Does Mike Bell still deserve a roster space? (1 Viewer)

[Bristol]

Given that it looks as if Tatum Bell has finally taken over RB1 in Denver, is it worth a roster space to hold onto Mike Bell? If Tatum is in fact the #1, I don't think MBell will see much.

What say you?

 

[kal-el]

Depends what your options are. Unless it's a clear cut starter on a decent-to-good offense, I'd say hang onto Bell. I really can't believe Shanahan will stick with Tatum for 80%+ of the carries the rest of the year.

And even if Shanahan is committted to Tatum, he's still as much an injury risk as anyone. Mike could be a great player to have for the fantasy playoffs.

If your other option is Maurice Morris, take Morris.

If your other option is Ron Dayne, keep Bell.

If your other option is Michael Turner, it's a coin flip (but I'd lean toward Bell).

 

[Slinger]

If your other option is Michael Turner, it's a coin flip (but I'd lean toward Bell).

Turner and it's not even close.With that said, any RB on the Denver Broncos squad is worth having.

 

[Bristol]

This is not a WDIS or who do I drop thread. I am just trying to start discussion on the topic. With all the hype around Tatum Bell, it begs the question, What about Mike Bell!

 

[Polyethylene Bag]

I just dumped him for Maurice Morris

 

[wannabee]

If your other option is Michael Turner, it's a coin flip (but I'd lean toward Bell).

Turner and it's not even close.With that said, any RB on the Denver Broncos squad is worth having.

exactly

 

[taz]

He's my RB3 in a league where we can only carry 4 RBs. I'll probably hang onto him - there's no telling how long TBell can hold up under the workload.

 

[kal-el]

If your other option is Michael Turner, it's a coin flip (but I'd lean toward Bell).

Turner and it's not even close.With that said, any RB on the Denver Broncos squad is worth having.

I can see the argument for Turner, but I wouldn't say "it's not even close." Most likely, neither Bell nor Turner will have real value unless Tatum or LT were to get hurt. I don't see a lot of difference in those two players' injury risk.Denver has run the ball consistently for how many years now? And let's keep in mind SD is playing with a first-year starter at QB.Finally, in the event I need an emergency starter due to byes/injuries, I'd rather have Bell. You can't really expect the Chargers to get up by 28 points on most teams they play this year.

 

[pizzatyme]

My thoughts are that as Tatum has looked given the workload. I think, with the unknown of his ability to handle the workload, I hang on to Mike Bell.

I also think some of the reason for the workload shift has to do with Mike's injured finger. No way I expose Mike if I have Tatum!

 

[Slinger]

If your other option is Michael Turner, it's a coin flip (but I'd lean toward Bell).

Turner and it's not even close.With that said, any RB on the Denver Broncos squad is worth having.

I can see the argument for Turner, but I wouldn't say "it's not even close." Most likely, neither Bell nor Turner will have real value unless Tatum or LT were to get hurt. I don't see a lot of difference in those two players' injury risk.Denver has run the ball consistently for how many years now? And let's keep in mind SD is playing with a first-year starter at QB.Finally, in the event I need an emergency starter due to byes/injuries, I'd rather have Bell. You can't really expect the Chargers to get up by 28 points on most teams they play this year.

The reason why I think it's not even close is because of the fact that Turner has real game experience and the second LT twistes an ankle he'll rush for 100 yards every game.Mike Bell has potential as he showed in preseason, but until I see him play a few games and perform well, I'm ranking Turner above him.

 

[J R]

The reason why I think it's not even close is because of the fact that Turner has real game experience and the second LT twistes an ankle he'll rush for 100 yards every game.Mike Bell has potential as he showed in preseason, but until I see him play a few games and perform well, I'm ranking Turner above him.

But the argument for Bell over Turner would be that he's not necessarily dependent on an injury to see the field. I guess I don't know what the consensus is in the Tatum Bell thread, but I still see some job-sharing in Denver's future.

 

[Marc Levin]

This is not a WDIS or who do I drop thread. I am just trying to start discussion on the topic. With all the hype around Tatum Bell, it begs the question, What about Mike Bell!

