LHUCKS' 4th Annual FBG Rankings Critique (1 Viewer)

[J R]

If you want to get an accurate representation of how Ron Dayne performed last season,

SSOG, you typed this, and then went on to quote a bunch of statistics. I don't think I missed the point of your argument. If you really understood the implications of a small sample size, then you make an argument for Dayne based on that sample size. You wouldn't argue that San Diego could make Lorenzo Neal their feature back based on those stats, would you?If you want to say that you saw Dayne's every carry last year and thought he looked great, I won't argue that point.

 

[LHUCKS]

I know that Ron Dayne looked great last year. I believe that he will perform better than he did in New York, partly based on his success last year, but mostly based on Denver's history. I believe that he will get the lion's share of the carries, based on repeated comments by Shanahan and Sundquist. Based on those beliefs, I believe that Ron Dayne is a starting-caliber fantasy RB.

Exactly...the guy is ranked 39th for the love of Christ.

hypothetical: if Quentin Griffin had not gotten hurt in 2004, where would you guess he would have finished in the rankings?

Dayne > Griffin

Dayne > :crickets:and don't forget how good Griffin looked in very limited action in the Denver backfield at the end of 03 and the 1st two games of 04, a sample size close to the one Dayne had last year.

Dude...Griffin isn't even a redzone runner so the comparison is silly.The breadwinners in the Denver committee are the power backs which is why Mike Anderson outscored Tinker Bell.

dude, if you seriously consider Ron Dayne a red zone runner or power back, then you win, because I give up

That's the role he's been playing and is currently slotted for so in essence you're saying that Sundquist and Shanny are I'll side with the GM and Head Coach on this one.

 

[SSOG]

I know that Ron Dayne looked great last year. I believe that he will perform better than he did in New York, partly based on his success last year, but mostly based on Denver's history. I believe that he will get the lion's share of the carries, based on repeated comments by Shanahan and Sundquist. Based on those beliefs, I believe that Ron Dayne is a starting-caliber fantasy RB.

Exactly...the guy is ranked 39th for the love of Christ.

hypothetical: if Quentin Griffin had not gotten hurt in 2004, where would you guess he would have finished in the rankings?

I would guess he would have finished pretty much exactly where he did finish. You know why? Because Quentin Griffin had lost the starting job LONG before he got injured. In fact, he got injured on a special teams play. Which makes sense, because that was the only time he saw the field- during special teams snaps.Quentin Griffin wasn't the starting RB in 2004, even before he got injured. As a result, he's not relevant to this discussion. Unless you think that Cedric Cobbs is going to beat out Ron Dayne for the starting job, in which case you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it. Cedric Cobbs got cut by the Patriots, a very RB-starved team. Bear that in mind before deciding how likely he is to beat out Dayne.

I suppose you could also be one of those that thinks that Bell will win the starting job. In that case, I'd recommend re-reading all of those quotes from Shanny and Sundquist where they say that Tatum Bell is not anything more than a CoP back.

If you want to get an accurate representation of how Ron Dayne performed last season,

SSOG, you typed this, and then went on to quote a bunch of statistics. I don't think I missed the point of your argument. If you really understood the implications of a small sample size, then you make an argument for Dayne based on that sample size. You wouldn't argue that San Diego could make Lorenzo Neal their feature back based on those stats, would you?If you want to say that you saw Dayne's every carry last year and thought he looked great, I won't argue that point.

That's just it... the stats *DO* give an accurate representation of HOW DAYNE PERFORMED LAST SEASON. They may not give an accurate representation of what Dayne's average performance will be, but they do represent how Dayne performed last season.If a hypothetical RB got 5 carries, and on every single one ran 20 yards for a TD, then the stats would say that he performed BRILLIANTLY when given opportunities. And the stats would be correct. They would very accurately represent what happened that season.

They aren't always great at establishing realistic expectations for the future, but statistics are always FANTASTIC at describing what happened in the past, small sample size or no small sample size.

 

[joffer]

I would guess he would have finished pretty much exactly where he did finish. You know why? Because Quentin Griffin had lost the starting job LONG before he got injured. In fact, he got injured on a special teams play. Which makes sense, because that was the only time he saw the field- during special teams snaps.Quentin Griffin wasn't the starting RB in 2004, .......

you lost me, you saying Anderson would have started in 2004 before he got hurt in preseason?

 

[J R]

That's just it... the stats *DO* give an accurate representation of HOW DAYNE PERFORMED LAST SEASON. They may not give an accurate representation of what Dayne's average performance will be, but they do represent how Dayne performed last season.If a hypothetical RB got 5 carries, and on every single one ran 20 yards for a TD, then the stats would say that he performed BRILLIANTLY when given opportunities. And the stats would be correct. They would very accurately represent what happened that season.

I disagree. If a hypothetical RB got 10 carries, one for 90 yards maybe on a big hole that he ran untouched through, and 9 other times he missed the hole and gained nothing, that RB would have a 9 YPC. The stats would say he performed BRILLIANTLY because, hey, that's a 9 YPC. But the stats would be wrong.Now, if you want to bring in more rigorous stats like FO's, I agree that tells us more, but because it's a small sample a few unusual things happening could distort the overall picture.Anyway, I guess my implied point that probably causes trouble here is that I think if you bring statistics into the argument, they make a better case for Bell than they do for Dayne.

 

[SSOG]

I would guess he would have finished pretty much exactly where he did finish. You know why? Because Quentin Griffin had lost the starting job LONG before he got injured. In fact, he got injured on a special teams play. Which makes sense, because that was the only time he saw the field- during special teams snaps.

Quentin Griffin wasn't the starting RB in 2004, .......

you lost me, you saying Anderson would have started in 2004 before he got hurt in preseason?

Well, that wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying was that Reuben Droughns had become the starter two or three weeks before Griffin got injured. By the time Quentin got hurt, he was only on the field for special teams. But now that you mention it...Yes, Mike Anderson would have started in 2004 before he got hurt in the preseason.

I disagree. If a hypothetical RB got 10 carries, one for 90 yards maybe on a big hole that he ran untouched through, and 9 other times he missed the hole and gained nothing, that RB would have a 9 YPC. The stats would say he performed BRILLIANTLY because, hey, that's a 9 YPC. But the stats would be wrong.

Now, if you want to bring in more rigorous stats like FO's, I agree that tells us more, but because it's a small sample a few unusual things happening could distort the overall picture.

Anyway, I guess my implied point that probably causes trouble here is that I think if you bring statistics into the argument, they make a better case for Bell than they do for Dayne.

I agree that YPC would be misleading in that instance, since it's a mode-based statistic and will be drastically skewed by the presence of severe outliers. I think success rate paints a very accurate picture, because it's a median-based statistic that is not skewed in the slightest by outliers, no matter how severe. What I was trying to say, though, was that through COMPREHENSIVE statistics, we can paint a very accurate picture. Any single statistic can be very misleading, so it's nice to use other statistics to shore up the shortcomings of each statistic. And by any statistical measure (ypa, success rate, DVOA, %runs for 0 or fewer yards, etc), Dayne had a stellar season when he was given the ball.Also, I have no problem at all with the statement that the statistics make a better case for Bell than they do for Dayne. Bell has had fantastic success with the ball in his hands since he entered the league. The reasons I'm not high on Bell are because Shanahan/Sundquist are not high on Bell (repeatedly saying that he's not a featured back and never giving him more than 17 carries in a game to prove it), and because when you look use PREDICTIVE statistics instead of DESCRIPTIVE statistics, the situation looks more bleak. His numbers are great, but they also show a clear decline after 10 carries and late in the season, which predicts that he's a back that wears down easily.

