What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Tatum Bell: 2005 stat predictions (1 Viewer)

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
?????I don't think you can go that high. How bout 250-300 carries if you are really lucky How bout 1,200 yds rush if he can take control of the ground game and not look over his shoulder at Maurice Clarett who Shanny will be talking in his ear about how the league screwed him all off season in hopes to motivate the guy.TD...maybe 8-10 if you were extremely lucky.I see this as being a little more RBBC than people would like to admit. There still is that midget from Oklahoma that will want some carries too. What if Bell gats the yds between the 20s and Shanny decides to run Clarett out there inside the 10 and MC eats up all the TD...than what have you got?

 

babydemon90

Footballguy
I see this as being a little more RBBC than people would like to admit. There still is that midget from Oklahoma that will want some carries too. What if Bell gats the yds between the 20s and Shanny decides to run Clarett out there inside the 10 and MC eats up all the TD...than what have you got?
thats a lot of what if's?? What if Tomlinson blows out his knee in training camp? What if Buckhalter takes the starting gig from Westbrook? If we could predict everything, no need for predictions, we'd know.
 

mario8723

Footballguy
It's amazing to me the degree to which everybody has hopped on to the Clarett bandwagon. This guy is lucky he got drafted, nevermind immediately taking over a starting job in the NFL.Let's not kid ourselves here: the kid is a project, make no mistake about it. He's got 3 experienced NFL runningbacks standing in the way and he still hasn't proven he can even finish the 40-yard dash.An admittedly sensational freshman year does not a stud NFL runner make:)Just my two cents...

 

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
I see this as being a little more RBBC than people would like to admit.  There still is that midget from Oklahoma that will want some carries too. What if Bell gats the yds between the 20s and Shanny decides to run Clarett out there inside the 10 and MC eats up all the TD...than what have you got?
thats a lot of what if's?? What if Tomlinson blows out his knee in training camp? What if Buckhalter takes the starting gig from Westbrook? If we could predict everything, no need for predictions, we'd know.
Excuse me friend, but LT does not have anyone threatening his starting job. I never mentioned injuries. Clarett has a chance to actually steal the starting job if not vulture easy TD from whomever is running the ball between te 20s. Does that seem so outlandish and hard to comprehend? Was I blathering again? Tatum Bell is far far from a lock. LT2 is a lock, big difference and a poor analogy imho.
 

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
It's amazing to me the degree to which everybody has hopped on to the Clarett bandwagon. This guy is lucky he got drafted, nevermind immediately taking over a starting job in the NFL.

Let's not kid ourselves here: the kid is a project, make no mistake about it. He's got 3 experienced NFL runningbacks standing in the way and he still hasn't proven he can even finish the 40-yard dash.

An admittedly sensational freshman year does not a stud NFL runner make:)

Just my two cents...
I can agree with that but than why did Shanny draft him in the 1st place? Size in my opinion. You don't have to know a lot to pound the ball when its given to you down inside the 5 yd line.
 

Gopher State

Footballguy
I don't think Bell with either be able to stay healthy or not fumble the job away. I would say his upside is:985 rushing156 rec8 TD'sBeware of Denver RB's, how quickly everyone forgets the Q projections of 2004 :shock:

 

Family Matters

Footballguy
It's amazing to me the degree to which everybody has hopped on to the Clarett bandwagon. This guy is lucky he got drafted, nevermind immediately taking over a starting job in the NFL.

Let's not kid ourselves here: the kid is a project, make no mistake about it. He's got 3 experienced NFL runningbacks standing in the way and he still hasn't proven he can even finish the 40-yard dash.

An admittedly sensational freshman year does not a stud NFL runner make:)

Just my two cents...
I can agree with that but than why did Shanny draft him in the 1st place? Size in my opinion. You don't have to know a lot to pound the ball when its given to you down inside the 5 yd line.
The reason Shanny drafted a RB is Anderson & Griffin are returning from IR and Hearst is gone. He needed a RB and he felt Clarett was as good as many others in the draft. He no choice to spend a 3rd on him as he had no 4th or 5th to use. If Clarrett were drafted by any other team he likely goes in the 5th IMO.
 

Family Matters

Footballguy
I see this as being a little more RBBC than people would like to admit.  There still is that midget from Oklahoma that will want some carries too. What if Bell gats the yds between the 20s and Shanny decides to run Clarett out there inside the 10 and MC eats up all the TD...than what have you got?
thats a lot of what if's?? What if Tomlinson blows out his knee in training camp? What if Buckhalter takes the starting gig from Westbrook? If we could predict everything, no need for predictions, we'd know.
Excuse me friend, but LT does not have anyone threatening his starting job. I never mentioned injuries. Clarett has a chance to actually steal the starting job if not vulture easy TD from whomever is running the ball between te 20s. Does that seem so outlandish and hard to comprehend? Was I blathering again? Tatum Bell is far far from a lock. LT2 is a lock, big difference and a poor analogy imho.
MOP-I doubt Shanny would use a different RB to run the TD's. He's never done that before. He's always been a 1 RB guy and only injuries has forced his hand to use other RB's.The fact that Shanny and Bowlens both said in Jan that they believe Bell is their guy and that he'll be given every opportunity to be the starter and the fact they made no effort to bring any good RB in via trade/FA or the draft tells me they Bell is their man.

Clarett will struggle to make the team and then struggle to stay on the team IMO. He is a project and most likely a guy they will look to use next year as a back up if Bell can't go. As for Anderson, Griffin & Dayne, they will not seriously challenge Bell for the starters gig.

 

Defenze

Footballguy
It's amazing to me the degree to which everybody has hopped on to the Clarett bandwagon. This guy is lucky he got drafted, nevermind immediately taking over a starting job in the NFL.

