What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Denver RB Rankings (1 Viewer)

I think if anyone has a confident opinion on this situation, it's a sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Wow.I'm speechless on that comment. Shocked and speechless.
Why? MT is right. How can you be confident about the situation? No one knows who the starter will be at this point.
 
   Assuming Bell doesn't blow up in camp, my guess is Hearst's experience will enable him to be the Broncos' Week 1 "starter,"
Ding Ding Ding...and the only way Hearst will be yanked is if he goes down to injury(IMO.) I'll take the week 1 starter over the other guys thank you. People seem to think Hearst is as slow as Emmit...having lived in SF and watching pretty much every play, I can tell you he is definitley better than Griffin...and I mean no-contest-better.
Well shall see, I don't believe that. That's not to slight Hearst, but I can recall watching the games Griffin played in Oklahoma and I was impressed. Then a couple of those games last year, especially the 1st Indy game he looked extremely explosive. I don't think Hearst has that added dimension, the ability to take it to the house from your side of the 50. Hearst will bring to the table experience, blocking and good pass catching skills. However, Griffin will also be able to pass catch well and have the better speed.I don't know a lot of about Bell, except that he's fast and that during mini camp, he wasn't used to the mile high altitude and shall we say, looked like a rookie.
 
if you have no idea what his name is, then how much do you really know about his game? Since you have yet to quantify your knowledge of Griffin or elaborate on your opinion of him in the same way you did for Hearst, your spelling of his name is all one has to go on when reading your post.not a big deal...just seems like you may be evaluating this situation based on your knowledge of Hearst, with little regard for Griffin and his abilities (and perhaps Bell as well).
"No Idea what his name is" ...let's not overstate, thank you.Here's a synopsis of my knowledge of Griffin, since you asked:1) Looked mediocre last year running the ball2) Shannahan was so impressed with him that he drafted a RB in round 2, and also signed one of the best free agent runningbacks available.3) Mediocre physical capabilityI'm not sure what else you need to know. I'm pretty sure I don't have to spell out the reasoning behind all of my assertions to point out the obvious...which is Shannahan doesn't think Griffin can be his everydown back.And as for me evaluating this situation based on only having knowledge of one side of the argument, well you don't know me very well. I've spent the last 15 years of my education and professional life doing the exact opposite...every situation has strengths and weaknesses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bell is obviously the wild card. He almost certainly was drafted to be "the guy," but he brings with him some questions: Can he run between the tackles and can he hold onto the ball being two of the bigger ones.
Ok and I believe Shanahan answered those question by taking bell in the 2nd round. If there were any questions that Bell could not would fit the Bronco's mold or that he wouldn’t be able to handle a starting RB’s duties, they would of not drafted him that early.In this particular case, it is reasonable to rely solely on the Bronco’s decision to draft Bell. They have had the best track record of making rookie RBs produce. Sure they missed on the WRs or DBs they drafted… but you can’t argue with their RB picks!Griffin has no real shot of being a starter for the whole season, same with Anderson. Because if they did they wouldn’t draft a RB in the 2nd round.
I agree. As I said, I don't see Griffin being anything more than a change-of-pace RB. I don't see him being a serious factor at all, barring injury and I would consider him to be the least valuable of the four RBs I mentioned. I would rank him below Anderson given what I believe will be Anderson's potential as a TD vulture. I simply question whether Griffin will get on the field enough to make any kind of serious fantasy impact - again barring injury. As far as where the Broncos drafted Bell, what that tells me is Shanahan probably wants him to be the guy, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be. Yes, Shanahan has had great success with rookie RBs, but that doesn't mean it's going to last forever. And just because Shanahan drafted Bell in the second round doesn't mean the questions Bell brings with him to the NFL have been answered. That will come when he plays. I do believe Bell is the most likely candidate to be a full-time starter in Denver this season, but that doesn't mean it's automatically going to happen. Right now, he looks to be over-valued based mainly on what has transpired with Denver rookie RBs in the past.
 