 

[J R]

Also, I have no problem at all with the statement that the statistics make a better case for Bell than they do for Dayne. Bell has had fantastic success with the ball in his hands since he entered the league. The reasons I'm not high on Bell are because Shanahan/Sundquist are not high on Bell (repeatedly saying that he's not a featured back and never giving him more than 17 carries in a game to prove it), and because when you look use PREDICTIVE statistics instead of DESCRIPTIVE statistics, the situation looks more bleak. His numbers are great, but they also show a clear decline after 10 carries and late in the season, which predicts that he's a back that wears down easily.

I don't think the decline is at all clear from the numbers. Again, the 11+ carries thing is a really small sample (the fact that it's a small sample may be damning enough in itself--file under the Shanahan/Sundquist argument, which is the most convincing point in Dayne's favor). So small and meaningless that if you dice up his 2005 the way Yahoo does, you come up with 4.7 YPC in carries 16+. So small and meaningless that the 2 trends you notice in Bell's numbers are actually reversed in 2004.My case against Dayne using FO's numbers would be that Mike Anderson looks really really good by those statistics (5th in DVOA, 2nd in SR). It's dangerous to project Ron Dayne to just "step into" Mike Anderson's role, or however Sundquist puts it, simply because odds are he will be something less than Anderson. If so, then Bell eats into his carries more than he did Anderson's I think.

 

[Wadsworth]

Q had 3 fumbles in the first three games of 04, basically fumbled the game away week 2 in Jax, but still started until week 4 in Tampa. After starting the season big against KC, he had something like 140 yards on his next 60 carries. I think it's safe to say he was done or near done before the injury.

2004 sure looked like Mike Anderson's year before the injury. But just another averge year for Denver RBs. It's Anderson! No, it's Griffin! No it's... who is that guy?

 

[J R]

One more thing, SSOG: re the descriptive versus predictive stats. Since Bell has so few carries in the 11+ or 16+ range, there's no way to predict from that sample how well he could "handle the load," as they say. With baseball statistics, I've read it argued that platoon splits for RH hitters v LHPs have little predictive value, because there's such a small sample. It's actually better to apply to each RH hitter a standard platoon boost versus LHPs. Has anyone done a study like that with RBs? What's the average decline for a RB over a certain number of carries?

 

[LHUCKS]

2004 sure looked like Mike Anderson's year before the injury. But just another averge year for Denver RBs. It's Anderson! No, it's Griffin! No it's... who is that guy?

Anderson didn't finish top 10 last year?

 

[joffer]

2004 sure looked like Mike Anderson's year before the injury. But just another averge year for Denver RBs. It's Anderson! No, it's Griffin! No it's... who is that guy?

Anderson didn't finish top 10 last year?

2 years ago down?my recollection was that Denver played in the Hall of fame game in 2004, and Griffin started, and looked like the starter going into the season. I was 1st lieutenant on the anti-Q bandwagon (PB was captain), and I seem to remember that clearly. I thought Anderson was injured later in preseason.

 

[LHUCKS]

2004 sure looked like Mike Anderson's year before the injury. But just another averge year for Denver RBs. It's Anderson! No, it's Griffin! No it's... who is that guy?

Anderson didn't finish top 10 last year?

2 years ago down?my recollection was that Denver played in the Hall of fame game in 2004, and Griffin started, and looked like the starter going into the season. I was 1st lieutenant on the anti-Q bandwagon (PB was captain), and I seem to remember that clearly. I thought Anderson was injured later in preseason.

Okay, you can concentrate on 2004...I'll concentrate on the last 15 years where Denver has produced a top 20 ff RB in almost every single season.Additionally, I was also on the anti-Q bandwagon and was the first to post a thread after FBG came out with a top 25 ranking for him.

 

[joffer]

2004 sure looked like Mike Anderson's year before the injury. But just another averge year for Denver RBs. It's Anderson! No, it's Griffin! No it's... who is that guy?

Anderson didn't finish top 10 last year?

2 years ago down?my recollection was that Denver played in the Hall of fame game in 2004, and Griffin started, and looked like the starter going into the season. I was 1st lieutenant on the anti-Q bandwagon (PB was captain), and I seem to remember that clearly. I thought Anderson was injured later in preseason.

Okay, you can concentrate on 2004...I'll concentrate on the last 15 years where Denver has produced a top 20 ff RB in almost every single season.Additionally, I was also on the anti-Q bandwagon and was the first to post a thread after FBG came out with a top 25 ranking for him.

good grief, every time you contradict yourself you change the subject. All I'm trying to do is establish who the starting Denver RB looked to be was on May 23rd, 2004. My recollection was that it looked to be Quentin Griffin. Is that correct or incorrect?

 

[Wadsworth]

2004 sure looked like Mike Anderson's year before the injury. But just another averge year for Denver RBs. It's Anderson! No, it's Griffin! No it's... who is that guy?

Anderson didn't finish top 10 last year?

I'm actually a big Anderson fan and really thought 2004 was going to be the year he locked down the Denver job for a while. He went for 1,500 and 15 TDs in 2000 and then became the forgotten man until last season. I know some of that was injury, but it's another example of my continued failures at picking Denver RBs. Everytime I think I have it figured out, I blink and some back I didn't think would make the roster is starting. I almost drafted Clarett last season in an early draft just because I thought there was no way he could succeed, and based on my history with Denver backs that almost made him a lock to get it done.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

good grief, every time you contradict yourself you change the subject. All I'm trying to do is establish who the starting Denver RB looked to be was on May 23rd, 2004. My recollection was that it looked to be Quentin Griffin. Is that correct or incorrect?

From May 8, 2004:

Search for Portis' replacement begins at minicamp

DENVER -- Quentin Griffin is considered too small to be an everyday back. Garrison Hearst has been plagued by injuries. Rookie Tatum Bell is still trying to catch his breath in the altitude. Ahmaad Galloway is playing in NFL Europe.

Mike Anderson has proven he can handle the load, but he had a four-game drug suspension last season.

The Denver Broncos have plenty of options at running back, but will any of them be able to make up for the loss of Clinton Portis? With the success the Broncos have had in finding star running backs, the answer is probably yes.

"I've never worried about it because we're going to have a guy who steps up who's a good back for us," Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said.

Open competition at tailback is nothing new in Denver. The Broncos had a wide-open field just two years ago, but that group included three 1,000-yard rushers -- Anderson, Terrell Davis and Olandis Gary.

This year's group doesn't have near the experience and it won't be easy for anyone to fill the void left by Portis.

He was the NFL's offensive rookie of the year in 2002 and last year became the third player in league history to rush for 1,500 yards his first two seasons.

Portis clearly was Denver's next star running back, but he wanted too much money. Refusing to give in to his salary demands, the Broncos sent him to Washington in a trade for cornerback Champ Bailey.

Now the search begins for his replacement.

"There will be some real good competition from the top down," quarterback Jake Plummer said. "Who knows who it's going to be? We have some qualified guys back there."

Griffin finished last season as Denver's No. 2 tailback, making him the starter by default at the Broncos' minicamp this weekend.

He was impressive in place of Portis in Denver's season finale last year, rushing for 136 yards against Indianapolis, but he's considered too small -- 5-foot-7, 195 pounds -- to carry the ball 20-25 times a game.

Anderson could be a good alternative. He's done it before.

