Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Denver GM Ted Sunquist talks about their RB's (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FrostBite
- Start date
Absolutely correct.Can everyone not see that the pro-Dayne and anti-Dayne camps are arguing based on totally different premises here?
Pony Boy, you can extrapolate numbers based on whatever stats you want from Dayne's past or the Broncos' past, but as long as it rests on the assumption that Dayne is going to get 250 carries this year, it's going to fall on deaf ears with the Dayne haters. The anti-Dayne crowd is not saying that Dayne is going to get 250 carries and gain 600 yards and 4 TDs. They're saying he's not going to get 250 carries because he's no good and will either never capture the starting job or will soon lose it if he does.
In other words, the argument is not about whether Dayne will be worth a 4th-round pick if he gets the carries. It's about whether or not he's good enough to get the carries. (I don't have any idea, BTW.) It seems to me that everyone is talking past each other in this thread.
JAA
Footballguy
You dont know why he is called Skeletor?That Shanahan looks like a mix between a corpse & a rat helps Bell's position in the backfield?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hey DD!I understand exactly what you are saying. My problem is with the people who simply dismiss Dayne & then bring up his stats as a Giant as if they are in any way, shape, or form meaningful in the discussion. We have seen players who were zeros in the league until they got to DEN, when they were turned into very solid RBs, and we have seen RBs who were very solid & starting in DEN go out as a FA and turn into nothings.
Past history is meaningless here. I threw out the stats to show that someone could make just as valid a case using them - maybe even moreo - for Dayne rather than against Dayne.
The simple fact is, that only one RB has failed miserably as the annoited starter in DEN - Q Griffin. All others have had good to great FF numbers, and usually great value in FF drafts.
As of right now, Dayne is that guy. That may change over the course of training camp & the preseason - like it did last year with Bell. But to simply dismiss Dayne becaue of his history in NY is foolhardy, IMO, and is worth pointing out as such.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I do. It's based on his ressemblance to a cartoon character from the He-Man cartoons, given to him by those who hated him for being cryptic with the injury information when Terrell Davis got hurt.The question is, do you know that?You dont know why he is called Skeletor?That Shanahan looks like a mix between a corpse & a rat helps Bell's position in the backfield?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
JAA
Footballguy
Yes, I do. It's based on his ressemblance to a cartoon character from the He-Man cartoons, given to him by those who hated him for being cryptic with the injury information when Terrell Davis got hurt.The question is, do you know that?You dont know why he is called Skeletor?That Shanahan looks like a mix between a corpse & a rat helps Bell's position in the backfield?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
joffer
Footballguy
at people still believing in Dayne.
this is a recurring joke that never gets old.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
CalBear
Footballguy
Droughns had 40 career carries as a fullback. Dayne has 638 career carries as a tailback. We already have several years data of Dayne being given chances in a non-Denver offense that's a lot better than Cleveland's, and those several years of data show him sucking compared to the running back he was supposed to displace.Personally, I saw Droughns play quite a bit in college and it does not surprise me at all that he's been successful in the pros. Nor is it surprising that he didn't succeed at fullback.
I would argue that it never changed during TCs or the preseason last year. Anderson was the guy from February all the way through to the AFC Championship game, according to Shanny.Anyway, if the arguement is whether or not Dayne will get the carries... Shanahan and Sundquist have both said that Dayne will get the carries. Shanahan and Sundquist are the people most in a position to know if Dayne will get the carries. Shanahan and Sundquist have a history of being honest and forthcoming about who will be getting what type of carries. You can argue for or against that. Personally, I believe that arguing FOR that is arguing based on the facts, and arguing AGAINST that is shooting blindly in the dark based on your own prejudices and presuppositions. But that's just me.
That's exactly what people were saying about Thomas Jones two years ago when he was signed by the Bears. Everyone was down on him because he was Thomas Jones.I'd watched Jones the previous year in Tampa and was impressed. But I sure had to argue a lot against people who's main argument was that we were talking about Thomas Jones here.
I also watched Ron Dayne last year and was impressed. He took over in the fourth quarter against the Chargers and just couldn't be stopped. He ran with surprising quickness and good power. If he plays in 2006 like he did (when he got the chance) in 2005, he'll start for the Broncos and have a good fantasy season.
