Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I think we're talking about two different things - as a FF prospect, MT=MB.As talented NFL players, MT>MB.
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
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Untrue - Tatum Bell has started every Bronco game this year.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/406308Which game did Mike Bell start?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
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
No - you were right completely.Mike Bell did not start any game for the Broncos once the regular season started.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
JBaldachino
Footballguy
Honestly, are you kidding me? MT is as good as LT? Backs like LT come around once a generation. There have been plenty of good backups, plenty of guys in college who get drafted with "talent". But MT has done NOTHING to suggest he could near LT. LT is a force in every aspect of the game. He can run, he can catch. MT is a great backup. Thats all he's proven so far in the NFL. Yes he had a good game against KC. Havn't we all. I don't think its wrong to point out that Jesse Chatman tore it up as LT's backup a couple years ago. I also think it IS wrong to say that Mike Bell is so incredibly less talented than MT. Mike Bell is a rookie who played well in camp and managed to get the starting job early on. TB stepped up to the challenge and took the job back, if in an almost RBBC. Seriously, Mike Bell is a rookie whose done more than Cedric Benson has in the past 2 years. Can Benson not even hold MT's jock strap too? Mike Bell is doing better than Cadallic this year. I guess Cadallic can't hold MT's jock strap.
Stop telling us that backup RBs, now matter how good they seem to be, are soooo much more talented than all these other RBs. We've heard it before, a thousand times. Rhodes, Trung. Jesse Chatman. A bunch of RBs I can't even remember because they were exactly that - stud backups who never managed to make it as starters.
And honestly, one of the most ridiculous comments I've heard in a long time is that "MT is as good as LT". . . . come on i know people on this board love to tout unproven players and occasionally you do find a gem in the rough.. and Turner may end up being a great RB... or he might not. But I'd bet eveyr day and twice on sunday that he's never as good as LT.
Stop telling us that backup RBs, now matter how good they seem to be, are soooo much more talented than all these other RBs. We've heard it before, a thousand times. Rhodes, Trung. Jesse Chatman. A bunch of RBs I can't even remember because they were exactly that - stud backups who never managed to make it as starters.
And honestly, one of the most ridiculous comments I've heard in a long time is that "MT is as good as LT". . . . come on i know people on this board love to tout unproven players and occasionally you do find a gem in the rough.. and Turner may end up being a great RB... or he might not. But I'd bet eveyr day and twice on sunday that he's never as good as LT.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I haven't yet. :(
fatness
Footballguy
You're right, thank you for correcting that.
My post should have said "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, a backup, is outscoring Bell, a backup. In redraft it makes slightly more sense to take Turner. In dynasty, Turner by a wider margin."
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
I can't prove it but he was supposed to start and was even listed as the starter on teh screen. It is possible that he had a helemt malfunction or something but he was named the starter and his name/picture was on the "starters list" when the game went on. Those starts may be incorrect...anyone?Marc Levin said:No - you were right completely.Mike Bell did not start any game for the Broncos once the regular season started.JohnnyU said:Yeah, I went through 37 tubes of chapstick, even though I was right basically.Liquid Tension said: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
SSOG
Moderator
Nope, Tatum was the guy who was supposed to be starting in every game so far. Shanny confirmed this when he discussed his rotation.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I don't usually bump posts for I told you so purposes, but after sitting through another SSOG diatribe, I feel it's merited this time...