Let's not kid ourselves here: the kid is a project, make no mistake about it. He's got 3 experienced NFL runningbacks standing in the way and he still hasn't proven he can even finish the 40-yard dash.

An admittedly sensational freshman year does not a stud NFL runner make:)

Just my two cents...

The reason Shanny drafted a RB is Anderson & Griffin are returning from IR and Hearst is gone. He needed a RB and he felt Clarett was as good as many others in the draft. He no choice to spend a 3rd on him as he had no 4th or 5th to use. If Clarrett were drafted by any other team he likely goes in the 5th IMO

:goodposting:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mario8723

Footballguy
Size is something that Clarett certainly has these days, lol.In all seriousness though...I can see why some people are hopeful that Clarett will steal goaline touches. However, again, you have both Mike Anderson and Fat Dayne on the roster who could fill that role.Why did Shanny draft Clarett in the 3rd round? A question many have asked to this point. My take on it is that it was a move geared more towards next year than 2005. Clarett has a very steep learning curve ahead of him. He hasn't played in a very long time and is obviously out of shape. Couple that with the fact that he is just very raw at this point and a questionable blocker.Throw that in the blender and imo Clarett has a better shot in '06 than doing anything this year.Btw, as a Bell owner I am more worried about him staying healthy and keeping his hands on the football than anything Clarett will throw his way...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Beaumont

Footballguy
Mike Anderson is no spring chicken and is no lock even to make that team ... much less maintain the starting job of which Shanarat has generously proclaimed him to be the front runner (for now) ...BellAnderson (if he makes the team)DayneQ (also no lock, given injury concerns)Clarett (until he proves he can block and keep Plummer from getting splatted)Bell is looking good to own the lion's share of touches IMHO ...Clarett is a darkhorse in 2006 and beyond ...

 

ninerfan

Footballguy
Provided he stays healthy 1,100 -1,200 yards and 8-10 TDs with 20-25 receptions for 200 and 2 TDs is not unreasonable.

 
Provided he stays healthy 1,100 -1,200 yards and 8-10 TDs with 20-25 receptions for 200 and 2 TDs is not unreasonable.
Yes it is.Show me the last 16-game starter DEN had with those numbers. I assume when you say "provided he stays healthy" you mean provided that he starts all 16 games.

 

diesel7982

Footballguy
Provided he stays healthy 1,100 -1,200 yards and 8-10 TDs with 20-25 receptions for 200 and 2 TDs is not unreasonable.
Yes it is.Show me the last 16-game starter DEN had with those numbers. I assume when you say "provided he stays healthy" you mean provided that he starts all 16 games.
Why do you assume he means Bell will start 16 games? 6 starting RBs in the ENTIRE NFL made 16 starts last year(And Edge only took 1 carry week 17). A "healthy" RB will start between 13-16 games in a given season.
 
Provided he stays healthy 1,100 -1,200 yards and 8-10 TDs with 20-25 receptions for 200 and 2 TDs is not unreasonable.
Yes it is.Show me the last 16-game starter DEN had with those numbers. I assume when you say "provided he stays healthy" you mean provided that he starts all 16 games.
Why do you assume he means Bell will start 16 games? 6 starting RBs in the ENTIRE NFL made 16 starts last year(And Edge only took 1 carry week 17). A "healthy" RB will start between 13-16 games in a given season.
With the exception of RB's who sit out week 17 (and rarely 16) because it is clinched, the RB's who play < 16 games were injured (AKA unhealthy) for part of the season. This also excludes players who are suspended.I don't think that Bell stays healthy all season--I wouldn't expect ANY given RB to stay healthy all season. But "provided that he stays healthy all season", 1100-1200 rushing yards is not remotely realistic, unless of course he is benched due to poor play for 3-4 games.

Let me put it another way: there is no way that Bell ends up with 69-75 rushing yards per game that he starts. I would say that about about 50-80 players in the league if they ended up at Denver.

 

taylorj99

Footballguy
Denver had 532 team carries last year. If Bell gets 55% of the team carries, averages 5yds/carry that puts him over 1400 for the season. I think 30 catches at 10 yds/rec is safe. Until Shanny shows that Bell won't get the bulk of the work:1400 yds 8 tds rushing300 yds 1 td receiving

 

Rovers

Footballguy
320 carries

1690 yards

5.29 ypc

15 rushing TD's

40 receptions

320 receiving yards

2 receiving TD's
I will eat my hat if this is anywhere near accurate. Serious juice in this kool aid. 2000 combined yards, 17 TD's and a YPC of 5.3? Might as well pencil in Plummer for 2500 and 15 TD's. Unless that is, if Denver does a cake walk into the Super Bowl. :no:
 

The Skunk

Footballguy
Don't sleep on durbale Mike Anderson. If Tatum even gets banged up a little then look for Anderson to get some significant touches.

 
It's Bell's job to lose.He was a fumbler in college, which is a huge no no for Shanny. FWIW, Portis was a fumbler too and was able to correct that and go on to do good things.

 

Prussian

Footballguy
Bell is still sharing the backfield with Anderson and Griffin, and the well publiczed Clarett. As much as Denver wants to run the ball, history has proven that one back will not stay healthy the entire season. Throw in the fumbling and other concerns already mentioned, and I agree as well, the numbers originally tossed out htere seem a bit high. Possible? Sure, but I see the committee mentality taking over by week 6 or 7. The bye week at 9 should help Bell maintain for the season ...I'm leaning closer to Taylor99's numbers:1400 yds 8 tds rushing - I'd give him 1440 and 9 TD's300 yds 1 td receiving - 300 sopunds good, and a second TD passed on some prayer scramble and save my ### toss by Plummer.

