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!
Mike Anderson's Production (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Moldy Potato
- Start date
GiantsRule
Footballguy
Fatass Dayne fumbled last week. That should hopefully be the end of him barring an injury.
diesel7982
Footballguy
Im amazed he was even active. No reason for him to be with Bell healthy. You'd think they'd want another special teamer in his spot.
tex
Footballguy
In the playoffs and trying to decide between Anderson and Cedric Houston as RB#2. With bad weather in Buffalo, I'm leaning toward Anderson. If there is snow, I would think a straight ahead power runner would have an advantage, so Anderson gets the majority of the work. Thoughts?
Mr. Pink
Footballguy
MA's production over the last three games is still cause for concern.His rushes - 32 carries, 89 yards, 1 TD (less than 3 ypc)His catches - 3 catches, 72 yards, 1 TD (includes a 66 yd TD catch)That was one productive game sandwiched in between two horrible games. This is the stuff that wins or loses a playoff game. Take away the one 66 yd TD catch and the stats are bad across the board. Too risky for my blood, regardless of the matchup.I'll start Tiki and hope Jacobs doesn't see the goalline.
I have MA, SJax, and Ryan Moats. Need to start 2. Both MA and SJax have been struggeling latley, and I am thinking about starting Moats over one of them. MA does have a nice matchup against Buf. I would think that cold and snow would favor MA running style better than Bell. So he may get more touches than normal?
Bricktown Boy
Footballguy
those 2 bad games were the only 2 in the last 7 games and they were against Balt & Dallas, both good run D's.
Bricktown Boy
Footballguy
Article on Denver Run game...Not a whole lot of anything, just an FYI
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nfl/...4322714,00.html
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nfl/...4322714,00.html
SSOG
Moderator
Sorry buddy, finals. I'm done for the semester, and I'll post over the break, but I doubt I'll really have much to add on the situation. In fact, I haven't had anything to add in months, I've just been posting the same thing over and over again. For those who missed it, here it is.Mike Anderson is the starting RB of the Denver Broncos. Mike Anderson should be good for about 20 carries, 100 total yards, and a score a game. Tatum Bell is startable... as long as you think he's going to keep averaging 10 yards a carry (as he did during the stretch early in the season when he was startable). Personally, I don't ever want to bank on an RB averaging 10 yards per carry, so I will never start Bell as long as Anderson is healthy. Tatum Bell HAS NEVER gotten more than 17 carries in a game, and he WILL NOT top that this season. Shanahan is adamant about keeping him fresh- so again, only start him if you think he's going to make out like gangbusters on the touches he DOES get.SSOG - anything to add?
Hello?
For the record, too... Tatum Bell NEVER has a higher upside than Mike Anderson. Mike Anderson's upside includes more touches and more goal-line touches than Bell's, and is therefore logically ALWAYS higher. I mean, has Tatum Bell even come CLOSE to Mike Anderson's 3-TD performance against the Jets?
Also, I don't get people complaining about getting burned by Mike Anderson. Has Mike Anderson had some bad games? Absolutely. Has he had some games where he didn't get 20 carries? Of course. Did LaDanian Tomlinson rush for 7 yards against the Eagles earlier this season? Did Steven Jackson put up an AWFUL performance against the crappy Cardinals defense? Did Larry Johnson put up under 2 yards per carry and a fumble in the first game against Denver? Did Fred Taylor (and the entire Jacksonville team) set franchise lows in rushing against Denver? Did Willis McGahee run for 8 yards last week? ALL backs have bad games- even LT2. Just because their bad game doesn't coincide with a good game by their backup doesn't mean their bad game hurts you any worse. Mike Anderson hasn't been the most consistant back in the NFL, but he's certainly been in the top 10 since week 2.
Again, for the record, for those not familiar with my sig: after week 2, I made the claim that Mike Anderson would be a top 10 RB in points per game for the remainder of the season, and put my money where my mouth is by adding it to my sig. I have not backed off that claim once, and I am not backing off of it now. For better or for worse, my sig will remain, and at the end of the season we'll tabulate up all the points and see who was right- me, or everyone else. And if everyone else was right, then they can all feel free to rub it in my face as much as they want. I stand by my prediction, though. The only reason Mike Anderson will ever see my bench is if I have other top-10 caliber starters at RB.
