Ahhhh... where to start.
Anderson did look impressive yesterday but i believe that Dayne would have looked equally impressive and Bell even more impressive.
Denver has played against poor run defenses thus far.
Anderson should and will start the season as the starter but I don't see this lasting.
Tatum Bell is the most explosive back on this team. Anderson will not be able to be this successful against better defenses. Bell has the talent, speed and explosiveness to succeed against the better defenses.
Every year a few RBs look great in preseason. I remember James Stewart looking great in preseason his first year with Detroit.
Stop drinking the Anderson Kool Aid.
Bell will have this job by midseason and have a huge 2nd half.
I agree completely. Our draft was yesterday and I chose to stay away from the Denver RB's. I just don't buy the fact that Mike Anderson will be the starter the whole year. I doubt that he will be able to stay healthy but, even if he does, I see him hitting the wall at some point and Bell taking over. Where was Anderson on the depth chart last year? He wasn't challenging for #1 and looked like crap when he did get in there. Now all of the sudden after turning 32 and coming off of a season ending injury I'm supposed to believe he's the savior? Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. Good luck to everyone drafting today that picks him in the second or third round.
Actually... Anderson *was* the #1 RB. And if by "looked like crap" you mean "ran for 100 yards against Seattle and finished the preseason averaging 4.8 yards per carry without a single carry longer than 14 yards to inflate his ypc", then I'll agree that he "looked like crap".
No, Anderson was not #1 on the depth chart when he got hurt last preseason. He was #2 behind Griffin.
I don't understand why you continue to perpetuate this myth. I've provided clear documentation of where Anderson stood last year when he got hurt. He was challenging Griffin, but Griffin was the week 1 starter.
And I've provided links from articles on both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News, the two largest media outlets covering the Denver Broncos, that each independently said that Mike Anderson had WON the starting RB job before he got injured. I respect how closely you follow the team, and I appreciate the insight you frequently offer, but in this case, I'm going to have to assume that they'd have far more inside knowledge of the RB battle, and if both organizations independently went out on a limb and made a point of pointing out that Anderson had actually WON the job, then it must have been so.
Shanny, prob. the best coach in the NFL, has him as the #1 RB for a reason...M.A. shows heart and production.
That 3rd rd pick of Clarett doesn't look too smart now does it?
During the 2001 draft, one coach spent seven consecutive picks on players that are no longer with his team (most of whom are no longer even in the sport of football). SEVEN. What horrible judge of talent and personnel could have accomplished such a feat? Bill Bellichick, head coach, New England Patriots.
Anderson at 2.14 is pure craziness IMO. When was the last year that this guy was the starter? I just don't see why, if he is so great, Denver felt compelled to draft Portis and Bell so early? My last memories of Anderson in regular season action are of him filling in either on thrid downs or for an injured Portis and not doing that well. Like I said, I stayed clear of the Denver RB's so I don't really care that much - I just think that people who think MA is going to be the savior are going to be disappointed.
Again, Reuben Droughns finished as RB #14 last season, despite only starting 12 games. Denver's RBs are #2 in the entire NFL in fantasy points per game over the past 5 seasons. And taking a Denver RB at 2.14 (in all likelihood not even among the top 20 RBs selected) is "pure craziness"? I'm not seeing it.P.S. Your memories of Anderson are of him running when he was in Fullback shape- so they certainly aren't representative of how he's running now. Think of your last memories of Tatum Bell running. Now imagine someone running better than that, and that's how Mike Anderson is running.
P.P.S. If Portis was so great, why did Shanahan draft Quentin Griffin in the 4th round? If Terrell Davis was so great, why did Shanny draft Olandis Gary? Check Denver's draft history. They take a runningback every year, without fail.
I liken it to a fantasy draft. Let's say you're drafting #1 overall, and you take LT. You have a plan that you're going to grab a stud WR and a #2 RB on the turn... but when it gets around to you, you can't believe your eyes. Torry Holt and Randy Moss are still there! There's just so much value present, you can't pass it up! I think that's why Shanahan took Bell and Portis.
If MA really is capable of being a 2000 yard rusher, why did Shanahan make him play fullback for those two years? I mean, what's harder to find, 2000 yard rushers or starting quality fullbacks? This doesn't make sense.
So, either you think Shanahan is a total fool who squandered such great talent, or he had good reasons to not be convinced at all that Anderson could be that great. It seems he's only in this position now because Tatum hasn't really lit the world on fire, and every other reliable option has left town.
I couldn't burn a high to mid round pick on this guy. He does have a history of injuries, he's old, he's got a young back behind him, and Shanahan wasn't sold on this guy in the past. Too many concerns for me.
Mike Shanahan has NEVER not been sold on Anderson. He had Anderson switching to Fullback because he had a glut of talented runners, and he wanted his best players on the field. Anderson is such a great blocker, that Mike Shanahan wanted him on the field as much as possible, which he wouldn't be if he was fighting for playing time with Terrell Davis (a former 2000 yard rusher), Olandis Gary (1200 yards in 12 games) and Clinton Portis (a 2nd round draft pick).
On point 1,
That's very misleading. Droughns ranked ELEVENTH in the NFL in carries, and FOURTEENTH in fantasy points. To imply that he ranked fourteenth despite not much playing time is backwards; he ranked fourteenth because he had so much playing time.
On point 2,
I'd much rather have an old back that's had a lot of carries the past few years, than one that has had very few carries the past few seasons. I'm not so certain Anderson will be ready for the physical abuse of 300 carries in a season (he may be ready, but he's certainly a worse bet than someone like Curtis Martin or Corey Dillon, guys that have proven capable of that workload).
Otherwise, I agree that Anderson is a good value.
On point 1- I don't think it's misleading at all. Sure, Droughns was ELEVENTH in the NFL in carries. Think of how many more carries he would have had if he'd started 16 games! Certainly enough to finish higher than 14th overall in fantasy points.On point 2- I've done some research on RBs who have a high workload, and the numbers are really scary. History has NOT been kind to RBs coming off of extremely high-carry seasons. Remember what happened to Ricky Williams in 2003? Well, if someone was paying attention to the numbers, they would have seen it coming from a mile away. I'd much rather have a 32 year old back who is fresh and not worn down than a 32 year old back with a lot of use on him already.
these are the arguments i've read why anderson won't be the starter for the whole season and bell will suplant him or out produce him:
). And don't give me splitting time between Bell and Droughns last season as a time when Shanahan made Droughns owners' lives difficult. Droughns was worn out and ineffective. DROUGHNS was making Droughns owners' lives difficult. Shanahan is perhaps the most anti-RBBC coach in the NFL today.