This is wrong too, especially considering the currently publicised plan to continue using both backs for the Chargers going forward.PRIOR to last night's game, the relative rankings according to FBGs scoring was: 33 RB Turner,Michael SD 3 30 221 1 2 17 0 0 29.8.. 39 RB Bell,Mike DEN 3 27 114 1 5 42 0 0 21.6We'll see how it goes tonight for Mike Bell, but I'm guessing Turner will still have more fantasy points than Mike Bell come tomorrow.Sometimes NFL talent can't and shouldn't be ignored, Michael Turner is one of those cases, as I've been saying (and others as well) all along.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
SSOG said:
Interesting definition of marginally:MIke Bell 0 carries, 0 yards, 0 receptions, 0 yards.Michael Turner 11 carries 56 yards, 0 receptions 0 yards. I'll hazard a guess that when the results come out today, the gap just got wider between Mike Bell and Michael Turner, as it will continue to do so over the course of the season as long as Tatum Bell stays healthy. Of course there's the same probability that Tomlinson gets hurt as there is for Tatum Bell (well actually since Turner actually seems to be increasing his playing time to the detriment of Tomlinson's touches, maybe Tatum has a slightly higher probability), but gambling on injuries is a fools game. It's pretty clear that Turner is a much better back than Mike Bell from whatever perspective you choose - fantasy or real life. If anyone is valuing Michael Turner as equal to or less than Mike Bell and Brandon Jones at this point, well the facts clearly indicate that they don't have a realistic read on him for whatever reason, be it fantasy or real life.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
What were those RB rankings again? 33 and 39? In other words, neither of them is start-able. So I say again, I only care about how many points an RB is going to GET ME- not get my bench. I don't care about the distinction between the #62 and #69 fantasy WRs in the league, because both of them are bench fodder. I don't care about the distinction between the #33 and #39 fantasy RBs either (a whopping 8 points there), I only care about which one is more likely to be starter-caliber.Michael Turner will produce marginally better points while a backup. Mike Bell is marginally more likely to become the starter. Both will produce similar numbers once starting. I have them ranked pretty evenly, right alongside guys like Brandon Jones and Jerious Norwood. Any of the 4 would be a virtual wash.And I'm not even going to address the "another SSOG diatribe" crack. Sorry you have to come back from your fishing trip all empty-handed.
Nigel Tufnel
Footballguy
Yeah, I'm not sure what to do, either. Luckily, I've got both guys. I'd drop Mike, but I just feel way more comfortable having both.
zamboni
Footballguy
If you have Tatum, you should definitely hold Mike as a handcuff. Try to get Cobbs, too, just in case.
Sleeper 43
Footballguy
So have we established yet that whether Dynasty or Re-Draft MT > MB ?
We've already established who was the btter longterm prospect (MT)
We've already established who has more pure skill (MT)
But most importantly I think at this point in time MT IS the better FF point getter out of the two as well.
Tatum had a solid game against the Ravens D which I'm sure suprised alot fo the haters out there. And MT didnt get the ball during trash time like alot of people believe.
Did I mention he out rushed LT on less carries ?
Even if you own Tatum i could see it being tuff to not take MT over MB.
Turner is getting production NOW. Sometimes waiting on a RB1 to get injured so your backup can emerge has you waiting all season.
We've already established who was the btter longterm prospect (MT)
We've already established who has more pure skill (MT)
But most importantly I think at this point in time MT IS the better FF point getter out of the two as well.
Tatum had a solid game against the Ravens D which I'm sure suprised alot fo the haters out there. And MT didnt get the ball during trash time like alot of people believe.
Did I mention he out rushed LT on less carries ?
Even if you own Tatum i could see it being tuff to not take MT over MB.
Turner is getting production NOW. Sometimes waiting on a RB1 to get injured so your backup can emerge has you waiting all season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I would expect him to see the field for a few seriesYes, they ARE playing the Raiders with a terrible run defense, so he should have some success - whether it's enough to help a fantasy team this week depends on how byeweekravaged your lineup is and how much Shanahan lets him play.
thecardiackid
Footballguy
He should get 7-10 carries w/ DEN running all day to keep the ball out of Jakes hands. And maybe even a vulture score. But I wouldn't count on it. MB won't turn into MBIII or Maroney anytime soon.