Anderson was Denver's first offensive rookie of the year after rushing for 1,487 yards in 2000 and is a durable, hard-nosed runner. He moved to fullback in 2002 when Portis emerged as a star and did an admirable job when Portis was out with a chest injury early last season.

But Anderson also missed four games with a drug suspension and wasn't much of a factor in the final three games.

Bell could be the most explosive of the bunch. A second-round pick out of Oklahoma State, he has some of the same attributes as Portis: speed through the hole, elusiveness, good hands out of the backfield. Bell even took Portis' No. 26 jersey when he left.

But before Bell can have a chance to be Denver's next star running back, he's going to have to get used to playing in altitude. He needed an inhaler after having a hard time catching his breath during Denver's first workout on Friday

Hearst could be an intriguing addition for the Broncos -- if he stays healthy.

Although 33 and entering his 12th season, Hearst showed he still has something left by rushing for 768 yards in 12 games for San Francisco last year. Hearst is still working his way back from knee surgery last year, but that's nothing new -- he's the only player in league history to win the NFL's comeback player of the year award twice (1995 and 2001).

The Broncos still have plenty of time to decide who'll replace Portis and it should be an interesting competition.

"You can say it's pressure, but for me that's fun," Anderson said. "It's all about competing. That's why you come out here every day."

Followed by August 23, 2004:

Broncos not much closer to figuring out starters

DENVER -- Training camp is over and the Denver Broncos have already played three preseason games.

That doesn't mean they're any closer to figuring out starters for several key positions.

Beginning with Friday's home game against Houston and the preseason finale Sept. 2 against Arizona, the Broncos will begin the process of whittling down the roster.

"I think you get a little bit of a better idea every day -- offensively, defensively and the big area is special teams," Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said Monday. "You don't know until you get into game situations who is going to step up. So it's still great that we have two more games to evaluate some of these guys, especially in the special teams area."

The most hotly contested spot will likely be at running back.

Second-year back Quentin Griffin is the starter and has been impressive in the preseason. But he's got plenty of company.

Mike Anderson is slimmed down and looks to be back in the form that helped him earn the NFL's offensive rookie of the year in 2000. Garrison Hearst has been steady and can't be counted out. He's the first player to win the league's comeback player of the year award twice.

Rookie Tatum Bell hasn't played in any of the preseason games because of a broken finger, but he'll be given a shot once he's healthy. Santonio Beard and Ahmaad Galloway also are in the mix.

"There is a lot of competition right there," Shanahan said. "We have to get a pecking order. 'Q' has been playing extremely well. I think we know what Mike Anderson and Garrison Hearst have done. We haven't seen Tatum, and we've got a little idea of Galloway and Beard, but it's great to get this extra game to get to evaluate them."

Receiver also is becoming an unlikely spot for competition.

Rod Smith is set on one side and Ashley Lelie was expected to get the other starting nod, but he's getting pressure from rookie Darius Watts.

The second round pick out of Marshall has been stellar at times in the preseason, leading the team with 11 catches and 146 yards. He caught five passes for 72 yards against Seattle on Saturday, with Lelie nabbing just two for 23.

"I just wanted to come out here and play and make plays for them," Watts said. "They ain't told me to be happy yet." ^------=

BELL'S HAND: Bell, who broke his hand the first day of camp after a three-day holdout, has been practicing with a cast for the last two weeks. He better get used to it.

"You can't take the cast off. He's not going to have that off for a while," Shanahan said. "I'm not even sure when he's supposed to get it off, but he's feeling a little bit more comfortable with it. He's starting to run better, and he's starting to catch the ball with it." ^------=

REGULAR PRACTICE: Now that training camp is over, the Broncos have settled into their regular practice schedule. With nearly three weeks until the season starts, it's a good chance to give the players -- particularly the new ones -- a chance to see how a regular week will work.

"What we try to do here is the same schedule we have during the season," Shanahan said. "It's a little different for some of the guys that haven't been here because they are not sure about our schedule during the season. So this first day is a little bit unusual with the film during the morning and the walkthroughs in the early afternoon, special teams practice and the way we go about our Wednesday practices, which is essentially what we did today. It's a good learning experience for all of our players."

 

[Wadsworth]

2004 sure looked like Mike Anderson's year before the injury. But just another averge year for Denver RBs. It's Anderson! No, it's Griffin! No it's... who is that guy?

Anderson didn't finish top 10 last year?

2 years ago down?my recollection was that Denver played in the Hall of fame game in 2004, and Griffin started, and looked like the starter going into the season. I was 1st lieutenant on the anti-Q bandwagon (PB was captain), and I seem to remember that clearly. I thought Anderson was injured later in preseason.

Okay, you can concentrate on 2004...I'll concentrate on the last 15 years where Denver has produced a top 20 ff RB in almost every single season.Additionally, I was also on the anti-Q bandwagon and was the first to post a thread after FBG came out with a top 25 ranking for him.

good grief, every time you contradict yourself you change the subject. All I'm trying to do is establish who the starting Denver RB looked to be was on May 23rd, 2004. My recollection was that it looked to be Quentin Griffin. Is that correct or incorrect?

That situation was pretty cloudy after Portis left, but I know that in May 2004 I thought Anderson was going to be the starter. I don't recall if it was annouced or anything, but I was convinced Anderson was the guy to have in Denver in 2004 pre-injury.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Quentin Griffin wasn't the starting RB in 2004, even before he got injured. As a result, he's not relevant to this discussion. Unless you think that Cedric Cobbs is going to beat out Ron Dayne for the starting job, in which case you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it. Cedric Cobbs got cut by the Patriots, a very RB-starved team. Bear that in mind before deciding how likely he is to beat out Dayne.

This is where you're starting to get a tad loopy. Dayne was let go by the Giants because he looked like crap. Cobbs was let go because he looked like crap. So why is one turd any better than the other?

 

[joffer]

much obliged, MTso it was pretty wide open with Q in the lead by default more than by what he'd done. And again, my recollection was that he did nothing to lose that designation through training camp and started the HOF game. Anderson was injured on a special teams play some time later.all I was trying to point out, going back to this post

Exactly...the guy is ranked 39th for the love of Christ.

hypothetical: if Quentin Griffin had not gotten hurt in 2004, where would you guess he would have finished in the rankings?

is that it's not THAT far-fetched to rank (in May) the RB that appears to be the front runner to get the majority of the carries in Denver, RB#39, purely on the basis that you just don't think he's very good. And that's regardless of the opportunity that it looks like he'll get right now.

 

[SSOG]

I don't think the decline is at all clear from the numbers. Again, the 11+ carries thing is a really small sample (the fact that it's a small sample may be damning enough in itself--file under the Shanahan/Sundquist argument, which is the most convincing point in Dayne's favor). So small and meaningless that if you dice up his 2005 the way Yahoo does, you come up with 4.7 YPC in carries 16+. So small and meaningless that the 2 trends you notice in Bell's numbers are actually reversed in 2004.

My case against Dayne using FO's numbers would be that Mike Anderson looks really really good by those statistics (5th in DVOA, 2nd in SR). It's dangerous to project Ron Dayne to just "step into" Mike Anderson's role, or however Sundquist puts it, simply because odds are he will be something less than Anderson. If so, then Bell eats into his carries more than he did Anderson's I think.