Personally, I'm not comfortable drafting any of the Denver RBs at this point, but I do think Hearst is going to be very undervalued and that makes him arguably Denver's most appealing RB (especially since Bell has all the makings of being very overvalued).
Here within lies the problem. There are in reality, four capable running backs that could theoretically win the starting job in Denver this season. Here is a breakdown of each player and what they bring to the table…(a) Mike Anderson: Likely to slot in as a fullback but has performed well in the past when given the opportunity as his 1500 yard rookie season will attest to. That said, he is clearly lagging behind the other three players here. My only worry with Anderson is he may steal a few touchdowns from the other players in 2004.(b) Garrison Hearst: While Hearst isn’t the player he once was, he brings so much to the table other than his rushing skills (which are still pretty good btw). He is a great pass receiver out of the backfield, knows how to block well and is always in the right place at the right time. He always gives 100% on the field and it shows. He has rushed for 5535 yards over the last five seasons and averaged 4.7 yards a carry. I would say right now that Hearst should be the leader to carry the load in 2004 except for one thing. I don’t believe he is capable of carrying the ball 20 times per game anymore which means it will either by RBBC or the Broncos will go in a different direction© Quentin Griffin: For those of you who read my rookie column last season, you’ll know that I love what he brings to the table for a late round draft choice. He got his feet wet in 2003 and could certainly come up with a big camp to start the year as the starting running back. While I can’t say definitively that he will win the job, I can say that if he does start the season as a clear-cut starter, I believe he has the skills necessary to keep the job. I don’t think he showed enough last season though (3.7 YPC average and 0 touchdowns in 94 carries) to beat out either Hearst or Bell for full-time duties. I believe Griffin will ultimately provide depth off of the bench and perhaps grow into a third-down role with the team.(d) Tatum Bell: The X factor. There is no question that Bell can run with the football but is he ready to step in and perform all the other duties that a running back has to perform such as blocking and pass receiving. I believe he has the talent to have a successful pro career but I am not positive that it will happen in his rookie season.I believe nobody is really standing out as the clear-cut choice right now. If I had to pick one at this time to at least start the season it would be Hearst who has all the veteran intangibles that a team needs to win NOW. If the Broncos come out strong and win a few games, I believe they will keep the veteran presence in as the starter with Hearst getting plenty of relief from both Griffin and Bell to keep him fresh. If the Broncos come out poorly and lose a few games, I could see the team switching gears and giving either (both) Griffin and Bell the opportunity to prove himself.The bottom line at this point is it is a mess at the Denver running back position. If one player does emerge to get 300+ carries in this offense and you guess right for your fantasy squad you could be golden. Guess wrong and you could walk away empty handed. I think the best strategy is to wait until the other two players are drafted (likely Bell and Griffin) and pick up Hearst as a great value pick late. Otherwise, I will probably avoid the situation entirely unless something happens on the news front to help sort this mess out.
 
they lost Portis and were not totally comfortable with the RBs they had, so they added Hearst and Bell. I'm sure they hope that one of the RBs will emerge.It's always better to have depth than not to have depth.besides, the pick they used on Bell was a gift from the Redskins anyway.
You add guys like Grifin, Hearst and Anderson as "depth" late round picks and cheap FAs.Please keep in mind that they have a starting RB position up for grabs, when it is open you do not draft for depth, you draft to fill it.Bell is starter material :thumbup:
 
For the record I'm not saying spend a high pick on Hearst...I'm saying Hearst should definitley not be ranked below Griffin and Bell at this point in time. I see that and shake my head. Just plain wrong IMO.

 
Another comment regarding rankings...Maybe I'm in a league with mostly sharks and realize that drafting by the numbers won't win a title. I need to hit on some sleepers to be competitive. So I decide to draft three guys with great upside at the RB3 postion rather then load up the roster with "dependable and steady" back-ups. Well the rankings poll would be one source to see who some of these potential sleepers might be. I could ID all the guys that some ranked significantly higher then the masses and then research both those players and that experts track record of finding sleepers. Furthermore, I could see if that expert wrote an opinion in the player spotlight or the faceoff series. Since the opinion and the ranking would likely jive, I'd know it was a real opinion, not just something cranked out to meet a deadline or complete an assignment. Taking all this into account, I could then use my judgement and weed the sleeper list down to the ones I wanted to target.

 
If I had to pick one at this time to at least start the season it would be Hearst who has all the veteran intangibles that a team needs to win NOW. If the Broncos come out strong and win a few games, I believe they will keep the veteran presence in as the starter with Hearst getting plenty of relief from both Griffin and Bell to keep him fresh. If the Broncos come out poorly and lose a few games, I could see the team switching gears and giving either (both) Griffin and Bell the opportunity to prove himself.
I agree with most of that, but how often do the Broncos come out poorly and give up on the season?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If by RBBC, you mean that more than one player will be the starter for a regular season game, I think it's extremely likely. If by RBBC, you mean that more than one player will be worth starting throughout the season, I think it's very likely. If by RBBC, you mean that no one player will emerge as the primary starter, I think it's unlikely.