UFFLCommish
Footballguy
to Mike Anderson. Plays the Raiders next week and should be good for 100 yards and 1-2 TDs. Semper Fi.
SSOG
Moderator
I have to say, I'm a little bit concerned about next week. Last time Denver played the Raiders, Anderson and Bell split the carries almost 50/50. Anderson made the most of his carries, but I worry that Shanahan saw something in the Raiders defense that prompted the heavy use of Bell, and I worry that he might see the same thing again next week.That said... nobody in the entire NFL changes his offensive gameplan NEARLY as much, or is as unpredictable in what he's going to do from week to week, as Mike Shanahan. Just because he did it before doesn't mean he'll do it again, and I still believe that Bell's cap is going to be 15-17 carries. And I'm still going to start Mike Anderson, I'm just going to be a little bit more nervous about it than I usually am.
Semper Fi.
If Tuiasosopo starts for the Raiders, then I love the Mike Anderson play next week, since the Broncos will be killing clock for a long, long time. If Collins plays, then I expect the Raiders to stay almost halfway competetive for a half or so, and expect Anderson to finish with a more reasonable 20-25 carries.
Sorry buddy, finals. I'm done for the semester, and I'll post over the break, but I doubt I'll really have much to add on the situation. In fact, I haven't had anything to add in months, I've just been posting the same thing over and over again. For those who missed it, here it is.Mike Anderson is the starting RB of the Denver Broncos. Mike Anderson should be good for about 20 carries, 100 total yards, and a score a game. Tatum Bell is startable... as long as you think he's going to keep averaging 10 yards a carry (as he did during the stretch early in the season when he was startable). Personally, I don't ever want to bank on an RB averaging 10 yards per carry, so I will never start Bell as long as Anderson is healthy. Tatum Bell HAS NEVER gotten more than 17 carries in a game, and he WILL NOT top that this season. Shanahan is adamant about keeping him fresh- so again, only start him if you think he's going to make out like gangbusters on the touches he DOES get.SSOG - anything to add?
Hello?
For the record, too... Tatum Bell NEVER has a higher upside than Mike Anderson. Mike Anderson's upside includes more touches and more goal-line touches than Bell's, and is therefore logically ALWAYS higher. I mean, has Tatum Bell even come CLOSE to Mike Anderson's 3-TD performance against the Jets?
Also, I don't get people complaining about getting burned by Mike Anderson. Has Mike Anderson had some bad games? Absolutely. Has he had some games where he didn't get 20 carries? Of course. Did LaDanian Tomlinson rush for 7 yards against the Eagles earlier this season? Did Steven Jackson put up an AWFUL performance against the crappy Cardinals defense? Did Larry Johnson put up under 2 yards per carry and a fumble in the first game against Denver? Did Fred Taylor (and the entire Jacksonville team) set franchise lows in rushing against Denver? Did Willis McGahee run for 8 yards last week? ALL backs have bad games- even LT2. Just because their bad game doesn't coincide with a good game by their backup doesn't mean their bad game hurts you any worse. Mike Anderson hasn't been the most consistant back in the NFL, but he's certainly been in the top 10 since week 2.
Again, for the record, for those not familiar with my sig: after week 2, I made the claim that Mike Anderson would be a top 10 RB in points per game for the remainder of the season, and put my money where my mouth is by adding it to my sig. I have not backed off that claim once, and I am not backing off of it now. For better or for worse, my sig will remain, and at the end of the season we'll tabulate up all the points and see who was right- me, or everyone else. And if everyone else was right, then they can all feel free to rub it in my face as much as they want. I stand by my prediction, though. The only reason Mike Anderson will ever see my bench is if I have other top-10 caliber starters at RB.
