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!
Is Mike Bell a for sure waste? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Stashy
- Start date
And this helps answer my question byyyyyyyyy
I'm not here to give you a pat on the back for your thread. I'm here to get an answer to my question.
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
Waste-oid
do it.
do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
First of all, that is an ACF question that doesn't belong in the Shark Pool. Second, it shouldn't be a question you have to ask in the first place, of course pickup White and dump Bell.And this helps answer my question byyyyyyyyy
taz
Footballguy
This thread actually has more relevant dialogue, and addresses more of what you're asking.
I'd definitely pick up White, but you might be better off hanging onto Bell if you can. Tatum Bell hasn't yet proven he can stay healthy for an entire season, and Bell could still maintain some value going forward.
If you have a scrub WR or an extra defense, I'd go that route.
I'd definitely pick up White, but you might be better off hanging onto Bell if you can. Tatum Bell hasn't yet proven he can stay healthy for an entire season, and Bell could still maintain some value going forward.
If you have a scrub WR or an extra defense, I'd go that route.
If Mike Bell was the feature back in Denver and Turner was the feature back for the Chargers Turner would blow Bell away. The Denver system is great but Bell can't hold Turners jock. That being said I would consider TBell less durable than LT so I would think it's more likely Bell would get action due to an injury than Turner.
ArcticEdge
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
SSOG I know you're smarter than that. Surely to God you don't really think Mike Bell has the talent of Michael Turner.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
I respectfully disagree.Last season, San Diego's RBs combined for 391.4 fantasy points. Denver's RBs combined for 442.5 fantasy points. And remember, too- in order for Turner to match that 391.4 point production, he'd have to be as good as LaDanian Tomlinson. For Mike Bell to get that 442.5, he'd only have to be as good as Mike Anderson or Tatum Bell.
Both MBell and MTurner are backup RBs who will get enough scattered action to be worth a desperation start from time to time, and who will become top-10 RBs if the guy in front of them ever goes down.
SSOG
Moderator
Of course he doesn't. Surely to God you don't really think that San Diego's system is as RB-friendly as Denver's.I mean, Mike Anderson isn't as talented as Jamal Lewis, but he scored as many fantasy points per game in 2000 as Jamal Lewis did in 2003.Edit: I mean, if talent was the only thing we cared about here, why is Chester Taylor a top-10 RB and Lawrence Maroney outside of the top 20 in the top-250 forward? Heck, Dodds has Mike Bell ranked one slot AHEAD of Michael Turner in the top-250 forward. Want to insinuate that he's being an idiot, too?
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
To answer the original posters question:
The only sure thing about the Denver Rb situation is that nothing is for certain and any Denver Rb that gets playing time is far from being a waste.
The only sure thing about the Denver Rb situation is that nothing is for certain and any Denver Rb that gets playing time is far from being a waste.
bocksheesh
Footballguy
So SSOG, what's your current take on Tatum Bell in the Denver offense?Is he the main man, or is it back to Skeletor split carry nonsense?
zamboni
Footballguy
Agreed. While Tatum has looked very good, it's not like he has this longstanding stranglehold on the job. His durability is still a question mark, and a big fumble or two could put him on the bench (or at the very least reduce his carries).The last thing a MB owner will want to do is drop him, and then potentially have to scramble to get him back at some point.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Not only is Turner more talented, but If Tatum Bell went down Shanahan just might pull another fast one (like he did naming Mike Bell starter to begin the season), and name a different RB the starter. I know that isn't a problem in SD.
Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya
Footballguy
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
The only reason anyone needs Mike Bell on their roster is if you have Tatum Bell.
The only way you should be dropping Mike Bell is if you have serious lineup trouble and very limited roster space.
If you can afford the roster apce, he is a nice little nugget to have have sitting quietly on your bench. There are not too many reserves who are almost automatic top-ten backs if they become starters. Plus, there are not too many starters in the NFL who have a less secure grip on that starting job as Tatum Bell.
If you can afford the roster apce, he is a nice little nugget to have have sitting quietly on your bench. There are not too many reserves who are almost automatic top-ten backs if they become starters. Plus, there are not too many starters in the NFL who have a less secure grip on that starting job as Tatum Bell.