First off, you can't go off of the numbers from 2004 when trying to see if Bell "wears down". Bell stepped on the field fresh and without a single carry in week 11, iirc, back in 2004. Of course he didn't wear down over the last 8 games of the season... the last 8 games were his first 8 games! Also, carries 16+ are also extremely anecdotal, since he's never had more than 17 carries in a game. However, the sample size for his numbers in the last half of the season is 93 carries (enough for Football Outsiders to rank him on the big RB board instead of the <75 carry board)... and over the last 8 games, he averaged 3.9 ypc (compared to 7.0 over the first 8). That's going to be the largest sample size for any statistic that suggests he wears down.Second, I don't think Dayne has to be as good as Anderson to step into Anderson's role... he just has to be better than Bell. With Bell's numbers last season (and, anecdotally, Dayne's numbers as well), I don't think such a thing will be that difficult. And if he does fall significantly short, I don't see Bell eating into his carries, I see Cobbs eating into his carries. Shanahan and Sundquist have already established a ceiling on Bell's carries. I mean, if they thought he stood a chance at being a featured back, why not give him 20+ carries in the meaningless SD game at the end of last season, just to see how he handled it? I'm convinced they've already pigeonholed him as a CoP back, and that there's very little he can do to get himself more than 12-14 carries a game, tops, regardless of WHAT Dayne does.

One more thing, SSOG: re the descriptive versus predictive stats. Since Bell has so few carries in the 11+ or 16+ range, there's no way to predict from that sample how well he could "handle the load," as they say. With baseball statistics, I've read it argued that platoon splits for RH hitters v LHPs have little predictive value, because there's such a small sample. It's actually better to apply to each RH hitter a standard platoon boost versus LHPs. Has anyone done a study like that with RBs? What's the average decline for a RB over a certain number of carries?

I agree that the sample size is very small. Again, I'm using the stats merely to support a conclusion that I've already drawn based on other evidence. Basically, I believe Bell wears down because Shanny and Sundquist, two guys who see Bell on a daily basis, tell me that Bell wears down (and let their actions speak for them, rationing his carries like they believe he wears down). Looking at the statistics, there's nothing there to change my mind.

2 years ago down?

my recollection was that Denver played in the Hall of fame game in 2004, and Griffin started, and looked like the starter going into the season. I was 1st lieutenant on the anti-Q bandwagon (PB was captain), and I seem to remember that clearly. I thought Anderson was injured later in preseason.

Anderson won the starting job in the preseason before he got injured and lost for the season. If Anderson hadn't gotten injured, he would have been Denver's starting RB in 2004.

I'm actually a big Anderson fan and really thought 2004 was going to be the year he locked down the Denver job for a while. He went for 1,500 and 15 TDs in 2000 and then became the forgotten man until last season. I know some of that was injury, but it's another example of my continued failures at picking Denver RBs. Everytime I think I have it figured out, I blink and some back I didn't think would make the roster is starting. I almost drafted Clarett last season in an early draft just because I thought there was no way he could succeed, and based on my history with Denver backs that almost made him a lock to get it done.

Like I said, Anderson won the starting job before getting injured. Your instincts aren't quite as bad as you think.

This is where you're starting to get a tad loopy. Dayne was let go by the Giants because he looked like crap. Cobbs was let go because he looked like crap. So why is one turd any better than the other?

Alright, explain this to me.FIRST: Tatum Bell will not get more than 12-14 carries per game. This is absolutely set in stone, and has been verified both by Mike Shanahan's quotes ("you don't want to overwork a back like that"), Ted Sundquist's quotes ("Bell is at his best on carries 1-10), and Mike Shanahan's actions (Tatum Bell has never once rushed for more than 17 carries in a single game- even week 17 last year, when Mike Anderson was sitting out and Bell was trying to get to 1000 yards). So once again, Tatum Bell will not get more than 12-14 carries per game. *Do you argue this point?*

SECOND: Denver has run the ball more than any other team in the league since Shanahan came to town. They average over 500 carries a season, and have a low of 460 carries. This means that there will be AT LEAST 29 carries a game, and more likely 31 carries a game in Denver htis year. *Do you argue this point?*

RESULT: AT LEAST 15 carries a game are currently unaccounted for. Denver rushes at least 29 times, Bell gets no more than 14 of them... that leaves 15 extra carries (and realistically probably closer to 20 carries). WHO GETS THESE CARRIES? They either have to go to Ron Dayne, Cedric Cobbs, or Mike Bell. I say that they're more likely to go to Ron Dayne. Some people argue that they aren't going to go to Ron Dayne, because he's a "turd"... but that ignores the fact that Cedric Cobbs was cut by the RB-hungry Patriots (and he's also therefore a "turd"), and Mike Bell was undrafted (and he's also, therefore, a "turd"). So why are those "turds" more likely to get the carries than Dayne, who is currently listed at #1 on the depth chart?

I await an explanation of where you think those missing carries are going to wind up.

is that it's not THAT far-fetched to rank (in May) the RB that appears to be the front runner to get the majority of the carries in Denver, RB#39, purely on the basis that you just don't think he's very good. And that's regardless of the opportunity that it looks like he'll get right now.

There wasn't as clear-cut of a #1 RB back at this point 2 years ago. IIRC, neither Shanny nor Sundquist had thrown their support behind anyone, using such terms as "by default" and "wait and see"... as opposed to this season, where they have clearly and unequivocably thrown their support behind Dayne.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

RESULT: AT LEAST 15 carries a game are currently unaccounted for. Denver rushes at least 29 times, Bell gets no more than 14 of them... that leaves 15 extra carries (and realistically probably closer to 20 carries). WHO GETS THESE CARRIES? They either have to go to Ron Dayne, Cedric Cobbs, or Mike Bell. I say that they're more likely to go to Ron Dayne. Some people argue that they aren't going to go to Ron Dayne, because he's a "turd"... but that ignores the fact that Cedric Cobbs was cut by the RB-hungry Patriots (and he's also therefore a "turd"), and Mike Bell was undrafted (and he's also, therefore, a "turd"). So why are those "turds" more likely to get the carries than Dayne, who is currently listed at #1 on the depth chart?

I await an explanation of where you think those missing carries are going to wind up.

is that it's not THAT far-fetched to rank (in May) the RB that appears to be the front runner to get the majority of the carries in Denver, RB#39, purely on the basis that you just don't think he's very good.  And that's regardless of the opportunity that it looks like he'll get right now.

There wasn't as clear-cut of a #1 RB back at this point 2 years ago. IIRC, neither Shanny nor Sundquist had thrown their support behind anyone, using such terms as "by default" and "wait and see"... as opposed to this season, where they have clearly and unequivocably thrown their support behind Dayne.

SSOG, just so I understand (because you're in more different discussions here than I can keep up with ), you see the carries breaking down something like this, right?TB - 12

RD - 16

everyone else - 1 or 2

That looks like RBBC to me. In this case, I'd imagine TB & RD's production - yardage-wise - being about the same.

Now, if it were to break down more along these lines:

TB - 7

RD - 21

ee - 1 or 2

That would show "clear & unequivocal support" from Shanny for Dane, IMO.

 

[Aaronur]

Can somebody call someone stupid or something.

This is by far the most interesting thing going right now.

Can we get that WR stuff now.

I think Dayne is a turd but it doesn't matter because he will be effective because he is running in Denver. I think this will be RBBC with Dayne getting more work and Bell having more FPts because of is explosiveness and the fact that he is going to have a high YPC and get those HR touchdowns. However I think they both will be in the 20-24 range giving both of them value and Dayne more value because he can be had somewhere near RB 40 I would think. At least until word gets out.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Quentin Griffin wasn't the starting RB in 2004, even before he got injured. As a result, he's not relevant to this discussion. Unless you think that Cedric Cobbs is going to beat out Ron Dayne for the starting job, in which case you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it. Cedric Cobbs got cut by the Patriots, a very RB-starved team. Bear that in mind before deciding how likely he is to beat out Dayne.