I think the causation runs in the other direction in most cases. RBs don't start to play better after their 17th (or whatever) carry. Rather, they get more than 17 carries because the team is moving the ball successfully on the ground that day.Over the past four years, RBs have averaged 4.13 YPC in the first halves of games and 4.18 YPC in the second halves of games -- not much of a difference.
Either way, the only reason (IMO) for throwing out Dayne's games with few carries would be if his carries in those games came disproportionately in third-and-short type situations, while in his games with many carries he was also getting the ball on first and ten. Which is quite possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd make another argument for that. In college, Dayne seemed to get stronger as the game went on. Maybe I should rephrase that - he wore down less than the other players on the field. He maintained his stamina & ability relative to other players on the field when he was hitting his 25th to 30th carry.Now, conditioning being what it is in the pros, that advantage is negated a bit, unless the alternatives at RB for DEN - like Bell - have their production fall off significantly after a certain numbers of carries, like we have seen Bell's do. That would make Dayne a more desireable player for DEN even if he isn't as productive as Bell - which can be reaonably argued either way after watching both last year - simply because Bell appears to be, and the coaches agree, limited in how much he can take. And if it is quite obvious to we FFers, you can bet the DEN coaching staff sees the same fall off for Bell.
Bell seems to be a tailor made CoP RB. There's nothing wrong with that as far as the NFL goes. That makes him a great counter punch to a guy like Dayne. As far as FF goes, we all know that both guys cutting into each other's production sucks.
Last edited by a moderator:
fsufan
Footballguy
I watched most of Denver’s game last because I had Anderson in 3 leagues. Dyane had a few good carries here and there but he did not show me he was capable of being a #1 RB. If I remember correctly Dyane got alot of his carries in the 3rd and 4th Q, when he was fresh and the DEF was tiered. bells game log
dayne game log
Biabreakable
Footballguy
2001:Everyone who knows the Broncos under Shanahan knows that in 2001 the carries were so split because of injuries that year & TDs two aborted comebacks. Injuries & loyalty to TD forced Shanahan's hand, not a desire to run a legit RBBC. If all RBs were healthy all year in 2001, TD would have gotten 80% of those total carries.That you're so flippant about this would say to me that you are not familiar with that year.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I would say that most RBBC situations happen because one Rb does not seperate themselves from the others due to injuries or other circumstances. I was a Mike Anderson owner in 2001. It was very frustrating and one of the few years that I did not find value drafting a Denver Rb late.
I don't forget.
I actualy like Tatum Bell a lot more this year than previously. I figure it is now or never for him and he must know by now what he needs to do to be the man for them.
I agree that Ron Dayne "could" be the the main Rb in a RBBC if that is what the coaching staff decides to do. However due to his history I think he is a high risk to fail.
Other Rbs on Denvers roster that should not be overlooked:
Cedrick Cobbs
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...yers/41173.html
Cecil Sapp
Brandon Miree
http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/brandon_miree
Mike Bell
http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/2006/bell_mike
Rashon Powers
From Scouts, Inc.
++Rushing
+A powerful north-south runner with decent speed and athleticism for a FB. Has good burst to the line. Runs with god pad-leveland will break arm tackles and push the pile. Plants and drives quickly for his size and is a successful cutback runner when isolated against a weakside safety. Will run over smaller defenders. A decent outlet receiver with improving hands and feel. Has good size and pop potential.
--Blocking
-Doesn't yet possess the bulk, strength, toughness, and technique to cut it as a blocker at the next level. Needs a wider base and more powerin the phone booth, and must take better angles as an iso blocker. Enters the point of attack too high at times. A straight-line runner who lacks elusiveness in space and a secoond gear. As a receiver, Powers-Neal must become better at reading coverages and finding soft spots in zones
Comparison: Nick Goings
I don't forget.
I actualy like Tatum Bell a lot more this year than previously. I figure it is now or never for him and he must know by now what he needs to do to be the man for them.
I agree that Ron Dayne "could" be the the main Rb in a RBBC if that is what the coaching staff decides to do. However due to his history I think he is a high risk to fail.
Other Rbs on Denvers roster that should not be overlooked:
Cedrick Cobbs
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...yers/41173.html
Cecil Sapp
Brandon Miree
http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/brandon_miree
Mike Bell
http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/2006/bell_mike
Rashon Powers
From Scouts, Inc.
