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!
Shanahan's new RB (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chris1969
- Start date
Until he fumbles in a game and then all bets are off. I still think when push comes to shove Young emerges as the starter...or a FA RB for Week 1. Then all bets are off again.
Dirty Weasel
Footballguy
There are no secrets when it comes to DEN RB's. Every single RB they have is a "potential" stud.
Oh?525/2468/26 (4.7 ypc) = 402.8 fantasy points543/2629/20 (4.8 ypc) = 382.9 fantasy points542/2539/25 (4.7 ypc) = 403.9 fantasy pointsOne of those lines is Denver's rushing total from 1998, when Gibbs was the O-Line coach and Terrell Davis was running roughshod en route to 2000 yards. Another of those lines is Denver's rushing total from 2003, when Gibbs was no longer O-line coach, but still worked part time in Denver as a consultant, and Portis was running roughshod over the league en route to his second 1500 yard season. Another of those lines is Denver's rushing total from 2005, when Gibbs was not with the team in any capacity, and Denver's leading rushers were Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell, who were making a serious run at being the first 1,000 yard teammates in two decades. I'll let you try to figure out which was which.Denver's rushing game has been every bit as potent since Gibbs left town, it's just that Gibbs' departure coincided with the departure of Denver's last featured back and since then the RBs have been sharing the points instead of hording them. Implying that Gibbs' loss has negatively impacted the fantasy value of the Denver running situation, however, is just asinine. Last year, the offensive line was WRECKED by injuries (at one point, if you compared the offensive line to itself from 16 games prior, you didn't have a single player playing the same position). Denver also, entirely uncharacteristically, finished in the bottom half of the league in rushing attempts due to injuries and the fact that they were trailing so much. Despite this, Denver still ranked 10th in yards and 5th in yards per carry (4.6, a mere tenth of a yard or so behind those three seasons I posted already).Denver's running game is as good as it's always been. If one back ever seizes the reigns, ignore him at your own risk.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
good info SSOG, but I doubt that one single RB stands out this year, looks to me like a RBBC with Young getting slightly more carries than the others..Denver's backfield has produced some quality numbers as a whole..
If Shanny ever does settle on one guy, you have a legit starter..if not , you have a hodge-podge of also-rans..
not sure I want to get involved in that Denver RB situation.Best to let someone else feel the pain..
If Shanny ever does settle on one guy, you have a legit starter..if not , you have a hodge-podge of also-rans..
not sure I want to get involved in that Denver RB situation.Best to let someone else feel the pain..
Banger
Footballguy
I think Shanny has been looking for that new RB to take over but the problem is when you start UDFA's signees, late draft picks and other teams castoffs their talent tends not to be too high therefore they are fairly easily replacable in their system. I'm keeping my eye on Torrian but he like the rest of the cast fit that same mold and chances are next year we'll be playing the same game....
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
If you think Torrain would have been significantly faster at the combine than he actually was had he not been injured his senior season, then he's probably the back to own in Denver.
But at 4.61 he scores less than 92 on a size/speed metric where NO RB in ten years has been successful without a score of 100, scores of 98 are clearly a problem, and anything in the 80s is bust material. He'd have had to come in at or below 4.50 to have generate enough power for a #1 NFL RB.
If you think he was fully healed when he ran then stay away from all Denver RBs in dynasty. The 'next' back isn't on the roster yet.
But at 4.61 he scores less than 92 on a size/speed metric where NO RB in ten years has been successful without a score of 100, scores of 98 are clearly a problem, and anything in the 80s is bust material. He'd have had to come in at or below 4.50 to have generate enough power for a #1 NFL RB.
If you think he was fully healed when he ran then stay away from all Denver RBs in dynasty. The 'next' back isn't on the roster yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Warhogs
Footballguy
Curious why you chose 1998, 2003, and 2005. I'm not trying to be hyper critical but where are the stat lines from 2006 and 2007? I don't see the value in using numbers from 3 years ago. A multitude of things may have changed in personnel between 2005 and today. I'm just not sure the theory of someone in Denver's backfield will be a stud holds as true today as it used to.
Too bad it takes 17 roster spots to cover all the denver RBs. And if one does win the job, there's no guarantee he'll have it the following year. Denver FF RBs are a waste of roster spots, negative roster equity and you're better off letting some other schmuck deal with that mess.