And there are not too many head coaches in the NFL who are less predictable regarding who they start at RB.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Actually it isn't. Mike Bell is obviously not as good as Tatum Bell or Mike Anderson - you can see that on the field. I know it's blasphemy, but Turner could possibly be just as effective as Tomlinson at running back though they have different skill sets, he's a very talented running back. Also as JohnnyU already mentioned, Mike Bell probably would get less than the ususal full time share of carries - I bet Cedric Cobbs or sir not currently appearing on the active roster would cut into Mike Bell's numbers significantly.
SSOG
Moderator
He's the main man, but the carries will still be split. Denver runs it 33 times a game, pretty much on the nose, every single season. No way Tatum averages more than maybe 20 carries a game this year, which means 13+ carries are still up for grabs.No Denver RB has broken 320 carries (20 carries a game) since Terrell Davis went for 2,000. And yes, that includes Clinton Portis and Mike Anderson in 2000 (they never even broke 300).
Not true at all.
Who else would he name the starter? Who else is on the roster? The only choice would be Cedric Cobbs, and you *KNOW* Shanahan likes MBell better than Cobbs, because Cobbs was a gameday inactive in week 1 (and is currently injured and will miss up to 4 more weeks, anyway).
Yeah, Mike Bell would give up carries- like I said, all Denver RBs have given up carries since Terrell Davis. As for this whole "Mike Bell is obviously not as good as TBell or MAnderson"... I've seen the games (I'd wager that, as a Denver fan, I watched them more closely than you did), and I don't see what you're talking about. Mike Bell has looked effective enough- certainly better than Droughns or Gary did- and you have to remember that he's a ROOKIE. Clinton Portis didn't get the starting job until the 4th game of his rookie year. It takes time for rookies to learn the ropes.Anyway, I don't see a significant MBell/Cobbs carry split if Tatum goes down. Cobbs doesn't bring a different skillset to the table from Mike Bell, so there's less of a reason to platoon. Cobbs would eat some carries just so Mike didn't get overworked, but he'd still be putting up featured RB carry totals.And as for your claim that Turner might be as good as Tomlinson... laughable. And Billy Volek is as good as Steve McNair because he looked good backing him up, too, right? And while we're at it, Trung Candidate is as good as Marshall Faulk because he averaged 5.7 yards per carry and got 6 scores on 78 carries in 2001.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
DenialAnd as for your claim that Turner might be as good as Tomlinson... laughable. And Billy Volek is as good as Steve McNair because he looked good backing him up, too, right? And while we're at it, Trung Candidate is as good as Marshall Faulk because he averaged 5.7 yards per carry and got 6 scores on 78 carries in 2001.
SSOG
Moderator
I'll agree that one of us is in denial, although I would say that it's probably the one who is arguing that Michael Turner is arguably the best RB in the entire NFL.DenialAnd as for your claim that Turner might be as good as Tomlinson... laughable. And Billy Volek is as good as Steve McNair because he looked good backing him up, too, right? And while we're at it, Trung Candidate is as good as Marshall Faulk because he averaged 5.7 yards per carry and got 6 scores on 78 carries in 2001.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I thought you were comparing Mike Bell to Tatum Bell and Mike Anderson? Where did the Droughns and Gary comments come from? I've seen Mike Bell plenty this year, and in no way and at no time has he looked better than Tatum Bell or Mike Anderson (the Mike Anderson of a few years ago that put up 1000+ yards). Mike Bell also bears absolutely no resemblance to Clinton Portis - why you'd even bring him up here other than the fact that he was a rookie once is beyond me. You can laugh all you want about the Mike Turner claims. I may be wrong, but dismissing out of hand that he can't be as or near as successful as Tomlinson given a preponderance of the carries is mistaken. Turner is very talented, he's gained serious yards every time he's been inserted into a game and there is very little doubt that he would be very successful given full time work. Maybe he's another Trung Canidate - but then again maybe he's another Shaun Alexander just waiting for his chance. But please continue to roll your eyes, because that can't possibly happen right? I mean backups never go on to be as successful or more successful than the people they're waiting behind right? Your arrogance is comical - go back and watch Turner's carries from last week for exhibit one, that may clear up a little of your seeming ignorance regarding Turner's ability.Yeah, Mike Bell would give up carries- like I said, all Denver RBs have given up carries since Terrell Davis. As for this whole "Mike Bell is obviously not as good as TBell or MAnderson"... I've seen the games (I'd wager that, as a Denver fan, I watched them more closely than you did), and I don't see what you're talking about. Mike Bell has looked effective enough- certainly better than Droughns or Gary did- and you have to remember that he's a ROOKIE. Clinton Portis didn't get the starting job until the 4th game of his rookie year. It takes time for rookies to learn the ropes.Anyway, I don't see a significant MBell/Cobbs carry split if Tatum goes down. Cobbs doesn't bring a different skillset to the table from Mike Bell, so there's less of a reason to platoon. Cobbs would eat some carries just so Mike didn't get overworked, but he'd still be putting up featured RB carry totals.And as for your claim that Turner might be as good as Tomlinson... laughable. And Billy Volek is as good as Steve McNair because he looked good backing him up, too, right? And while we're at it, Trung Candidate is as good as Marshall Faulk because he averaged 5.7 yards per carry and got 6 scores on 78 carries in 2001.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I gotta agree with SSOG here. I like what Turner has done in relief and in garbage time - and he's a breakaway threat that MBell will never be - but as the sole ball carrier in SD, I don't think he's LT.Denver's SYSTEM makes Denver a great ruynning team. LT makes Sand Diego's system unstoppable.