++Rushing
+A powerful north-south runner with decent speed and athleticism for a FB. Has good burst to the line. Runs with god pad-leveland will break arm tackles and push the pile. Plants and drives quickly for his size and is a successful cutback runner when isolated against a weakside safety. Will run over smaller defenders. A decent outlet receiver with improving hands and feel. Has good size and pop potential.
--Blocking
-Doesn't yet possess the bulk, strength, toughness, and technique to cut it as a blocker at the next level. Needs a wider base and more powerin the phone booth, and must take better angles as an iso blocker. Enters the point of attack too high at times. A straight-line runner who lacks elusiveness in space and a secoond gear. As a receiver, Powers-Neal must become better at reading coverages and finding soft spots in zones
Comparison: Nick Goings
nygiants56
Footballguy
seems like Shanahan has quietly slipped into the ranks of head coaches that love to use the RBBC..
it doesn't appear that one main featured back will surface in Denver..the glory days of getting 1500 yards and double digit td's out of a Denver RB are long gone..
it doesn't appear that one main featured back will surface in Denver..the glory days of getting 1500 yards and double digit td's out of a Denver RB are long gone..
I guess I wouldn't put too much stock in this situation. If Shanahan finds the right guy, I think he'll go back to a 1-hoss mindset again. I believe that he feels like I do about featured RBs - that the more work they get in a game, the more effective they are - as far as learning the other team's D scheming, tendancies that the D has, and the D tiring as the game wears on.I also think Shanahan realized he has more needy areas on his team than RB, and that this team can function just fine using a RBBC in the coming year, so he used the entire draft to address other areas.
Honestly, if a more well rounded RB who can take 25 carries a game shows up on the DEN roster again, he'll become the go-to guy.
Just an opinion, but after watching a coach closely for over 10 years, you tend to recognize their personalities a bit more. You could be right, though. Perhaps last year's success won over Shanahan as far as RBBC is concerned. Only time will tell. Everything else is speculation.
This man speaks the truth about injuries causing the carry split. I think he's a bit over-the-top with the flippancy comment, but I agree that that season was not an RBBC.
Oh yeah, you'll just have to settle for 1226 yards and 13 TDs in 13.5 games.
The 1500 yards might be a thing of the past, but the double-digit TDs are very much a reality. Mike Anderson actually scored more points per game last year than Reuben Droughns (the last "featured back" type) scored in 2004.Edit: Also, for all the talk about Denver running an RBBC, was I the only one who noticed that Mike Anderson ranked 14th in the NFL in carries from weeks 2-16? I left out Week 1 becase Anderson got injured 4 carries in, and I left out week 17 because Anderson sat that week (to rest up for the playoffs). Still, when healthy and playing, Mike Anderson ranked well above some "featured backs" in terms of carries (not to mention points). Let's not all freak out and blow this situation into something that it's not. Yes, Denver's featured RB will share some carries... but Denver runs enough that he's still going to get enough to leave him in the "featured RB" range.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
If you think that multiple Rbs splitting carries for whatever reason is not RBBC then we are just not speaking the same language.
ETA- it as if you guys don't think that other teams have injuries sub-par performace or other mitigating circumstances that cause them to use RBBC. Perhaps this is because the Denver running game has been so effective for so long. During this time frame Denver has also had 2 elite Rbs to shoulder the load and other good Rbs that were injury free for the majority of a season. I guess not every team can be so lucky.
ETA- it as if you guys don't think that other teams have injuries sub-par performace or other mitigating circumstances that cause them to use RBBC. Perhaps this is because the Denver running game has been so effective for so long. During this time frame Denver has also had 2 elite Rbs to shoulder the load and other good Rbs that were injury free for the majority of a season. I guess not every team can be so lucky.
Last edited by a moderator:
Garts
Footballguy
Just adding to the dialogue on Tatum Bell......I watched almost every snap on the Bronco offence last year and Tatum was decent on down and short situations and especially in the red zone he ran extra hard. I don't think those are his problems.
I think it is his hands and his inability to stay completely healthy that is costing him more duty.
I think it is his hands and his inability to stay completely healthy that is costing him more duty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Weeks 1-9- Featured RB totals 196 carries. Backups total 43 carries. (82% of carries for featured back).Weeks 10-14- Featured RB totals 86 carries. Backup totals 37 carries. (70% of carries for featured back).