So why is one turd any better than the other?

Najeh Davenport knows the answer.

 

[AnonymousBob]

This is where you're starting to get a tad loopy.  Dayne was let go by the Giants because he looked like crap.  Cobbs was let go because he looked like crap.  So why is one turd any better than the other?

Alright, explain this to me.FIRST: Tatum Bell will not get more than 12-14 carries per game. This is absolutely set in stone, and has been verified both by Mike Shanahan's quotes ("you don't want to overwork a back like that"), Ted Sundquist's quotes ("Bell is at his best on carries 1-10), and Mike Shanahan's actions (Tatum Bell has never once rushed for more than 17 carries in a single game- even week 17 last year, when Mike Anderson was sitting out and Bell was trying to get to 1000 yards). So once again, Tatum Bell will not get more than 12-14 carries per game. *Do you argue this point?*

SECOND: Denver has run the ball more than any other team in the league since Shanahan came to town. They average over 500 carries a season, and have a low of 460 carries. This means that there will be AT LEAST 29 carries a game, and more likely 31 carries a game in Denver htis year. *Do you argue this point?*

RESULT: AT LEAST 15 carries a game are currently unaccounted for. Denver rushes at least 29 times, Bell gets no more than 14 of them... that leaves 15 extra carries (and realistically probably closer to 20 carries). WHO GETS THESE CARRIES? They either have to go to Ron Dayne, Cedric Cobbs, or Mike Bell. I say that they're more likely to go to Ron Dayne. Some people argue that they aren't going to go to Ron Dayne, because he's a "turd"... but that ignores the fact that Cedric Cobbs was cut by the RB-hungry Patriots (and he's also therefore a "turd"), and Mike Bell was undrafted (and he's also, therefore, a "turd"). So why are those "turds" more likely to get the carries than Dayne, who is currently listed at #1 on the depth chart?

I await an explanation of where you think those missing carries are going to wind up.

This is where I think your argument is flawed. Dayne over his six year career has averaged a whopping 3.7 ypc. He looked terrible. Perhaps he was misused or perhaps he never got enough carries to be effective. Either way, you've already told us just because he was a dog before doesn't mean he can't be a stud now. So how is it you Cobbs-who has also looked like a dog-is incapable of suddenly being a stud? You can't have it both ways; if Dayne is capable of resurrecting his career after SIX years of mediocrity, why is Cobbs incapable of breaking out after playing for merely ONE season and grabbing a total of 22 carries? Dayne is listed as the #1 back some places, other sites list Bell as the top rb. It's May, I wouldn't blow my load on a Denver rb simply because some sites rank him as the top guy. Heck, Cecil Sapp could win the job at this point. Wouldn't be the first time a fullback ran the ball for the Broncos.

We do agree that whoever Shanahan says will be his guy will actually be his guy. The difference between us appears to be our willingness to listen to praise from a coach. You seem to hear them praising Dayne and think he's locked up the top spot. I hear it and while it's a plus, simply saying "Hey, we like this guy" is a VERY long way from him actually winning the job. What were they supposed to say about him last year? "We think he's a dog, but right now we've nothing better."???

 

[LHUCKS]

Dayne is listed as the #1 back some places, other sites list Bell as the top rb.  It's May, I wouldn't blow my load on a Denver rb simply because some sites rank him as the top guy. 

It doesn't matter who sites list as the #1A) Dayne and Bell are splittin reps with the first team exactly like Bell and Anderson were in '05

B) Dayne is fillling Anderson's role according to Shannahan and Sundquist

C) Anderson finished #10 in fbg scoring last year

Why is this difficult?

 

[LHUCKS]

Can we get that WR stuff now.

working on it

 

[AnonymousBob]

Dayne is listed as the #1 back some places, other sites list Bell as the top rb.  It's May, I wouldn't blow my load on a Denver rb simply because some sites rank him as the top guy. 

It doesn't matter who sites list as the #1A) Dayne and Bell are splittin reps with the first team exactly like Bell and Anderson were in '05

B) Dayne is fillling Anderson's role according to Shannahan and Sundquist

C) Anderson finished #10 in fbg scoring last year

Why is this difficult?

If it doesn't matter who sites list as the #1 guy, why'd you mention it? IIRC, Sundquist and Shannahan said Dayne would fill Andersons shoes last year.

So because Anderson finished as the number 10 rb last year, Dayne will finish at the same spot? Addai is going to be FANTASTIC value-Edge finished as the #5 rb last year, must mean the rook will place there as well.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Quentin Griffin wasn't the starting RB in 2004, even before he got injured. As a result, he's not relevant to this discussion. Unless you think that Cedric Cobbs is going to beat out Ron Dayne for the starting job, in which case you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it. Cedric Cobbs got cut by the Patriots, a very RB-starved team. Bear that in mind before deciding how likely he is to beat out Dayne.

So why is one turd any better than the other?

Najeh Davenport knows the answer.

 

[LHUCKS]

If it doesn't matter who sites list as the #1 guy, why'd you mention it? 

Huh?? where did I mention a website that lists Dayne as the #1? I don't pay attention to websites...I pay attention to what is actually happening in camp and what the coach is saying.

IIRC, Sundquist and Shannahan said Dayne would fill Andersons shoes last year.

So because Anderson finished as the number 10 rb last year, Dayne will finish at the same spot? 

I never said Dayne should be ranked 10th. I have Dayne ranked significanlty lower than Anderson's finish last year, but believe Dayne's FBG ranking of #39 is too low.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Sorry LHUCKS, arguing with you and SSOG got me a tad confused. I agree Dayne is certainly worth the gamble if he's ranked at the 39 spot. If he pans out and wins the starters job it's great value. If he doesn't do anything...well, it's not you blew a top pick on him. Late round picks are all about upside and it's hard to find more upside than the Denver backfield.

 

[J R]

OK I'm just going to post some of Tatum Bell's stats.

2005:

Games 1-8: 7G 80-562

Games 9-16: 7G 93-359

Carries 1-5: 70-378

Carries 6-10: 58-411

Carries 11-15: 39-104

Carries 16-20: 6-28

DVOA: 13 out of 53

Success Rate: 29 out of 53

2004:

Games 1-8: 4G 14-57

Games 9-16: 5G 61-33

Carries 1-5: 38-190

Carries 6-10: 22-105

Carries 11-15: 12-94

Carries 16-20: 3-3

DVOA: 2 out of 52

Success Rate: 2 out of 52

To date Bell has only 60 total carries in the 11+ range, and only 9 total carries in the 16+ range. In my opinion at least, that's too small of a sample to be very predictive on its own. It may say that Shanahan doesn't like to give Bell too many carries, but it doesn't necessarily prove he's right. It also might simply mean that so far Shanahan hasn't wanted to give Bell too many carries, but that he may change his mind in the future. Mike Anderson was #5 in DVOA and #2 in SR last year after all.

Bell's ypc does go down in the 2nd half of the season, but that's probably not a fair test, because his ypc is so high in the 1st half. In the 2nd half, he had almost exactly the same ypc as Anderson over that span, 3.87 to 3.86.

As for Dayne, we have a huge amount of data to go on. His career stats:

Carries 1-10: 469-1828

Carries 11+: 169-509

If there's a RB of the 2 that statistics would say can't handle the load, it'd be Dayne, who has a career YPC of 3.9 in 1-10 carries, 3.0 in 11+ carries.