SSOG
Moderator
Congratulations. Turner scored 5.6 points, which would have made an absolutely horrible week for a starting RB.Neither of them holds much fantasy value until he gets the starting job. You can say that gambling on injuries is a fool's game, but that's exactly what handcuffing is- it's gambling on injuries, and as you said Mike Bell has a better shot of winning that gamble than Turner does at this point. I still think they're pretty equally valued- as I said, Turner will produce marginally more while a backup (and yes, 5.6 is only marginally more than 0.0, because both would be a horrible week if they were in your starting lineup), but that Mike Bell has a bigger chance of winning the starting job to balance that out.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
UNless your roster is exceptionally large, or you are exceptionally thin at RB, holding three spots for one is usually not a smart move.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
gotta strongly disagree.Marty seems more willing to give Turner extended carries in the course of a game, thus greater probability of those 45-50 yard/1 TD games.Considering the likely competition between Den and SD for the division, and for even a playoff spot (winning the division might be the only way either team makes the playoffs given the WC sitch in the AFC), neither LT or TB is likely to be sitting for an entire game nearthe end of the year, but a rotation is developing in SD while a rotations is not developing in Den.MT could make a nice sneaky flex play next to LT against a team SD is likely to either blow out or run a lot against. (read: Oakland)Who'd you rather start - TB plus MB versus Oakland or LT plus MT versus Oakland? I take number 2 and not just b/c LT is a god.
SSOG
Moderator
I'd actually rather not start MB or MT *at all*. That's why I say he has marginal fantasy value. He's going to get his points, but they won't come consistantly enough for him to see my starting lineup, and personally... I couldn't care less if my bench RBs scored 9 points or 2 points. They're on my bench. Any scoring doesn't do me any good.If I owned Mike Bell and Michael Turner in the same league, they'd both be scoring the exact same number of points for my team- zero.Marc Levin said:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Point taken, but consider their respective values in a 14+ team league, with flex options, in the upcoming bye week stretch, with several WRs who you might play in the flex being injured.I'd say MT at least HAS starter level fantasy value in those leagues, while MB does not.Just always remember how "egocentric" it is to say that "because he earns 0 points for MY team or would earn 0 points in in MY league, he has 'marginal' fantasy value"MT has fantasy value in many league - MB has marginal fantasy value in almost all leagues.Consequently, MT>MB.'nuff said?
Ice Cream Man
Footballguy
That's a pretty strong statement. The Burner is the 26th RB (ppr, fairly standard scoring) which seems to be more valuable than Bell, who's 48th.By analogy, that's like saying Fitz (26th WR) is about as worthless as Troy Williamson (48th).
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Excellent posting.SSOG has fallen into the classic FF argument logic trap:"since player X holds Y value in my league, it is a general truth that player X holds Y fantasy value"The specific does not prove the general - so don;t make general statements based on your specific situation - at least w/o clarifying exactly why your specific proves your general statement..It's simple logic.
I never realized all your posts were specific to your league.So wait, SSOG was right after all, Tatum will never be a starter in HIS league. So guys, get off his back, he was right after all!
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Fullbacks Cecil Sapp and Kyle Johnson were the only other Rbs to get rushing attempts besides Tatum Bell last week.
Sapp was used as a halfback behind FB Kyle Johnson while Tatum got a break.
Sapp was used as a halfback behind FB Kyle Johnson while Tatum got a break.
SSOG
Moderator
I know it was a generalization, but the point stands. I said "my team" to illustrate the point, but I easily could have said "Anyteam USA". Michael Turner simply has marginal fantasy value as a backup. Yes, he has some value as a bye-week fill-in or occasional desperation spot-start, even as a backup. He has some MARGINAL value. I've said all along that, as long as they're both backups, MT will have more value- he's a possible desperation start, which gives him some MARGINAL fantasy value. Like I also said though, at this point it looks more likely that Mike Bell will become a starter at some point this season than it does that Michael Turner will. That's enough to balance MT's MARGINAL value gap as a desperation play.A point to remember- San Diego has run 43 more times than they've passed, which is second in the league only to Atlanta. If I recall correctly, that margin is +30 more than the third place team, despite the fact that SD has played one fewer game. SD has no more games against Tennessee, and only one more game against Oakland. When discussing Turner's value, we should look at what he's likely to do GOING FORWARD, and expecting him to keep scoring, even at the relatively low pace he's currently on, is probably unrealistic.
What are you talking about? Tatum Bell is starting for someone in every single league I am in this week. In several of those leagues, that someone is me.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
bump
- for someone else to explain why MT on your bench holds more fantasy value than MB on your bench
- and for someone else to try and get SSOG to understand how MT is a borderline STARTER in 14 team leagues and leagues with flex while MB = borderline WW fodder.