Weeks 15-17- Featured RB totals 72 carries. Backups total 0 carries. (100% of carries for featured back).
Is that a case of a team with strong RBBC tendencies? What if I told you that from weeks 1-9, the featured back was Priest Holmes, (who got lost for the season in week 9), from weeks 10-14 the featured back was Derrick Blaylock (who got lost for the season in week 14), and from weeks 15-17 the featured RB was Larry Johnson? Does that suddenly mean the team was a huge RBBC team?
KC's featured back got injured and lost for the season twice... but if you look at it week-by-week, its featured back got 81.6% of the carries and its backup RBs got 18.4% of the carries. Now, if you look at the season totals no single RB got more than 43.6% of the carries. Does this mean that **** Vermeil ran an RBBC that season? Was every fantasy owner across the land cursing Vermeil's name that year? Was that *REALLY* an RBBC, or was it just a case of featured RBs getting injured and replaced with NEW featured RBs.
An RBBC is like the situation in Atlanta, where you never know if the carries will be going to Duckett or Dunn... or the situation in San Fran for years, with Hearst and Barlow splitting carries IN-GAME.Listen to the term... Running Back By *COMMITTEE*. A Committee is a group of people who all chip in on the job. If a player would never even see the field except for injuries ahead of him, then he's not part of the COMMITTEE, he's simply a substitute.
Look again at the KC example I provided. Everyone knew every single week just who KC's featured RB was. They knew who would get the majority of the carries- and that RB usually got at least 75% of the carries in every game. That's not an RBBC, that's a featured back system. The fact that the featured backs changed doesn't make it an RBBC all of a sudden.
According to Shanahan and Sundquist, it's his inability to continue playing as well after 10 or so carries that is costing him more duty.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Why not use the game by game stats from the Denver Broncos in 2001 to illustrate that it was not similar to a RBBC situation?
I don't feel like looking it up again. Been there done that and I remember how every week we would wonder if TD would be healthy enough to play.. would MA or Gary get the ball if he wasn't.. and there would be splits between them and TD starting but not being able to finish the game.
I don't see Carolina as a RBBC team either but things don't always happen according to plan.
I don't feel like looking it up again. Been there done that and I remember how every week we would wonder if TD would be healthy enough to play.. would MA or Gary get the ball if he wasn't.. and there would be splits between them and TD starting but not being able to finish the game.
I don't see Carolina as a RBBC team either but things don't always happen according to plan.
RBBC - at leat by my understanding, and I think most others - is the intentional sharing of RB duties on a week-by-week basis. A HC splits the carries depending upon situations and what he percives the strengths and weaknesses of each RB in the split to be.A featured RB is the opposite - they carry the large predominance of the RB work and are in the game under almost all circumstances. Another RB may get occassional carries in a game, butn the work load is split so that the featured RB gets most of the work.
Now let's look at the 2001 Broncos, so we can understand why Shanahan wasn't using RBBC - except for 3 games - that season, all because of injuries to TD.
Week 1
Terrell Davis 21 carries for 101 yds
Mike Anderson 6 carries for 10 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
TD gets hurt in the second half, Anderson takes the work afterwards. TD isn't seen again until week 8.
Week 2
Mike Anderson 19 carries for 58 yds
Olandis Gary 14 carries for 90 yds
Shanahan deciding which RB fits the O better, since Gary is the vet who has already carried for 1000 yds but Anderson is the rookie who has looked very good in preseason. First of the 3 RBBC weeks.
Week 3
Mike Anderson 12 carries for 24 yds
Olandis Gary 6 carries for 16 yds
Both RBs ineffective, but Anderson starting to become the featured RB. Notice that Anderson got twice as much work as Gary. Anderson has assumed featured RB role (see following weeks).
Week 4
Mike Anderson 22 carries for 155 yds
Olandis Gary 9 carries for 28 yds
Week 5
Mike Anderson 17 carries for 51 yds
Olandis Gary 1 carries for 3 yds
Week 6
Mike Anderson 11 carries for 50 yds
Olandis Gary 5 carries for 21 yds
Week 7
Mike Anderson 14 carries for 40 yds
Olandis Gary 10 carries for 37 yds
Shanahan prepares for return of TD with the 2nd of 3 RBBC weeks.