Bricktown Boy
Footballguy
Glad I played em over Bell!!! (to bad by opponent had Rod Smith)
blake
Footballguy
I'm STRONGLY considering playing him over Edgerrin James next week. Anderson's the best that I've got for a reserve, and if he's got a good matchup and Edge may only play a half, maybe I need to use it?Aye!Anderson had a midseason stretch of 5 straight games that meet my definition of good (double digit scoring).
notoriousbob
Footballguy
Add to this discussion that Oakland has apparently given up this year and I think this points to a good day for Mike. Edge has taken me this far, now I need Mike to finish.Hooooooo Rahhh!
Family Matters
Footballguy
Something to consider is that Anderson needs apx 32 yards for 100 while Bell needs 202. It's possible they will give Bell more carries the mext 2 weeks in an effort to get them both 1000. Not sure if that will happen but it could.Has anyone seen any info to suggest Denver handling the carries any different?
The_Man
Footballguy
Below is a table listing the result of each Denver game, along with the carries breakdown for Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell and Ron Dayne. I hope it is legible.
The previous Oakland game is in bold.
--------------------MA------------TB------------RD
L 10-34-------------4-------------13-------------0
W 20-17-----------15-------------0-------------8
W 30-10-----------20-------------5-------------3
W 20-7-------------23-----------15-------------2
W 21-19------------11-----------12-------------0
W 28-20------------15-----------13-------------0
L 23-24-------------24-------------8-------------0
W 49-21-----------21-------------14-------------0
W 31-17--------17-------------16-----------0
W 27-0-------------26-------------10------------0
W 24-21------------11--------------0------------7
L 27-31-------------13-------------5------------8
W 12-10--------------8-------------16------------4
W 28-16------------21------------12------------0
I am still baffled by the abberation of the Baltimore game two weeks ago. I think it taught Shanny his lesson -- Tatum is effective only if he gets his 10-15 carries as a change-up for MA, not as the primary ball carrier.
I think this game will be very similar to the previous Oakland game, with Denver content to grind out a win on the ground, and Anderson and Bell both getting 15+ carries.
The previous Oakland game is in bold.
--------------------MA------------TB------------RD
L 10-34-------------4-------------13-------------0
W 20-17-----------15-------------0-------------8
W 30-10-----------20-------------5-------------3
W 20-7-------------23-----------15-------------2
W 21-19------------11-----------12-------------0
W 28-20------------15-----------13-------------0
L 23-24-------------24-------------8-------------0
W 49-21-----------21-------------14-------------0
W 31-17--------17-------------16-----------0
W 27-0-------------26-------------10------------0
W 24-21------------11--------------0------------7
L 27-31-------------13-------------5------------8
W 12-10--------------8-------------16------------4
W 28-16------------21------------12------------0
I am still baffled by the abberation of the Baltimore game two weeks ago. I think it taught Shanny his lesson -- Tatum is effective only if he gets his 10-15 carries as a change-up for MA, not as the primary ball carrier.
I think this game will be very similar to the previous Oakland game, with Denver content to grind out a win on the ground, and Anderson and Bell both getting 15+ carries.
GiantsRule
Footballguy
Also, judging by the assessment I made last week (Bell performs lousy on the road but tears it up at home), it really makes you second guess which back to go with. It's been a while since either back put up two solid games in a row so I'm hesitant to go with MA, but he's the only logical choice.
zamboni
Footballguy
I think you can basically count on Bell getting his 10-15 carries, but that's probably it. Anderson will get the rest, so if there are a lot of plays and they run the ball a lot, that's probably 20+ carries for MA. Otherwise, MA's carries will be in line with Bell's. However, most likely the goal line love goes to MA, so I think he's the better play regardless.
zamboni
Footballguy
I could see Shanny giving Bell the lion's share of work in week 17 if the team wraps up the #2 seed after this week. Right now, they need to win to get a bye, and the current rotation seems to be what is working best.If they aren't playing for seeding in week 17, maybe Bell gets some requisite carries to get 1000 yards.