He's definitely worth a roster spot *if* you have room for a "dead" RB and there are not any better options for that roster spot. I think Mike Bell will have sporadic games where he has enough carries or a TD to make him worth a fantasy start (say, in garbage time, or on carries following a big TBell run when TBell needs a breather), but those games will probably be unpredictable. He obviously has tremendous value if TBell gets hurt or if the running game stagnates with TBell as the starter.MBell runs hard, he fights for extra yardage, he is the kind of football player that Shanahan likes at the RB spot. I think his fumbling and ability to pick up blitzers is Shanhan's main concern. The question you have to ask yourself on whether he is worth a roster spot for your team is whether you want a guy who: -is likely to have sufficient playing time later in the year because of the team's situation (like Lendale White, for example) -gets playing time now, can sometimes be worth a spot start, and has the potential to EARN a starting role (like Maurice Drew, Gado, or Kevan Barlow - or RBBC members like Addai, Maroney, DeAngelo Williams)-could be huge if the starter is injured, but will probably have sporadic or minimal numbers while the starter is healthy (like Turner, Morris, and Betts - yes, I know both Betts and Turner have already had huge days while spelling the starter)I think Mike Bell fits in the third category. I would rather have him and his upside instead of part time players who might end up starting on teams that are not running well (such as Dayne, Gado, Chris Brown, Barlow, Benson, etc.)

 

[Marc Levin]

The reason why I think it's not even close is because of the fact that Turner has real game experience and the second LT twistes an ankle he'll rush for 100 yards every game.Mike Bell has potential as he showed in preseason, but until I see him play a few games and perform well, I'm ranking Turner above him.

But the argument for Bell over Turner would be that he's not necessarily dependent on an injury to see the field.

Same with Turner.I guess you could argue that there is a better chance of TBell not playing well enough to hang onto the starting role, but Turner could see the field as much or more than MBell.I think TBell now has the starting role on lockdown and he can only lose it by playing his way out of the starting role. I don't see TBell's on-field play losing the job - unless he gets fumblitis and fumbles in consecutive games. I think TBell and LT have similar injury risks, TBell a bit more just because he has been injured more often and is untested on carrying a full load.

 

[DoubleG]

This is not a WDIS or who do I drop thread. I am just trying to start discussion on the topic. With all the hype around Tatum Bell, it begs the question, What about Mike Bell!

Ummm...actually that's not a question. But I won't belabor the point as I know not to get on your bad side. IMHO given Tatum Bell's "ability" (and history) to get dinged up, suddenly start fumbling or just end up in Shanny's dog house, along with Denver's run-blocking O-line, he's really hard to cut. It's almost like having D.Williams only Tatum is even less proven than DeShaun - his coach isn't as loyal to vets - and his offensive line is better. In summary M. Bell's situation >> D.Williams'.

 

[massraider]

He's my RB3 in a league where we can only carry 4 RBs. I'll probably hang onto him - there's no telling how long TBell can hold up under the workload.

I think Mike will be real popular when Tatum goes down. I plan to hang onto him till Tatum gets hurt, then trade him. He looks like he's running in mud, I just think the guy is too slow.

 

[Marc Levin]

Fumbling is definitely an issue - 5 in 3 years, with 3 in 2005 when he was most heavily used. And 1 already this year. Only 1 lost fumble per year, though,

 

[SSOG]

I just dumped him for Maurice Morris

Mistake, IMO. Maurice is living on borrowed time. Everyone knows he has pretty much NO chance of becoming a solid start all season long (or for more than 2-4 weeks, tops). Even if he does get the start, there's no guarantee he'll put up numbers.Mike Bell, on the other hand, is solid. Worst case scenario, he's Michael Turner- a guy who'll be useless until TBell goes down, at which time he becomes a top-12 option. Best case scenario, he wins the starting job sometime during the course of the season, and becomes a top-12 option without an injury to TBell. And then, in the middle, you've got the possibility that Mike Bell gets 12 carries a game from here on out, and has solid RB3-4 value with RB1 upside.Denver averages 33 runs a game in any given year. Denver has not had an RB run more than 18.5 times per game since TD went for 2G in 1998. Do the math. There are going to be a LOT of carries up for grabs in Denver still.

 

[Marc Levin]

I think dropping MB for MM is not necessarily a bad move - if MM is going to your bench, it is a questionable move.

If you plan to start MM for the next few weeks, it is probably a very good move. At least you are getting a starting RB's points - with MB you are hanging onto a hope, and you are guaranteed no points for the next week, and probably the week after.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Denver averages 33 runs a game in any given year. Denver has not had an RB run more than 18.5 times per game since TD went for 2G in 1998. Do the math. There are going to be a LOT of carries up for grabs in Denver still.