Week 8
Terrell Davis 17 carries for 70 yds
Mike Anderson 5 carries for 44 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
TD takes over again as the featured RB. Gary is back on the bench getting nothing.
Week 9
Terrell Davis 33 carries for 83 yds
Mike Anderson 4 carries for 23 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
The last we see of TD until week 12 - he gets hurt again.
Week 10
Mike Anderson 13 carries for 31 yds
Olandis Gary 10 carries for 28 yds
Shanahan not completely comfortable with the rookie, he gives Gary another chance. The 3rd RBBC week, and Gary's last chance, which he blows.
Week 11
Mike Anderson 33 carries for 118 yds
Olandis Gary 2 carries for 5 yds
Back to form for Shanahan.
Week 12
Terrell Davis 20 carries for 97 yds
Mike Anderson 6 carries for 24 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
TD returns for the remainder of his last season & is the hoss the rest of the way.
Week 13
Terrell Davis 19 carries for 109 yds
Mike Anderson 2 carries for 5 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
Week 14
Terrell Davis 21 carries for 70 yds
Mike Anderson 1 carries for 8 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
Week 15
BYE
Week 16
Terrell Davis 18 carries for 89 yds
Mike Anderson 5 carries for 7 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
Week 17
Terrell Davis 18 carries for 82 yds
Mike Anderson 5 carries for 20 yds
Olandis Gary 0 carries
In the 13 non-RBBC weeks, the featured RB got 262 carries, whether it was TD or Anderson, and then secondary RB got 57 carries, with no significant carries by the 3rd RB in those 13 weeks. When the main RB is getting over 80% of the RB carries - that's NOT a RBBC.
I'd like to see anyone defend your position given the week-by-week breakdown that Shanahan intentionally used a RBBC that season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinrman
Footballguy
dayne <> andersonunfortunately the board threads have been pruned or else i would show year after year how people said dayne would finally break out.You keep believing that. No one believed Shanahan last year when he said Anderson would be the starter. So, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice......well, you know how it goes.
this is a recurring joke that never gets old.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
fool you once? people have been fooled by dayne 5 years in a row now. it is laughable.
this is who you think should be taken in the mid rounds?
| Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 2000 nyg | 16 | 228 770 3.4 5 | 3 11 3.7 0 || 2001 nyg | 16 | 180 690 3.8 7 | 8 67 8.4 0 || 2002 nyg | 16 | 125 428 3.4 3 | 11 49 4.5 0 || 2004 nyg | 14 | 52 179 3.4 1 | 1 7 7.0 0 || 2005 den | 10 | 53 270 5.1 1 | 3 17 5.7 0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 72 | 638 2337 3.7 17 | 26 151 5.8 0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
cstu
Footballguy
Those stats don't look much different that Droughns' to me.dayne <> andersonunfortunately the board threads have been pruned or else i would show year after year how people said dayne would finally break out.You keep believing that. No one believed Shanahan last year when he said Anderson would be the starter. So, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice......well, you know how it goes.
this is a recurring joke that never gets old.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
fool you once? people have been fooled by dayne 5 years in a row now. it is laughable.
this is who you think should be taken in the mid rounds?
| Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 2000 nyg | 16 | 228 770 3.4 5 | 3 11 3.7 0 || 2001 nyg | 16 | 180 690 3.8 7 | 8 67 8.4 0 || 2002 nyg | 16 | 125 428 3.4 3 | 11 49 4.5 0 || 2004 nyg | 14 | 52 179 3.4 1 | 1 7 7.0 0 || 2005 den | 10 | 53 270 5.1 1 | 3 17 5.7 0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 72 | 638 2337 3.7 17 | 26 151 5.8 0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nigel Tufnel
Footballguy
So, have we sorted this out? Is Bell going to get 20 carries a game or what? I need to know this. TIA.
CalBear
Footballguy
You don't think 638 carries looks a little different than 40?