In short, there's the case for Dayne and there's the case against Bell. I think there's a danger in conflating the 2, because the case against Bell--at least the statistical case--is bunk. But I think so far that's the case Dayne supporters have made because it's pretty hard to make a case for him on his own merit. So far all we have--aside from a couple of recent comments by Sundquist and Kubiak--is LHUCKS arguing that Dayne is underrated at #39 and then pointing to his games played to show he's durable.

 

[radballs]

Sorry LHUCKS, arguing with you and SSOG got me a tad confused. I agree Dayne is certainly worth the gamble if he's ranked at the 39 spot. If he pans out and wins the starters job it's great value. If he doesn't do anything...well, it's not you blew a top pick on him. Late round picks are all about upside and it's hard to find more upside than the Denver backfield.

The problem with Dayne is I think his ADP will continue to climb in the offseason and his value will conversely fall. In that WCOFF satellite draft I just did, he was drafted as RB33 (which isn't too bad), but that was pick 6.03. Not exactly a late round pick.

 

[LHUCKS]

So far all we have--aside from a couple of recent comments by Sundquist and Kubiak--is LHUCKS arguing that Dayne is underrated at #39 and then pointing to his games played to show he's durable.

Additionally, we have the qualitative obersvations that some may agree or disagree with:a) Dayne looked good running the ball last year

b) Denver hasn't acquired any additional help at RB via the draft or free agency, thus it's a safe assumption IMHO that some degree of confidence in Dayne is being displayed by the Denver ogranization.

c) Dayne is running with the first team

The best case against Dayne are the statistical arguments, which I accounted for and which are the reason I don't have Dayne ranked where Anderson finished last year...#10.

 

[LHUCKS]

Sorry LHUCKS, arguing with you and SSOG got me a tad confused.  I agree Dayne is certainly worth the gamble if he's ranked at the 39 spot.  If he pans out and wins the starters job it's great value.  If he doesn't do anything...well, it's not you blew a top pick on him.  Late round picks are all about upside and it's hard to find more upside than the Denver backfield.

The problem with Dayne is I think his ADP will continue to climb in the offseason and his value will conversely fall. In that WCOFF satellite draft I just did, he was drafted as RB33 (which isn't too bad), but that was pick 6.03. Not exactly a late round pick.

Dayne's value is quickly eroding...thanks to threads like this.

FBG has even bumped him up in the latest consensus.

 

[J R]

To be clear, LHUCKS, I took a little dig at you but I'm not really arguing against you. I agree he's underrated. But that's no fun.

I'm just trying to point out that I'd be hesitant to just plug Dayne into MA's stats based on a case against Tatum Bell that is clearly overstated. Your point (b) could also be read as a vote of confidence in Bell after all. And your point (a) I assume we can all agree applies to Bell as well.

A question about point © though. All I've seen so far is that Dayne and Bell were splitting reps with the first team, and Ourlads has Bell listed as the starter. What info are you going off of?

 

[J R]

QUOTE(radballs @ May 24 2006, 01:43 PM)QUOTE(AnonymousBob @ May 24 2006, 11:36 AM)Sorry LHUCKS, arguing with you and SSOG got me a tad confused. I agree Dayne is certainly worth the gamble if he's ranked at the 39 spot. If he pans out and wins the starters job it's great value. If he doesn't do anything...well, it's not you blew a top pick on him. Late round picks are all about upside and it's hard to find more upside than the Denver backfield.*The problem with Dayne is I think his ADP will continue to climb in the offseason and his value will conversely fall. In that WCOFF satellite draft I just did, he was drafted as RB33 (which isn't too bad), but that was pick 6.03. Not exactly a late round pick.*pigskinp.gifDayne's value is quickly eroding...thanks to threads like this. FBG has even bumped him up in the latest consensus. football.gif

So here's the tough question: At what ranking is Dayne no longer over-rated? He's probably still under-rated at 33, no?

 

[LHUCKS]

A question about point © though. All I've seen so far is that Dayne and Bell were splitting reps with the first team, and Ourlads has Bell listed as the starter. What info are you going off of?

I'm going off the camp info...I almost always disregard sites like Ourlads if there is "real" information from the organization or camp. I'm sure if I wanted to, I could point out several flaws over at Ourlads right now. They don't do a very good job updating those IMHO.

 

[J R]

LHUCKS, this is what you typed:

UNDERRATED1) Ron Dayne # 39First, here is Mike Anderson’s game log and season totals from last year after splitting with a healthy Tatum Bell for most of the year:CODE+----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK OPP | RSH YD | RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| 1 mia | 4 5 | 0 | 0 || 2 sdg | 15 49 | 41 | 0 || 3 kan | 20 98 | 0 | 1 || 4 jax | 23 115 | 27 | 0 || 5 was | 11 34 | 16 | 0 || 6 nwe | 15 57 | 0 | 1 || 7 nyg | 24 120 | 0 | 1 || 8 phi | 21 126 | 16 | 1 || 10 oak | 17 65 | 0 | 1 || 11 nyj | 26 113 | 16 | 3 || 12 dal | 11 31 | 6 | 0 || 13 kan | 13 37 | 66 | 2 || 14 bal | 8 21 | 0 | 0 || 15 buf | 21 97 | 4 | 2 || 16 oak | 10 46 | 20 | 1 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| TOTAL | 239 1014 | 212 | 13 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+Not too bad, I notice 1200 total yards and 13 TDs in 15 games. Good enough to finish 10th in FBG scoring.Now let’s look at Dayne’s career:CODE +--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 2000 nyg | 16 | 228 770 3.4 5 | 3 11 3.7 0 || 2001 nyg | 16 | 180 690 3.8 7 | 8 67 8.4 0 || 2002 nyg | 16 | 125 428 3.4 3 | 11 49 4.5 0 || 2004 nyg | 14 | 52 179 3.4 1 | 1 7 7.0 0 || 2005 den | 10 | 53 270 5.1 1 | 3 17 5.7 0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 72 | 638 2337 3.7 17 | 26 151 5.8 0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+Here’s what I take of note from here. In his first four years with NYG he only missed two games…that my friends is durability. Not too many human beings can do that. The second stat that jumps out to me is the 5.1 YPC…yes it was bolstered by the big run, but why was that big run a fluke? Denver’s offense consistently produces big runs. No Dayne isn’t a speed demon, but neither was Mike Anderson.Lastly, and most importantly Dayne is running with the first team in minicamp and the Denver GM has stated he expects Dayne to fill Anderson’s shoes.Whether or not you like Dayne’s talent or not the stars have aligned. He has proven to be durable and he is filling Anderson’s role. It’s not rocket science to put one and one together here. It’s not like Anderson was the most gifted RB either. Just plug in a power runner in that offense and you’re going to get a 1000 yards and double digit TDs. Dayne’s ranking is the worst FBG consensus ranking IMHO.

How is that you read this and think that you accounted for the argument against Dayne by statistics and also don't make the implication that Dayne's 06 can be plugged into Anderson's 05?

 

[LHUCKS]

So here's the tough question: At what ranking is Dayne no longer over-rated? He's probably still under-rated at 33, no?

6th round is pretty agressive in a WCOFF format...a lot of those WCOFF guys are regular browsers on this board so I'm not surprised.I would draft him as late as you think you can get him. I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, but it all depends on the particular draft that you're in and where your roster is for a particular round...i.e. do you have only 2 RBs through 7 rounds or do you have 4? etc. etc.

 

[LHUCKS]

How is that you read this and think that you accounted for the argument against Dayne by statistics and also don't make the implication that Dayne's 06 can be plugged into Anderson's 05?

