ff players are going to get a great deal on what all indicators suggest should be a top tier fantasy RB. You want to worry about his job security, so be it. Those of us who can decipher the coach speak understand that Anderson secured the job by being the most dominant RB in the NFL for the second half of 2014, and that Kubiak is excited to run his offense through CJ Anderson and make him his next superstar RB.

 

[Louche]

People keep talking about "risk" with CJ Anderson.

How many less risky dynasty RBs are there right now? 5?

There is risk with all RBs but CJA has a very short resume to be priced as a mid/low dynasty RB1, and he only got an opportunity last season after both Ball and Hillman got injured. Hillman had a couple 100+ yard games as well last season but everyone seems to totally overlook him. The smart money is obviously on CJA to be and remain the starter, but I would have much preferred if his backups were something like Shonn Greene and Jacquizz Rogers where there was no doubt that CJA was THE guy.

I don't have anything against CJA but he's going in the 4th round of dynasty startups and at that price I'm uncomfortable with the "risk". I would rather target other positions and get one of the more proven top tier RBs or target guys like J-Stew, Gore, Martin and Spiller that go much later. When considering ADP I would rather take a shot at Ball in the 14th round than CJA in the 4th.

However, if I picked up CJA from waivers a year ago I'm laughing all the way to the bank, and if my team is loaded but short on RBs I will consider trading for CJA at his current price...but in a startup I'm very happy to let someone else take him.

So then you are just basically saying you don't value very many RBs in the top 4 rounds??? If so fine, but that isn't really a CJ thing, it's a RB thing.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'll consider paying up for Lacy, Bell, Gurley, Murray, Lynch and Foster at their ADP, depending on how I want to build my team. But I think CJA is too expensive for a UDFA who has played half a season in the league, two young RBs behind him with a stronger background, and a new coaching staff and blocking scheme. That's just too much of a gamble for me in those early rounds.

 

[Poncho]

People keep talking about "risk" with CJ Anderson.

How many less risky dynasty RBs are there right now? 5?

There is risk with all RBs but CJA has a very short resume to be priced as a mid/low dynasty RB1, and he only got an opportunity last season after both Ball and Hillman got injured. Hillman had a couple 100+ yard games as well last season but everyone seems to totally overlook him. The smart money is obviously on CJA to be and remain the starter, but I would have much preferred if his backups were something like Shonn Greene and Jacquizz Rogers where there was no doubt that CJA was THE guy.

I don't have anything against CJA but he's going in the 4th round of dynasty startups and at that price I'm uncomfortable with the "risk". I would rather target other positions and get one of the more proven top tier RBs or target guys like J-Stew, Gore, Martin and Spiller that go much later. When considering ADP I would rather take a shot at Ball in the 14th round than CJA in the 4th.

However, if I picked up CJA from waivers a year ago I'm laughing all the way to the bank, and if my team is loaded but short on RBs I will consider trading for CJA at his current price...but in a startup I'm very happy to let someone else take him.

So then you are just basically saying you don't value very many RBs in the top 4 rounds??? If so fine, but that isn't really a CJ thing, it's a RB thing.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'll consider paying up for Lacy, Bell, Gurley, Murray, Lynch and Foster at their ADP, depending on how I want to build my team. But I think CJA is too expensive for a UDFA who has played half a season in the league, two young RBs behind him with a stronger background, and a new coaching staff and blocking scheme. That's just too much of a gamble for me in those early rounds.

I agree, Ill let someone else take CJ in rd3. Those 3 rb's in Denver are one minor injury away from going from 1st to 3rd on the depth chart. I don't trust it at all.....

 

[Zyphros]

People keep talking about "risk" with CJ Anderson.

How many less risky dynasty RBs are there right now? 5?

There is risk with all RBs but CJA has a very short resume to be priced as a mid/low dynasty RB1, and he only got an opportunity last season after both Ball and Hillman got injured. Hillman had a couple 100+ yard games as well last season but everyone seems to totally overlook him. The smart money is obviously on CJA to be and remain the starter, but I would have much preferred if his backups were something like Shonn Greene and Jacquizz Rogers where there was no doubt that CJA was THE guy.

I don't have anything against CJA but he's going in the 4th round of dynasty startups and at that price I'm uncomfortable with the "risk". I would rather target other positions and get one of the more proven top tier RBs or target guys like J-Stew, Gore, Martin and Spiller that go much later. When considering ADP I would rather take a shot at Ball in the 14th round than CJA in the 4th.

However, if I picked up CJA from waivers a year ago I'm laughing all the way to the bank, and if my team is loaded but short on RBs I will consider trading for CJA at his current price...but in a startup I'm very happy to let someone else take him.

Really sick of people bringing this up. It's no different than any other player who rode the bench for a bit and got his opportunity... Anderson got his and proved he could compete and be pretty damn good. His situation has gotten worse absolutely 0% and has gone up probably 2x from last year with Kubiak coming in. We as fantasy players are just waiting for "our guy" to get that opportunity, and now as dynasty players specificially, some of you are dismissing that ultimate hurdle that players have to go through? Come on. He had his opportunity, seized it, and now people question it for some reason. Guess people are still PO'd they took Montee in the 1st round of rookie drafts.

 

[mr roboto]

People keep talking about "risk" with CJ Anderson.

How many less risky dynasty RBs are there right now? 5?

There is risk with all RBs but CJA has a very short resume to be priced as a mid/low dynasty RB1, and he only got an opportunity last season after both Ball and Hillman got injured. Hillman had a couple 100+ yard games as well last season but everyone seems to totally overlook him. The smart money is obviously on CJA to be and remain the starter, but I would have much preferred if his backups were something like Shonn Greene and Jacquizz Rogers where there was no doubt that CJA was THE guy.I don't have anything against CJA but he's going in the 4th round of dynasty startups and at that price I'm uncomfortable with the "risk". I would rather target other positions and get one of the more proven top tier RBs or target guys like J-Stew, Gore, Martin and Spiller that go much later. When considering ADP I would rather take a shot at Ball in the 14th round than CJA in the 4th.

However, if I picked up CJA from waivers a year ago I'm laughing all the way to the bank, and if my team is loaded but short on RBs I will consider trading for CJA at his current price...but in a startup I'm very happy to let someone else take him.

Really sick of people bringing this up. It's no different than any other player who rode the bench for a bit and got his opportunity... Anderson got his and proved he could compete and be pretty damn good. His situation has gotten worse absolutely 0% and has gone up probably 2x from last year with Kubiak coming in. We as fantasy players are just waiting for "our guy" to get that opportunity, and now as dynasty players specificially, some of you are dismissing that ultimate hurdle that players have to go through? Come on. He had his opportunity, seized it, and now people question it for some reason. Guess people are still PO'd they took Montee in the 1st round of rookie drafts.

People did this with Arian Foster for years. Some just can't recalibrate projections after draft pedigree.

 

[Chaka]

People keep talking about "risk" with CJ Anderson.

How many less risky dynasty RBs are there right now? 5?

There is risk with all RBs but CJA has a very short resume to be priced as a mid/low dynasty RB1, and he only got an opportunity last season after both Ball and Hillman got injured. Hillman had a couple 100+ yard games as well last season but everyone seems to totally overlook him. The smart money is obviously on CJA to be and remain the starter, but I would have much preferred if his backups were something like Shonn Greene and Jacquizz Rogers where there was no doubt that CJA was THE guy.I don't have anything against CJA but he's going in the 4th round of dynasty startups and at that price I'm uncomfortable with the "risk". I would rather target other positions and get one of the more proven top tier RBs or target guys like J-Stew, Gore, Martin and Spiller that go much later. When considering ADP I would rather take a shot at Ball in the 14th round than CJA in the 4th.

However, if I picked up CJA from waivers a year ago I'm laughing all the way to the bank, and if my team is loaded but short on RBs I will consider trading for CJA at his current price...but in a startup I'm very happy to let someone else take him.

Really sick of people bringing this up. It's no different than any other player who rode the bench for a bit and got his opportunity... Anderson got his and proved he could compete and be pretty damn good. His situation has gotten worse absolutely 0% and has gone up probably 2x from last year with Kubiak coming in. We as fantasy players are just waiting for "our guy" to get that opportunity, and now as dynasty players specificially, some of you are dismissing that ultimate hurdle that players have to go through? Come on. He had his opportunity, seized it, and now people question it for some reason. Guess people are still PO'd they took Montee in the 1st round of rookie drafts.

People did this with Arian Foster for years. Some just can't recalibrate projections after draft pedigree.

Agreed. However CJ's situation is slightly worse than last year if only because he has healthy backups behind him who have also demonstrated ability at this level. Last year he was the player of last resort.

I think CJ is the clear starter and Kubiak favors a clear lead back to carry the load but he does have more going on behind him this season than last season.

 

[bostonfred]

There are several reasons people are timid about Denver backs. Denver hasn't had the same leading rusher three years in a row since Terrell Davis back in 1995-1998. Moreno and McGahee are the only two to accomplish the feat in back to back years. That could just be coincidence, but there may be something to it - the altitude and the outdoor games are tough after a long season, and fresh legs tend to look better later in the season.

Then there's the current depth. Even if we assume Anderson enters the season as the 1 and not 1a/1b with ball or hillman - which is no sure thing - he still has to worry about getting dinged up. If he falters, one of the other backs could easily take over. They've all looked good for stretches.

Then there's this notion that absolutely nothing has changed. I couldn't disagree much more. Anderson made his debut with both ball and hillman injured; simply having them back changes things. He played with fresh legs against opponents who had very little film and very little time to prep for him.

Also, his former coach saying he had conditioning issues, and him saying he was going to cut back on the cheeseburgers, is a significant change. He's also changed his body type - for better or worse, he's dropped 20 pounds from this time last year. That could be a good thing. for now, it's an unknown.