Are some of you looking for reasons to bench Anderson? You sat him against BUF when he put up almost 100 and 2 TDs, and now justify sitting him this week because he can't put up 2 in a row?Lamont Jordan has turf toe, OAK has been playing uninspired football for the last few weeks, OAK is in the bottom 1/4 in both rushing yds and TDs allowed, and DEN is at home. This looks like the BUF game all over again- except they probably won't pass the whole first half. You're not going to get much out of Anderson on the road vs. SD (or any other DEN back for that matter) next week, so if you're looking for justification for having him on your roster, this week is a must play.
The_Man
Footballguy
I think most of us are looking for reasons to play Anderson. At the same time, we're looking for any tidbit of info that might save us from the kind of debacle he put up two weeks ago. That was annoying then; it might cost you a championship now.But this thread is more a support group than anything else, is my feeling.
SSOG
Moderator
Shanahan is VERY record-conscious, as evidenced by madly throwing to Rod Smith in the final game of 2000 to get McCaffrey and Smith both over the 100 reception mark. At the same time, his #1 goal is to get that second seed. He will not do a THING to lessen his chances of getting it. That means, the only time he starts feeding Bell is in week 16 if Oakland is put so far away that the game is entirely assured (and by this, I mean a 3, probably 4 TD lead), or in week 17 if Denver wins and Cincy loses this week (which guarantees them the #2 seed). And if Denver has a 3 or 4 TD lead against Oakland, it's a pretty fair bet that Mike Anderson was responsible for at least one of the scores, and probably more.Again, Shanny would like two 1,000 yard rushers, but if it does anything at all to hinder his chances of winning a superbowl, he will most definitely NOT do anything out of the ordinary.
Nope. Bell's only gotten 15+ carries TWICE this season (with a high of 16). You make it sound like he has a lot of upside. He doesn't. His UPSIDE is 15 carries. That's basically the best he can hope for. It's possible he goes over 15+, but that's his ceiling, whereas 15 is probably Anderson's floor.
Hmmm... let's see... one of these two backs is the 8th best back in all of fantasy football. One of these backs has more scores since week 3 than anyone but Tomlinson, James, or Alexander. Oh, and the other has gotten more than 15 carries twice all season.I can see where the second guessing would happen.
I said it weeks ago, and I'm saying it again now- Tatum Bell will be a starter-caliber fantasy play on any week where he averages 10 yards per carry. If you think he's going to average 10 yards per carry, then start him this week. Personally, I wouldn't ever bet on such a proposition. I was discussing this with a league-mate of mine after Bell had 3 or 4 straight games with 8+ yards per carry. I told him that Bell would keep being valuable as long as he kept averaging 10 yards per carry, which wasn't going to happen, and he asked me why not, since Bell hadn't stopped yet. And I simply replied that Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, and Gale Sayers played 26 combined seasons. They topped 6 yards per carry once each, and none ever topped 6.4. What do you think the odds were, then, of Tatum Bell continuing to average 8+ a carry?
Why are you only looking to avoid such a debacle with Mike Anderson? Tomlinson carried 17 times for 7 yards against the Eagles. He hasn't scored a TD in 3 weeks. Why aren't there threads discussing HIS value going forward (alright, bad example, he's injured)? What about Edge and his 13 for 25 last week? Clinton Portis, 4 for 9 against the New York Giants. Why is nobody wondering how solid of a start he is in week 16?Everyone has bad games, even uberstuds. Mike Anderson is a TOP TEN RB. The only RBs who have scored more TDs since week 2 are Tomlinson, James, and Alexander. Just because someone else on Denver's Roster gets touches, Anderson's value is now questionable? He still gets plenty of touches. And besides, do you know who scores more points per touch than Anderson? Tomlinson and Alexander. That's it. So even if he only gets 10-15 touches, he'll still score more than any other back with a comparable number of touches.