 

salmonstud

Footballguy
Bell is still sharing the backfield with Anderson and Griffin, and the well publiczed Clarett. As much as Denver wants to run the ball, history has proven that one back will not stay healthy the entire season.
See T.Davis, C.Portis. When Denver has a top notch back and that back stays healthy....it has happened....that back will carry the load. I'm in the camp that believes Bell is a notch above any other RB on the roster. Griffin & Anderson are just average....Bell is a game breaker. This debate will be occur once per week until the season starts.
 

David Yudkin

Footballguy
As a Public Service, we at FBG are always there to provide the community with timely and poignant information to further spark debate . . .Player, GP as a first year starter, Rush Yards, Rec Yards, TD per gameDavis (14) 80/26/0.57Gary (12) 97/13/0.58Anderson (14) 107/12/1.07Portis (14) 104/26/1.21Griffin (4) 74/17/0.75Droughns (12) 101/18/0.67Average of 6 players . . . 96/19/0.83 = 16.5 fantasy ppgOver a 16 game season . . . 1536/304/13 = 262 fantasy pointsFrom that, you can determine if Bell is better or worse skill wise, and you can also then pick how many games he will start to come up with a yearly projection.

 

Joe T

Footballguy
I don't think Bell with either be able to stay healthy or not fumble the job away. I would say his upside is:

985 rushing

156 rec

8 TD's

Beware of Denver RB's, how quickly everyone forgets the Q projections of 2004 :shock:
:goodposting: The Denver running back situation has been dificult to predict the last few years... except for Portis' last year there. How quickly people forget that Q Griffin was going in the mid to late second round last year. :no:

I'll pass on that kind of risk in the second round.

gllllllllllllllllllll

 

Joe T

Footballguy
As a Public Service, we at FBG are always there to provide the community with timely and poignant information to further spark debate . . .

Player, GP as a first year starter, Rush Yards, Rec Yards, TD per game

Davis (14) 80/26/0.57

Gary (12) 97/13/0.58

Anderson (14) 107/12/1.07

Portis (14) 104/26/1.21

Griffin (4) 74/17/0.75

Droughns (12) 101/18/0.67

Average of 6 players . . . 96/19/0.83 = 16.5 fantasy ppg

Over a 16 game season . . . 1536/304/13 = 262 fantasy points

From that, you can determine if Bell is better or worse skill wise, and you can also then pick how many games he will start to come up with a yearly projection.
This is an interesting post... but very misleading. Let me just ask this... how many of these backs were drafted in fantasy drafts in the 5th round or later. I'd venture to say:

T. Davis in 1995 was 5th round or later.

Gary in 1999 when Davis got injured was far later than the 5th round.

Anderson in 2000 was drafted waaaaaaaaaaay after the 5th round if at all.

Portis was a first rounder in most fantasy drafts his second year but went in in the middle rounds his rookie season... i'm not sure which year you are using above.

Q Griffin was a second rounder last year and clearly did not pan out.

Droughns was drafted after the 5th round last year.

The Denver running back situation has been unpredictable since 1999 when T. Davis got hurt... except for 2003 when Portis was coming off his huge rookie season.

So lets review the Broncos leading rushers since 1999. I would venture to say that only once in the past six seasons has the highest fantasy drafted Bronco running back actually finished the year as the Broncos leading rusher.

1999 - Gary (Davis got injured)

2000 - Anderson (Davis and Gary injured)

2001 - T. Davis (led the broncos with 700 rushing yards... split time with Anderson)

2002 - Portis (rookie breakout season.. came on in game 5 to start in front of Anderson)

2003 - Portis (the only predictable Denver RB year in the last 6)

2004 - Droughns (Q. Griffin injured)

So, in one out of the last 6 years would you have been correct in drafting the top Denver running back. I don't like those odds... again here, you are not drafting the 'Bronco Running Game' because if you were clearly you would have a top 5 back. So taking T. Bell this year IMO is a huge risk in the second round unless you plan on handcuffing 2 or 3 other backs.

Yes, I too love the Denver running game... its just going at too high of a price for the current risk.

 

David Yudkin

Footballguy
As a Public Service, we at FBG are always there to provide the community with timely and poignant information to further spark debate . . .

Player, GP as a first year starter, Rush Yards, Rec Yards, TD per game

Davis (14) 80/26/0.57

Gary (12) 97/13/0.58

Anderson (14) 107/12/1.07

Portis (14) 104/26/1.21

Griffin (4) 74/17/0.75

Droughns (12) 101/18/0.67

Average of 6 players . . . 96/19/0.83 = 16.5 fantasy ppg

Over a 16 game season . . . 1536/304/13 = 262 fantasy points

From that, you can determine if Bell is better or worse skill wise, and you can also then pick how many games he will start to come up with a yearly projection.
This is an interesting post... but very misleading. Let me just ask this... how many of these backs were drafted in fantasy drafts in the 5th round or later. I'd venture to say:

T. Davis in 1995 was 5th round or later.

Gary in 1999 when Davis got injured was far later than the 5th round.

Anderson in 2000 was drafted waaaaaaaaaaay after the 5th round if at all.

Portis was a first rounder in most fantasy drafts his second year but went in in the middle rounds his rookie season... i'm not sure which year you are using above.

Q Griffin was a second rounder last year and clearly did not pan out.

Droughns was drafted after the 5th round last year.

The Denver running back situation has been unpredictable since 1999 when T. Davis got hurt... except for 2003 when Portis was coming off his huge rookie season.

So lets review the Broncos leading rushers since 1999. I would venture to say that only once in the past six seasons has the highest fantasy drafted Bronco running back actually finished the year as the Broncos leading rusher.