 
Portis' first four games as a rookie

Code:
|  1  ram  |    5    34  |     0  |  0 ||  2  sfo  |    4    12  |     0  |  0 ||  3  buf  |   18   103  |     4  |  1 ||  4  bal  |    8    55  |    30  |  0
Only 35 carries for 204 yards and a single score before he got his opportunity.At the very least, I could see drafting Hearst, letting somebody else take Bell and then targeted Bell in a trade with the disgruntled owner when he has underachieved at first.Bell is a risk/reward kind of player in 2004 but I am worried that he'll be a lot more RISK to begin the season. Especially where he is likely to be drafted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another comment regarding rankings...Maybe I'm in a league with mostly sharks and realize that drafting by the numbers won't win a title. I need to hit on some sleepers to be competitive. So I decide to draft three guys with great upside at the RB3 postion rather then load up the roster with "dependable and steady" back-ups. Well the rankings poll would be one source to see who some of these potential sleepers might be. I could ID all the guys that some ranked significantly higher then the masses and then research both those players and that experts track record of finding sleepers. Furthermore, I could see if that expert wrote an opinion in the player spotlight or the faceoff series. Since the opinion and the ranking would likely jive, I'd know it was a real opinion, not just something cranked out to meet a deadline or complete an assignment. Taking all this into account, I could then use my judgement and weed the sleeper list down to the ones I wanted to target.
That's a good point Bass. Sharks don't draft based on projection rankings. You need upside at the backup RB spots, not safe bets to get 5 pts per game.
 
So because the situation is a mess you throw your hands up in the air?
no you don't throw your hands up in the air. but to avoid risk, you don't draft riskier players above safer players. Denver RBs are thus ranked according to their level of risk/reward as determined by us staff members. Others may value the potential reward and upside of a player more and rank accordingly.we've had a very similar discussion about Keyshawn Johnson.
You can't have it both ways, you see. Either the rankings you produce are to reflect how you see end-of-year results (which is my understanding of what these rankings are supposed to be), or they are to reflect where you'd draft them based of the risks, uncertainties, etc. One requires taking as stand, as BNB, Bob, LHUCKS and I are saying, and the other does not. The rankings, as I understood them, were not about draft strategy but about beliefs in final rankings. I'm not willing to create some monstrosity of a calculation to hedge all my bets with all sorts of percentages to end up with a lukewarm answer which guarantees I'm in the middle of the pack with no real opinion. I make a decision based on my interpretation of a situation, and go with it. I guess that's my business training. At some point you have to take a stand, and I thought that's what these rankings were for. I guess I was wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think if anyone has a confident opinion on this situation, it's a sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Wow.I'm speechless on that comment. Shocked and speechless.
Why? MT is right. How can you be confident about the situation? No one knows who the starter will be at this point.
I think Shanahan has a pretty good idea of who he feels will be the starter and garner the majority of the workload this year.It's up to the true FF sharks to be able to read between the lines and figure out who it is Shanahan is leaning towards.Of course things can change in the preseason, but at this time to think Shanahan doesn't have a strong opinion of how things will shake out is a bit foolish.
 
I agree with most of that, but how often do the Broncos come out poorly and give up on the season?
That's right. I expect the Broncos to compete for a playoff spot and veteran leadership from the backfield will help out Plummer and the entire offense.I could see a breakdown like this per game [to start the season] (edited to add this)

Hearst 15 touches

Bell 6-10 touches

Griffin 5 touches

If I was comfortable with Hearst carrying the ball 320+ times on the season, he would be my choice and ranked in the top 14 but I just don't think he has enough in the gas tank to do that anymore. Bell may indeed emerge but I don't think it will be at the start of the season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think if anyone has a confident opinion on this situation, it's a sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Wow.I'm speechless on that comment. Shocked and speechless.
I think MT is 100% right here. In fact, I was about to quote that line just to say "what he said" but now I'm glad I patiently read through the rest of the thread first.Look, I am of the opinion that Bell will end up being the guy for Denver by week 4 or so. I am not a fan of Griffin, Hearst is too old to be a featured back, Anderson is the 4th best back on the roster, and Shanahan isn't a RBBC guy. But that's just my analysis of the situation. Given the fact that I haven't reviewed hours of film on each of these guys, I don't see them in practice every day, and I'm not the one who chooses how to allocate playing time (the guy who is isn't talking), my knowledge of the situation is very cloudy, and have very little confidence in my own prediction that Bell is the guy to own of this group. I would not even consider drafting Bell as my RB2 at this time, which basically puts him outside my top 24 by default. And it's not like the august members of the FBG staff are lunching with Shanahan and privy to secret information that the rest of us don't have.If you want an educated GUESS on how the Denver RB situation will shake out, this thread has made it clear that many on the staff have their judgements on the subject. But given the uncertainty of the situation, it's very easy to understand why nobody is willing to step up and draft their favored candidate as their RB1. Basically, I think this thread is all about blaming your cat for not being a dog. The expert rankings are supposed to show where the staff would draft various players, all things (probabilities) considered. If you want to know who favors who in the Denver QB derby, that's a somewhat different topic.
 