SSOG
Moderator
Alright, so theoretically you have the #8 RB in the entire NFL, facing a bottom-tier run defense. You know that only two other RBs score more points per touch than this RB, and one of those players is injured. In fact, this particular RB- the one who is 8th in the league in points, 3rd in points per touch, and 3rd in TDs since week 2- anyway, he not only is facing a bad run defense (that his team always OWNS), but he is facing a horrible run defense in a game his team absolutely needs for seeding purposes, and he is his team's primary weapon. So that's the hypothetical situation. If you still need someone to convince you to start him, you're beyond my help.You said it yourself- always start your studs. Just see my sig for where I stand on the whole Mike Anderson matter.
Oh, and if I may, I'd like to amend that "always start your studs" rule. Always start your studs... as long as they're healthy, and likely to play an entire game before they get benched and rested for the playoffs. Which sort of shortens the list of players who you should start over Anderson, now doesn't it?
Long Snapper
Footballguy
Oakland: 23rd in rush defense ( 14 TD's )
16th in Pass defense ( 17 TD's )
13th in WR defense
6th best in fewest pass plays over 20 yds.
Oakland had 256 yds. passing 3 TD's and 3 INT's last 2 games COMBINED!
Lamont Jordan won't play.
Denver: 2nd in rush defense
29th in pass defense
5th in INT's (18)
Denver is missing Derrent Williams starting CB (2 INT's)
I interpret those facts like this; Oakland's running game will be non-existant against an elite run D and missing their best offensive threat. Oakland has trouble defending the run and is a better against the pass and best against the WR position. Denver clinched a playoff spot and will know by gametime if they have clinched the division ( a real possibility with SD playing at KC ) and if Cinnci looses ( an infinitely less likely occurance ) a Denver win gives them a home playoff game.
Boil that down to - Denver brings it's "A" game at home and attacks Oakland's weakness with a power run game. Oakland will pass the ball a lot in this one, knowing the futility of running against Den's D. Denver has the potential for a lot of turnovers, therefore, short fields. Short fields favor Anderson who wouldn't need to be spelled as much in a short drive. Denver will most likely be protecting a lead for the entire second half and that situation is best served by the power back and Dayne has had his fumbling issues lately.
Bottom Line for Anderson (again my takes) -Best case scenario - 100+yds. and 2 TD's. Worst case 65-80 yds. and 1 TD. Worst case puts Mikey at @ 4th in my weekly rankings in a week with a TON of injuries and question marks!
16th in Pass defense ( 17 TD's )
13th in WR defense
6th best in fewest pass plays over 20 yds.
Oakland had 256 yds. passing 3 TD's and 3 INT's last 2 games COMBINED!
Lamont Jordan won't play.
Denver: 2nd in rush defense
29th in pass defense
5th in INT's (18)
Denver is missing Derrent Williams starting CB (2 INT's)
I interpret those facts like this; Oakland's running game will be non-existant against an elite run D and missing their best offensive threat. Oakland has trouble defending the run and is a better against the pass and best against the WR position. Denver clinched a playoff spot and will know by gametime if they have clinched the division ( a real possibility with SD playing at KC ) and if Cinnci looses ( an infinitely less likely occurance ) a Denver win gives them a home playoff game.
Boil that down to - Denver brings it's "A" game at home and attacks Oakland's weakness with a power run game. Oakland will pass the ball a lot in this one, knowing the futility of running against Den's D. Denver has the potential for a lot of turnovers, therefore, short fields. Short fields favor Anderson who wouldn't need to be spelled as much in a short drive. Denver will most likely be protecting a lead for the entire second half and that situation is best served by the power back and Dayne has had his fumbling issues lately.
Bottom Line for Anderson (again my takes) -Best case scenario - 100+yds. and 2 TD's. Worst case 65-80 yds. and 1 TD. Worst case puts Mikey at @ 4th in my weekly rankings in a week with a TON of injuries and question marks!
SSOG
Moderator
Tatum Bell will be a quality start on any week where he averages 8+ yards per carry. He will not be a quality start on any week where he DOESN'T average 8+ yards per carry. That's the general rule of thumb when deciding whether to start Bell.Personally, I just always assume that the odds an RB DOESN'T average 8 yards a carry are always better than the odds that he DOES, and I leave Bell on my bench every week.