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Mike Anderson was a rookie in 2000. He had the feature RB role because of injuries to Gary and TD. I see these situations working both ways. Injuries can cause RBBCs as well as keep them from happening. Our difference in opinion has to do with intent. I only care what happens not what a coaches intent may be. Shanahan was very cryptic about TDs health and who would be the starter on a weekly basis that year until TD returned to health later in the season.I also dissagree with how you percieve weeks 3 and 6 becuse no Rb really established themselves which still left you wondering what would happen the following week. When a team only runs the ball 15 times and there is asplit between backs it means they abandoned the run not that thy wouldn't have continued splitting carries.
I use the term RBBC differently to include teams that will use different Rbs as feature backs from game to game based on thier game plans as well as injuries. It was painfuly difficult to know each and every week which RB would start. Weeks 8 and 9 TD did actualy come back and play which was being hinted at every week up to that point. Then dissapears again. Mike Anderson appears to have cleared sharing with Gary finaly in week 11 only to be replaced again by TD.
Last edited by a moderator:
So wait... in your opinion any Workhorse RB team where the workhorse gets hurt and replaced is suddenly an RBBC?So why bother drafting *ANY* RBs in the first round? They're all just an injury away from RBBC, right? Clearly you're much better off owning a situation like the 2003 49ers (where neither RB put up starter caliber numbers on a weekly basis) than a situation like the 2004 KC Chiefs (where the starter put up fantasy starter-type numbers on a weekly basis, and the backup was always invisible). I mean, they're both RBBCs, and so the situation is entirely comparable, right?
I will agree that 2001 was a very cryptic season, difficult to get a read on. I will disagree that Shanahan was "rotating his featured backs from game to game based on their game plans", as you said. I think it was pretty clear, aside from a couple of games where Anderson and Gary were duking it out, that when Davis was healthy, he was the hoss. When Davis wasn't healthy, Anderson was the hoss. I don't think matchup or opponent had ANYTHING to do with carry distribution- it was all the result to injury.
As to the other half of your RBBC definition- (rotating featured backs from game to game based on injury)... what was Shanahan supposed to do? His featured RB got injured, so should he have just cancelled the running game that season because he wouldn't want Biabreakable to assume he was adopting an RBBC?
If you are going to use RBBC to describe teams that use a featured RB philosophy but are forced to change RBs due to injury, then the term is meaningless, because any HC is going to switch out a healthy RB for one that can't play. By your definition, every coach in the league or that has ever coached in the league is a RBBC coach.If you are going to define featured RB by game plan, then clearly Shanahan doesn't fit the mold in 2001. When TD was healthy, he was the featured RB, regardless of game plan. When TD was hurt, Anderson was the featured RB regardless of game plan with the exception of 3 weeks. And if you are going to use 3 weeks of 1 season as opposed to 13 weeks of that season and 6 previous years of HC history to the contrary, then we can't even begin to have a discussion because you are using such an extremely small amount of the sample to define the HC as opposed to a well established pattern of behavior.In short, there's no point in going forth with this discussion. I would venture that an extremely high proportion of the board here would disagree with you in regard to your use of RBBC.
Warhogs
Footballguy
Well I read MOST of this bantering back and forth. Can some Denver homers reply here in what they saw last season in Bell's game and Dayne's game? What do you see as a potential high and low side of each? How about long term for dynasty owners? Are neither of these guys looking like longer (3-4 years) term starting RB?
It's hard to give a high-side estimation for each guy. I mean, their theoretical upside? If they win the Workhorse title, it's basically Clinton Portis (1500 yards, 15+ TDs).Assuming they stay at the projected distribution (same as last season's), and neither gets injured, then I think a reasonable upside for either would be around RB6-8 and a reasonable downside would be around RB32. But that's just me, and I know a lot of people are lower on the situation than I am.
As far as dynasty goes... AVOID. Unless you can get either back for teh cheap, don't bother getting either back. Shanahan has shown a very strong confidence in his coaches, his linemen, and his system. He sees RBs as replaceable parts, and would rather do just that- replace them, instead of paying them. From the looks of it, unless something drastic changes, you can't count on more than 2 seasons as a starter before a back gets injured, traded, or cut outright.
A good strategy with Denver in dynasty, imo, is to grab whichever Denver backs are cheap and keep them on your roster for a while. Guys like Cedric Cobbs and Mike Bell, real long shots. Historically, if you grab enough longshots, you'll eventually have someone with some percieved value. Hold them until they have a 1,000 yard season, and then try to deal them before they get cut or traded.