1999 - Gary (Davis got injured)

2000 - Anderson (Davis and Gary injured)

2001 - T. Davis (led the broncos with 700 rushing yards... split time with Anderson)

2002 - Portis (rookie breakout season.. came on in game 5 to start in front of Anderson)

2003 - Portis (the only predictable Denver RB year in the last 6)

2004 - Droughns (Q. Griffin injured)

So, in one out of the last 6 years would you have been correct in drafting the top Denver running back. I don't like those odds... again here, you are not drafting the 'Bronco Running Game' because if you were clearly you would have a top 5 back. So taking T. Bell this year IMO is a huge risk in the second round unless you plan on handcuffing 2 or 3 other backs.

Yes, I too love the Denver running game... its just going at too high of a price for the current risk.
But the question I have is the inherent risk due to the coach switching RB or is the risk due to injuries?Clearly, injuries have played a huge part in the Denver RB mess. Davis, Gary, Anderson, and Griffin all got hurt. Portis and Droughns were traded. The only one that had performance issues was Griffin, and while he appears to have been on the outs prior to his injury, going on IR sealed his fate before we got a definitive answer.

The bottom line for me, anyway, is that at the point Bell is going (early third) at around RB 20, which other backs have almost a guarantee to put up Top 5 numbers (at least close to it) if they play?

So we can debate which is better for your team . . . a RB that will average 20 ppg when he plays (which is the risk factor) or a guy that will average 10 ppg but play in every game.

IMO, guys that can averge around 20 ppg are a rare commodity. I can patch together several guys that could average around 10 ppg if I had to by drafting RBBC guys, backups, waiver wire guys later on, etc. If I already had a RB that I knew would be productive as a RB1, I'm taking a shot for the fences with my RB2. If my team ends up with TWO Top 5 RB, the rest of my team could blow chunks and I'd still make the playoffs.

And I can STILL draft the type of RBs that I just mentioned to cover my butt should Bell get hurt or benched.

I'd rather hang my hat on a guy in a great system than a guy in a poor one (say Suggs, Barlow, etc.).

 

Wilbur Wood

Footballguy
As a Public Service, we at FBG are always there to provide the community with timely and poignant information to further spark debate . . .

Player, GP as a first year starter, Rush Yards, Rec Yards, TD per game

Davis (14) 80/26/0.57

Gary (12) 97/13/0.58

Anderson (14) 107/12/1.07

Portis (14) 104/26/1.21

Griffin (4) 74/17/0.75

Droughns (12) 101/18/0.67

Average of 6 players . . . 96/19/0.83 = 16.5 fantasy ppg

Over a 16 game season . . . 1536/304/13 = 262 fantasy points

From that, you can determine if Bell is better or worse skill wise, and you can also then pick how many games he will start to come up with a yearly projection.
This is an interesting post... but very misleading. Let me just ask this... how many of these backs were drafted in fantasy drafts in the 5th round or later. I'd venture to say:

T. Davis in 1995 was 5th round or later.

Gary in 1999 when Davis got injured was far later than the 5th round.

Anderson in 2000 was drafted waaaaaaaaaaay after the 5th round if at all.

Portis was a first rounder in most fantasy drafts his second year but went in in the middle rounds his rookie season... i'm not sure which year you are using above.

Q Griffin was a second rounder last year and clearly did not pan out.

Droughns was drafted after the 5th round last year.

The Denver running back situation has been unpredictable since 1999 when T. Davis got hurt... except for 2003 when Portis was coming off his huge rookie season.

So lets review the Broncos leading rushers since 1999. I would venture to say that only once in the past six seasons has the highest fantasy drafted Bronco running back actually finished the year as the Broncos leading rusher.

1999 - Gary (Davis got injured)

2000 - Anderson (Davis and Gary injured)

2001 - T. Davis (led the broncos with 700 rushing yards... split time with Anderson)

2002 - Portis (rookie breakout season.. came on in game 5 to start in front of Anderson)

2003 - Portis (the only predictable Denver RB year in the last 6)

2004 - Droughns (Q. Griffin injured)

So, in one out of the last 6 years would you have been correct in drafting the top Denver running back. I don't like those odds... again here, you are not drafting the 'Bronco Running Game' because if you were clearly you would have a top 5 back. So taking T. Bell this year IMO is a huge risk in the second round unless you plan on handcuffing 2 or 3 other backs.

Yes, I too love the Denver running game... its just going at too high of a price for the current risk.
:no: This line of thinking has no bearing on Tatum Bell's ability to hold the 2005 job. It is analytically equivalent to stating that there is 83% likelihood on getting a "heads" on a coin flip because 5 of the 6 previous flips resulted in "heads".All of these examples are events independent of what what Tatum Bell will encounter in 2005.

 

diesel7982

Footballguy
Provided he stays healthy 1,100 -1,200 yards and 8-10 TDs with 20-25 receptions for 200 and 2 TDs is not unreasonable.
Yes it is.Show me the last 16-game starter DEN had with those numbers. I assume when you say "provided he stays healthy" you mean provided that he starts all 16 games.
Why do you assume he means Bell will start 16 games? 6 starting RBs in the ENTIRE NFL made 16 starts last year(And Edge only took 1 carry week 17). A "healthy" RB will start between 13-16 games in a given season.
I don't think that Bell stays healthy all season--I wouldn't expect ANY given RB to stay healthy all season. But "provided that he stays healthy all season", 1100-1200 rushing yards is not remotely realistic, unless of course he is benched due to poor play for 3-4 games. Let me put it another way: there is no way that Bell ends up with 69-75 rushing yards per game that he starts. I would say that about about 50-80 players in the league if they ended up at Denver.
Ok, I understand what you are saying now, and wholeheartedly agree. If Bell is only producing on a 1100-1200 yard pace, he won't remain the starter.
 

Joe T

Footballguy
The bottom line for me, anyway, is that at the point Bell is going (early third) at around RB 20, which other backs have almost a guarantee to put up Top 5 numbers (at least close to it) if they play?

So we can debate which is better for your team . . . a RB that will average 20 ppg when he plays (which is the risk factor) or a guy that will average 10 ppg but play in every game.