I make a decision based on my interpretation of a situation, and go with it. I guess that's my business training. At some point you have to take a stand, and I thought that's what these rankings were for. I guess I was wrong.
That is exactly what i'm looking for in regards to the FBG staff rankings. :thumbup: I want strong, confident rankings based on THEIR interpretation of a situation, not just hedge betting to play it safe.You can hedge bet during the draft based on the makeup of your team, but hedging rankings is weak.
 
I agree with most of that, but how often do the Broncos come out poorly and give up on the season?
That's right. I expect the Broncos to compete for a playoff spot and veteran leadership from the backfield will help out Plummer and the entire offense.I could see a breakdown like this per game [to start the season] (edited to add this)

Hearst 15 touches

Bell 6-10 touches

Griffin 5 touches

If I was comfortable with Hearst carrying the ball 320+ times on the season, he would be my choice and ranked in the top 14 but I just don't think he has enough in the gas tank to do that anymore. Bell may indeed emerge but I don't think it will be at the start of the season.
Great, nice to see one of the staff guys thinking clearly :boxing: As for Bell getting 6-10 in the beginning, I'd say 5 tops...that can obviously change.

Seriously though, great discussion...that's why I'm here all the time :thumbup:

 
The fact that message board folks have as varied views of a situation that is completely up in the air as the staff does led to my earlier response - we simply have no facts upon which to form an opinion. Without even one snap of training camp to see who is being experimented with on the first team, I have confidence in NONE of the Denver backs. Any of four could be the starter on opening day, a different RB from that one could be starting in game 3, and a completely differnet back could win the job by game 5.That does not necessarily mean that I believe it'll be RBBC - but I do believe Shanahan wil have a quick hook on EVERY back - including during games. Rookie Bell starts the game and fumbles on the third possession, Hearst or Anderson start getting the bulk of the carries. Need a "pop" try the backup Griffin in the third quarter. I could easily seee that.Or, after a loss where the team runs Griffin as the starter and he goes 17-55 and is obviously unable to break tackles, Andrerson or Bell might get the start the very following game. Simply put - with Portis gone, it is entirely unclear what direction Shanahan wants to go : RBBC, feature back, a young speedster with moves, a vet pounder, a combo??? We don't know what will happen, so I hesitate to rank any of them very high. I kept the two I like on the radar by ranking Bell and Hearst back to back at the 30/31 spot - that is my view, that Hearst could win the start,m or at least earn a lot of carries, while Bell will be given the bulk of the work once he gets comfortable in the offense. I believe Griffin will end up backing up Bell, but that is just a belief with no basis in reality at this point.

 
So because the situation is a mess you throw your hands up in the air?
no you don't throw your hands up in the air. but to avoid risk, you don't draft riskier players above safer players. Denver RBs are thus ranked according to their level of risk/reward as determined by us staff members. Others may value the potential reward and upside of a player more and rank accordingly.we've had a very similar discussion about Keyshawn Johnson.
You can't have it both ways, you see. Either the rankings you produce are to reflect how you see end-of-year results (which is my understanding of what these rankings are supposed to be), or they are to reflect where you'd draft them based of the risks, uncertainties, etc.
Just my opinion, but I don't think the difference between these two is as big as you're making it out to be.I can take a guess at which Denver RB will emerge, but if I don't have any facts or data to back it up, I think that ranking is less useful than one as MT is describing, based on probability.

 
2) Shannahan was so impressed with him that he drafted a RB in round 2, and also signed one of the best free agent runningbacks available.
that's like saying...the Bills were so disappointed in Travis Henry's Pro Bowl season, that they took a RB in round 1, or the Chiefs were so disappointed in Priest Holmes' monster 2002 season that they drafted Larry Johnson very high. Or the Falcons were so unimpressed with Warrick Dunn after giving him a HUGE contract in free agency, that they went out and drafted TJ Duckett in the first. It just isn't very compelling to me to read into Shanahan's view of Griffin based on where he took Bell. I don't see those as being all that closely related.I know you know your stuff...don't take this so personally. I've seen A LOT of people spell the name Griffith, and really don't understand the confusion. It's clearly not just a typo if it happens over and over again. The guy just doesn't get much respect around these parts it seems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I make a decision based on my interpretation of a situation, and go with it. I guess that's my business training. At some point you have to take a stand, and I thought that's what these rankings were for. I guess I was wrong.
That is exactly what i'm looking for in regards to the FBG staff rankings. :thumbup: I want strong, confident rankings based on THEIR interpretation of a situation, not just hedge betting to play it safe.You can hedge bet during the draft based on the makeup of your team, but hedging rankings is weak.
What you call "strong, confident" rankngs, some of us would consider "kamikazee" rankings.If somebody thinks that Bell has a 40% chance to be the man in Denver (a solid RB1, lets say) while Q has only a 30% chance to claim that role, it would be silly to rate Bell in the top 10 among RBs. Such a ranking completely ignores the uncertainty in this situation.
 