The Jacket
Footballguy
If only there was a player we could all take at 1.1 called "Denver Running Game."SSOG said:
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
It's called RBBC
The Jacket
Footballguy
Also known as "fantasy failure."
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
The problem with the Denver RBs now is that there are no sleepers. Torain is going too high to be a sleeper now. The value we used to get from the Torain types is gone now.
I agree that all signs point to RBBC, I simply disagreed that Denver's rushing game is no longer a fantasy force. It's a sleeping giant. If anyone ever gets the lion's share, he's a top 5 RB. If anyone ever gets even a significant and sustained chunk of the RBBC, he's going to be a top 12-15 RB. Remember, when Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell were splitting time, Anderson finished as RB10 and Bell finished as RB22.
I chose those three seasons because those are the three best rushing seasons in Denver's history, and because they were split nicely (one during Gibbs' tenure as coach, one during Gibbs' tenure as consultant, one after Gibbs was gone completely). The point wasn't to illustrate how Denver's running game is doing right now, the point was to show that it's ludicrous to suggest that the loss of Alex Gibbs has weakened Denver's running game. If Denver's running game has been weaker, it has nothing to do with the loss of Gibbs (who hasn't been the Oline coach for 8 years now) and everything to do with how terrible the defense is (which led to Denver ranking in the bottom half of the league in attempts for the first time in a long time).
Again, in 2005, Mike Anderson finished as RB10 and Tatum Bell finished as RB22. If by "fantasy failure" you mean "capable of producing a fantasy RB1 *AND* a fantasy RB2", then I agree. Denver is one of three situations in recent memory where the pie is so ridiculously large that even if you only get a piece (a la RBBC), you still hold fantasy relevance (the other two situations were KC before the line fell apart and Indy now).If Denver's defense gets it together and Denver finishes top 5 in attempts again, like it almost always does, then whatever back leads the RBBC will be a fantasy starter. If Denver's defense doesn't get it together, then he won't. Don't write off the entire situation just because it's an RBBC though.
tribecalledjeff
Footballguy
Please stop this. 2005 was a long, long time ago. 2007 DEN 375 1696 4.52 9 271.90 2006 DEN 426 1893 4.44 10 293.80
Buffaloes
Footballguy
SSOG has a valid point. Since 2005, Denver has suffered from an aging and banged up o-line. Then last year, they fielded one of the worst defenses I have ever seen them roll out. A patch work o-line and a porous defense that can't get the ball back adds up to less rushing opportunities. The fact is, Selving Young, a UFA came in and averaged over 5 ypc last year. The offense is still capable of churning out runners. Whether they have adequately addressed the o-line and defensive problems is another story. Then there is the RBBC which I think stems from a recent trend of rostering RBs who are more situation backs than bell cow backs. When Denver has the opportunity, they can still be a dominant rushing team. Didn't Henry lead the league in rushing for the first 4 or 5 games last year?'Even though I think it's an effective system from a football standpoint, I still don't think it makes for a great fantasy play. I see Torain sharing with Young and a little bit of Pittman as 3rd down back this year...but with Shanahan, who knows...
Last edited by a moderator:
thecardiackid
Footballguy
Me too, though we look like the minority and maybe a little
I'm hanging on to AH till the roster cut down deadline in August, so maybe we can get some better insight via training camp about the depth chart.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Yes he did.Also, the stats tribecalledjeff posted show they averaged 4.6/carry which was the 3rd best average in the league. The Denver running game is long, long way from dead.
tribecalledjeff
Footballguy
I was mainly posting those to show that there is no reason to think that Denver will support TWO productive fantasy backs, as SSOG had stated.