Then, if everything works out great and he has a monster year, you still have to worry about manning retiring. Because when that happens, your exit value on Anderson will drop like a rock. The lead back for Brock osweiler doesn't inspire the same confidence. So as a dynasty asset, his upside is capped even if he has a good year.

The good news is that all those things make him the cheapest of the elite upside running backs. And there is definitely elite upside in Denver and with kubiak. If you can get an elite back at a bargain price in this crappy rb landscape, you're doing pretty good. but I tend to think he's more of a sell right now, because his owners got a massive talent infusion for free last year and can cash out for high end return on a guy who could be a one year wonder. That doesn't mean I wouldn't buy him, take him, own him, whatever - I just would consider it an aggressive play and plan accordingly. Like I wouldn't give up my 2016 first to get him, in case he was a total bust. And I would be more likely to trade him for a package including a "projected late 2016 first" to someone who needed a back and didn't own ball/hillman because Anderson could sink his season.

 

[satch]

The way many people are viewing this situation could lead to CJ Anderson being the steal of the draft this year. People are searching for the risk instead of embracing the reward. Despite what Anderson proved on the field last year, and Kubiak's track record of success incorporatong a workhorse RB, people are enamored with Montee Ball, who's never proven anything near what Anderson did, and Ronnie Hillman who's clearly best suited as a 3rd down/cop back. Classic over-thinking going on here.

CJ Anderson's proven ability + Kubiak's track record + a hall of fame QB and great supporting cast = monster season for CJ Anderson.

Of course, if Anderson gets hurt that's another story altogether, but you can say that for every RB. If Anderson stays healthy he's a legit contender for #1 fantasy RB in 2015.

As far as dynasty goes, he's still a great pick. Kubiak's system is a bigger part of his RBs success than the QB.

 

[Bayhawks]

Battling Broncos: Ball chasing down Anderson for Denver's starting RB job

Headline is very misleading, likey done intentionally to generate clicks and buzz from ff players like us. The headline says Ball is ""chasing down" Anderson for the starting job, though nowhere in the article is their any evidence whatsoever that Ball has actually gained any ground at all. In fact, based on quotes from Kubiak, Anderson, and Ball themselves the article paints the picture that the opposite is true, and that what we've thought all along remains the case. CJ Anderson will be the starting RB in Denver, and the workhorse in Kubiak's system. Montee Ball will be the change of pace/relief back, and all of them seem to be content with this scenario.Kubiak- Who is going to be the bell cow? Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out. C.J. showed the flashes of doing that. The fact that they are young, I like that. So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out. Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things".

Kubiak does make reference to letting all three backs have a chance, but based on his praise of Anderson in the same quote the "competition" sounds more like motivational coach speak more than anything.

Ball- "C.J. deserves the starting spot right now based on what he did toward the end of the season helping the team. But Im right there on his heels. We need two backs in this system.

Here, Ball clearly states that he understands Anderson is the lead dog, and that his role is a supporting one, albeit one that he intends to make the most of.

The article goes on to say "Strangely enough, Anderson agrees. He says he knows he and Ball will be splitting carries or at least that both with get a decent workload."

Here, Anderson says he and Ball will be "splitting carries", but the rest of the sentence clarifies that remark. Both will get at least get a "decent" workload. Well, it's been established that Kubiak wants a workhorse and by definition a workhorse will get much more than a "decent" workload. In essence, all Anderson is really doing here is stating the obvious, that he's the workhorse but Ball, like any backup RB on a run heavy team, will get a decent workload too. He's being a team player, and supporting his friend and backup RB, Ball.

Sounds to me like they all understand their roles and are all on the same page. Kubiak wants a workhorse, and the three of them agree that Anderson has earned that role based on last years performance. It was earlier reported that Kubiak told Anderson to show up to camp and carry himself as the starter. Anderson showed up to camp in great physical condition, and motivated to repeat last year's performance. Ball seems to have accepted his role as the #2 RB in this offense, but it's a role that could be highly productive and ressurect his career. He'll also be ready for his shot should Anderson miss time due to injury.

Many in the fantasy football world seem to want this picture to be cloudy, yet it seems crystal clear. A motivated CJ Anderson is going to be the workhorse in a proven, highly successful offensive scheme playing for a coach who has a history of churning out highly productive RBs. Montee Ball has embraced his role as a strong backup RB in this system, and will be a great ff handcuff who may even have occasional value as a flex. Hard to not be reminded of Arian Foster/Ben Tate.

You're really putting your own spin on those quotes.If you can get Ball cheap, he's a good flier. IF he's finally healthy, AND he gets a chance, he could do well.

This article is mostly fluff, but youre only going ti find "evidence" that Anderson's the man if you are looking for it here.

Honestly, I'm not trying to spin at all. Just the opposite. I'm trying to slow down the spin that's been gaining steam around the ff world by taking a realistic view of the situation based on actual quotes and history from those involved. Of course, dissecting quotes requires a certain level of interpretation, but I think my interpretation is very straight forward. Any other interpretation would be the spin.I think a direct quote from Kubiak stating he wants a workhorse, and a direct quote from Ball saying "C.J. deserves the starting spot right now based on what he did toward the end of the season helping the team." is evidence supporting the position that Anderson is indeed the man. If there was really some kind of actual competition going on, Ball wouldn't have said that. He knows Anderson is the man because he earned it.

There's not a competition. I don't think that's been said or implied. Ball wants to get more PT, Kubiak said the RBs will sort out who is going to get the most work. Nowhere is competition mentioned.

The headline of the article is "Battling Broncos: Ball chasing down Anderson for Denver's starting RB job". I think that implies sone kind of competition, and that's my point. People are spinning this situation into something it's not. Everything out of Kubiak/Denver indicates that CJ Anderson will be the 3 down back, yet some in the ff world seem to want there to be some uncertainty.Edited to add that Kubiak saying that "the RBs can sort out who the 3 down back will be" could clearly be cause for uncertainty, but only if you haven't really been paying attention. There have been multiple indications and quotes that Anderson is going to be the lead back, and no indications to the contrary. Sure, Ball may want to be the lead back, but even he concedes that Anderson earned it. I think if you watched Anderson last year and been following along since then, it's pretty clear that he will be the lead back. Why else would Kubiak tell Anderson to come into camp like the starter, but not say that to Ball? Why would Ball be saying Anderson is the starter? If there was really any uncertainty, Kubiak would've just declared it an open competition. That's why I see his comment "let the RBs sort out who will be the 3 down back" as nothing more than motivational coach speak, and pretty transparent at that. It's to everyone's benefit to have them all looking over their shoulder, but does anyone really believe that after last year's performance by Anderson that Kubiak is going to sit him on the bench to give Ball a shot? Kubiak would get killed by fans, media, etc not to mention it would just be dumb. You don't put lightning back in the bottle.

BTW-it's to everyone's benefit to have them looking over their shoulder? Then why no similar quotes about Peyton? Why no similar quotes about D Thomas or Sanders? Because their roles ARE secure.Also, please share any of the "multiple" quotes tht say Anderson is going to be lead back; provided they are from some member of the Denver coaching staff. Thanks.

Look man, if you aren't aware that Kubiak officially named Anderson the starter coming into training camp then you're way behind the curve. Either that or just being contrarian and trying to argue semantics. It takes about 5 seconds to google & find the quotes you're looking for. Kubiak named Anderson the starter and as long as he continues working hard and picks up where he left off last year he should be headed for a tremendous season. I don't know what else needs to be said about this situation.

Look man, if you aren't aware that Kubiak named the starter, FOR OTA's & said he's have to keep the job on a daily basis from there, then you're way behind the curve. That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying: he's the man now, but his job isn't as secure as the top RBs. If he gets hurt/falters, Kubiak doesn't have any built in loyalty to him & he might not get his job back. You seem to want to think he's a lock for stud numbers, and you are spinning quotes, focusing on snippets that support that idea & dis-regarding information that doesn't fit that criteria as "coach-speak."

You're doing exactly what I'm talking about. You're taking a situation that's pretty clear and throwing a bunch of semantics and "what if's" out there to create this percieved level of "risk" with CJ Anderson. Thanks to guys like you, many ff players are going to get a great deal on what all indicators suggest should be a top tier fantasy RB.You want to worry about his job security, so be it. Those of us who can decipher the coach speak understand that Anderson secured the job by being the most dominant RB in the NFL for the second half of 2014, and that Kubiak is excited to run his offense through CJ Anderson and make him his next superstar RB.

Try reading it again. I've said CJ's the man, but he doesn't have as much job security as the top RBs. If he gets hurt/falters, it's not a guarantee he will get his job back, IMO. Kubiak has no loyalty to him, and NOTHING he has said has indicated otherwise, despite what you seem to be desperate to believe.

Last year, when McCoy was under-whelming at the beginning part of the year, he was in no danger of losing his role. When Arian Foster got dinged last year, he wasn't in danger of losing his role, no matter how well Alfred Blue might have played. When Jamaal Charles got hurt in week 2 last year, it was a mortal lock that he would get his role back as soon as he was healthy, even though Davis put up 230+ total yards in the (less than) 2 weeks Charles was hurt. Those RBs have more job security than Anderson. They don't have their coaches saying they have to earn their role every day. They don't have to worry about getting dinged and having another RB take the job and refuse to give it back. They don't have to worry about being pulled if they aren't effective. That's more of an issue for Anderson than the top RBs. It doesn't matter if you want to admit it, but it is a fact.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Once again, from the article:

Kubiak said "“Who is going to be the bell cow?” Kubiak wondered after the Broncos’ first day of organized team activities. “Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out. C.J. showed the flashes of doing that. The fact that they are young, I like that. So we’ll give them all a chance and see how it pans out. Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things.”