LT>TB
MT=MB
SSOG
Moderator
Two simple points. Rookie RBs get better (example: See Portis,Clinton) and an RB doesn't need to be a stud to be a fantasy stud in Denver (see Droughns, Reuben or Gary, Olandis or Anderson, Mike).Mike Bell has looked pretty comparable to Tatum Bell so far, and certainly hasn't looked much worse than Mike Anderson running the ball. There'll be some dropoff there, of course, but not as much as between Tomlinson and Turner. Mike Bell has a better chance of approximating Mike Anderson than Turner has of Tomlinson.
Yeah, I am dismissing out of hand that Turner will be the best RB in the NFL, which is what he'd have to be to be as good as Tomlinson. It's not arrogance, it's just the simple fact that only one RB in the entire NFL can be the best RB in the entire NFL. The odds are overwhelmingly against it. I'd roll my eyes just as hard if someone said that Jim Sorgi was the next Peyton Manning. Could it happen? Sure... but if I'm in Vegas, I'm betting against it every day and twice on Sunday.I can look at Turner's carries all I want, but I can't change the fact that (a) they're coming against a defense that's already been worn down, and (b) teams don't sell out against Turner as much as they do against Tomlinson. Trung Candidate has demonstrated that there's a huge difference between excelling in a part-time role and excelling in a full-time role. Billy Volek and Tommy Maddox have driven this point home again.On the other hand, while MTurner as a full-time back is a complete unknown, MBell as a full-time back is not- he's practically a sure thing. Not because of his talent, but because Denver's System has a track record far more proven than Michael Turner's.For what it's worth, it's not like my claims are preposterous here. Dodds ranked both MBell and Turner within one spot of other (with MBell being in front), so there's at least one pretty smart guy who agrees with my whole MBell = MTurner assessment. Make that two, now that Levin has weighed in.
Sleeper 43
Footballguy
IF you took these 2 guys side by side. Mike Bell is no where near the skill of Michael Turner.And carries arent everything either. 442 attempts this 338 that, why dont you talk about strength of sched too while you at it or who has a better O line or blah blah blah . Thier more than one factor to make a decison off of.The most important thing we can go by IS true individual skill and Turner CRUSHES Mike Bell.More than likely if you prove you have skill in the NFL the opportunites will begin to present themselves more and more as time goes on for you.The same does not apply to opportunites (carries, touches ) If you suck and get alot of carries you will still suck and soon you will begin to either lose your job or get less carries.And I think is safe to say regardless of your argument that San Diego isnt chopped liver when it comes to being a running team. I'm not too concerned about how the staffers have them ranked as of now either. I could ask ANYONE who did a Dynasty Draft right now that hands down Turner would be taken earlier than M Bell.IF Turner gets traded or gets signed in the off-season I look forward to ressurecting this post from the dead.Funny thing is I have no stake in Turner either , I own him in 0 leagues, but I just felt I had to stop this silly comparison here and now.Edit- Not to mention Mike Bell Weighs probabaly 20 pounds less and Turner is still "the burner". What about last season when Turner busted that long run to seal the week 15 win against the Colts. Was that also trash time football? Did they put him in becasue they had the win sealed when the score was 19/17?You want to talk redraft for the remander of this season, ok, But as of now Tatum has sealed the RB1 gig and all the news is saying to expect Turners carries to increase. I still dont see it making sense though.