I never stated any such thing. I said that, in the past, they *HAD* supported two fantasy viable backs (see: 2005). I also said that if one RB was so much as the head of the committee, that ONE back would be fantasy viable. Here, I'll quote myself:tribecalledjeff said:
That to me looks like I said that Denver was capable of producing *ONE* fantasy-viable RB this year, assuming they didn't fall under 450 rushing attempts for just the second time in Mike Shanahan's entire tenure as coach. I think it's totally reasonable. If Denver sees a 25% increase in carries (totally reasonable, given Shanahan's history), and maintains the same per-carry production, you're looking at around 340 fantasy points from Denver's running game. If one RB gets 45% of that pie, you're looking at 150+ points, which makes that RB fantasy RB2 caliber. If one RB gets 60% of that pie, you're looking at 200+ points, which'll rank that RB in the top 10 of the season-ending rankings. None of this is that big of a stretch, here.
tribecalledjeff
Footballguy
SSOG, forever the stat twister....CBower4545
Footballguy
The quote you reference is taken out of context. If you re-read the last post and the original post its pretty clear what he is saying and not saying.
Last edited by a moderator:
C Boswell
Footballguy
I picked him up with the 17th pick (2.5) in pur rookie draft. not too shabby IMO.
tribecalledjeff
Footballguy
replying with your own alias doesn't count.if you/he had said denver WAS one of blah blah blah, i have no problem. saying that it IS presents denver to still be a running powerhouse. they're certainly not enough of one to have two productive fantasty backs on a game to game basis. that's all i'm saying. if i misinterpreted, i apologize.i think i'm still bitter that i listened to SSOG's never ending pimping of Ron Dayne a few years back
Have I ever come across as the sort of guy who keeps aliases? Since when have I shown a pressing need to have people agree with me?I challenge you to point out anywhere in any of my posts where I predicted that Denver would have two productive fantasy backs on a game-to-game basis. For my part, I'll find plenty of instances that clearly demonstrate that I was talking about Denver producing *ONE* fantasy-relevant RB this season:
i think i'm still bitter that i listened to SSOG's never ending pimping of Ron Dayne a few years back
"Denver's running game is as good as it's always been. If one back ever seizes the reigns, ignore him at your own risk."
"If anyone ever gets the lion's share, he's a top 5 RB. If anyone ever gets even a significant and sustained chunk of the RBBC, he's going to be a top 12-15 RB."
"If Denver's defense gets it together and Denver finishes top 5 in attempts again, like it almost always does, then whatever back leads the RBBC will be a fantasy starter. If Denver's defense doesn't get it together, then he won't. Don't write off the entire situation just because it's an RBBC though."
I'm noticing a lot of singular pronouns and a dearth of plural pronouns so far.
Which stats, exactly, do you feel like I have twisted? I'd be more than happy to rephrase my argument.SSOG, forever the stat twister....
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
SSOG the stats are great however, I do think Denver's rushing attack of the past is better then where its at today.
The problem though with Denver as mentioned time and time again is which RB's are the guys to have. And after you have found those RB's to have you usually have to play the who is Shanny going to give the lions share of the touches to this week game.
I mean its not as if its just a RBBC ala F. Taylor and MJD where you get more consistent fantasy production on a weekly basis.
For instance that 2005 year you keep alluding too with T. Bell finishing as RB 22 could have been a bit of a nightmare owning him and picking which games to play him. He played in 15 games that year and sure he did have a handful of games (5) where he would have benefited a fantasy team but what about the other 10 games where he would have yielded a fantasy team less then 10 fantasy points per week. Heck in 7 of those 10 games he would have scored you 7 or less points.
The problem though with Denver as mentioned time and time again is which RB's are the guys to have. And after you have found those RB's to have you usually have to play the who is Shanny going to give the lions share of the touches to this week game.
I mean its not as if its just a RBBC ala F. Taylor and MJD where you get more consistent fantasy production on a weekly basis.
For instance that 2005 year you keep alluding too with T. Bell finishing as RB 22 could have been a bit of a nightmare owning him and picking which games to play him. He played in 15 games that year and sure he did have a handful of games (5) where he would have benefited a fantasy team but what about the other 10 games where he would have yielded a fantasy team less then 10 fantasy points per week. Heck in 7 of those 10 games he would have scored you 7 or less points.
bcr8f
Footballguy
So is the janitor working for minimum wage at Invesco.
puckalicious
Footballguy
Yeah, and "in the past" Detroit had a 2000 yard rusher. Does that make you think they will do it again soon? Using the past (> 2 seasons) to predict future fantasy success is fool's gold. We need to evaluate what is going on NOW to predict what will happen this season.Also your statement that if one RB was the "head" of the committee, he would be fantasy viable... well duh. Doesn't this hold true for EVERY TEAM? If every team had 1 guy that got 90% of the carries they would be fantasy viable (taking TD's out of the question).
