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!
Tatum Bell: 2005 stat predictions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Yao Ming
- Start date
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
One other thing.Denver RBs have an absurd history of getting seriously injured. I'm sure it's far above the mean for games missed. Denver RBs are really hit or miss for fantasy. They hit because once he finds the guy, you know he's getting 25-30 carries a game. They miss because they fall apart very quickly, so caveat emptor with the high draft picks. For all the talk about Portis being injury prone, he was the most durable RB Shanny had next to Davis.ETA: I posted this in the wrong Tatum Bell thread. 
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltThrower
Footballguy
Let me make this simple for all of you. I have a history of drafting guys (in redraft leagues) one year before they break out. I drafted Bell last year. He WILL break out this year. Adjust your sheets accordingly.
mario8723
Footballguy
=====================================================
=====================================================
===================================================
=====================================================
=====================================================
This is getting so out of hand it's actually starting to amuse me. The level of paranoia has truly risen to new levels.
Let me address some of the above statements:
1) Nobody is comparing Bell to TD or Portis; at least I'm not. The only comparison that exists, in my mind, is that all will have been part of an extremely productive system for RBs. The same reason that Volvo vehicles have been proven to be some of the safest automobiles on the planet is the same exact reason that Tatum Bell should be considered as a buy-low prospect at RB: History. We all agree that the Denver groundgame has produced very good fantasy numbers to this point don't we? So wouldn't it stand to reason that Tatum Bell, as the favorite to win that job, should be expected to produce accordingly, provided he stays healthy? In fact, if nothing else, I am discounting his production with 1300 yards and 8 TDs based on previous history.
Btw, Portis being greedy and Shanny being loyal to his starting backs are two completely unrelated topics. I don't know how you logically conclude one from the other.
2) This is just another example of somebody frothing with paranoia. If I am to believe what you say as true, then no Denver runningback should ever again have cause for consideration as a RB option on anybody's fantasy team.
According to you, Denver RBs apparently come with an expiration date. I guess you never considered that one of these guys might one day make it through the whole season. Or maybe, if we dig a bit deeper, it's that it hasn't crossed your mind that NFL players as a whole are prone to injuries?
Who were YOUR first and second round draft picks? I'm curious to know what RBs you have on your squad and if they came with some sort of money-back guarantee? Are they guaranteed for a certain number of miles? I guess I didn't receive the memo outlining which RBs are available that are impervious to injury.
It's not too late to change my mind, so if you could be so kind as to supply me with a list of RBs that I can draft this year that won't get injured, I would forever be in your debt. Man, are the guys in my league going to be surprised when nobody in my backfield gets hurt? Championship here I come!
3) Define overrated. Since none of us have actual found the magical pre-season formula that sees into the future, I suppose then that this would just boil down to your personal opinion, no? Something not based in fact if I'm not mistaken? Most of what I have seen in your posts to this point, if not all, is based on your opinions. Where are the facts, may I ask? Like the FACT that Bell averaged 5.3 ypc last year. Like the FACT that the Denver groundgame has produced above-average starting RBs year-in year-out since TD was leading them to Super Bowl victories. Like the FACT that you just have no idea how many games Bell is going to play this year just like the rest of us. Like the FACT that he is the favorite to win the starting job on that very same team. WHERE ARE THE FACTS?
If you draft a proven, "stud" RB in the first round and then draft Bell to be your #2 RB I don't understand how you can conclude it was a bad move. How many other starting RBs available at that point have the potential upside that he does? This is all about upside no?
If the only thing that you invest in are savings bonds, you're going to miss out on many opportunities to do more with your money. Let me know how that 3.5% interest rate works out for you.
4) Again I am forced to ask if you have proof of other reasons? Not Oliver Stone-like theories on what made Quentin Griffin lose his starting job. FACTS.
5) Seems to me that you have already gone ahead and written off Tatum Bell. If that's true, then aren't you contradicting yourself? If, in fact, no real conclusions can be made yet, then why are you so firmly against him? Don't you see that what you are currently engaging in is, indeed, drawing conclusions? You have written off Tatum Bell as an option on your fantasy team because of what exactly? Something in black and white that you can point to and say, "Eureka!", that's why I shouldn't draft him?
If you want to tell me that I should consider LaDainian Tomlinson for my fantasy team because of the fact that has produced top-flight fantasy numbers at RB the past few years, that's fine by me. At least its grounded in fact. What the Tatum Bell "haters" are producing in defense of their line of thinking is not. They stick with the "caveat emptor" line because of prior injuries that occured to other people. This, of course, is applicable to any player and not a sound basis for argument against Bell. One does not beget the other.
There is no concrete evidence that anybody can show me in this thread (or any other , for that matter) that can, without fail, link the fact that because other Denver runningbacks got hurt it means that Tatum Bell is going to as well. This is different from a situation in which Tatum Bell had a previously existing medical condition that could be pointed at and given as a reason for Bell possibly getting reinjured. If he had torn his ACL last year, it would be a different story. No such condition exists.
The FACT is that, yes, other DEN backs have been hurt. There is no correlation with the other points being made. If I get struck by lightning on a Tuesday morning at 8 in the morning on my way to pick up my paper off my front lawn, does this mean that maybe YOU should just stay in the house the next Tuesday at the same time? The first, a fact. The second, a stretch.