I think that ought to be taken at face value.

“Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out." Sounds to me a little different than "CJ is our starter." Actually, a lot different.

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that." I think when someone uses the term 'flashes' most would interpret that a a positive but not enough to have the issue settled.

"So we’ll give them all a chance and see how it pans out." If you read into that statement anything other than what is there, it is because you are an owner of one of the RBs. The statement is pretty simple and direct.

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things." Well yes, obviously, because CJ had a great finish to the 2014 season. But he made no commitment as to the Week 1 starter. A head start is just that, a head start and nothing more. He also used the word 'had' (not 'has'). I don't think that was an accident, and the difference in semantics matters. The head start was from last year, and it may or may not carry over. We'll see.

Some CJ owners like Satch are invested and unconvincable, and folks like Bayhawks are wasting their time trying to get them to see the above quotes at face value. It's futile. What some CJ owners are focused on is a great 2nd half of 2014 and want more of the same so anything that might rock that boat is rationalized away.

Yes, it could turn out like Foster / Tate and Anderson is a stud for the next several years.

BUT... it could also be that in training camp a healthy Ball, picked in the 2nd round after posting huge numbers in a ZBS scheme (like Kubiak's) at Wisconsin, outperforms UDFA (same draft class) Anderson. Why would that be so shocking? It is shocking to those who limit themselves to a focus on last year's stats and refuse to consider anything else. Never mind the injury to Peyton that allowed the opportunity to pile up the stats. Never mind that Hillman performed quite well too before being hurt. Never mind that Ball may be better at protecting Peyton. Never mind that Ball had an appendectomy in preseason and then groin issues later on that trumped his 2nd round pedigree and college-proven ability so he wasn't able to really show what he can do.

In training camp 2015 Ball will have that chance to show what he can do, and if he beats out Anderson so be it.

"They have to sort that out."

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that."

"So we’ll give them all a chance and see how it pans out."

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things."

To make the assumption that Anderson has the job sewn up is a little like calling the winner of a horse race at the halfway point. Fine, Anderson had a head start and may well be the Week 1 starter. But Kubiak is clearly open to Ball or Hillman as well or he would simply have annointed Anderson his starter.

 

[JackReacher]

We can all try to read the tea leaves on CJA. If you got him cheap like most, the best course of action is to let it ride. I don't see the benefit of selling him for a future 1st, which is just another roll of the dice. I own CJA, have had no offers, and that's perfectly fine. He's in my lineup until he's not anymore. Spending my found $.

 

[renesauz]

The way many people are viewing this situation could lead to CJ Anderson being the steal of the draft this year. People are searching for the risk instead of embracing the reward. Despite what Anderson proved on the field last year, and Kubiak's track record of success incorporatong a workhorse RB, people are enamored with Montee Ball, who's never proven anything near what Anderson did, and Ronnie Hillman who's clearly best suited as a 3rd down/cop back. Classic over-thinking going on here.

CJ Anderson's proven ability + Kubiak's track record + a hall of fame QB and great supporting cast = monster season for CJ Anderson.

Of course, if Anderson gets hurt that's another story altogether, but you can say that for every RB. If Anderson stays healthy he's a legit contender for #1 fantasy RB in 2015.

As far as dynasty goes, he's still a great pick. Kubiak's system is a bigger part of his RBs success than the QB.

This is simply not true. People "embraced the reward" last year. And NOBODY is denying the potential upside. But we are talking about this year and forward right now. New coach, new scheme, talented depth chart including a guy many thought was a stud in waiting just 12 months ago. I think it would be more accurate to state that some people in here are ignoring the risk that is obvious- we don't have to "search for the risk". It's right there, obvious, and plain as the nose on my face.

IMO, the combination of Anderson and Ball is priced appropriately, but neither is priced appropriately individually. That means that I agree that the coach and system are ripe for a talented back to deliver top 5ish numbers AND that it's unlikely to be a 50-50 type timeshare, but that I also think it's silly to assume that CJA is THE MAN to stay and can't be supplanted at some point sooner rather than later. I'd estimate the odds of Ball out-performing CJA at around 25%- and that's more than enough to hesitate on the CJA investment unless I had the Ball insurance policy.

At 75%, barring injury, CJA is not a terrible gamble, but there are much safer gambles (especially at other positions) at his current pricetag. Calling a guy over-priced is not the same as calling him a dud.

 

[CR69]

Once again, from the article:

Kubiak said "Who is going to be the bell cow? Kubiak wondered after the Broncos first day of organized team activities. Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out. C.J. showed the flashes of doing that. The fact that they are young, I like that. So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out. Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things.

I think that ought to be taken at face value.

Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out." Sounds to me a little different than "CJ is our starter." Actually, a lot different.

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that." I think when someone uses the term 'flashes' most would interpret that a a positive but not enough to have the issue settled.

"So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out." If you read into that statement anything other than what is there, it is because you are an owner of one of the RBs. The statement is pretty simple and direct.

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things." Well yes, obviously, because CJ had a great finish to the 2014 season. But he made no commitment as to the Week 1 starter. A head start is just that, a head start and nothing more. He also used the word 'had' (not 'has'). I don't think that was an accident, and the difference in semantics matters. The head start was from last year, and it may or may not carry over. We'll see.

Some CJ owners like Satch are invested and unconvincable, and folks like Bayhawks are wasting their time trying to get them to see the above quotes at face value. It's futile. What some CJ owners are focused on is a great 2nd half of 2014 and want more of the same so anything that might rock that boat is rationalized away.

Yes, it could turn out like Foster / Tate and Anderson is a stud for the next several years.

BUT... it could also be that in training camp a healthy Ball, picked in the 2nd round after posting huge numbers in a ZBS scheme (like Kubiak's) at Wisconsin, outperforms UDFA (same draft class) Anderson. Why would that be so shocking? It is shocking to those who limit themselves to a focus on last year's stats and refuse to consider anything else. Never mind the injury to Peyton that allowed the opportunity to pile up the stats. Never mind that Hillman performed quite well too before being hurt. Never mind that Ball may be better at protecting Peyton. Never mind that Ball had an appendectomy in preseason and then groin issues later on that trumped his 2nd round pedigree and college-proven ability so he wasn't able to really show what he can do.

In training camp 2015 Ball will have that chance to show what he can do, and if he beats out Anderson so be it.

"They have to sort that out."

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that."

"So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out."

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things."

To make the assumption that Anderson has the job sewn up is a little like calling the winner of a horse race at the halfway point. Fine, Anderson had a head start and may well be the Week 1 starter. But Kubiak is clearly open to Ball or Hillman as well or he would simply have annointed Anderson his starter.

Kubiak also said this:

"He made a big jump as a player, and I think he's earned the right to walk in to the offseason program -- the OTAs -- and line up as our starter," Head Coach Gary Kubiak said. "But he's got to continue to earn it on a daily basis.

"I think he's shown he has all the ability to be an excellent starter in this league, so we're really looking forward to working with him."

 

[CR69]

Bloom also said on one of the recent FBG podcasts that CJ looked a lot better than Ball. He did say that he feels there people in management who still like Ball so he's likely to get more chances than he would otherwise.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Once again, from the article:

Kubiak said "Who is going to be the bell cow? Kubiak wondered after the Broncos first day of organized team activities. Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out. C.J. showed the flashes of doing that. The fact that they are young, I like that. So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out. Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things.

I think that ought to be taken at face value.

Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out." Sounds to me a little different than "CJ is our starter." Actually, a lot different.

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that." I think when someone uses the term 'flashes' most would interpret that a a positive but not enough to have the issue settled.

"So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out." If you read into that statement anything other than what is there, it is because you are an owner of one of the RBs. The statement is pretty simple and direct.

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things." Well yes, obviously, because CJ had a great finish to the 2014 season. But he made no commitment as to the Week 1 starter. A head start is just that, a head start and nothing more. He also used the word 'had' (not 'has'). I don't think that was an accident, and the difference in semantics matters. The head start was from last year, and it may or may not carry over. We'll see.

Some CJ owners like Satch are invested and unconvincable, and folks like Bayhawks are wasting their time trying to get them to see the above quotes at face value. It's futile. What some CJ owners are focused on is a great 2nd half of 2014 and want more of the same so anything that might rock that boat is rationalized away.

Yes, it could turn out like Foster / Tate and Anderson is a stud for the next several years.

BUT... it could also be that in training camp a healthy Ball, picked in the 2nd round after posting huge numbers in a ZBS scheme (like Kubiak's) at Wisconsin, outperforms UDFA (same draft class) Anderson. Why would that be so shocking? It is shocking to those who limit themselves to a focus on last year's stats and refuse to consider anything else. Never mind the injury to Peyton that allowed the opportunity to pile up the stats. Never mind that Hillman performed quite well too before being hurt. Never mind that Ball may be better at protecting Peyton. Never mind that Ball had an appendectomy in preseason and then groin issues later on that trumped his 2nd round pedigree and college-proven ability so he wasn't able to really show what he can do.

In training camp 2015 Ball will have that chance to show what he can do, and if he beats out Anderson so be it.

"They have to sort that out."

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that."

"So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out."

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things."

To make the assumption that Anderson has the job sewn up is a little like calling the winner of a horse race at the halfway point. Fine, Anderson had a head start and may well be the Week 1 starter. But Kubiak is clearly open to Ball or Hillman as well or he would simply have annointed Anderson his starter.

Kubiak also said this:

"He made a big jump as a player, and I think he's earned the right to walk in to the offseason program -- the OTAs -- and line up as our starter," Head Coach Gary Kubiak said. "But he's got to continue to earn it on a daily basis.

"I think he's shown he has all the ability to be an excellent starter in this league, so we're really looking forward to working with him."