By definition, a borderline starter holds more than marginal fantasy value, and holds more fantasy value than a borderline drop candidate.
- for someone else to explain why MT on your bench holds more fantasy value than MB on your bench
- and for someone else to try and get SSOG to understand how MT is a borderline STARTER in 14 team leagues and leagues with flex while MB = borderline WW fodder.
By definition, a borderline starter holds more than marginal fantasy value, and holds more fantasy value than a borderline drop candidate.
SSOG
Moderator
Again, Turner is a borderline starter in large part because of the Patsies that the Chargers have played. Like I said, I'm talking about his value going forward- and going forward, I do not expect SD to run almost 10 more times than they pass per game.Currently, we're sitting late in the 3rd quarter against San Fran, and SD has a 19 point lead, and Turner only has one carry (compared to 4 for Lorenzo Neal). Pretty strong evidence that you can't count on Turner to hold any value outside of a blowout. I'd then argue that it's pretty darn tough to predict blowouts in today's NFL.I suppose we'll see what Turner does for the rest of the game, but even if he goes for 100/2, it's not going to convince me that he's anything more than a desperation start. I mean, like I said... SD is winning by 19 at the end of the 3rd and Turner has yet to get his first yard of the day.
SSOG
Moderator
With the Chargers up 41 to 19, not only was Tomlinson still in the game, but he also scored another TD to make it 48 to 19.
At the two minute warning, despite the fact that this is a HUGE Chargers blowout, San Diego has a 39:29 pass:run ratio, Tomlinson has 21 carries, Neal has 4, Turner has 1 (for 0 yards). That looks like pretty marginal fantasy value to me. As I said, the Run
ass ratio wouldn't stay the same, and Turner should never be anything more than a desperation play. While he's a slightly better desperation play than Mike Bell, neither one has much fantasy value until he wins the starting job.
At the two minute warning, despite the fact that this is a HUGE Chargers blowout, San Diego has a 39:29 pass:run ratio, Tomlinson has 21 carries, Neal has 4, Turner has 1 (for 0 yards). That looks like pretty marginal fantasy value to me. As I said, the Run
ass ratio wouldn't stay the same, and Turner should never be anything more than a desperation play. While he's a slightly better desperation play than Mike Bell, neither one has much fantasy value until he wins the starting job.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
You are asking me to judge MT's value on this one game?
Wow - SSOG, you are not this poor at debate - I expected better.
SSOG
Moderator
Why not? You were asking me to judge MT's value on a drastically skewed 4-game sample size (only one of which was really that impressive).
Why? Even if he went for 100/2 in the 4th quarter of a blowout, that wouldn't prove anything other than that he has value in the 4th quarter of blowout games. Since I maintain that you can't reliably predict blowouts (Indy vs. Tennessee, anyone?), I stand by the fact that even if Turner had gone for 100/2 at the end of the game (which, by the way, he didn't), he'd still be a desperation start.If you have to pray for SD to win the game by 30 for Turner to have noticable fantasy value, perhaps you shouldn't be playing him in the first place, outside of absolute desperation.Speaking of not being that poor at debate, perhaps you should look in the mirror. Saying "I expected better" without addressing any one of my points certainly doesn't qualify as exceptional debate skills.
Here are my points, laid out very simply so that you can address them at your leisure.Point #1- San Diego's run
ass ratio was DRAMATICALLY skewed in the first 4 weeks, and would likely regress towards the mean over the duration of the season.Point #2- if San Diego's runass ratio regresses towards the mean, those carries are coming from Turner's share, not Tomlinson'.sPoint #3- Blowouts are extremely hard to predict. As a result, deciding when someone who excels in blowouts will have a good game is very unreliable and unpredictable.Point #4- If a player is extremely unreliable in terms of when he'll have good games, and if he's a very big boom-or-bust type player, he should only be a desperation start.Point #5- Michael Turner fits the description of Point #3 and Point #4.phillzphan
Footballguy
@1:Why not? You were asking me to judge MT's value on a drastically skewed 4-game sample size (only one of which was really that impressive).Why? Even if he went for 100/2 in the 4th quarter of a blowout, that wouldn't prove anything other than that he has value in the 4th quarter of blowout games. Since I maintain that you can't reliably predict blowouts (Indy vs. Tennessee, anyone?), I stand by the fact that even if Turner had gone for 100/2 at the end of the game (which, by the way, he didn't), he'd still be a desperation start.If you have to pray for SD to win the game by 30 for Turner to have noticable fantasy value, perhaps you shouldn't be playing him in the first place, outside of absolute desperation.Speaking of not being that poor at debate, perhaps you should look in the mirror. Saying "I expected better" without addressing any one of my points certainly doesn't qualify as exceptional debate skills.