IMO, guys that can averge around 20 ppg are a rare commodity. I can patch together several guys that could average around 10 ppg if I had to by drafting RBBC guys, backups, waiver wire guys later on, etc. If I already had a RB that I knew would be productive as a RB1, I'm taking a shot for the fences with my RB2. If my team ends up with TWO Top 5 RB, the rest of my team could blow chunks and I'd still make the playoffs.

And I can STILL draft the type of RBs that I just mentioned to cover my butt should Bell get hurt or benched.

I'd rather hang my hat on a guy in a great system than a guy in a poor one (say Suggs, Barlow, etc.).
Wow. I can't disagree more with your point here. You think other more veteran guys drafted around RB 20 can't put up top 5 numbers?Where did Tiki Barber get drafted last year?

Where did C. Martin get drafted?

What about Dillon and Rudi Johnson?

All of those guys were drafted in the area you are talking about and put up the range of points you are talking about without all the Denver running game risk.

You can blame this all on injury if you want to, but the fact remains that they have a difficult time starting the year and finishing the year with the same back.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
A related response by me from another thread:Okay, what makes Bell leading the AFC in rushing unreasonable?Last season Martin lead the NFL with 1697 yds rushing. Based upon where the league's leading rushers have been finishing, 1700-1800 rushing yards seems like a good target for being the NFL's leading rusher.Shanahan's teams are dominant rushing teams, and Shanahan likes to ride one horse all season at RB if he can.When TD was playing he cracked the 2000 yd rushing mark once & was second in the league 2 times to Barry Sanders from 1996-1998 - making him the AFC's leading rusher for 3 straight years. Then Anderson gained 1500 yds rushing in 2000, but he only started 12 games, and in the other two that he played in he had a total of 7 carries. Pro-rate that for 16 games & you get close to 2000 yds rushing. In 2002 Portis put up 1508 yds rushing, but he rode the pines the first 4 weeks - becoming the starter in week 5. That also pro-rates at close to 2000 yds for a 16 game season as a starter. In 2003 Portis went off for 1591 yds rushing, but that was in 13 games - he was hurt 3 games during the season. That's just under 2000 yds rushing if he's healthy for 16 games. Then in 2004 unheralded Rueben Droughns takes over the starting RB spot in week 5, splits the last 4 games of the season with Bell, yet still amasses 1240 rushing yds. If Droughns had been the starter & featured RB all season, he would have walked away with the rushing title last year. He was only 450 yds behind despite not being the featured RB for an equivalent of 6 games.If Bell can win the starting RB job - and he's the front runner right now - and IF (this is the big if & very debatable) he can stay healthy 16 games, why would anyone think that he couldn't win the AFC or NFL rushing title given the aforementioned proclivity of DEN to pound out huge rushing numbers year after year?

 

Joe T

Footballguy
As a Public Service, we at FBG are always there to provide the community with timely and poignant information to further spark debate . . .

Player, GP as a first year starter, Rush Yards, Rec Yards, TD per game

Davis (14) 80/26/0.57

Gary (12) 97/13/0.58

Anderson (14) 107/12/1.07

Portis (14) 104/26/1.21

Griffin (4) 74/17/0.75

Droughns (12) 101/18/0.67

Average of 6 players . . . 96/19/0.83 = 16.5 fantasy ppg

Over a 16 game season . . . 1536/304/13 = 262 fantasy points

From that, you can determine if Bell is better or worse skill wise, and you can also then pick how many games he will start to come up with a yearly projection.
This is an interesting post... but very misleading. Let me just ask this... how many of these backs were drafted in fantasy drafts in the 5th round or later. I'd venture to say:

T. Davis in 1995 was 5th round or later.

Gary in 1999 when Davis got injured was far later than the 5th round.

Anderson in 2000 was drafted waaaaaaaaaaay after the 5th round if at all.

Portis was a first rounder in most fantasy drafts his second year but went in in the middle rounds his rookie season... i'm not sure which year you are using above.

Q Griffin was a second rounder last year and clearly did not pan out.

Droughns was drafted after the 5th round last year.

The Denver running back situation has been unpredictable since 1999 when T. Davis got hurt... except for 2003 when Portis was coming off his huge rookie season.

So lets review the Broncos leading rushers since 1999. I would venture to say that only once in the past six seasons has the highest fantasy drafted Bronco running back actually finished the year as the Broncos leading rusher.

1999 - Gary (Davis got injured)

2000 - Anderson (Davis and Gary injured)

2001 - T. Davis (led the broncos with 700 rushing yards... split time with Anderson)

2002 - Portis (rookie breakout season.. came on in game 5 to start in front of Anderson)

2003 - Portis (the only predictable Denver RB year in the last 6)

2004 - Droughns (Q. Griffin injured)

So, in one out of the last 6 years would you have been correct in drafting the top Denver running back. I don't like those odds... again here, you are not drafting the 'Bronco Running Game' because if you were clearly you would have a top 5 back. So taking T. Bell this year IMO is a huge risk in the second round unless you plan on handcuffing 2 or 3 other backs.

Yes, I too love the Denver running game... its just going at too high of a price for the current risk.
:no: This line of thinking has no bearing on Tatum Bell's ability to hold the 2005 job. It is analytically equivalent to stating that there is 83% likelihood on getting a "heads" on a coin flip because 5 of the 6 previous flips resulted in "heads".All of these examples are events independent of what what Tatum Bell will encounter in 2005.
I agree with you... but you are missing my point. If you look at Yudkin's post, he is showing that Denver running backs in their first year as a starter put up some huge numbers...what I am saying is that most of the time these guys come out of no where to put up the huge numbers and are rarely drafted in the first couple of rounds.

The Denver running game is awesome, but there is a very strong history of unexpected backs finishing the year for them....