Because I only have him ranked in the 20's in non-ppr/FBG scoring format.

 

[The Ref]

Can we get that WR stuff now.

working on it

I am also in the school that this is where the most value can be made with your WR, so I am really looking forward to this article.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG, just so I understand (because you're in more different discussions here than I can keep up with ), you see the carries breaking down something like this, right?

TB - 12

RD - 16

everyone else - 1 or 2

That looks like RBBC to me. In this case, I'd imagine TB & RD's production - yardage-wise - being about the same.

Now, if it were to break down more along these lines:

TB - 7

RD - 21

ee - 1 or 2

That would show "clear & unequivocal support" from Shanny for Dane, IMO.

For the record, I expect the carries to be broken down something like this:TB - 12

RD - 16-18

everyone else - 2

If Denver runs the ball more than I expect, I anticipate Dayne being the sole beneficiary of the extra carries.

16 carries a game times 16 games = 256 carries. 18 carries a game times 16 games = 288 carries. Those numbers would have ranked him 16th or 12th in the NFL in carries last year.

I know that everyone thinks of featured backs as all having 20+ carries a game, but that's out of line with reality. Only 7 RBs in the entire NFL averaged more than 21 carries a game last year, and only 11 RBs averaged 20 carries or better per game, even accounting for injuries.

Also, Bell and Anderson's production last season, "yardage-wise", was also "about the same". The reason why Anderson finished 10th and Bell finished 22nd was because Anderson blew Bell away in terms of TDs.

This is where I think your argument is flawed. Dayne over his six year career has averaged a whopping 3.7 ypc. He looked terrible. Perhaps he was misused or perhaps he never got enough carries to be effective. Either way, you've already told us just because he was a dog before doesn't mean he can't be a stud now. So how is it you Cobbs-who has also looked like a dog-is incapable of suddenly being a stud? You can't have it both ways; if Dayne is capable of resurrecting his career after SIX years of mediocrity, why is Cobbs incapable of breaking out after playing for merely ONE season and grabbing a total of 22 carries?

Dayne is listed as the #1 back some places, other sites list Bell as the top rb. It's May, I wouldn't blow my load on a Denver rb simply because some sites rank him as the top guy. Heck, Cecil Sapp could win the job at this point. Wouldn't be the first time a fullback ran the ball for the Broncos.

We do agree that whoever Shanahan says will be his guy will actually be his guy. The difference between us appears to be our willingness to listen to praise from a coach. You seem to hear them praising Dayne and think he's locked up the top spot. I hear it and while it's a plus, simply saying "Hey, we like this guy" is a VERY long way from him actually winning the job. What were they supposed to say about him last year? "We think he's a dog, but right now we've nothing better."???

Point #1... I recognize that Dayne's career ypc is low, but Denver's featured backs all get 4.2 ypc or better. So it's sort of the case of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Given the choice as to which I think is stronger, the power of Dayne's suck or the power of Denver's awesome, I'm going to choose Denver's awesome.Point #2... I think Cobbs is fully capable of breaking out. If he wins the starting job, I will throw my unconditional support behind him like I am currently throwing it behind Dayne. The reason that I put the word "turd" in quotes was because I was saying it very tongue-in-cheek. I think either of these guys have a very solid RB1 upside, and a downside of RB2 at worst, if they manage to get the starting job.

Point #3... I'm not listening to praise. Shanahan and Sundquist have been praising both guys. I'm listening to Sundquist saying that Dayne will slide into the Mike Anderson role, and I'm listening to Shanahan talk with his wallet (or rather, Pat Bowlen's wallet) in signing Dayne to a multi-year extension. That's why I'm convinced that Dayne is the #1 in Denver. It could easily change, and I'll be keeping a close eye on the situation for the next several months. This is also the reason why I haven't made any sweeping predictions or put any bold statements in my sig yet. With that said, if there was a draft tomorrow, I would easily take Dayne as one of the first 24 RBs off the board. It would be a no-brainer. If I honestly believed someone was trying to scoop me on him, I'd nab him in the second round. Realistically, since I believe there's no chance of someone trying to grab him in the 2nd round at this point of the season, I'd wait and grab him in the 4th or 5th, instead.

If it doesn't matter who sites list as the #1 guy, why'd you mention it?

IIRC, Sundquist and Shannahan said Dayne would fill Andersons shoes last year.

So because Anderson finished as the number 10 rb last year, Dayne will finish at the same spot? Addai is going to be FANTASTIC value-Edge finished as the #5 rb last year, must mean the rook will place there as well.

When Shanny and Sundquist say they think that Dayne is going to fill Anderson's shoes, I take them to mean that he'll be getting Anderson's share of the carries. From there, what I project him to do with those carries is a big question. I haven't run any numbers yet, so my projection might have him scoring more or fewer points than Anderson did last year. On the one hand, Denver will probably run less this year, but on the other hand, Anderson missed two games... so I'll probably project Dayne to a similar number of total carries. On the one hand, I think Anderson's a better runner than Dayne, but on the other hand, the addition of Javon Walker will probably put pressure on the defense not to stack the box as much, which will help Dayne out, so I'll probably project him to a roughly similar ypc. I think, based on historical data from Denver and Dayne's record at the goal line, that Dayne will finish with fewer TDs than Anderson did this year. I don't really know what the final projections are going to come out, to, though. Rest assured that I'm not just automatically slotting him for all of Anderson's production without thinking about it first.

OK I'm just going to post some of Tatum Bell's stats.

2005:

Games 1-8: 7G 80-562

Games 9-16: 7G 93-359

Carries 1-5: 70-378

Carries 6-10: 58-411

Carries 11-15: 39-104

Carries 16-20: 6-28

DVOA: 13 out of 53

Success Rate: 29 out of 53

2004:

Games 1-8: 4G 14-57

Games 9-16: 5G 61-33

Carries 1-5: 38-190

Carries 6-10: 22-105

Carries 11-15: 12-94

Carries 16-20: 3-3

DVOA: 2 out of 52

Success Rate: 2 out of 52

To date Bell has only 60 total carries in the 11+ range, and only 9 total carries in the 16+ range. In my opinion at least, that's too small of a sample to be very predictive on its own. It may say that Shanahan doesn't like to give Bell too many carries, but it doesn't necessarily prove he's right. It also might simply mean that so far Shanahan hasn't wanted to give Bell too many carries, but that he may change his mind in the future. Mike Anderson was #5 in DVOA and #2 in SR last year after all.

Bell's ypc does go down in the 2nd half of the season, but that's probably not a fair test, because his ypc is so high in the 1st half. In the 2nd half, he had almost exactly the same ypc as Anderson over that span, 3.87 to 3.86.

As for Dayne, we have a huge amount of data to go on. His career stats:

Carries 1-10: 469-1828

Carries 11+: 169-509

If there's a RB of the 2 that statistics would say can't handle the load, it'd be Dayne, who has a career YPC of 3.9 in 1-10 carries, 3.0 in 11+ carries.

In short, there's the case for Dayne and there's the case against Bell. I think there's a danger in conflating the 2, because the case against Bell--at least the statistical case--is bunk. But I think so far that's the case Dayne supporters have made because it's pretty hard to make a case for him on his own merit. So far all we have--aside from a couple of recent comments by Sundquist and Kubiak--is LHUCKS arguing that Dayne is underrated at #39 and then pointing to his games played to show he's durable.