@2: @3: @4: @5:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I CONCEDE all your points.Those points do not establish how MT's fantasy value is marginal - NOR how his value is not greater than MB's.Your statement about "well, points on my bench don't count" has been systematically disproved:#1 points on your bench matter for determining a player's fantasy value - trades, for one thing, rely on the player's accumulated points regardless of whether he produced them for your active sqaud.#2 in some leagues - esp. 14 team leagues with a flex spot - he is a starting candidate. And you failed to address the point above about how in SOME LEAGUES MT = borderline starter, MB = borderline WW fodder. Until you address point #2, the rest of your argument about MT going forward means nothing to me.We obviously need to see what MB does tonite, but I truly believe you have lost sight of this debate, SSOG. The debate is who has higher fantasy value. Your argument in response (IMO, an asinine argument) is that MB=MT because they are both on your bench. Well, you have yet to put forth a single point beyond that one supporting your argument that MB=MT in terms of fantasy value.Nor have you addressed the issue that MT makes it into some FF players' starting lineup while MB does NOT. By that definition alone - with no other argument presented - I believe I have shown that MT's FF value > MB's FF value.Point #1- San Diego's run
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Oh,. BTW, tonite will go a LONG WAY in deciding whether the OP's question is yes or no.
Right now I am leaning towards M.B. = a waste of a roster spot, even if you have TBell.
Right now I am leaning towards M.B. = a waste of a roster spot, even if you have TBell.
SSOG
Moderator
Re your point #1- Yes, they matter for trade value, but I was talking about a player's value going forward. If we're talking trades here, I'd much rather have Turner because his PERCEIVED value is much higher, so he's worth more in trade. I'm not talking PERCEIVED value, though, I'm talking ACTUAL value... and in terms of ACTUAL value, I'd consider them a wash.Re your point #2- I still disagree with the assertion that MT is a borderline starter. He had two big games to start the season. Last year after three weeks, Frisman Jackson was averaging 4/46 and had a score, but that number was inflated by a flukey game, and his value going forward was nowhere near that. This is my main claim here- just because MTurner has been, to this point in time, a borderline starter does not mean that he *IS* a borderline starter- any more than Frisman's strong start last year meant that he was a borderline starter.Turner has been a borderline starter to this point, but from this point on, I do not think he's going to be a "borderline starter" for the rest of the season. That means, from my perspective, you have two RBs, neither of which is anywhere NEAR the border of fantasy starter-caliber. One of those RBs will score marginally more fantasy points per game and is a slightly better desperation play. The other RB is marginally more likely to become an actual fantasy starter. As a result, their two values are pretty similar in my mind.Even in 16 team leagues... Turner is more likely to average 2-4 points per game more than Mike Bell as a backup, while Mike Bell is more likely to become a 12-15 ppg RB than Turner, so I still consider their values a wash.I CONCEDE all your points.Those points do not establish how MT's fantasy value is marginal - NOR how his value is not greater than MB's.Your statement about "well, points on my bench don't count" has been systematically disproved:#1 points on your bench matter for determining a player's fantasy value - trades, for one thing, rely on the player's accumulated points regardless of whether he produced them for your active sqaud.#2 in some leagues - esp. 14 team leagues with a flex spot - he is a starting candidate. And you failed to address the point above about how in SOME LEAGUES MT = borderline starter, MB = borderline WW fodder. Until you address point #2, the rest of your argument about MT going forward means nothing to me.We obviously need to see what MB does tonite, but I truly believe you have lost sight of this debate, SSOG. The debate is who has higher fantasy value. Your argument in response (IMO, an asinine argument) is that MB=MT because they are both on your bench. Well, you have yet to put forth a single point beyond that one supporting your argument that MB=MT in terms of fantasy value.Nor have you addressed the issue that MT makes it into some FF players' starting lineup while MB does NOT. By that definition alone - with no other argument presented - I believe I have shown that MT's FF value > MB's FF value.Point #1- San Diego's run
Ice Cream Man
Footballguy
So when you go and buy a Pepsi in the store and see the price tag of 99 cents, you tell the clerk that is really its perceived value.. not its actual value?I'm sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense. Actual value=perceived value=value.