Last edited by a moderator:
You have no way, whatsoever, to know how good Mike Bell will be, or how Turner would do if handed the starter's role.I seem to recall Jesse Chatman tearing it up as LT's backup a couple years ago.
Sleeper 43
Footballguy
Keep in mind fantasy owners were bummed when the chargers drafted Turner becasue they knew had had the skills and would be riding the pine. Turner didnt just emerge over night as a solid prospect.
veto87
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I guess we just plain disagree here - it's pretty obvious to me Tatum is a much better running back than Mike, and Mike Bell does look somewhat worse than Mike Anderson in his prime to me. Mike Bell has looked better than Ron Dayne though. I also notice you've dropped the Droughns and Gary comparisons - good job.
A bunch of non-sequitors. Define "best running back in the NFL" first, tell me which year Tomlinson was clearly that guy, then get back to me. Otherwise you're ducking the real question of whether Turner can approximate Tomlinson's rushing numbers if given a smiliar workload - he can, but you don't want to admit it. That's fine.
The fact you're saying these things indicates you haven't watched Turner play. He gets his yards all throughout the game, against defenses that are definitely not worn down much of the time, such as the 19 yard run he had against Baltimore last week in the second quarter (or was the Ravens' D worn out already at that point?). But you go ahead and believe what you want to in spite of the facts - the truth is you're just flat out wrong on this one.
Turner a complete unknown? So that start he had against KC in 2004 where he averaged 5.8 a carry on 15 rushes didn't actually happen in your world? And somehow Mike Bell's 27 attempts for 114 yards makes him a sure thing (because of Denver's system, which somehow Quentin Griffith and Ron Dayne gagged in, but hey everyone else is guaranteed to be good in) while Turner's 107 attempts and 660 yards means he's still an unknown?I'll assume you were joking, because you couldn't have been serious with that.
So wait, Dodds ranked Turner, a guaranteed backup ONE SPOT behind Mike Bell, who was a possible starter and you think that supports your contention? If anthing it weakens it - and I'd bet anything you want, and twice on Sunday that Dodds and just about any NFL GM would take Turner over Mike Bell in a heartbeat. I'll go one further and bet you that Shanahan would take Turner over every back on his roster right now in a heartbeat.It's obvious to me you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Turner, you haven't actually seen him play much and have no business drawing conclusions about his talent. The comparisons to Jim Sorgi are ridiculous. My question to you is, why do you feel so compelled to weigh in on something you obviously know very little about?
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Groovus didn't say "as good" but "as effective", which he isn't but closer than you think. Like he said, they have two different styles of running and LT has the complete game. I don't think Turner is close to being a complete player yet, but he's plenty effective running the ball.He's the main man, but the carries will still be split. Denver runs it 33 times a game, pretty much on the nose, every single season. No way Tatum averages more than maybe 20 carries a game this year, which means 13+ carries are still up for grabs.No Denver RB has broken 320 carries (20 carries a game) since Terrell Davis went for 2,000. And yes, that includes Clinton Portis and Mike Anderson in 2000 (they never even broke 300).Not true at all.Who else would he name the starter? Who else is on the roster? The only choice would be Cedric Cobbs, and you *KNOW* Shanahan likes MBell better than Cobbs, because Cobbs was a gameday inactive in week 1 (and is currently injured and will miss up to 4 more weeks, anyway).Yeah, Mike Bell would give up carries- like I said, all Denver RBs have given up carries since Terrell Davis. As for this whole "Mike Bell is obviously not as good as TBell or MAnderson"... I've seen the games (I'd wager that, as a Denver fan, I watched them more closely than you did), and I don't see what you're talking about. Mike Bell has looked effective enough- certainly better than Droughns or Gary did- and you have to remember that he's a ROOKIE. Clinton Portis didn't get the starting job until the 4th game of his rookie year. It takes time for rookies to learn the ropes.Anyway, I don't see a significant MBell/Cobbs carry split if Tatum goes down. Cobbs doesn't bring a different skillset to the table from Mike Bell, so there's less of a reason to platoon. Cobbs would eat some carries just so Mike didn't get overworked, but he'd still be putting up featured RB carry totals.And as for your claim that Turner might be as good as Tomlinson... laughable. And Billy Volek is as good as Steve McNair because he looked good backing him up, too, right? And while we're at it, Trung Candidate is as good as Marshall Faulk because he averaged 5.7 yards per carry and got 6 scores on 78 carries in 2001.