It's very fair to do that, recognizing his fantastic accomplishments last year and giving him the nod as of OTAs. "But he's got to continue to earn it on a daily basis" was his caveat and once again did not give him anything in terms of L. Bell or J Charles or E Lacy-like security. He has to re-earn the job as Week 1 starter. If he can do that, congrats you're THE MAN, but he still has to do it. My point is that those who view this as a done deal in May and June are assuming too much. If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose one at this point I'd choose Anderson too, but otherwise it's an assumption I'm not willing to make so early and think his ADP is too high right now..

 

[CR69]

Once again, from the article:

Kubiak said "Who is going to be the bell cow? Kubiak wondered after the Broncos first day of organized team activities. Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out. C.J. showed the flashes of doing that. The fact that they are young, I like that. So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out. Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things.

I think that ought to be taken at face value.

Who is going to be a three-down player? They have to sort that out." Sounds to me a little different than "CJ is our starter." Actually, a lot different.

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that." I think when someone uses the term 'flashes' most would interpret that a a positive but not enough to have the issue settled.

"So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out." If you read into that statement anything other than what is there, it is because you are an owner of one of the RBs. The statement is pretty simple and direct.

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things." Well yes, obviously, because CJ had a great finish to the 2014 season. But he made no commitment as to the Week 1 starter. A head start is just that, a head start and nothing more. He also used the word 'had' (not 'has'). I don't think that was an accident, and the difference in semantics matters. The head start was from last year, and it may or may not carry over. We'll see.

Some CJ owners like Satch are invested and unconvincable, and folks like Bayhawks are wasting their time trying to get them to see the above quotes at face value. It's futile. What some CJ owners are focused on is a great 2nd half of 2014 and want more of the same so anything that might rock that boat is rationalized away.

Yes, it could turn out like Foster / Tate and Anderson is a stud for the next several years.

BUT... it could also be that in training camp a healthy Ball, picked in the 2nd round after posting huge numbers in a ZBS scheme (like Kubiak's) at Wisconsin, outperforms UDFA (same draft class) Anderson. Why would that be so shocking? It is shocking to those who limit themselves to a focus on last year's stats and refuse to consider anything else. Never mind the injury to Peyton that allowed the opportunity to pile up the stats. Never mind that Hillman performed quite well too before being hurt. Never mind that Ball may be better at protecting Peyton. Never mind that Ball had an appendectomy in preseason and then groin issues later on that trumped his 2nd round pedigree and college-proven ability so he wasn't able to really show what he can do.

In training camp 2015 Ball will have that chance to show what he can do, and if he beats out Anderson so be it.

"They have to sort that out."

"C.J. showed the flashes of doing that."

"So well give them all a chance and see how it pans out."

"Obviously C.J. had a good head start on things."

To make the assumption that Anderson has the job sewn up is a little like calling the winner of a horse race at the halfway point. Fine, Anderson had a head start and may well be the Week 1 starter. But Kubiak is clearly open to Ball or Hillman as well or he would simply have annointed Anderson his starter.

Kubiak also said this:"He made a big jump as a player, and I think he's earned the right to walk in to the offseason program -- the OTAs -- and line up as our starter," Head Coach Gary Kubiak said. "But he's got to continue to earn it on a daily basis.

"I think he's shown he has all the ability to be an excellent starter in this league, so we're really looking forward to working with him."

It's very fair to do that, recognizing his fantastic accomplishments last year and giving him the nod as of OTAs. "But he's got to continue to earn it on a daily basis" was his caveat and once again did not give him anything in terms of L. Bell or J Charles or E Lacy-like security. He has to re-earn the job as Week 1 starter. If he can do that, congrats you're THE MAN, but he still has to do it. My point is that those who view this as a done deal in May and June are assuming too much. It's an assumption I'm not willing to make so early and think his ADP is too high at this time.

I think those that are assuming it's his job is based on what they've seen out of the three RBs thus far in their careers. He has risk, yes, but what top RB besides Bell/Lacy don't at this point? Murray is with a new team, same for Shady, Lynch/Peterson/Charles are on the backside of their careers, and Foster has been hurt a lot lately and isn't a spring chicken himself.

I don't see how Anderson has any more risk than the older guys, in fact I think it's less. With all of them, if you're wrong you have a guy that's not worth much 1-2 years from now. If you're right on the old guys they produce for another couple of years. If you're right about CJ you have a top RB for 5+ years barring injury. Shady and Murray are similar from a risk perspective.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Bloom also said on one of the recent FBG podcasts that CJ looked a lot better than Ball. He did say that he feels there people in management who still like Ball so he's likely to get more chances than he would otherwise.

This means very little. OTAs are contact-less, pad-less sessions where things aren't as in games, and protecting the QB is not a factor. We have all of training camp and preseason games to get through, and if CJ earns his Week 1 start through that he will deserve it. Kubiak knows what he is doing with RBs. I'll feel very good owning whoever he decides is his guy, and he's going to take the time to be sure he gets it right, not just take his inherited starter. I'll emphasize again that I'm not indicating I'm down on Anderson, only that it ignores too much to assume he's going to be the guy like we can assume that with a number of RBs in the league.

 

[Fireinside]

Bloom also said on one of the recent FBG podcasts that CJ looked a lot better than Ball. He did say that he feels there people in management who still like Ball so he's likely to get more chances than he would otherwise.

This means very little. OTAs are contact-less, pad-less sessions where things aren't as in games, and protecting the QB is not a factor. We have all of training camp and preseason games to get through, and if CJ earns his Week 1 start through that he will deserve it. Kubiak knows what he is doing with RBs. I'll feel very good owning whoever he decides is his guy, and he's going to take the time to be sure he gets it right, not just take his inherited starter. I'll emphasize again that I'm not indicating I'm down on Anderson, only that it ignores too much to assume he's going to be the guy like we can assume that with a number of RBs in the league.

I would like to remind you that it's not contact-less/ pad-less sessions where C.J. Anderson excels. Anderson himself said that pad-less drills aren't his thing.

He's a contact guy, so if he's now looking very good without pads, I take it as an excellent sign!

 

[mikmak8902]

Bloom also said on one of the recent FBG podcasts that CJ looked a lot better than Ball. He did say that he feels there people in management who still like Ball so he's likely to get more chances than he would otherwise.

This means very little. OTAs are contact-less, pad-less sessions where things aren't as in games, and protecting the QB is not a factor. We have all of training camp and preseason games to get through, and if CJ earns his Week 1 start through that he will deserve it. Kubiak knows what he is doing with RBs. I'll feel very good owning whoever he decides is his guy, and he's going to take the time to be sure he gets it right, not just take his inherited starter. I'll emphasize again that I'm not indicating I'm down on Anderson, only that it ignores too much to assume he's going to be the guy like we can assume that with a number of RBs in the league.

I would like to remind you that it's not contact-less/ pad-less sessions where C.J. Anderson excels. Anderson himself said that pad-less drills aren't his thing.

He's a contact guy, so if he's now looking very good without pads, I take it as an excellent sign!

I definitely think Ball would have a distinct advantage in OTA without contact or pads. From what I've seen of the two, Anderson is a more physical runner. Flag football can only help Ball look better. Once the pads go on, my assumption is that CJ will pull away.

Honestly, I think CJ should be more worried about Ronnie Hillman. Hillman has played great when healthy.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

From what I've seen of the two, Anderson is a more physical runner.

After losing 20 pounds - maybe not. Although at 220, he's still a big back.

 

[Fireinside]

From what I've seen of the two, Anderson is a more physical runner.

After losing 20 pounds - maybe not. Although at 220, he's still a big back.

So if you gain weight you become more physical and if you lose weight you lose your physicality. I don't know if I agree with that kind of thinking and neither does Steve Smith

 

[mikmak8902]

From what I've seen of the two, Anderson is a more physical runner.

After losing 20 pounds - maybe not. Although at 220, he's still a big back.

He's only down 2 pounds from his season ending weight of 2014. He was 243 at the start of OTA's last year ... which means he didn't do shat in the off-season to stay in shape. The fact that he's coming in 2lbs under his playing weight from last year just makes me like his chances of keeping the starting job more. He took advantage of his opportunity last season and is doing everything he can to keep the job and excel.

 

[satch]

Most agree that CJ is "the man" as of now based on his performance last year and Kubiak's comments up to this point, but some consider his fantasy stock to have an elevated level of risk due to concerns about his job security because IF CJ gets injured, AND Montee Ball or Ronnie Hillman dominate like CJ did last year, CJ may not get his job back. Ok. In my opinion, the risk of these things happening is not worthy of concern because:

A) Anderson is completely healthy, in great shape, and no more at risk of injury than any other RB including Ball or Hillman. Therefore, there is zero cause for elevated concern regarding injury itself.

B) Anderson dominated over the last half of 2014 even with a struggling Manning. As far as I'm concerned, half a season as a workhorse during very meaningful games is a big enough sample size to eliminate the possibility that Anderson's success was a fluke. Anderson's ability has been proven to my satisfaction.

B) IF Anderson does get injured, Montee Ball has shown no evidence of being nearly as dominant as CJ Anderson. I don't have any factual or tangible reason to believe Ball is capable stealing Anderson's job. Montee Ball has had chances and had limited success but never proven himself to be nearly the player Anderson has, so why should I be concerned that Ball is going to steal Anderson's job? Because he was a high deaft pick? So was Trent Richardson. IF Anderson gets injured, the reasonable assumption would be that Ball, IF healthy, would fill in until the proven, better RB returns from injury. Kubiak has no loyalty to any of them(I never stated otherwise), so we have to assume that whenever possible he will put the best players on the field. Anderson has proven to be the best RB on the team, so we have to assume that when healthy he will be the workhorse. This scenario of CJ Anderson injury + Ball dominance = Anderson losing job to Ball is wrought with unknowns and conjecture, and we have zero reason to expect this to happen, so I have no reason to consider this a risk worthy of concern.

