Denver historian needed (1 Viewer)

[BigJim®]

I'm trying to make sense of this whole "HB/FB" designation in Denver. I'm reading articles on how Mike Bell is unhappy being a FB and at first blush I can understand how that would be considered a demotion on 31 other teams. However, wasn't Mike Anderson a fullback before being turned into a very productive HB? Does anyone recall if Mike Anderson the #2 HB on the depth chart from the beginning of the 2000 season (behind TD), or did he flip from FB to HB when TD was injured and leapfrog whomever was listed #2 HB? Was Mike Anderson the #1 HB on the depth chart heading into 2005 [with T.Bell and R.Dayne on the roster] or did he change over at some point again that season? I also seem to recall O.Gary being curiously designated a FB even after producing as a HB. I'm mainly wondering about the dynamic here to decide if S.Young being listed as #2 on the HB depth chart means what it would mean on other teams [i.e. that if Henry goes down, he's the guy getting the lions share of carries]. I think I read a quote somewhere that if Henry went down, Young would in fact be expected to share carries with Bell/Sapp in any event. Is it possible Young remains #2 HB even after a Henry injury? Similarly, I'm curious whether a guy like C.Sapp could be another Mike Anderson despite currently being #1 FB? Sounded like he was running with power during preseason based on reports posted to this forum. As an outsider looking in, my impression is being designated FB or HB in Denver doesn't mean a whole lot and could change next week.

 

[moleculo]

my thoughts from this thread:

-------------------------------------------------------

Mike Anderson: Played fullback in 2003 and ‘02 after spending the first two years of his career at tailback; Entered the 2004 training camp competing for the featured-back position. In 2004, MA was on IR all season; in 2005 he split time w/ Tatum and still finished the season as RB10.

Ruben Droughns: entered league as RB, converted to FB when he signed w/ the Broncos in 2004. After MA was hurt and Quentin Griffin proved to be inefective, Droughns made the transition back to RB.

The point I am trying to make is that Shanahan has a history of trying to put the best players on the field. Transitioning to FB is not necessarily a bad thing - he certainly could move back to RB at a moments notice.

I am not saying that this is definitely how things work, but it is entirely possible that Selvin could be the back-up to Henry within a game, but should Henry miss significant time MBell could be moved back to RB the following week.

Moving MBell to FB also says alot about his pass blocking abilities - that was a major knock last year. Trying to get him back on the field, specifically as a blocker, says that MBell has improved significantly.

-------------------------------------------------------

to answer some of your questions: in 2000, TD was the #1 RB (assuming he was healthy), and OG was #2. MA was #3. Howard Griffith was the FB, as he was during the SB years. TD was never really healthy, and OG was hurt in week 1: enter MA. 2005 was RBBC the whole way. MA and TB were both expected to split time.

There is precedence for a RB and FB being interchangeable in this system, and it is very possible for MBell to make the move back to RB.

 

[loompa17]

This is going totally off of my memory. I'm not looking anything up, so I could be mistaken on this.

There was a time in Shanahan's history when the fullback was truly a fullback. Players like Aaron Craver and Howard Griffith blocked ahead of T.D.

For a long time after Griffith, fullback was not very important in the Broncos offense. They seemed to stick running backs there so that they could see a little playing time. But they really didn't employ true fullback types.

Last year, they did utilize Kyle Johnson, who is more in the normal fullback mode. I thought maybe the Broncos were going back to the Griffith days, but then they cut Johnson, so it's clear they are not.

What it seems to me is that Shanahan is usually enamored with the new guy at tailback. When T.D. was good, the Broncos had what I thought was a very good backup in Derek Loville. I know in one playoff game, Loville (as well as Davis) both ran for over 100 yards against the Jags. When T.D. went down with an injury, I rushed to grab Loville. However, Shanahan (once again enamored with the new toy) went to Olandis Gary that season.

His new toy philosophy has carried through with Mike Anderson, and Clinton Portis, and Quentin Griffin, and Mike Bell. Each of these guys (with the exception of Portis) came in as a tailback and then were moved to fullback to make room for the new guy at tailback. The one exception to this rule is Reuben Droughns. Droughns made the roster as a fullback. I think what happened was that he ended up fielding a squib kickoff and did pretty well with it. So they gave him a shot as a kick returner as he was pretty successful, so they eventually gave him a shot at tailback.

Having said all that, here is my opinion about Selvin Young. Should Travis Henry go down, I think Selvin would be the guy. I don't think Shanny would want to use a RBBC unless he had to (i.e. nobody was producing well). However, there is a big IF on that statement. They are going to ride Henry - and I really would expect him to be the guy all year. Somehow he's got the reputation of being injury-prone. I don't think he deserves that - he's played some injuries that might sideline other players. Unless your league is very deep, I wouldn't bother rostering Selvin.

Editted to add Quentin Griffin who I forgot about.

 

[SSOG]

The only player who was transitioned from FB to RB *in the middle of a season* was Reuben Droughns, in what were extenuating circumstances (Mike Anderson was the #1, but he got lost for the season, so then Quentin Griffin was #1, but he sucked, and Garrison Hearst was #2, but he was injured, so Droughns was really the FOURTH option that season).

Historically, there's a lot of transitioning from RB to FB and FB to RB in the offseason, but very rarely does it actually occur in midseason. One reason why Shanny has made his RBs and FBs so fungible is because by putting them on the roster as FBs, it allows him to add more talented runners to the team (and Shanahan feels you can never have enough runners- a philosophy that has certainly saved his bacon in the past). Still, by making Mike Bell a FB this season, it really means he'll be available to compete for the RB job NEXT SEASON, since Shanahan has a different definition of "fullback shape" and "tailback shape". He likes his FBs to play a bit heavier, which reduces their effectiveness with the ball in their hands but increases their effectiveness with the ball not in their hands. Mike Anderson really struggled running the ball in 2002 and 2003 (despite excelling in 2000 and 2005) because he was in "Fullback shape" in 2002/2003 and "Tailback shape" in 2000/2005.

At this point, if Selvin is really #2 on the depth chart, then I believe he's going to be the go-to guy if Henry goes down. The big question remaining is whether he'll be a bell-cow or merely the main committee member in the platoon. From what I've heard of Selvin Young and his running style, I suspect that Cobbs or Bell would become involved in the gameplan if Henry went down, although I think Young would present more fantasy value than either of them.

The one wildcard is whether Mike Bell will be able to get into "fullback shape" this season, since he's making the switch so late in the year. Really, it's hard to say what exactly would happen if Henry went down, but I definitely believe there's not much value in the Denver backup RB situation this season.

 

[TommyGilmore]

In 2000 Anderson was not the fullback -- he was the #3 RB behind Terrell Davis and Olandis Gary. Davis and Gary were both injured in Week 1 and Anderson took over in Week 2.