Great, nice to see one of the staff guys thinking clearly :boxing:
Then re-read my post earlier in the thread (back on page one) - it is similar to Chris', however where I disagree is that I see no way Shanahan uses Bell and Griffin that much in the same game.What I see as the most likely scenario is that one or the other between Bell and Griffin becomes Shannie's favorite with the other being that guy's backup - the one that Shannie likes best will get splits with Hearst initiially and then get a shot at the start if they play well during the games.
 
I make a decision based on my interpretation of a situation, and go with it.  I guess that's my business training.  At some point you have to take a stand, and I thought that's what these rankings were for.  I guess I was wrong.
That is exactly what i'm looking for in regards to the FBG staff rankings. :thumbup: I want strong, confident rankings based on THEIR interpretation of a situation, not just hedge betting to play it safe.You can hedge bet during the draft based on the makeup of your team, but hedging rankings is weak.
What you call "strong, confident" rankngs, some of us would consider "kamikazee" rankings.If somebody thinks that Bell has a 40% chance to be the man in Denver (a solid RB1, lets say) while Q has only a 30% chance to claim that role, it would be silly to rate Bell in the top 10 among RBs. Such a ranking completely ignores the uncertainty in this situation.
:thumbup: My "strong" ranking at this point for any Denver back would be as well reasoned as if I threw darts at a board.
 
Look, I am of the opinion that Bell will end up being the guy for Denver by week 4 or so. I am not a fan of Griffin, Hearst is too old to be a featured back, Anderson is the 4th best back on the roster, and Shanahan isn't a RBBC guy. But that's just my analysis of the situation.
Then be confident in your analysis and rank Bell accordingly, that's all i'm saying.If you think Bell is gonna be the guy by week #4 and that Denver isn't gonna be a RBBC situation you should be confident in yourself and not bail out by hedging your rankings in fear of being wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes, but those who aren't confident in their decisions will end up wrong a lot more.
 
The fact that message board folks have as varied views of a situation that is completely up in the air as the staff does led to my earlier response - we simply have no facts upon which to form an opinion. Without even one snap of training camp to see who is being experimented with on the first team, I have confidence in NONE of the Denver backs. Any of four could be the starter on opening day, a different RB from that one could be starting in game 3, and a completely differnet back could win the job by game 5.That does not necessarily mean that I believe it'll be RBBC - but I do believe Shanahan wil have a quick hook on EVERY back - including during games. Rookie Bell starts the game and fumbles on the third possession, Hearst or Anderson start getting the bulk of the carries. Need a "pop" try the backup Griffin in the third quarter. I could easily seee that.Or, after a loss where the team runs Griffin as the starter and he goes 17-55 and is obviously unable to break tackles, Andrerson or Bell might get the start the very following game. Simply put - with Portis gone, it is entirely unclear what direction Shanahan wants to go : RBBC, feature back, a young speedster with moves, a vet pounder, a combo??? We don't know what will happen, so I hesitate to rank any of them very high. I kept the two I like on the radar by ranking Bell and Hearst back to back at the 30/31 spot - that is my view, that Hearst could win the start,m or at least earn a lot of carries, while Bell will be given the bulk of the work once he gets comfortable in the offense. I believe Griffin will end up backing up Bell, but that is just a belief with no basis in reality at this point.
:pigskinp:
 
2) Shannahan was so impressed with him that he drafted a RB in round 2, and also signed one of the best free agent runningbacks available.
that's like saying...the Bills were so disappointed in Travis Henry's Pro Bowl season, that they took a RB in round 1, or the Chiefs were so disappointed in Priest Holmes' monster 2002 season that they drafted Larry Johnson very high. Or the Falcons were so unimpressed with Warrick Dunn after giving him a HUGE contract in free agency, that they went out and drafted TJ Duckett in the first. It just isn't very compelling to me to read into Shanahan's view of Griffin based on where he took Bell. I don't see those as being all that closely related.I know you know your stuff...don't take this so personally. I've seen A LOT of people spell the name Griffith, and really don't understand the confusion. It's cleary not just a typo if it happens over and over again. The guy just doesn't get much respect around these parts it seems.
Not taking it personally, just defending myself...your original post basically said people wouldn't take my post seriously because I misspelled Griffin's name.As for Griffin not getting respect by this board...there might be something to that.
 
My "strong" ranking at this point for any Denver back would be as well reasoned as if I threw darts at a board.
Great to see our FBG staff members have such confidence in their ability to analyze a situation.
 