C) Ronnie Hillman played very well when given a chance but is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs. IF Anderson is injured, AND Ball is injured at the same time, Hillman and Juwan Thompson would likely share the load until Anderson or Ball return. I see zero risk of Hillman stealing the workhorse role from CJ Anderson.

Anderson has proven himself to be the best RB on the team and capable of being the kind of workhorse Kubiak loves. Kubiak was satisfied enough with what he's seen from Anderson to name him the starter coming into camp rather than hold an open competition. Anderson is completely healthy and all signs point to him picking up where he left off last year, only in an even better offensive system. Anderson's arrow could not possibly be pointing up any higher. If he remains healthy, and we have no reason to expect otherwise, he carries very little risk of dissapointing this year, and should have a tremendous season.

The opposite stance is essentially, Anderson's performance last year although lengthy, may have been a fluke, and Anderson might get hurt and an unproven Montee Ball might not get hurt and might run away with the job. In my opinion, this is manufactured risk with no basis for expectation.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

From what I've seen of the two, Anderson is a more physical runner.

After losing 20 pounds - maybe not. Although at 220, he's still a big back.

So if you gain weight you become more physical and if you lose weight you lose your physicality. I don't know if I agree with that kind of thinking and neither does Steve Smith

You don't think being bigger/stronger/heavier helps a physical runner?

ETA: He's still a big back so it's not a big deal - don't really want to turn it into that.

 

[Fireinside]

From what I've seen of the two, Anderson is a more physical runner.

After losing 20 pounds - maybe not. Although at 220, he's still a big back.

So if you gain weight you become more physical and if you lose weight you lose your physicality. I don't know if I agree with that kind of thinking and neither does Steve Smith

You don't think being bigger/stronger/heavier helps a physical runner?

I think it does, but that's not the question.

First of all, being stronger is not same thing as being fatter. Otherwise these athletes would train in McDonalds.

Second, physicality is not gained by weight, it's a style of play. Being bigger/stronger/heavier helps, but so does speed. Never the less, as in the case of Steve Smith, it's not the size of your body, it's how you use it. By losing weight and being faster, it might in fact help physical playing style. Newton's laws might agree with me on this one.

 

[Bayhawks]

Most agree that CJ is "the man" as of now based on his performance last year and Kubiak's comments up to this point, but some consider his fantasy stock to have an elevated level of risk due to concerns about his job security because IF CJ gets injured, AND Montee Ball or Ronnie Hillman dominate like CJ did last year, CJ may not get his job back. Ok. In my opinion, the risk of these things happening is not worthy of concern because:

A) Anderson is completely healthy, in great shape, and no more at risk of injury than any other RB including Ball or Hillman. Therefore, there is zero cause for elevated concern regarding injury itself.

B) Anderson dominated over the last half of 2014 even with a struggling Manning. As far as I'm concerned, half a season as a workhorse during very meaningful games is a big enough sample size to eliminate the possibility that Anderson's success was a fluke. Anderson's ability has been proven to my satisfaction.

B) IF Anderson does get injured, Montee Ball has shown no evidence of being nearly as dominant as CJ Anderson. I don't have any factual or tangible reason to believe Ball is capable stealing Anderson's job. Montee Ball has had chances and had limited success but never proven himself to be nearly the player Anderson has, so why should I be concerned that Ball is going to steal Anderson's job? Because he was a high deaft pick? So was Trent Richardson. IF Anderson gets injured, the reasonable assumption would be that Ball, IF healthy, would fill in until the proven, better RB returns from injury. Kubiak has no loyalty to any of them(I never stated otherwise), so we have to assume that whenever possible he will put the best players on the field. Anderson has proven to be the best RB on the team, so we have to assume that when healthy he will be the workhorse. This scenario of CJ Anderson injury + Ball dominance = Anderson losing job to Ball is wrought with unknowns and conjecture, and we have zero reason to expect this to happen, so I have no reason to consider this a risk worthy of concern.

C) Ronnie Hillman played very well when given a chance but is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs. IF Anderson is injured, AND Ball is injured at the same time, Hillman and Juwan Thompson would likely share the load until Anderson or Ball return. I see zero risk of Hillman stealing the workhorse role from CJ Anderson.

A-Who is talking about elevated injury concern? The point is that if Charles, McCoy, Bell, etc get hurt, when they are healthy, they will get their roles back. That is less true for Anderson, IMO. Not that he is more likely to get hurt, but that he doesn't have the same security the top RBs do.

B-Same could have been said for Zac Stacy, Peyton Hillis, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Steve Slaton, LeRon McClain, Earnest Graham, etc. A hot streak doesn't always equate to sustained excellence. Sometimes it does (Arian Foster, obviously being exhibit A), but not always.

B(again?)-Before Anderson's dominating performance over the 2nd half of last year, he had only had limited success and hadn't demonstrated that he was capable of those types of numbers. So, if Anderson was able to do that (despite not showing so previously with his limited opps), then so could Ball.

C-Exactly right. There's no way Kubiak would let a RB who is 5'8" & 194 lbs be his workhorse. Oh, my bad, those are Justin Forsett's height/weight numbers, not Hillmans. Oh, well, the point remains.

 

[satch]

Most agree that CJ is "the man" as of now based on his performance last year and Kubiak's comments up to this point, but some consider his fantasy stock to have an elevated level of risk due to concerns about his job security because IF CJ gets injured, AND Montee Ball or Ronnie Hillman dominate like CJ did last year, CJ may not get his job back. Ok. In my opinion, the risk of these things happening is not worthy of concern because:

A) Anderson is completely healthy, in great shape, and no more at risk of injury than any other RB including Ball or Hillman. Therefore, there is zero cause for elevated concern regarding injury itself.

B) Anderson dominated over the last half of 2014 even with a struggling Manning. As far as I'm concerned, half a season as a workhorse during very meaningful games is a big enough sample size to eliminate the possibility that Anderson's success was a fluke. Anderson's ability has been proven to my satisfaction.

B) IF Anderson does get injured, Montee Ball has shown no evidence of being nearly as dominant as CJ Anderson. I don't have any factual or tangible reason to believe Ball is capable stealing Anderson's job. Montee Ball has had chances and had limited success but never proven himself to be nearly the player Anderson has, so why should I be concerned that Ball is going to steal Anderson's job? Because he was a high deaft pick? So was Trent Richardson. IF Anderson gets injured, the reasonable assumption would be that Ball, IF healthy, would fill in until the proven, better RB returns from injury. Kubiak has no loyalty to any of them(I never stated otherwise), so we have to assume that whenever possible he will put the best players on the field. Anderson has proven to be the best RB on the team, so we have to assume that when healthy he will be the workhorse. This scenario of CJ Anderson injury + Ball dominance = Anderson losing job to Ball is wrought with unknowns and conjecture, and we have zero reason to expect this to happen, so I have no reason to consider this a risk worthy of concern.

C) Ronnie Hillman played very well when given a chance but is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs. IF Anderson is injured, AND Ball is injured at the same time, Hillman and Juwan Thompson would likely share the load until Anderson or Ball return. I see zero risk of Hillman stealing the workhorse role from CJ Anderson.

A-Who is talking about elevated injury concern? The point is that if Charles, McCoy, Bell, etc get hurt, when they are healthy, they will get their roles back. That is less true for Anderson, IMO. Not that he is more likely to get hurt, but that he doesn't have the same security the top RBs do.B-Same could have been said for Zac Stacy, Peyton Hillis, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Steve Slaton, LeRon McClain, Earnest Graham, etc. A hot streak doesn't always equate to sustained excellence. Sometimes it does (Arian Foster, obviously being exhibit A), but not always.

B(again?)-Before Anderson's dominating performance over the 2nd half of last year, he had only had limited success and hadn't demonstrated that he was capable of those types of numbers. So, if Anderson was able to do that (despite not showing so previously with his limited opps), then so could Ball.

C-Exactly right. There's no way Kubiak would let a RB who is 5'8" & 194 lbs be his workhorse. Oh, my bad, those are Justin Forsett's height/weight numbers, not Hillmans. Oh, well, the point remains.

Not sure what exactly you're trying to convince me of. I guess your intent is to prove that there is SOME level of risk associated with Anderson this year because the entire second half of last year could've just been a "hot streak", and it's possible that he'll get hurt and/or it's possible his backup will outperform him? Of course these things are possible. I guess I just don't think they are probable and you do, so you see risk where I don't.And good point about Forsett and Hillman being the same size. Definitely means they are interchangeable and Hillman would make a good workhorse. It worked out well for him last year. Or are you just pointing out that it's POSSIBLE and therefore we should all be leery of drafting CJ Anderson.

 

[Bayhawks]

Most agree that CJ is "the man" as of now based on his performance last year and Kubiak's comments up to this point, but some consider his fantasy stock to have an elevated level of risk due to concerns about his job security because IF CJ gets injured, AND Montee Ball or Ronnie Hillman dominate like CJ did last year, CJ may not get his job back. Ok. In my opinion, the risk of these things happening is not worthy of concern because:

A) Anderson is completely healthy, in great shape, and no more at risk of injury than any other RB including Ball or Hillman. Therefore, there is zero cause for elevated concern regarding injury itself.

B) Anderson dominated over the last half of 2014 even with a struggling Manning. As far as I'm concerned, half a season as a workhorse during very meaningful games is a big enough sample size to eliminate the possibility that Anderson's success was a fluke. Anderson's ability has been proven to my satisfaction.