His post would suggest that if you take Bell, you can expect similar numbers. My point is that in only one of the last six year would you have been successful in that expectation.

:thumbup:

 

David Yudkin

Footballguy
The bottom line for me, anyway, is that at the point Bell is going (early third) at around RB 20, which other backs have almost a guarantee to put up Top 5 numbers (at least close to it) if they play?

So we can debate which is better for your team . . . a RB that will average 20 ppg when he plays (which is the risk factor) or a guy that will average 10 ppg but play in every game.

IMO, guys that can averge around 20 ppg are a rare commodity.  I can patch together several guys that could average around 10 ppg if I had to by drafting RBBC guys, backups, waiver wire guys later on, etc.  If I already had a RB that I knew would be productive as a RB1, I'm taking a shot for the fences with my RB2.  If my team ends up with TWO Top 5 RB, the rest of my team could blow chunks and I'd still make the playoffs.

And I can STILL draft the type of RBs that I just mentioned to cover my butt should Bell get hurt or benched.

I'd rather hang my hat on a guy in a great system than a guy in a poor one (say Suggs, Barlow, etc.).
Wow. I can't disagree more with your point here. You think other more veteran guys drafted around RB 20 can't put up top 5 numbers?Where did Tiki Barber get drafted last year?

Where did C. Martin get drafted?

What about Dillon and Rudi Johnson?

All of those guys were drafted in the area you are talking about and put up the range of points you are talking about without all the Denver running game risk.

You can blame this all on injury if you want to, but the fact remains that they have a difficult time starting the year and finishing the year with the same back.
For starters, all the backs you mentioned were gone in the secord round in the leagues I played in last year.As for how productive these players were, they still didn't average what Denver backs have averaged on a per game basis.

On top of that, Martin and Tiki were both nowhere near that good in their prior seasons. Barber never ranked in the Top 5 before in 7 seasons and Martin had done it once in 8 years. Dillon and Johnson have never been Top 5. No way, no how in REAL leagues were Dillon or Johnson around in the third round.

The Broncos TEAM RB production has ranked in the Top 3 in total yards, TD, and fantasy points scored each of the past three seasons (I didn't look beyond that, but I'm pretty confident that they've done as well before that as well).

If you want to split it up into smaller pieces, that's up to you. But if you want to give the lion's share to one guy, he would be Top 3 EASY.

As I've already mentioned, injuries have been the cause of the instability in Denver--not the perofrmance level and not the coach. It may know have EVOLVED into a harder to read situation, but implying that drafting a Denver RB was a bad ROI when injuries were the culprit is putting misguided blame for a draft pick that could easily have been a productive one without the injuries.

WHY Denver RBs get hurt do much is an entirely difference issue, as one has to wonder why they tend to get hurt more than other team's RBs.

 

salmonstud

Footballguy
I agree with you... but you are missing my point. If you look at Yudkin's post, he is showing that Denver running backs in their first year as a starter put up some huge numbers...

what I am saying is that most of the time these guys come out of no where to put up the huge numbers and are rarely drafted in the first couple of rounds.

The Denver running game is awesome, but there is a very strong history of unexpected backs finishing the year for them....

His post would suggest that if you take Bell, you can expect similar numbers. My point is that in only one of the last six year would you have been successful in that expectation.

:thumbup:
When you can accurately predict injuries......let me know. Just because a team has a history of RB injuries which led to them insert rookies into the lineup....see T.Davis, Griffin, etc.,etc....doesn't mean that they are any more likely or less likely to suffer the same fate compared to other teams. The fact that the Denver running game has been so effect when other RB's are placed in the system does not validate your argument. Bell IMO is in the same class as Portis & T.Davis in terms of skill....or only a slight notch below. He is the perfect runner for the Denver system....1 cut runner....with top end speed. He has better size than Portis. Bell is head and shoulders above any other RB on the roster. Bottom line....if he stays healthy....he will be a dominant runner.
 

msommer

Footballguy
i'd be interesting in seeing how many people projecting high numbers for bell own him in keeper or dynasty leagues?
Oh the old,you must be an xxxx owner question.I am not in any league.

My concerns with Bell are as follows

1) last year he was nursing injuries - does that mean he does not play through pain? I don't know and I don't think anyone outside Denver Broncos coaching circle knows either. IF he doesn't that is a big questionmark. Portis had that stigma for a while the season Travis henry was playing with a bruised sternum and a broken fibula.

2) being annointed starter in Denver for the beginning of the season is almost the kiss of death - what are those trainers doing wrong??? Technically it seems Mike Anderson is on top of the depth chart right now - guess maybe Shanny is trying to use reverse psychology on the curse.

Since we have very little real knowledge about Bell at this point I hesitate to annoint him the third coming of TD.

 

Family Matters

Footballguy
i'd be interesting in seeing how many people projecting high numbers for bell own him in keeper or dynasty leagues?
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if they think he'll do well that they would likely own (or want to) Bell? Of course you can state good things about a player and not own him but I would think if you feel a player will do well you'd want that player.
 

ninerfan

Footballguy
Provided he stays healthy 1,100 -1,200 yards and 8-10 TDs with 20-25 receptions for 200 and 2 TDs is not unreasonable.
Yes it is.Show me the last 16-game starter DEN had with those numbers. I assume when you say "provided he stays healthy" you mean provided that he starts all 16 games.
Actually, my numbers are based upon 14 starts.
 

Joe T

Footballguy
For starters, all the backs you mentioned were gone in the secord round in the leagues I played in last year.
Are you serious?I don't think you are. In most WCOFF leagues including mine these guys were early third rounders.

Curtis was 3.03 and Tiki 3.04.

and Q. Griff was already well off the board as were other hyped backs like Chris Brown...etc.