2) Shannahan was so impressed with him that he drafted a RB in round 2, and also signed one of the best free agent runningbacks available.
that's like saying...the Bills were so disappointed in Travis Henry's Pro Bowl season, that they took a RB in round 1, or the Chiefs were so disappointed in Priest Holmes' monster 2002 season that they drafted Larry Johnson very high. Or the Falcons were so unimpressed with Warrick Dunn after giving him a HUGE contract in free agency, that they went out and drafted TJ Duckett in the first. It just isn't very compelling to me to read into Shanahan's view of Griffin based on where he took Bell. I don't see those as being all that closely related.I know you know your stuff...don't take this so personally. I've seen A LOT of people spell the name Griffith, and really don't understand the confusion. It's clearly not just a typo if it happens over and over again. The guy just doesn't get much respect around these parts it seems.
In fairness, Henry, Holmes and Dunn are much more proven commodities than Griffin, who has a grand total of one good game to his credit.
 
Not taking it personally, just defending myself...your original post basically said people wouldn't take my post seriously because I misspelled Griffin's name.
I put a ;) to let you know I was just being a smartass
 
My "strong" ranking at this point for any Denver back would be as well reasoned as if I threw darts at a board.
Great to see our FBG staff members have such confidence in their ability to analyze a situation.
Are you implying that the staff has dinner with Shanahan once a month? Or a you hinting that Shanahan is somehow easy to predict?
 
My "strong" ranking at this point for any Denver back would be as well reasoned as if I threw darts at a board.
Great to see our FBG staff members have such confidence in their ability to analyze a situation.
There is NOTHING to analyze right now.Nice to see the flippant comment and all, but I made a well reasoned analysis of the Denver situation- whether it has ANY basis in reality has the same probability as if I threw a dart at the board and said that would be the guy to start and be the feature back.I am simply unsure what Shannie will do - until they start the miniicamps this month, NOONE Has a clue what they will do - RBBC, feature back, splitting carries, or what.
 
2) Shannahan was so impressed with him that he drafted a RB in round 2, and also signed one of the best free agent runningbacks available.
that's like saying...the Bills were so disappointed in Travis Henry's Pro Bowl season, that they took a RB in round 1, or the Chiefs were so disappointed in Priest Holmes' monster 2002 season that they drafted Larry Johnson very high. Or the Falcons were so unimpressed with Warrick Dunn after giving him a HUGE contract in free agency, that they went out and drafted TJ Duckett in the first. It just isn't very compelling to me to read into Shanahan's view of Griffin based on where he took Bell. I don't see those as being all that closely related.I know you know your stuff...don't take this so personally. I've seen A LOT of people spell the name Griffith, and really don't understand the confusion. It's clearly not just a typo if it happens over and over again. The guy just doesn't get much respect around these parts it seems.
In fairness, Henry, Holmes and Dunn are much more proven commodities than Griffin, who has a grand total of one good game to his credit.
but the logic being used is exactly the same.i.e., the Bills have no confidence in Drew Bledsoe, so they spent a 1st round pick on Losman.you are using the drafting of one player to evaluate a team's opinion of another. it's not like teams only use 1 RB for an entire season. Even if they absolutely loved Griffin's potential, there would be no reason to avoid taking Bell if they thought that he could also be a very good back. You take players that you want.The same logic can be used a different way: If the Broncos didn't think highly of Griffin's abilities, they wouldn't have used a 4th round pick on him last year. If the Broncos didn't think highly of Griffin's abilities, they wouldn't have traded away Portis. and so on.
 
Great, nice to see one of the staff guys thinking clearly :boxing:
Then re-read my post earlier in the thread (back on page one) - it is similar to Chris', however where I disagree is that I see no way Shanahan uses Bell and Griffin that much in the same game.What I see as the most likely scenario is that one or the other between Bell and Griffin becomes Shannie's favorite with the other being that guy's backup - the one that Shannie likes best will get splits with Hearst initiially and then get a shot at the start if they play well during the games.
1) I agree with you that Griffin and Bell don't get that many carries in the beginning of the year2) I don't think Smith conceded that Hearst's job would be taken...he implied that that would only happen in the scenario where Denver is eliminated early on...which he then admitted doesn't happen very often and isn't likely to happen this year.3) Why are you so convinced that Griffin or Bell are going to "get a shot"?If Denver is winning and Hearst is running well,(both of which are very likely) don't be surprised to see Hearst in the 280+ carries.The strongest argument against Hearst isn't that he's going to get beat out, it's that he's going to get injured. :yes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My "strong" ranking at this point for any Denver back would be as well reasoned as if I threw darts at a board.
Great to see our FBG staff members have such confidence in their ability to analyze a situation.
I have confidence that I'm analyzing the situation better than anyone who thinks one RB or another is a shoe-in to be the featured guy.
 