B) IF Anderson does get injured, Montee Ball has shown no evidence of being nearly as dominant as CJ Anderson. I don't have any factual or tangible reason to believe Ball is capable stealing Anderson's job. Montee Ball has had chances and had limited success but never proven himself to be nearly the player Anderson has, so why should I be concerned that Ball is going to steal Anderson's job? Because he was a high deaft pick? So was Trent Richardson. IF Anderson gets injured, the reasonable assumption would be that Ball, IF healthy, would fill in until the proven, better RB returns from injury. Kubiak has no loyalty to any of them(I never stated otherwise), so we have to assume that whenever possible he will put the best players on the field. Anderson has proven to be the best RB on the team, so we have to assume that when healthy he will be the workhorse. This scenario of CJ Anderson injury + Ball dominance = Anderson losing job to Ball is wrought with unknowns and conjecture, and we have zero reason to expect this to happen, so I have no reason to consider this a risk worthy of concern.

C) Ronnie Hillman played very well when given a chance but is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs. IF Anderson is injured, AND Ball is injured at the same time, Hillman and Juwan Thompson would likely share the load until Anderson or Ball return. I see zero risk of Hillman stealing the workhorse role from CJ Anderson.

A-Who is talking about elevated injury concern? The point is that if Charles, McCoy, Bell, etc get hurt, when they are healthy, they will get their roles back. That is less true for Anderson, IMO. Not that he is more likely to get hurt, but that he doesn't have the same security the top RBs do.B-Same could have been said for Zac Stacy, Peyton Hillis, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Steve Slaton, LeRon McClain, Earnest Graham, etc. A hot streak doesn't always equate to sustained excellence. Sometimes it does (Arian Foster, obviously being exhibit A), but not always.

B(again?)-Before Anderson's dominating performance over the 2nd half of last year, he had only had limited success and hadn't demonstrated that he was capable of those types of numbers. So, if Anderson was able to do that (despite not showing so previously with his limited opps), then so could Ball.

C-Exactly right. There's no way Kubiak would let a RB who is 5'8" & 194 lbs be his workhorse. Oh, my bad, those are Justin Forsett's height/weight numbers, not Hillmans. Oh, well, the point remains.

Not sure what exactly you're trying to convince me of. I guess your intent is to prove that there is SOME level of risk associated with Anderson this year because the entire second half of last year could've just been a "hot streak", and it's possible that he'll get hurt and/or it's possible his backup will outperform him? Of course these things are possible. I guess I just don't think they are probable and you do, so you see risk where I don't.And good point about Forsett and Hillman being the same size. Definitely means they are interchangeable and Hillman would make a good workhorse. It worked out well for him last year. Or are you just pointing out that it's POSSIBLE and therefore we should all be leery of drafting CJ Anderson.

I[m not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely pointing out factors to consider when evaluating Anderson. YOU seem determined to try to prove that there is no risk with Anderson & he is a sure fire FF stud. I'm merely pointing out the counter-points to your posts.

With regards to Forsett and Hillman, YOU are the one who (in order to bolster your belief that Anderson is a can't miss stud) discounted Hillman as a risk for Anderson, because he "is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs." The exact same thing could have been said about Forsett prior to last year (hell it was still being said after the first few weeks when other Baltimore RBs were the WW darlings & Forsett was being ignored).

You want to discount Ball because he hasn't shown anything in his limited opps up to now. Oh wait, Anderson hadn't shown anything before last season either.

You want to discount Hillman because he doesn't seem like the "workhorse" Kubiak uses. Oh wait, Forsett didn't seem like that kind of "workhorse" either.

Don't make extremely weak points then get defensive when you get called on them.

 

[satch]

Most agree that CJ is "the man" as of now based on his performance last year and Kubiak's comments up to this point, but some consider his fantasy stock to have an elevated level of risk due to concerns about his job security because IF CJ gets injured, AND Montee Ball or Ronnie Hillman dominate like CJ did last year, CJ may not get his job back. Ok. In my opinion, the risk of these things happening is not worthy of concern because:

A) Anderson is completely healthy, in great shape, and no more at risk of injury than any other RB including Ball or Hillman. Therefore, there is zero cause for elevated concern regarding injury itself.

B) Anderson dominated over the last half of 2014 even with a struggling Manning. As far as I'm concerned, half a season as a workhorse during very meaningful games is a big enough sample size to eliminate the possibility that Anderson's success was a fluke. Anderson's ability has been proven to my satisfaction.

B) IF Anderson does get injured, Montee Ball has shown no evidence of being nearly as dominant as CJ Anderson. I don't have any factual or tangible reason to believe Ball is capable stealing Anderson's job. Montee Ball has had chances and had limited success but never proven himself to be nearly the player Anderson has, so why should I be concerned that Ball is going to steal Anderson's job? Because he was a high deaft pick? So was Trent Richardson. IF Anderson gets injured, the reasonable assumption would be that Ball, IF healthy, would fill in until the proven, better RB returns from injury. Kubiak has no loyalty to any of them(I never stated otherwise), so we have to assume that whenever possible he will put the best players on the field. Anderson has proven to be the best RB on the team, so we have to assume that when healthy he will be the workhorse. This scenario of CJ Anderson injury + Ball dominance = Anderson losing job to Ball is wrought with unknowns and conjecture, and we have zero reason to expect this to happen, so I have no reason to consider this a risk worthy of concern.

C) Ronnie Hillman played very well when given a chance but is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs. IF Anderson is injured, AND Ball is injured at the same time, Hillman and Juwan Thompson would likely share the load until Anderson or Ball return. I see zero risk of Hillman stealing the workhorse role from CJ Anderson.

A-Who is talking about elevated injury concern? The point is that if Charles, McCoy, Bell, etc get hurt, when they are healthy, they will get their roles back. That is less true for Anderson, IMO. Not that he is more likely to get hurt, but that he doesn't have the same security the top RBs do.B-Same could have been said for Zac Stacy, Peyton Hillis, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Steve Slaton, LeRon McClain, Earnest Graham, etc. A hot streak doesn't always equate to sustained excellence. Sometimes it does (Arian Foster, obviously being exhibit A), but not always.

B(again?)-Before Anderson's dominating performance over the 2nd half of last year, he had only had limited success and hadn't demonstrated that he was capable of those types of numbers. So, if Anderson was able to do that (despite not showing so previously with his limited opps), then so could Ball.

C-Exactly right. There's no way Kubiak would let a RB who is 5'8" & 194 lbs be his workhorse. Oh, my bad, those are Justin Forsett's height/weight numbers, not Hillmans. Oh, well, the point remains.

Not sure what exactly you're trying to convince me of. I guess your intent is to prove that there is SOME level of risk associated with Anderson this year because the entire second half of last year could've just been a "hot streak", and it's possible that he'll get hurt and/or it's possible his backup will outperform him? Of course these things are possible. I guess I just don't think they are probable and you do, so you see risk where I don't.And good point about Forsett and Hillman being the same size. Definitely means they are interchangeable and Hillman would make a good workhorse. It worked out well for him last year. Or are you just pointing out that it's POSSIBLE and therefore we should all be leery of drafting CJ Anderson.

I[m not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely pointing out factors to consider when evaluating Anderson. YOU seem determined to try to prove that there is no risk with Anderson & he is a sure fire FF stud. I'm merely pointing out the counter-points to your posts.With regards to Forsett and Hillman, YOU are the one who (in order to bolster your belief that Anderson is a can't miss stud) discounted Hillman as a risk for Anderson, because he "is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs." The exact same thing could have been said about Forsett prior to last year (hell it was still being said after the first few weeks when other Baltimore RBs were the WW darlings & Forsett was being ignored).

You want to discount Ball because he hasn't shown anything in his limited opps up to now. Oh wait, Anderson hadn't shown anything before last season either.

You want to discount Hillman because he doesn't seem like the "workhorse" Kubiak uses. Oh wait, Forsett didn't seem like that kind of "workhorse" either.

Don't make extremely weak points then get defensive when you get called on them.

Right, my point about Hillman not being cut out to be a typical workhorse is extremely weak because Justin Forsett did it. You're doing it again, trying to manufacture and attach "risk" to Anderson by using an exception rather than the rule to prove your point. Sure, Forsett showed that it's possible for a guy that size to be a workhorse. Maybe Kubiak didn't have a better option and it worked out ok, as history tells us that's the exception not the rule. The fact that Hillman got hurt last year after being used that way certainly doesn't help your argument. Personally I don't see Hillman as a threat to steal the workhorse role from Anderson, but you're entitled to your opinion.Bottom line is yes, I do think Anderson is a sure-fire, low (never said zero) risk stud fantasy RB this year. You think Ball/Hillman will stand in the way of that. One of us will be right.

 

[Bayhawks]

Most agree that CJ is "the man" as of now based on his performance last year and Kubiak's comments up to this point, but some consider his fantasy stock to have an elevated level of risk due to concerns about his job security because IF CJ gets injured, AND Montee Ball or Ronnie Hillman dominate like CJ did last year, CJ may not get his job back. Ok. In my opinion, the risk of these things happening is not worthy of concern because:

A) Anderson is completely healthy, in great shape, and no more at risk of injury than any other RB including Ball or Hillman. Therefore, there is zero cause for elevated concern regarding injury itself.

B) Anderson dominated over the last half of 2014 even with a struggling Manning. As far as I'm concerned, half a season as a workhorse during very meaningful games is a big enough sample size to eliminate the possibility that Anderson's success was a fluke. Anderson's ability has been proven to my satisfaction.