 

Joe T

Footballguy
As for how productive these players were, they still didn't average what Denver backs have averaged on a per game basis.
Again, drafting the Denver running game would be great.... but you can't do that so we have to discuss individual players.And they were drafted behind the 'top Denver back' of last year Q. Griffin and ended up in the top 5.

So your argument that you can't get guys there that have the potential to produce big numbers is in fact a terrible argument.

I'll allow you to go back an edit that now if you want.

 

Joe T

Footballguy
The Broncos TEAM RB production has ranked in the Top 3 in total yards, TD, and fantasy points scored each of the past three seasons (I didn't look beyond that, but I'm pretty confident that they've done as well before that as well).
this is getting to be funny. :lmao:

 

Joe T

Footballguy
I agree with you... but you are missing my point.  If you look at Yudkin's post, he is showing that Denver running backs in their first year as a starter put up some huge numbers...

what I am saying is that most of the time these guys come out of no where to put up the huge numbers and are rarely drafted in the first couple of rounds.

The Denver running game is awesome, but there is a very strong history of unexpected backs finishing the year for them.... 

His post would suggest that if you take Bell, you can expect similar numbers.  My point is that in only one of the last six year would you have been successful in that expectation.

:thumbup:
When you can accurately predict injuries......let me know. Just because a team has a history of RB injuries which led to them insert rookies into the lineup....see T.Davis, Griffin, etc.,etc....doesn't mean that they are any more likely or less likely to suffer the same fate compared to other teams. The fact that the Denver running game has been so effect when other RB's are placed in the system does not validate your argument. Bell IMO is in the same class as Portis & T.Davis in terms of skill....or only a slight notch below. He is the perfect runner for the Denver system....1 cut runner....with top end speed. He has better size than Portis. Bell is head and shoulders above any other RB on the roster. Bottom line....if he stays healthy....he will be a dominant runner.
I'm not predicting injuries. And if all of the changes in the Denver running game were due to injuries I would agree with you.Q. Griffin started going down hill well before he was injured.

Same with Mike Anderson when Portis took over.

The situation there is an unstable one... you guys act like injuries are the only cause for instability when in fact that is completely false. There are plenty of other factors...

lol at "Bell is head and shoulders above any other RB on the roster."

this is out of hand.....

Let me ask one simple question: If Bell is so damned good, why did you only get 75 carries last year?

Oh that's right... he wasn't head and shoulders above Droughns or Griffin...

:lmao: but

 

Family Matters

Footballguy
I agree with you... but you are missing my point.  If you look at Yudkin's post, he is showing that Denver running backs in their first year as a starter put up some huge numbers...

what I am saying is that most of the time these guys come out of no where to put up the huge numbers and are rarely drafted in the first couple of rounds.

The Denver running game is awesome, but there is a very strong history of unexpected backs finishing the year for them.... 

His post would suggest that if you take Bell, you can expect similar numbers.  My point is that in only one of the last six year would you have been successful in that expectation.

:thumbup:
When you can accurately predict injuries......let me know. Just because a team has a history of RB injuries which led to them insert rookies into the lineup....see T.Davis, Griffin, etc.,etc....doesn't mean that they are any more likely or less likely to suffer the same fate compared to other teams. The fact that the Denver running game has been so effect when other RB's are placed in the system does not validate your argument. Bell IMO is in the same class as Portis & T.Davis in terms of skill....or only a slight notch below. He is the perfect runner for the Denver system....1 cut runner....with top end speed. He has better size than Portis. Bell is head and shoulders above any other RB on the roster. Bottom line....if he stays healthy....he will be a dominant runner.
I'm not predicting injuries. And if all of the changes in the Denver running game were due to injuries I would agree with you.Q. Griffin started going down hill well before he was injured.

Same with Mike Anderson when Portis took over.

The situation there is an unstable one... you guys act like injuries are the only cause for instability when in fact that is completely false. There are plenty of other factors...

lol at "Bell is head and shoulders above any other RB on the roster."

this is out of hand.....

Let me ask one simple question: If Bell is so damned good, why did you only get 75 carries last year?

Oh that's right... he wasn't head and shoulders above Droughns or Griffin...

:lmao: but
Joe-based on your response and posts so far it sounds like you are missing some critical data on the Denver RB situation. The changes have been due to injuries for the nost part. If you'd like the deatils, just review the Bell threads as I have posted the explanation numerous times so I won't bother with boring everyone again. Clearly injuries have been the issue. To read anything more into the situation would be allowing yourself to be talked out of what should an excellent RB (top 5 likely) available in the 2nd round. You just can't get any better value than that.
 

Joe T

Footballguy
Joe-based on your response and posts so far it sounds like you are missing some critical data on the Denver RB situation. The changes have been due to injuries for the nost part. If you'd like the deatils, just review the Bell threads as I have posted the explanation numerous times so I won't bother with boring everyone again. Clearly injuries have been the issue. To read anything more into the situation would be allowing yourself to be talked out of what should an excellent RB (top 5 likely) available in the 2nd round. You just can't get any better value than that.
I'm actually not missing any critical data. I think the guys that want to dismiss ALL of the Denver changes as 'due to injury' are just trying to spin things so that they can say that the situation is stable when in fact it isn't.Do you really thing that Q was going to hold down the job last year putting up 20 carries and 60 yards a game? Because outside of week one, that is what he was putting up on the high side. And I'm still not too certain about Q's 'injury' anyway. The guy didn't see the field the rest of the year... I think Shanahan had enough of him and his not seeing the field again wasn't due to 'injury'.

What about 2002 before Portis took over when Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary were effectively splitting carries 50/50 over the first five weeks? Were they splitting carries because of an alternating carry injury that I missed? :lmao:

What about 2001 when you had T. Davis in and out of the lineup and M. Anderson filling in when he wasn't there? Yes, I know part of this was due to injury but still it is a trend that has continued.