My "strong" ranking at this point for any Denver back would be as well reasoned as if I threw darts at a board.
Great to see our FBG staff members have such confidence in their ability to analyze a situation.
His analysis of the situation is that we don't know who the starter will be. No one 100% knows who the starter will be right now. Shanahan may have a strong opinion on the situation, but I bet he doesn't even know who the day 1 starter will be yet.
 
My "strong" ranking at this point for any Denver back would be as well reasoned as if I threw darts at a board.
Great to see our FBG staff members have such confidence in their ability to analyze a situation.
I have confidence that I'm analyzing the situation better than anyone who thinks one RB or another is a shoe-in to be the featured guy.
It's all in the language isn't it counselor?Nobody is saying "shoe in."You have put higher odds on Griffin and Bell than you have on Hearst...that is what many of us are disagreeing with.
28% chance that Griffin is the featured guy27% chance that Bell is the featured guy24% chance there is no featured guy (RBBC)11% chance that Anderson is the featured guy10% chance that Hearst is the featured guy
 
The strongest argument against Hearst isn't that he's going to get beat out, it's that he's going to get injured. :yes:
agree about injury being a concern, but I also think the strongest argument against Hearst is his age...how many 33 year old RBs have been durable and productive fantasy RBs?the fact that he signed a 1-year contract also suggests he's not looked at as a long-term option for them so they might be more likely to give more time to the younger backs if they offer a similar level of production.
 
You have put higher odds on Griffin and Bell than you have on Hearst...that is what many of us are disagreeing with.

28% chance that Griffin is the featured guy

27% chance that Bell is the featured guy

24% chance there is no featured guy (RBBC)

11% chance that Anderson is the featured guy

10% chance that Hearst is the featured guy
No, that's fine. People can come to different conclusions about which RB has the best chance to start. I've got no issue with that.I've got an issue with people who think that the percentages can't be 30/30/20/20 or anything like that -- they must be 90/5/3/2 for the sake of "taking a stand."

That's just goofy. They're not 90/5/3/2, and that is my stand.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is NOTHING to analyze right now.
I don't agree with ya here at all. There is tons to analyze right now. Tons of information on all of Denver's RB's.They have played in televised games, scouting reports, Shanahans coaching tendencys, how the NFL draft went down, ect, ect, ect.The goal is to take all that information, which there is a ton of, and come up with the best educated decision you can make and be confident in how you broke down the situation based on all the variables.If after your analysis you see RBBC, then great. If you see them going with a main RB, great, now it's up to you to take all that info and predict who that will be.
 
So because the situation is a mess you throw your hands up in the air?
no you don't throw your hands up in the air. but to avoid risk, you don't draft riskier players above safer players. Denver RBs are thus ranked according to their level of risk/reward as determined by us staff members. Others may value the potential reward and upside of a player more and rank accordingly.we've had a very similar discussion about Keyshawn Johnson.
You can't have it both ways, you see. Either the rankings you produce are to reflect how you see end-of-year results (which is my understanding of what these rankings are supposed to be), or they are to reflect where you'd draft them based of the risks, uncertainties, etc. One requires taking as stand, as BNB, Bob, LHUCKS and I are saying, and the other does not. The rankings, as I understood them, were not about draft strategy but about beliefs in final rankings. I'm not willing to create some monstrosity of a calculation to hedge all my bets with all sorts of percentages to end up with a lukewarm answer which guarantees I'm in the middle of the pack with no real opinion. I make a decision based on my interpretation of a situation, and go with it. I guess that's my business training. At some point you have to take a stand, and I thought that's what these rankings were for. I guess I was wrong.
Excellent post. This gets right to the point. The big debate here is whether or not the rankings are where one should draft a player or where a player will end up at the end of the year. Aaron evens says this in the quote above.I agree with bob, BnB, LHUCKS and the others and wish the staff can take a stand on what they believe. I'm not certain either, but I do believe that at least one of these guys will be in the top 15-20.

Aaron suggests that the rankings reflect a belief by the staff that there will be a RBBC? Why? What is the Denver history of RBBC? etc.?

However, subsequent posts by other staff suggest there isn't a belief by all that there will be RBBC.

Last comment ... to pick on speliing of Griffin (th) is nothing but "playground" and does not make me think less of the original poster, but makes me think less of you. It almost seems like you can't make your point about the rankings so you bring spelling up. Take a good read of the FBG staff articles and posts and you will find similar errors so please ... everyone ... give this type of childishness a rest.

 
Shanahan may have a strong opinion on the situation.
Get to work and come up with a good educated decision based on all the info out there on what Shanahan is thinking.He likely knows how the situation is gonna go down, it's up to you to figure out the answer.
 