Chunky Soup
Footballguy
But what is actually going on now contains stuff from last season as well as many previous seasons. Injuries, etc. happen and by only looking at the most recent events, you're probably missing things that were going on behind the scenes.
I don't get the problem here. Were you ignoring above with how successful the DEN running game has been? If a single RB got the load, which happens in the past but a recent run on current events may have prevented it in the very recent past, it would be huge.
If Denver's rushing attack of the past was better than its rushing attack today, it's only because Portis and Davis are better than Young and Torain. The backs are worse, but the reason the attack was always so potent is because the system works and the coach calls a TON of runs- two facts that have not changed (assuming last year's low rushing total was an aberration linked to the terrible defense and not a meaningful trend).
Wow. You don't see the difference between referencing something that happened three years ago and referencing something that happened 11 years ago? You think that 3 years ago was such a long time that we can't draw any meaningful conclusions on it? You'd ignore 12 seasons worth of data on Mike Shanahan's tendencies because last year's data disagrees?Alright, here's a strictly NOW-based analysis of Denver's rushing attack. They were 5th in the league in yards per carry LAST YEAR. They have the most run-oriented head coach in the entire NFL. Last year their rushing attempts were abnormally low. Last year, their offensive line was also WRECKED by injuries (something on the order of 30 starter-games missed) and featured several new faces in new places. Last year, their defense was brutally bad. I would argue that, given the fact that they have the most run-oriented head coach in the league, the low attempts were linked to the line and the defense. THIS YEAR Denver's defense is going to be much improved, if for nothing other than schematic changes (look at the improvement over the end of last season, for instance). THIS YEAR, Denver's offensive line is going to be much improved (addition of Clady, reacquisition of Hamilton and Nalen, more experience for all the other starters, and you aren't going to see that many injuries two years in a row). If Denver's running game was 5th in yards per attempt LAST YEAR, certainly they'll be able to maintain that with a healthy line, and it's obvious that their attempts are going to come up in a big way. Based solely on this analysis of last year, this year, and our knowledge of Mike Shanahan as a head coach, it's fully logical to conclude that Denver's running game is going to see a dramatic improvement this season without even looking at "ancient history" like 2005.
If one guy got 90% of the carries, he wouldn't be the "head of the committee", he'd be the workhorse RB. In order to be the head of the committee, there has to be a committee in the first place. And no, not every team can claim that, if they were running an RBBC, their #1 back would be fantasy-viable.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Denver running backs have little fantasy value not because Denver runners are not productive but because the constant turn over kills their dynasty value. I personally would not take Torain in the late 1st or early 2nd knowing that he could be replaced as early as 2009.
You're not going to get too much argument here from me, since I was saying that Denver RBs were redraft gold and dynasty pyrite since before the 2005 season... but I think that at that point, Torain presents some value. While his stable long-term value might not be great, he's capable of providing strong short-term value, you know that he's going to be a tradeable commodity at some point that will likely yield a positive return on investment, and there's always the chance that he's a Davis/Portis type talent. I think if Shanahan got his hands on another Davis/Portis-caliber back, he wouldn't let him go... unless he got another Bailey-caliber player in return again.Not necessarily a great pick, but not a bad one, either. If you've got a bit of riverboat gambler in you, that's a good point to be grabbing Torain at.
purestrength
Footballguy
Can someone explain to me what's so special about Ryan Torain? I see people drafting him way higher than I would, considering he needs to climb over three teammates to get the starting role.
Seriously, I don't follow college football that close, so I don't know. Is he real fast? Is he real powerful? Or is he just a rookie RB in Denver?
I mean, what makes him more likely to grab the starting spot than Young, Hall or Pittman (besides age in Pittman's case)?
Personally, I thought Young looked pretty good last year. Durability is his main concern.
Seriously, I don't follow college football that close, so I don't know. Is he real fast? Is he real powerful? Or is he just a rookie RB in Denver?
I mean, what makes him more likely to grab the starting spot than Young, Hall or Pittman (besides age in Pittman's case)?
Personally, I thought Young looked pretty good last year. Durability is his main concern.
