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!
Nice investigative work. Thanks for the info.I do think that the question about whether DW will beat out Foster is rather uninspiring. I can't imagine that Foster would hold down the job or get a majority of carries. As a biased DW owner, I just don't think he's even close to good enough to fend off DW.
What's changed? This sums it up, from a panther homer.
SSOG said:
In 2005 Denver listed 14 fantasy starters on the injury report, 2 Q, 12 P, and 13 of them played. In 2005 Tennessee listed 44, yes, 44, fantasy starters on the injury report, all 44 Q, and 32 of them played. Ridiculous.Edit to add: General play rates that season were 0% Doubtful, 50% Questionable and 90% Probable. New England's play rates in 2005? 0% Doubtful (out of 1)51.6% Questionable (out of 31)88.2% Probable (out of 17)Belichick is playing by the rules.
Belichick is playing reasonably close to by the rules, but you can't tell me that listing Tom Brady as probable on every injury report for 5 years is "playing by the rules". Or listing injuries as "Probable: leg" or "Doubtful: arm" is playing by the rules. Or listing Dillon as probable and dressing him for the game, then having him spend the entire game on the bench is playing by the rules. Belichick usually plays by the general spirit of the rules, in a vague, unreliable way, but he clearly shows his disregard for the report several times a season and blatantly flaunts the rules when it suits him.He's still a million times better than Fisher, though.SSOG said:In 2005 Denver listed 14 fantasy starters on the injury report, 2 Q, 12 P, and 13 of them played. In 2005 Tennessee listed 44, yes, 44, fantasy starters on the injury report, all 44 Q, and 32 of them played. Ridiculous.Edit to add: General play rates that season were 0% Doubtful, 50% Questionable and 90% Probable. New England's play rates in 2005? 0% Doubtful (out of 1)51.6% Questionable (out of 31)88.2% Probable (out of 17)Belichick is playing by the rules.
I don't know about the above ? I think Henry is a two year back in Denver, an example for Bell if you will.
The tittle of this thread is: "RB backups that would produce top 10 numbers if the primary back goes down." IMHO, Bell is more of a complete back than several others that have been mentioned and judging from last year he probably won't get pulled at the goalline.
Good points, but the fact that overall he's hitting the league wide play rates (or at least he did in 2005) is good enough for me. I think it's one of that you can take advantage of in fantasy football if you know that, either by feeling comfortable starting a guy on NE's injury report or by taking advantage of another owner worrying about their Patriot being listed on the report and getting the player in a cheap trade.Belichick is playing reasonably close to by the rules, but you can't tell me that listing Tom Brady as probable on every injury report for 5 years is "playing by the rules". Or listing injuries as "Probable: leg" or "Doubtful: arm" is playing by the rules. Or listing Dillon as probable and dressing him for the game, then having him spend the entire game on the bench is playing by the rules. Belichick usually plays by the general spirit of the rules, in a vague, unreliable way, but he clearly shows his disregard for the report several times a season and blatantly flaunts the rules when it suits him.He's still a million times better than Fisher, though.SSOG said:In 2005 Denver listed 14 fantasy starters on the injury report, 2 Q, 12 P, and 13 of them played. In 2005 Tennessee listed 44, yes, 44, fantasy starters on the injury report, all 44 Q, and 32 of them played. Ridiculous.Edit to add: General play rates that season were 0% Doubtful, 50% Questionable and 90% Probable. New England's play rates in 2005? 0% Doubtful (out of 1)51.6% Questionable (out of 31)88.2% Probable (out of 17)Belichick is playing by the rules.
I agree, I was just pointing out the fact that just because Denver picked up Henry doesn't mean they are not high on Bell. He comes in as an undrafted rookie and puts up 157-677 and 8 tds in part time duty. Given a full work load in that offense and I can see him putting up top 10 numbers.
What are ya? Drunk?
Did you say something ? I have you on ignore.
Nice.Also, very good point on Bell. Considering where he came from he had a phenomenal season last year. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that Henry could be injured and miss some time. Bell was also a very successfull short yardage back and it doesn't seem unlikely that he could be used in that role again this year.
:X Your team sucks.