Again, I agree that the career stats really can't be used to prove anything of predictive value (although they do serve as a great DESCRIPTIVE tool of past events). I'm not arguing that point in the slightest.Once again, I think my final arguement comes down to this. Shanahan and Sundquist say that Dayne will get a lot of carries. Shanahan and Sundquist say that Bell will not. Historically, a lot of carries in Denver results in a lot of fantasy points.

Or, to repeat my favorite quote... Ron Dayne has ceased being Ron Dayne and has become RB Denver (Tecmo Superbowl style). And RB Denver, he is a stud.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

SSOG, just so I understand (because you're in more different discussions here than I can keep up with  ), you see the carries breaking down something like this, right?

TB - 12

RD - 16

everyone else - 1 or 2

That looks like RBBC to me. In this case, I'd imagine TB & RD's production - yardage-wise - being about the same.

Now, if it were to break down more along these lines:

TB - 7

RD - 21

ee - 1 or 2

That would show "clear & unequivocal support" from Shanny for Dane, IMO.

For the record, I expect the carries to be broken down something like this:TB - 12

RD - 16-18

everyone else - 2

If Denver runs the ball more than I expect, I anticipate Dayne being the sole beneficiary of the extra carries.

16 carries a game times 16 games = 256 carries. 18 carries a game times 16 games = 288 carries. Those numbers would have ranked him 16th or 12th in the NFL in carries last year.

I know that everyone thinks of featured backs as all having 20+ carries a game, but that's out of line with reality. Only 7 RBs in the entire NFL averaged more than 21 carries a game last year, and only 11 RBs averaged 20 carries or better per game, even accounting for injuries.

Also, Bell and Anderson's production last season, "yardage-wise", was also "about the same". The reason why Anderson finished 10th and Bell finished 22nd was because Anderson blew Bell away in terms of TDs.

And I'm sure you know that - outside of Pete Johnson & Rob Riddick, and their 14 TDs on 6 carries - projecting TDs ain't the world's easiest thing to do.My point was that those five extra carries make a ton of difference.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said (MOF I backed you in another thread), just trying to say that anything less than 20 carries for a guy like Dayne doesn't = stud.

 

[SSOG]

And I'm sure you know that - outside of Pete Johnson & Rob Riddick, and their 14 TDs on 6 carries - projecting TDs ain't the world's easiest thing to do.

My point was that those five extra carries make a ton of difference.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said (MOF I backed you in another thread), just trying to say that anything less than 20 carries for a guy like Dayne doesn't = stud.

Again, like I said, pretty much NO ONE gets 20 carries per game. 20 carries a game over a 16 game season = 320 carries. 8 RBs hit that mark. 18 carries a game = 288 carries. 11 RBs hit that 18-carry-a-game mark. If a Denver RB finishes in the top 11 in the league in terms of carries, that RB finishes in the top 10 in the league in terms of points. It's just a fact of life, given Denver's stellar points-per-carry.I mean, people had much of the same criticisms of Anderson (he was 32 years old, coming off a season ending injury, and hadn't had any fantasy value since 2000, so he'd need a ton of carries to be a stud). He finished averaging 15 carries a game over a full 16 game season... and still was a top-10 RB.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

And I'm sure you know that - outside of Pete Johnson & Rob Riddick, and their 14 TDs on 6 carries    - projecting TDs ain't the world's easiest thing to do.

My point was that those five extra carries make a ton of difference.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said (MOF I backed you in another thread), just trying to say that anything less than 20 carries for a guy like Dayne doesn't = stud.

Again, like I said, pretty much NO ONE gets 20 carries per game. 20 carries a game over a 16 game season = 320 carries. 8 RBs hit that mark. 18 carries a game = 288 carries. 11 RBs hit that 18-carry-a-game mark. If a Denver RB finishes in the top 11 in the league in terms of carries, that RB finishes in the top 10 in the league in terms of points. It's just a fact of life, given Denver's stellar points-per-carry.I mean, people had much of the same criticisms of Anderson (he was 32 years old, coming off a season ending injury, and hadn't had any fantasy value since 2000, so he'd need a ton of carries to be a stud). He finished averaging 15 carries a game over a full 16 game season... and still was a top-10 RB.

I'm not sold that Dayne's anywhere near as good as Anderson (& thus will need more opportunity to approach MA's #s), but point taken.

 

[SSOG]

I'm not sold that Dayne's anywhere near as good as Anderson (& thus will need more opportunity to approach MA's #s), but point taken.

I agree that Dayne will probably need more opportunity to match MA's numbers. However, assuming he doesn't get injured, he's already in line for about 30 extra carries (since Anderson missed more or less 2 full games last year).Now, you can point out that Dayne might very well get injured, which would adjust his carries downwards... but I'd argue that it's even MORE likely that BELL gets injured instead... and that would adjust Dayne's carries upwards.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I'm not sold that Dayne's anywhere near as good as Anderson (& thus will need more opportunity to approach MA's #s), but point taken.

I agree that Dayne will probably need more opportunity to match MA's numbers. However, assuming he doesn't get injured, he's already in line for about 30 extra carries (since Anderson missed more or less 2 full games last year).Now, you can point out that Dayne might very well get injured, which would adjust his carries downwards... but I'd argue that it's even MORE likely that BELL gets injured instead... and that would adjust Dayne's carries upwards.

I think he'll need all 30 of those carries (& maybe more) to approach Anderson's production. But I fully realize that my view is heavily colored by Dayne's past production (or lack thereof) - sometimes old prejudices die hard. However, I'm more open to him being productive today than I was at any time in the past

 

[Football Jones]

The only one I really disagree with is Ronnie Brown. As an example, I believe Brown is a better RB than Caddy & it's not that close, IMO. Talent-wise, I think Brown is just about as good as anybody & Miami is on the upswing. I see a big season (& career).

 

[Warpig]

I think Dayne is overrated at #39 though too. 

Good job.

so who do you see getting the Denver rushing yards, or do you expect them to disappear? Not trying to be a smartass, just looking for alternative opinions.

I think Bell ends up with more rushing yards because of his slashing/quick running style. He's more of a homerun threat. Dayne is the guy that bangs it up the middle and if he does bounce it outside, he's not gonna get too far. He's just too big to pull away from the DB's in the league. So, I think Dayne may get more carries and maybe average about 3 yards per carry, but Bell will have more yards and average about 4.6 yards per atleast. I also feel pretty confident that there will be a 3rd RB thrown into the mix as well.

 

[Liquid Tension]

One more thing, SSOG: re the descriptive versus predictive stats. Since Bell has so few carries in the 11+ or 16+ range, there's no way to predict from that sample how well he could "handle the load," as they say. With baseball statistics, I've read it argued that platoon splits for RH hitters v LHPs have little predictive value, because there's such a small sample. It's actually better to apply to each RH hitter a standard platoon boost versus LHPs. Has anyone done a study like that with RBs? What's the average decline for a RB over a certain number of carries?

Whoever told you that doesn't understand baseball.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm not sold that Dayne's anywhere near as good as Anderson (& thus will need more opportunity to approach MA's #s), but point taken.

I agree that Dayne will probably need more opportunity to match MA's numbers. However, assuming he doesn't get injured, he's already in line for about 30 extra carries (since Anderson missed more or less 2 full games last year).Now, you can point out that Dayne might very well get injured, which would adjust his carries downwards... but I'd argue that it's even MORE likely that BELL gets injured instead... and that would adjust Dayne's carries upwards.

Injuries are tough to predict, but I guess I just can't imagine that Denver won't be getting someone else on their roster to take carries away from Dayne. Dayne is mediocre AT BEST and TJ Duckett or someone like that would be more productive.