Having started one of these threads, I have to wonder how much we're panicking. We're looking at one game where T. Bell got 27 carries to M. Bell's 4. I wish they hadn't had a bye in Week 4, so we'd have another week of info to look at. Perhaps Bell's finger was a problem in that game or perhaps Shanahan felt T. Bell had a better matchup against that defense.
As much as I might regret it, I am holding on to M. Bell and waiting another 4 weeks.
As much as I might regret it, I am holding on to M. Bell and waiting another 4 weeks.
Your points are well made and well taken but they suffer from a major flaw. You are basing everything from last year. It's a new year and situations and players change.This year, albeit only 3 games, the Charger duo of LT and Turner has put up 86 fantasy points and 99 in PPR leagues versus the Bells who have put up 74 and 83 in PPR leagues.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
ding ding ding
thecardiackid
Footballguy
Not true, if you're in a keeper league, a glutton for punishment and ready to play the "whose the DEN RB this year" sweepstakes in 07'.Worst case he'll be a poor man's Brandon Jacobs w/ a decent opp for a vulture TD here and there.Lots can (and probably will) change in Shanny's noodle between now and next August.
shakeybarn
Footballguy
Yeah... I indirectly agree. As a Tatum owner... i'm worried. I know the Broncs, the Rat, the history, and both Bells. This isn't a sure thing that Tatum is it... although in the SHORT-TERM I don't see much for Mike, but IT AIN'T OVER in DENVER.
fatness
Footballguy
Turner is better than Mike Bell.
Say you're making a trade with someone right now, and they offer you either Turner or Bell. Who do you take? Turner, only a backup, is outscoring Bell who actually started games. In redraft it makes slightly more sense to take Turner. In dynasty, Turner by a wider margin.
Say you're making a trade with someone right now, and they offer you either Turner or Bell. Who do you take? Turner, only a backup, is outscoring Bell who actually started games. In redraft it makes slightly more sense to take Turner. In dynasty, Turner by a wider margin.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
This is what the psychiatric industry refers to as "denial".
SSOG
Moderator
There's you're problem. This thread is about a redraft league- unless you think there's a dynasty league out there somewhere where LenDale White is still on the waiver wire.
I didn't drop them. They're still there. There's an awfully long list of Denver RBs who have been fantasy forces- if Mike Bell is as good as even one of them, it stands to reason that he can be a fantasy force, too.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6913/s...LYF?year=careerCarries by quarter:
1st quarter: 7
2nd quarter: 23
3rd quarter: 20
4th quarter: 57
Turner has more career carries in the 4th quarter than in all other quarters combined. Just an observation.
Trung Candidate went for 23/195/2 against the Jets in 2001. Doesn't mean he was a proven commodity. Heck, Quentin Griffin went for 150 against the Chiefs, too. How'd that wind up working out for him?Also, Ron Dayne "gagged" in Denver's system? He went for 53/270/1. Outside of one long run last year, Dayne's stats were identical to Turner's, and yet somehow Turner was a proven thing and Dayne "gagged"? If Dayne had busted off an 80-yard TD, would he have been a "proven commodity", too?
Do you even know what my contention is? My contention is that Mike Bell possesses exactly the same value as Michael Turner right now. I've posted several times that I'm not talking about NFL talent here, I'm talking about fantasy value. I don't care one whit about NFL talent, I only care about how many fantasy points a player is going to get me.
I've seen Michael Turner play, and those "obviously you aren't watching the games" claims are the worst form of schtick out there. If you disagree with my arguements, please attack my arguements. Don't try to call my credibility into question. Don't tell me what games I have or have not seen. Try to be excellent to your fellow posters.As Joe would say, please turn the tool factor way down here. If you can't engage in a civilized and rational discussion with people who disagree with you on Turner, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing him at all. And for the record, I don't know "very little" about Michael Turner. I own him in 4 of my 5 fantasy leagues. You might claim that you know more about Michael Turner than I do, and I wouldn't argue the point, because pissing matches on the internet are never worth anyone's time... but I guarantee you that I know more about Michael Turner than you know about what games I watch. That didn't seem to stop you from weighing in, now did it?