B) IF Anderson does get injured, Montee Ball has shown no evidence of being nearly as dominant as CJ Anderson. I don't have any factual or tangible reason to believe Ball is capable stealing Anderson's job. Montee Ball has had chances and had limited success but never proven himself to be nearly the player Anderson has, so why should I be concerned that Ball is going to steal Anderson's job? Because he was a high deaft pick? So was Trent Richardson. IF Anderson gets injured, the reasonable assumption would be that Ball, IF healthy, would fill in until the proven, better RB returns from injury. Kubiak has no loyalty to any of them(I never stated otherwise), so we have to assume that whenever possible he will put the best players on the field. Anderson has proven to be the best RB on the team, so we have to assume that when healthy he will be the workhorse. This scenario of CJ Anderson injury + Ball dominance = Anderson losing job to Ball is wrought with unknowns and conjecture, and we have zero reason to expect this to happen, so I have no reason to consider this a risk worthy of concern.

C) Ronnie Hillman played very well when given a chance but is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs. IF Anderson is injured, AND Ball is injured at the same time, Hillman and Juwan Thompson would likely share the load until Anderson or Ball return. I see zero risk of Hillman stealing the workhorse role from CJ Anderson.

A-Who is talking about elevated injury concern? The point is that if Charles, McCoy, Bell, etc get hurt, when they are healthy, they will get their roles back. That is less true for Anderson, IMO. Not that he is more likely to get hurt, but that he doesn't have the same security the top RBs do.B-Same could have been said for Zac Stacy, Peyton Hillis, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Steve Slaton, LeRon McClain, Earnest Graham, etc. A hot streak doesn't always equate to sustained excellence. Sometimes it does (Arian Foster, obviously being exhibit A), but not always.

B(again?)-Before Anderson's dominating performance over the 2nd half of last year, he had only had limited success and hadn't demonstrated that he was capable of those types of numbers. So, if Anderson was able to do that (despite not showing so previously with his limited opps), then so could Ball.

C-Exactly right. There's no way Kubiak would let a RB who is 5'8" & 194 lbs be his workhorse. Oh, my bad, those are Justin Forsett's height/weight numbers, not Hillmans. Oh, well, the point remains.

Not sure what exactly you're trying to convince me of. I guess your intent is to prove that there is SOME level of risk associated with Anderson this year because the entire second half of last year could've just been a "hot streak", and it's possible that he'll get hurt and/or it's possible his backup will outperform him? Of course these things are possible. I guess I just don't think they are probable and you do, so you see risk where I don't.And good point about Forsett and Hillman being the same size. Definitely means they are interchangeable and Hillman would make a good workhorse. It worked out well for him last year. Or are you just pointing out that it's POSSIBLE and therefore we should all be leery of drafting CJ Anderson.

I[m not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely pointing out factors to consider when evaluating Anderson. YOU seem determined to try to prove that there is no risk with Anderson & he is a sure fire FF stud. I'm merely pointing out the counter-points to your posts.With regards to Forsett and Hillman, YOU are the one who (in order to bolster your belief that Anderson is a can't miss stud) discounted Hillman as a risk for Anderson, because he "is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs." The exact same thing could have been said about Forsett prior to last year (hell it was still being said after the first few weeks when other Baltimore RBs were the WW darlings & Forsett was being ignored).

You want to discount Ball because he hasn't shown anything in his limited opps up to now. Oh wait, Anderson hadn't shown anything before last season either.

You want to discount Hillman because he doesn't seem like the "workhorse" Kubiak uses. Oh wait, Forsett didn't seem like that kind of "workhorse" either.

Don't make extremely weak points then get defensive when you get called on them.

Right, my point about Hillman not being cut out to be a typical workhorse is extremely weak because Justin Forsett did it. You're doing it again, trying to manufacture and attach "risk" to Anderson by using an exception rather than the rule to prove your point. Sure, Forsett showed that it's possible for a guy that size to be a workhorse. Maybe Kubiak didn't have a better option and it worked out ok, as history tells us that's the exception not the rule. The fact that Hillman got hurt last year after being used that way certainly doesn't help your argument. Personally I don't see Hillman as a threat to steal the workhorse role from Anderson, but you're entitled to your opinion.Bottom line is yes, I do think Anderson is a sure-fire, low (never said zero) risk stud fantasy RB this year. You think Ball/Hillman will stand in the way of that. One of us will be right.

Why so defensive? You're entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to share it in a public forum, blatantly ignore/disregard all information that doesn't mesh with that opinion, and use weak arguments to try to "prove" your opinion is correct, you shouldn't be upset when other people point that out.

 

[satch]

Most agree that CJ is "the man" as of now based on his performance last year and Kubiak's comments up to this point, but some consider his fantasy stock to have an elevated level of risk due to concerns about his job security because IF CJ gets injured, AND Montee Ball or Ronnie Hillman dominate like CJ did last year, CJ may not get his job back. Ok. In my opinion, the risk of these things happening is not worthy of concern because:

A) Anderson is completely healthy, in great shape, and no more at risk of injury than any other RB including Ball or Hillman. Therefore, there is zero cause for elevated concern regarding injury itself.

B) Anderson dominated over the last half of 2014 even with a struggling Manning. As far as I'm concerned, half a season as a workhorse during very meaningful games is a big enough sample size to eliminate the possibility that Anderson's success was a fluke. Anderson's ability has been proven to my satisfaction.

B) IF Anderson does get injured, Montee Ball has shown no evidence of being nearly as dominant as CJ Anderson. I don't have any factual or tangible reason to believe Ball is capable stealing Anderson's job. Montee Ball has had chances and had limited success but never proven himself to be nearly the player Anderson has, so why should I be concerned that Ball is going to steal Anderson's job? Because he was a high deaft pick? So was Trent Richardson. IF Anderson gets injured, the reasonable assumption would be that Ball, IF healthy, would fill in until the proven, better RB returns from injury. Kubiak has no loyalty to any of them(I never stated otherwise), so we have to assume that whenever possible he will put the best players on the field. Anderson has proven to be the best RB on the team, so we have to assume that when healthy he will be the workhorse. This scenario of CJ Anderson injury + Ball dominance = Anderson losing job to Ball is wrought with unknowns and conjecture, and we have zero reason to expect this to happen, so I have no reason to consider this a risk worthy of concern.

C) Ronnie Hillman played very well when given a chance but is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs. IF Anderson is injured, AND Ball is injured at the same time, Hillman and Juwan Thompson would likely share the load until Anderson or Ball return. I see zero risk of Hillman stealing the workhorse role from CJ Anderson.

A-Who is talking about elevated injury concern? The point is that if Charles, McCoy, Bell, etc get hurt, when they are healthy, they will get their roles back. That is less true for Anderson, IMO. Not that he is more likely to get hurt, but that he doesn't have the same security the top RBs do.B-Same could have been said for Zac Stacy, Peyton Hillis, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Steve Slaton, LeRon McClain, Earnest Graham, etc. A hot streak doesn't always equate to sustained excellence. Sometimes it does (Arian Foster, obviously being exhibit A), but not always.

B(again?)-Before Anderson's dominating performance over the 2nd half of last year, he had only had limited success and hadn't demonstrated that he was capable of those types of numbers. So, if Anderson was able to do that (despite not showing so previously with his limited opps), then so could Ball.

C-Exactly right. There's no way Kubiak would let a RB who is 5'8" & 194 lbs be his workhorse. Oh, my bad, those are Justin Forsett's height/weight numbers, not Hillmans. Oh, well, the point remains.

Not sure what exactly you're trying to convince me of. I guess your intent is to prove that there is SOME level of risk associated with Anderson this year because the entire second half of last year could've just been a "hot streak", and it's possible that he'll get hurt and/or it's possible his backup will outperform him? Of course these things are possible. I guess I just don't think they are probable and you do, so you see risk where I don't.And good point about Forsett and Hillman being the same size. Definitely means they are interchangeable and Hillman would make a good workhorse. It worked out well for him last year. Or are you just pointing out that it's POSSIBLE and therefore we should all be leery of drafting CJ Anderson.

I[m not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely pointing out factors to consider when evaluating Anderson. YOU seem determined to try to prove that there is no risk with Anderson & he is a sure fire FF stud. I'm merely pointing out the counter-points to your posts.With regards to Forsett and Hillman, YOU are the one who (in order to bolster your belief that Anderson is a can't miss stud) discounted Hillman as a risk for Anderson, because he "is not suited to be the workhorse Kubiak employs." The exact same thing could have been said about Forsett prior to last year (hell it was still being said after the first few weeks when other Baltimore RBs were the WW darlings & Forsett was being ignored).

You want to discount Ball because he hasn't shown anything in his limited opps up to now. Oh wait, Anderson hadn't shown anything before last season either.

You want to discount Hillman because he doesn't seem like the "workhorse" Kubiak uses. Oh wait, Forsett didn't seem like that kind of "workhorse" either.

Don't make extremely weak points then get defensive when you get called on them.

Right, my point about Hillman not being cut out to be a typical workhorse is extremely weak because Justin Forsett did it. You're doing it again, trying to manufacture and attach "risk" to Anderson by using an exception rather than the rule to prove your point. Sure, Forsett showed that it's possible for a guy that size to be a workhorse. Maybe Kubiak didn't have a better option and it worked out ok, as history tells us that's the exception not the rule. The fact that Hillman got hurt last year after being used that way certainly doesn't help your argument. Personally I don't see Hillman as a threat to steal the workhorse role from Anderson, but you're entitled to your opinion.Bottom line is yes, I do think Anderson is a sure-fire, low (never said zero) risk stud fantasy RB this year. You think Ball/Hillman will stand in the way of that. One of us will be right.

Why so defensive? You're entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to share it in a public forum, blatantly ignore/disregard all information that doesn't mesh with that opinion, and use weak arguments to try to "prove" your opinion is correct, you shouldn't be upset when other people point that out.

Either you don't know what being defensive means or you're just accusing me of being defensive to distract from your inability to prove whatever point you're trying to make, because I haven't been defensive at all. If anything, you're coming across as being upset and defensive at this point. And by the way, regarding your "point" that if Forsett can be a workhorse so can Hillman because they're the same size? Forsett is 5' 8"/197, Hillman is 5'10"/195. Significant difference in terms of NFL RBs.