Good discussion, gentlemen. I'm glad the subject came up and find it interesting to read the thinking behind the rankings approach of the staff. I disagree with it, but I'll not change your mind and you'll not change my mind. C’est la vie.Just a quick edit to add that if any of you enter the world of business, where you have to make a decision on a product or service without a history or track record, you cannot be paralyzed by all of the possibile outcomes and end up making no decision at all. You evaluate all available information at the time, recognizing the possible outcomes, and make a decision. That's all I'm trying to do with the rankings. To say I should not make a decision because I don't have enough information is to impose your opinion on me; I believe there is enough information to choose Bell as the Broncos RB this year. You may disagree on my interpretation of the available information, but I have a right to that interpretation. I'm off to watch a little hockey 'n hoops. Enjoy your evening. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The strongest argument against Hearst isn't that he's going to get beat out, it's that he's going to get injured. :yes:
agree about injury being a concern, but I also think the strongest argument against Hearst is his age...how many 33 year old RBs have been durable and productive fantasy RBs?the fact that he signed a 1-year contract also suggests he's not looked at as a long-term option for them so they might be more likely to give more time to the younger backs if they offer a similar level of production.
1) How many 32 year old runningbacks looked as good as Hearst did last year?2) Contract years mean nothing in the NFL...every contract is a one year contract as far as I'm concerned.3) Yes, if Bell or Griffin offer similar levels of production in:a) pass blocking(hearst is awesome0b) running the ball(Hearst is only proven NFL runner IMO_c) catching the ball(Definitely not a weakness for Hearst)...then they have a shot at getting more time. The odds of Griffin or Bell becoming a more complete package than Hearst for the first half of the season are in Hearst's favor...significanly IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3) Why are you so convinced that Griffin or Bell are going to "get a shot"?If Denver is winning and Hearst is running well,(both of which are very likely) don't be surprised to see Hearst in the 280+ carries.
Re-read any thread up until Hearst's injury last year and you'll see where I stand on him - 280-ish carries is defintely not out of the world of possibilites in my view - I like a Hearst a lot.I just believe that Shannie is going to want one of the younger guys to step up - if neither can wow Shannie enough to beat out Hearst for the start at some point during the year, I don't see good things for Denver's running numbers.If Hearst ends up with the 280+ carries, I give him around 1100, and a handful of TDs (with many vultured by Anderson). Yet, if either Bell or Griffin get 280+ carries, I give them a lot more production.As for either getting a "shot," I may not have much confidence in exactly how the RB situation is going to shake out this year, but I am sure that Mike Shanahan wants either of the young guys to give him something more than what he knows he alreday has with Anderson and Hearst. My BELIEF right now is that he has confidence because he knows he has two former 1G rushers in Hearst and Anderson, either of which could "fill in" if the younger guys end up not panning out.
 
I'm off to watch a little hockey 'n hoops.
:confused:Dude, this is the NFL offseason. It's the second most important time of year, trailing only the NFL season.Get back in here and finish your Denver Bronco analysis! What's Ashley Lelie going to do this year?
 
Hmmmm...we obviously have different opinions about the rankings.Camp 1: They're suppose to reflect where a player should be drafted.Camp 2: They're suppose to reflect the best estimate of the end of year point totals.Camp 3: They're suppose to be a combination of 1 and 2 based upon which ever one the corresponding staff member gives more weight to.What is the official FBG.com position on this?

 
Hmmmm...we obviously have different opinions about the rankings.Camp 1: They're suppose to reflect where a player should be drafted.Camp 2: They're suppose to reflect the best estimate of the end of year point totals.Camp 3: They're suppose to be a combination of 1 and 2 based upon which ever one the corresponding staff member gives more weight to.What is the official FBG.com position on this?
Mine are based on Camp 2, which is how we're graded out at the end of the year.
 
As for either getting a "shot," I may not have much confidence in exactly how the RB situation is going to shake out this year, but I am sure that Mike Shanahan wants either of the young guys to give him something more than what he knows he alreday has with Anderson and Hearst. My BELIEF right now is that he has confidence because he knows he has two former 1G rushers in Hearst and Anderson, either of which could "fill in" if the younger guys end up not panning out.
Sorry Marc, I read your post again and you and I agree on a lot here.(at the time I was targeting Rudnicki's and Tremblay's analysis) I'm less concened with Hearst's production in the secnod half of the season because I believe:a) Denver will be in the playoff hunt, which would make Hearst's experience of paramount importanceb) Hearst has always produced regardless of his situationc) Hearst looked good last yearWould I rather have Hearst in the first half than Hearst in the second...absolutely.Is that enough for me to project Bell or Griffin ahead of Hearst...no way.To summarize my opinion:1) Tremblay is off when giving Hearst the lowest percentage chance to be the everydown back...not calling him out, just clarifying my opinion. I respect his opinion just as much as anybody's here.2) Hearst is undervalued on the FBG consensus rankings(currently behind Griffin and Bell)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top