Just kill the thread by saying you overexaggerated slightly the value of these players, and be done with it.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Primary backup on 20th-ranked rushing offense <<<<<<<< Primary backup on 3rd-ranked rushing offense.
SSOG
Moderator
What the hell are you talking about? If perceived value is the same thing as actual value, then why does everyone talk about "buying low" and "selling high"? I mean, if a player is actually exactly as good as everyone thinks he is, then there would be no such thing as buying low or selling high.Perceived value is how much everyone THINKS a player is going to score for the rest of the season. Actual value is how much he's REALLY going to score for the rest of the season. For instance, this week the PERCEIVED value for Torry Holt just shot through the roof- people THINK he's going to score more from here on out this week than they did last week- but in reality, his ACTUAL value hasn't changed at all... it just turns out people were slightly underrating him beforehand. And in a couple weeks we might learn that people are slightly underrating or overrating him this week.
Before this week, the common perception among the general public was that Turner would be a borderline starter for the rest of the season, especially in San Diego blowouts. Personally, I felt that they were overrating him, and that Turner wouldn't finish the season nearly as strong as he started it. In other words, in my opinion, Turner's PERCEIVED value was higher than his ACTUAL value.
Again, perceived value vs. actual value is not nonsense in the slightest. If it was, no trades would ever be consummated (because there would be no difference between perceived values on players), and the terms "buy low" and "sell high" wouldn't exist.
I agree 100%. When Shaun Alexander is healthy, Marion Barber III is much greater than Maurice Morris. You know, since Seattle is the 20th ranked rushing offense in the NFL in terms of yards per game, and Dallas is 3rd.Of course, the difference between the #2 ranked rushing offense (San Diego) and the #4 ranked rushing offense (Denver) isn't that great at all.
fatness
Footballguy
M. Bell and Turner each had 1 carry yesterday. They each had 0 receptions.
marshall88
Footballguy
Talking about a re-draft league: MT has slightly more value than MB. And neither is as good of a back-up RB to have as MBIII. But since, on occassion, MT will give you a TD or 50 yds., he has to be worth more than MB. It's the same logic that makes MBIII worth more than both of them -- because he's already got 4 TDs.
I have MBIII and he rarely gets to start on my team. But when a bye week happens for my staring RBs, I'd rather have MBIII than MT; and I'd rather have MT than MB.
SSOG, if you played in a re-draft league where each team had to start 4 RBs (and there are probably some of them out there), would you rather start MT or MB each week? Doesn't the answer reveal something about the player's relative values?
SSOG, I understand that you believe since MB has a better chance of becoming the starting RB in Denver, that you believe that MB is equal to MT as a fantasy player right now. That may be true in your league (because, as you've said, you would never start either player), but in many fantasy leagues that is not the case and a backup who gets garbage time yards and TDs is more valuable than a backup who doesn't.
Now, if MT or MB each became starting RBs for their respective teams, or if we were talking about a dynasty league, we could have a different thread on which would be a better fantasy player. But in re-draft, MT>MB.
I have MBIII and he rarely gets to start on my team. But when a bye week happens for my staring RBs, I'd rather have MBIII than MT; and I'd rather have MT than MB.
SSOG, if you played in a re-draft league where each team had to start 4 RBs (and there are probably some of them out there), would you rather start MT or MB each week? Doesn't the answer reveal something about the player's relative values?
SSOG, I understand that you believe since MB has a better chance of becoming the starting RB in Denver, that you believe that MB is equal to MT as a fantasy player right now. That may be true in your league (because, as you've said, you would never start either player), but in many fantasy leagues that is not the case and a backup who gets garbage time yards and TDs is more valuable than a backup who doesn't.