 

[satch]

"Fantasy Recipe: C.J. Anderson, full season, Gary Kubiak"

Mike Kils, 9NEWS Broncos Insider

2 days ago

http://www.9news.com/story/sports/2015/06/05/cj-anderson-gary-kubiak-broncos/28557655/

 

[Faust]

C.J. Anderson uses playoff loss as part of offseason fuel

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Peyton Manning went out of his way to talk up C.J. Anderson Wednesday.

Anderson is splitting first-team reps with Montee Ball. We know that Peyton will have a big say on who is with him in the backfield. "C.J. of course, if you talk to him you think he's about a 12-year veteran starter and he's only started six games," Manning said. "I'm getting a ton of reps with him, and the sky is the limit for him, I will say that."

Source: ESPN.com
Jun 11 - 10:15 AM

 

[Faust]

Troy RenckVerified account ‏@TroyRenck

Kubiak said that RB is CJ's job to lose. But admitted that "You never know about backs until put pads on." #Broncos

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But Montee Ball said...

"I think in this league as coaches you look for guys that can be three-down players," Kubiak said. "When you have two-down players, that's fine, but it's just very difficult in the game standpoint and getting them the ball and calling the game when you're not out there all the time. He has a knack for protection, he's very bright in protection. So he's a guy that's not going to leave the field -- as much as he can stand. And that's what the great ones do, so that gives him an excellent chance."

 

[Faust]

C.J. Anderson to start training camp as Broncos' top RB

 

[tone1oc]

I was able to trade for him in two leagues. So stoked to have been able to capitalize on the Montee Ball chatter

 

[Bronco Billy]

This is the same coach who was OC in 2004 when Quentin Griffen was the top ADP RB in DEN and in 2005 when Tatum Bell was the top ADP RB in DEN, right? He's the same coach who was OC when Terrell Davis was an afterthought entering the 1995 preseason, right? The same guy who was HC in HOU in 2009 when Steve Slaton was being drafted as a top 10 FF RB and a guy named Arian Foster was added to the roster as an UDFA?

Just checking...

.

 

[Faust]

C.J. Anderson wants to equal Manning in football IQ

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This is the same coach who was OC in 2004 when Quentin Griffen was the top ADP RB in DEN and in 2005 when Tatum Bell was the top ADP RB in DEN, right? He's the same coach who was OC when Terrell Davis was an afterthought entering the 1995 preseason, right? The same guy who was HC in HOU in 2009 when Steve Slaton was being drafted as a top 10 FF RB and a guy named Arian Foster was added to the roster as an UDFA?

Just checking...

That's a lot of wrong in a really short space.

--CJ Anderson had more yfs in 8 games than Griffin had in his career or Bell had in his best season (he's better)

--Did Arian Foster start every game he was healthy between 2010 and 2013?

--Does the OC make decisions, or the head coach?

--Foster did nothing in 2009 and only got his chance at the end of the season after Slaton was hurt

 

[Bronco Billy]

This is the same coach who was OC in 2004 when Quentin Griffen was the top ADP RB in DEN and in 2005 when Tatum Bell was the top ADP RB in DEN, right? He's the same coach who was OC when Terrell Davis was an afterthought entering the 1995 preseason, right? The same guy who was HC in HOU in 2009 when Steve Slaton was being drafted as a top 10 FF RB and a guy named Arian Foster was added to the roster as an UDFA?

Just checking...

That's a lot of wrong in a really short space.

--CJ Anderson had more yfs in 8 games than Griffin had in his career or Bell had in his best season (he's better)

--Did Arian Foster start every game he was healthy between 2010 and 2013?

--Does the OC make decisions, or the head coach?

--Foster did nothing in 2009 and only got his chance at the end of the season after Slaton was hurt

You don't think Kubiak had input on the RB decisions in DEN? Really? And he was the HC in HOU. So what is "wrong"?Did I make any comparison between Anderson and Griffin or Bell, other than they were the odds-on favorites by FFers to lead DEN's backfield in those years? So what is "wrong" with that claim?

Was Slaton the RB FFers expected to lead the HOU backfield in 2009, and didn't Kubiak pick up Foster as a UDFA and turn him into a stud RB? So what is "wrong" there?

And thanks for completely missing the point - which is that when Kubiak is a decision maker in the offense that FF anointed sure-thing RBs in June can be watching from the sidelines in October.

.

 

[satch]

This is the same coach who was OC in 2004 when Quentin Griffen was the top ADP RB in DEN and in 2005 when Tatum Bell was the top ADP RB in DEN, right? He's the same coach who was OC when Terrell Davis was an afterthought entering the 1995 preseason, right? The same guy who was HC in HOU in 2009 when Steve Slaton was being drafted as a top 10 FF RB and a guy named Arian Foster was added to the roster as an UDFA?

Just checking...

.

Yes, to answer your question this is the same coach who coached those RBs that were overhyped on fantasy football forums in years past. Turns out the coach knows way more than us when it comes to RB evaluation. Probably best to forego the fantasy forum speculation and trust the coach's talent evaluation instead, right? That being the case, things are looking great for CJ Anderson, because Gary Kubiak himself is really impressed by Anderdon, not just us idiots on fantasy forums pretending to be football talent scouts.

 

[Bayhawks]

This is the same coach who was OC in 2004 when Quentin Griffen was the top ADP RB in DEN and in 2005 when Tatum Bell was the top ADP RB in DEN, right? He's the same coach who was OC when Terrell Davis was an afterthought entering the 1995 preseason, right? The same guy who was HC in HOU in 2009 when Steve Slaton was being drafted as a top 10 FF RB and a guy named Arian Foster was added to the roster as an UDFA?

Just checking...

.

Yes, to answer your question this is the same coach who coached those RBs that were overhyped on fantasy football forums in years past. Turns out the coach knows way more than us when it comes to RB evaluation. Probably best to forego the fantasy forum speculation and trust the coach's talent evaluation instead, right? That being the case, things are looking great for CJ Anderson, because Gary Kubiak himself is really impressed by Anderdon, not just us idiots on fantasy forums pretending to be football talent scouts.

Like when he says that Ball has had a great off-season, Hillman has had a really good off-season, but only mentions that Anderson has "worked extremely hard.....deserves the OPPORTUNITY based off of last year, but is being pushed very hard?"

The coach, whose talent evalutation you say we should trust singles out Ball as having a "great" off-season, Hillman as having a "really good" off-season, and Anderson as being a hard worker who deserves the CHANCE to be the #1 RB but who is being "pushed very hard."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/16/broncos-pleased-with-what-theyve-seen-from-c-j-anderson-so-far/

 

[satch]

This is the same coach who was OC in 2004 when Quentin Griffen was the top ADP RB in DEN and in 2005 when Tatum Bell was the top ADP RB in DEN, right? He's the same coach who was OC when Terrell Davis was an afterthought entering the 1995 preseason, right? The same guy who was HC in HOU in 2009 when Steve Slaton was being drafted as a top 10 FF RB and a guy named Arian Foster was added to the roster as an UDFA?

Just checking...

.

Yes, to answer your question this is the same coach who coached those RBs that were overhyped on fantasy football forums in years past. Turns out the coach knows way more than us when it comes to RB evaluation. Probably best to forego the fantasy forum speculation and trust the coach's talent evaluation instead, right? That being the case, things are looking great for CJ Anderson, because Gary Kubiak himself is really impressed by Anderdon, not just us idiots on fantasy forums pretending to be football talent scouts.

Like when he says that Ball has had a great off-season, Hillman has had a really good off-season, but only mentions that Anderson has "worked extremely hard.....deserves the OPPORTUNITY based off of last year, but is being pushed very hard?" The coach, whose talent evalutation you say we should trust singles out Ball as having a "great" off-season, Hillman as having a "really good" off-season, and Anderson as being a hard worker who deserves the CHANCE to be the #1 RB but who is being "pushed very hard."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/16/broncos-pleased-with-what-theyve-seen-from-c-j-anderson-so-far/

Exactly. Anderson's being pushed by Ball, which means Anderson is the starter, ahead of Ball.

 

[Bayhawks]

This is the same coach who was OC in 2004 when Quentin Griffen was the top ADP RB in DEN and in 2005 when Tatum Bell was the top ADP RB in DEN, right? He's the same coach who was OC when Terrell Davis was an afterthought entering the 1995 preseason, right? The same guy who was HC in HOU in 2009 when Steve Slaton was being drafted as a top 10 FF RB and a guy named Arian Foster was added to the roster as an UDFA?

Just checking...

.

Yes, to answer your question this is the same coach who coached those RBs that were overhyped on fantasy football forums in years past. Turns out the coach knows way more than us when it comes to RB evaluation. Probably best to forego the fantasy forum speculation and trust the coach's talent evaluation instead, right? That being the case, things are looking great for CJ Anderson, because Gary Kubiak himself is really impressed by Anderdon, not just us idiots on fantasy forums pretending to be football talent scouts.

Like when he says that Ball has had a great off-season, Hillman has had a really good off-season, but only mentions that Anderson has "worked extremely hard.....deserves the OPPORTUNITY based off of last year, but is being pushed very hard?" The coach, whose talent evalutation you say we should trust singles out Ball as having a "great" off-season, Hillman as having a "really good" off-season, and Anderson as being a hard worker who deserves the CHANCE to be the #1 RB but who is being "pushed very hard."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/16/broncos-pleased-with-what-theyve-seen-from-c-j-anderson-so-far/

Exactly. Anderson's being pushed by Ball, which means Anderson is the starter, ahead of Ball.

Actually, Anderson is getting a chance to be the starter, and is working hard, but Ball has been great this offseason, if you want to accurately convey the context of the quote.