Yes, I know that this is a history where injuries have played a role.. but to suggest that MOST of the changes is due to injury is missing some data.

:thumbup:

Good post though. But I am far from convinced.

I would be glad to bet the field (Dayne, Griffin, Anderson, Clarett) versus Bell this year on who will be the Broncos leading rusher. It is historically a crap shoot and you can't argue with that.

 

tommyGunZ

Footballguy
Joe-based on your response and posts so far it sounds like you are missing some critical data on the Denver RB situation. The changes have been due to injuries for the nost part. If you'd like the deatils, just review the Bell threads as I have posted the explanation numerous times so I won't bother with boring everyone again. Clearly injuries have been the issue. To read anything more into the situation would be allowing yourself to be talked out of what should an excellent RB (top 5 likely) available in the 2nd round. You just can't get any better value than that.
I'm actually not missing any critical data. I think the guys that want to dismiss ALL of the Denver changes as 'due to injury' are just trying to spin things so that they can say that the situation is stable when in fact it isn't.Do you really thing that Q was going to hold down the job last year putting up 20 carries and 60 yards a game? Because outside of week one, that is what he was putting up on the high side. And I'm still not too certain about Q's 'injury' anyway. The guy didn't see the field the rest of the year... I think Shanahan had enough of him and his not seeing the field again wasn't due to 'injury'.

What about 2002 before Portis took over when Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary were effectively splitting carries 50/50 over the first five weeks? Were they splitting carries because of an alternating carry injury that I missed? :lmao:

What about 2001 when you had T. Davis in and out of the lineup and M. Anderson filling in when he wasn't there? Yes, I know part of this was due to injury but still it is a trend that has continued.

Yes, I know that this is a history where injuries have played a role.. but to suggest that MOST of the changes is due to injury is missing some data.

:thumbup:

Good post though. But I am far from convinced.

I would be glad to bet the field (Dayne, Griffin, Anderson, Clarett) versus Bell this year on who will be the Broncos leading rusher. It is historically a crap shoot and you can't argue with that.
$100
 

Family Matters

Footballguy
Joe-based on your response and posts so far it sounds like you are missing some critical data on the Denver RB situation. The changes have been due to injuries for the nost part. If you'd like the deatils, just review the Bell threads as I have posted the explanation numerous times so I won't bother with boring everyone again. Clearly injuries have been the issue. To read anything more into the situation would be allowing yourself to be talked out of what should an excellent RB (top 5 likely) available in the 2nd round. You just can't get any better value than that.
I'm actually not missing any critical data. I think the guys that want to dismiss ALL of the Denver changes as 'due to injury' are just trying to spin things so that they can say that the situation is stable when in fact it isn't.Do you really thing that Q was going to hold down the job last year putting up 20 carries and 60 yards a game? Because outside of week one, that is what he was putting up on the high side. And I'm still not too certain about Q's 'injury' anyway. The guy didn't see the field the rest of the year... I think Shanahan had enough of him and his not seeing the field again wasn't due to 'injury'.

We will never know the answer so to assumme anything as fact is dangerous. But let's assume for minute that you're right and that Q would of lost his job due to performance. Well, who wouldn't? If a player can't get the job done it's expected that a change is required. Any coach would. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this.

What about 2002 before Portis took over when Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary were effectively splitting carries 50/50 over the first five weeks? Were they splitting carries because of an alternating carry injury that I missed? :lmao:

In Portis rookie year Shanny stated openly that he would use RBBC with Anderson, Gary and Portis until one of then established themselves. I think week 5 was the week Portis took over the rest of the season. So it was announced and he did exactly what he said he would do.

What about 2001 when you had T. Davis in and out of the lineup and M. Anderson filling in when he wasn't there? Yes, I know part of this was due to injury but still it is a trend that has continued.

Only due to Davis injury otherwise Davis would of been the man. Simple enough.

Yes, I know that this is a history where injuries have played a role.. but to suggest that MOST of the changes is due to injury is missing some data.

I think you are trying to twist the situation to fit your perception. When you look at what Shanny said he was going to do and what he did, he kept his word. Eliminate the injuries and this isn't even a story.

:thumbup:

Good post though. But I am far from convinced.

I would be glad to bet the field (Dayne, Griffin, Anderson, Clarett) versus Bell this year on who will be the Broncos leading rusher. It is historically a crap shoot and you can't argue with that.
My responses in blue. It appears you are misreading the situation. If you observed the situation(s) when they occured then you would know. I have always know who the RB was (based Shanny's comments) before the season started except for Portis rookie year. But even then he stated it would be RBBC until someone established themselves.Shanny is not difficult to figure out and he has been loyal to his RB's. In fact you could argue too lotal. Last year, he probably should changed RB's after game 3 when it was apparent Q was not being effective. But he he's loyal and from a fantasy perspective you gotta love that.

 

salmonstud

Footballguy
Joe T,Just admit that you are wrong so we can move on. Family Matters summed up our side of the debate very well.

 

Family Matters

Footballguy
Joe T,

Just admit that you are wrong so we can move on. Family Matters summed up our side of the debate very well.
Saying he's wrong a little strong. Frankly, there have been numerous posters that have had the perception that Shanny can't be trusted when it comes to his RB's. It's a perception that I've seen for 2 years around here. It couldn't be further from reality however. Shanny says what he's going to do and does what he says.Part of where the problem stemmed from goes back to when Davis was injured and tried to play. At times for a couple of years, until Portis took over, Shanny refused to comment to the media who the starting RB was going to be while Davis was healing and still playing some. The other problem was during Portis rookie year. Until Portis was named the starter you didn't know who was getting the bulk of carries to plan for a starter. That left a few fantasy folks hot under the collar.

So I think that's where the trust issues came from. I could be wrong but I remember some issues being discussed here a few years ago like that.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top