Now, if MT or MB each became starting RBs for their respective teams, or if we were talking about a dynasty league, we could have a different thread on which would be a better fantasy player. But in re-draft, MT>MB.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Have to chime in here.1) Perceived value IS actual value so separating the two doesn't make any sense...thus the word value. I would rather have MT on my team for myself and for what someone else might give me.2) Of course starting bell or Turner is probably desperation if both starters are healthy, but if you must start one, 5 extra points could be the difference in winning or losing.3) If YOU have established that injuries are a crap shoot, then I would look at who would you rather have playing if the starter gets injured. My answer would be Turner because he is simply much better.4) When talking dynasty there is no way anyone could choose Mike Bell over Turner. Not even sure why this would be a discussion.SSOG said:Re your point #1- Yes, they matter for trade value, but I was talking about a player's value going forward. If we're talking trades here, I'd much rather have Turner because his PERCEIVED value is much higher, so he's worth more in trade. I'm not talking PERCEIVED value, though, I'm talking ACTUAL value... and in terms of ACTUAL value, I'd consider them a wash.Re your point #2- I still disagree with the assertion that MT is a borderline starter. He had two big games to start the season. Last year after three weeks, Frisman Jackson was averaging 4/46 and had a score, but that number was inflated by a flukey game, and his value going forward was nowhere near that. This is my main claim here- just because MTurner has been, to this point in time, a borderline starter does not mean that he *IS* a borderline starter- any more than Frisman's strong start last year meant that he was a borderline starter.Turner has been a borderline starter to this point, but from this point on, I do not think he's going to be a "borderline starter" for the rest of the season. That means, from my perspective, you have two RBs, neither of which is anywhere NEAR the border of fantasy starter-caliber. One of those RBs will score marginally more fantasy points per game and is a slightly better desperation play. The other RB is marginally more likely to become an actual fantasy starter. As a result, their two values are pretty similar in my mind.Even in 16 team leagues... Turner is more likely to average 2-4 points per game more than Mike Bell as a backup, while Mike Bell is more likely to become a 12-15 ppg RB than Turner, so I still consider their values a wash.I CONCEDE all your points.Those points do not establish how MT's fantasy value is marginal - NOR how his value is not greater than MB's.Your statement about "well, points on my bench don't count" has been systematically disproved:#1 points on your bench matter for determining a player's fantasy value - trades, for one thing, rely on the player's accumulated points regardless of whether he produced them for your active sqaud.#2 in some leagues - esp. 14 team leagues with a flex spot - he is a starting candidate. And you failed to address the point above about how in SOME LEAGUES MT = borderline starter, MB = borderline WW fodder. Until you address point #2, the rest of your argument about MT going forward means nothing to me.We obviously need to see what MB does tonite, but I truly believe you have lost sight of this debate, SSOG. The debate is who has higher fantasy value. Your argument in response (IMO, an asinine argument) is that MB=MT because they are both on your bench. Well, you have yet to put forth a single point beyond that one supporting your argument that MB=MT in terms of fantasy value.Nor have you addressed the issue that MT makes it into some FF players' starting lineup while MB does NOT. By that definition alone - with no other argument presented - I believe I have shown that MT's FF value > MB's FF value.Point #1- San Diego's run
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
SSOG said:
Nice one, SSOG.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
This was also one of my points.None of us have addressed the "going forward" argument that SSOG put forth - and it is a good one.Going forward, after watching Turner get only one carry in a blow out game - even though LT said repeatedly (at least in PUBLIC <---important point) he welcomed the breathers from Turner - one has to wonder about each player's future value. SSOG's counter argument to the above point is that MB is as likely as MT to se those 50 yards and a TD. It is hard to argue that point since we have yet to see the Broncos play in a blow out game.Will TB get all the carries, even in a blow out? Will Shannie be more willing than Marty to rest his starter?SSOG's poont about perceived value is also 100% correct - BUT, perceived value is an element of fantasy value (as Mark Kamenski pointed out). It may not make me start MT over MB, but it certainly makes MT's fantasy value HIGHER THAN MB's