Anyway, be that as it may, there's no reason for me to continue trying to talk rationally with you. It's only upsetting me, and I couldn't care less if you're unable to discern the difference between NFL talent and Fantasy value. Feel free to get in the last word. Your arguement was much stronger than mine, you're obviously much better versed not only on Michael Turner's value, but also on Mike Bell's, and I shouldn't have even tried to weigh in on this subject when it's abundantly clear that you've got it all covered. I concede all points, and apologize for wasting your time.
Have a great night, and good luck in all of your fantasy games this Sunday.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Johhny U, you also said this, "If Mike Bell is the starting RB week 1, I'll kiss every cows a-r-s-e in Minnesota."How was Minny?
Not wrong long term, but short term
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Yeah, I went through 37 tubes of chapstick, even though I was right basically.Johhny U, you also said this, "If Mike Bell is the starting RB week 1, I'll kiss every cows a-r-s-e in Minnesota."How was Minny?
Not wrong long term, but short term
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Just chiming in on the SSOG retort about Michael Turner.
1) SSOG you handled yourself very "cool" and the board thanks you...
2) In assuming that all your discussions were about redraft league fantasy value, I would agree, with the exception of if you won LT2. if you do, I would say Turner has more value.
3) While I agreed with most of what you said, I would add a few comments
a) I believe that talent eventually shows itself so NFL talent at running with the rock and catching it does have fantasy value built into it for the future. Granted this is much more true in dynasty leagues (which is why I like them better), but you said you could care less about NFL value and all you care about are fantasy points and I think you are missing that there is a correlation between the two, eventually the talent shines through and helps fantasy wise.
B) I know you were pimping Ron Dayne hard this offseason and I was one of the people who stated maybe rudely ("that didn't watch the way he runs") and that the NFL talent will show through and he will not be a strong factor. I believe that is why he was dropped from Denver and I believe this is why he will never be a very good NFL RB.
C) Michael Turner has a lot of very good talent in him. He is better at running the ball than Lamont Jordan but does not have Lamont's pass catching skills (even though Lamont led the league in drops last year). I think Turner is kind of like Jamal Lewis in that most of his great qualities are in straight ahead speed and excellent power. Like QB's, the backup is many times the favorite of fans, but I think Turner has a great future and honestly and ironically, he would be perfect for Denver next year. If not maybe Houston. The price is high for teams as he is an URFA but he should be starting somewhere and he should be asking to do so.
Then again, I thought Jesse Chatman looked good as LT2's backup as well...until he ate himself out of the NFL.
Enjoy!
1) SSOG you handled yourself very "cool" and the board thanks you...
2) In assuming that all your discussions were about redraft league fantasy value, I would agree, with the exception of if you won LT2. if you do, I would say Turner has more value.
3) While I agreed with most of what you said, I would add a few comments
a) I believe that talent eventually shows itself so NFL talent at running with the rock and catching it does have fantasy value built into it for the future. Granted this is much more true in dynasty leagues (which is why I like them better), but you said you could care less about NFL value and all you care about are fantasy points and I think you are missing that there is a correlation between the two, eventually the talent shines through and helps fantasy wise.
B) I know you were pimping Ron Dayne hard this offseason and I was one of the people who stated maybe rudely ("that didn't watch the way he runs") and that the NFL talent will show through and he will not be a strong factor. I believe that is why he was dropped from Denver and I believe this is why he will never be a very good NFL RB.
C) Michael Turner has a lot of very good talent in him. He is better at running the ball than Lamont Jordan but does not have Lamont's pass catching skills (even though Lamont led the league in drops last year). I think Turner is kind of like Jamal Lewis in that most of his great qualities are in straight ahead speed and excellent power. Like QB's, the backup is many times the favorite of fans, but I think Turner has a great future and honestly and ironically, he would be perfect for Denver next year. If not maybe Houston. The price is high for teams as he is an URFA but he should be starting somewhere and he should be asking to do so.
Then again, I thought Jesse Chatman looked good as LT2's backup as well...until he ate himself out of the NFL.
Enjoy!
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
LOL To do that and be right, well, that sounds like marriageYeah, I went through 37 tubes of chapstick, even though I was right basically.Johhny U, you also said this, "If Mike Bell is the starting RB week 1, I'll kiss every cows a-r-s-e in Minnesota."How was Minny?
Not wrong long term, but short term