Say what you will. I'm happy Bell is on my squad. Just remember what I said when we all convene here next summer to hash out our RB rankings for 2006.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I'll give this a
for trying to put people in their place, but I can already tell you that their assertions will be not so much that Bell will be the next RB to get injured, but moreso that Bell comes with too much associated risk.To be fair, some people would rather have a a bunch of steady Eddies than someone that if he pans out will put up monster numbers. Clearly, Bell is not a pick for those risk adverse.What I DO find interesting is that other RB in the same tier have almost as much risk (Jordan, Jackson, Westbrook, etc.) in that they are unproven, in less than stellar RB conditions, etc. but that doesn't seem to matter. Once the true studs are gone, you have to hang your hat somewhere.
If the other option is waiting to grap someone a bit later on, those guys have even more risk and less upside. How great can an Arizona, Minnesota, Atlanta, SF, or Cleveland RB be? Are guys from those teams going to be Top 5? I HIGHLY doubt it. But those guys MIGHT keep their jobs and MIGHT stay healthy in systems that could not support a truly elite back.
Marino and other Bell lovers: IF Bell was the number one back on the depth charts I could understand a little better the passion you've shown for him. He has loads of potential but potential does NOT automatically equal stud-status. That's something so-called sharks seem to forget every year. I expect Bell to shine in camp and be named the starter-but until it actually happens, who's to say someone else doesn't shine? Perhaps having Dayne on the roster scares Clarrett into getting into game shape? He doesn't want to be the next tubby bust? Maybe Anderson actually KEEPS the top spot? Griffin recovers and does well in camp? Lots of ifs this early in the pre-season but you seem to think him being great next year is a lock. My eight ball is broken but since your crystal ball is functioning would you mind telling me who else will win starting jobs?
Late last season, I believe it was after the Tennessee game, Mike Shanahan was doing a radio interview and stated that Tatum Bell can be an 1,800 rushing yard back in the NFL. That pretty much sums up this argument. Short of Bell doing something really stupid, Shanahan is going to give Bell a huge workload this year....if you can actually read between the lines. But then again some of you seem to want Shanahan to personally call you at home and tell you exactly how he plans to use Bell so that you can make a fantasy decision on Bell.
Family Matters
Footballguy
Thanks for reminding me of that. I had forgotten. Shanny has let slip a few times what he thinks of Bell but I can understand the reasons for wanting to create a competitive camp environment for the benefit of all the RB's, especially Bell.While there is no guraentee of Bell being named the starter, who else would is seriously be? Those that suggest Clarett are just reaching at straws. Ain't gonna happen.
jurb26
Footballguy
Mario, I think you may want to reread this thread as you didn't even begin to touch on any of my points. 
Again, I am not questioning Bell's opportunity to succeed this year, only the duration of that opportunity. Yes, we do all agree that Den RBs have had great success. What you seem to be missing though is that just because Bell is the favorite to get the job, that does not make it his birth right to be the most productive and hold it all year. I'd like you to simply revisit the post by Joe that showed how the "expected" feautred RB in Den simply has not panned out in recent years. This shows the cold hard facts that weaken your arguement significantly IMO. You are trying to tell us that since Bell is the favorite now his chances are very good.... history doesn't agree with you though. The fact that any RB can look good in this O only makes matters worse because IF Bell misses time, another can easily steal his job. Remember, any RB can look good here. As we have seen in the past. If he plays poorly for a stretch of games, another RB can again steal his job. It is still my contention that Bell will have to prove a SPECIAL RB to hold this job, why would Den settle for anything less? The risk with Bell is just greater than a lot of us would like. Please tell me how his job is stable though? I would love to hear this. You are sking for facts, well what are the FACTS that say Bell will hold this job all year or even for the greater majority of it? Please don't tell me about some coach speak from Shanny either.
Again, I am not questioning Bell's opportunity to succeed this year, only the duration of that opportunity. Yes, we do all agree that Den RBs have had great success. What you seem to be missing though is that just because Bell is the favorite to get the job, that does not make it his birth right to be the most productive and hold it all year. I'd like you to simply revisit the post by Joe that showed how the "expected" feautred RB in Den simply has not panned out in recent years. This shows the cold hard facts that weaken your arguement significantly IMO. You are trying to tell us that since Bell is the favorite now his chances are very good.... history doesn't agree with you though. The fact that any RB can look good in this O only makes matters worse because IF Bell misses time, another can easily steal his job. Remember, any RB can look good here. As we have seen in the past. If he plays poorly for a stretch of games, another RB can again steal his job. It is still my contention that Bell will have to prove a SPECIAL RB to hold this job, why would Den settle for anything less? The risk with Bell is just greater than a lot of us would like. Please tell me how his job is stable though? I would love to hear this. You are sking for facts, well what are the FACTS that say Bell will hold this job all year or even for the greater majority of it? Please don't tell me about some coach speak from Shanny either.I'm confused here so please help me clear things up. The supporters are claiming:Shannahan is NOT misleading? In fact, he actually goes with who he says? BUT also stating:Shannahan says one thing yet does another? Make up your minds-either he can or can't be trusted. It's ridiculous to read between the lines only when it suits your tastes. Of COURSE Bell could be the starter but right now he isn't. Anderson is.It's been pointed out Bell is no more injury-prone than any other rb. It was then pointed out most rb's MISS TIME DUE TO INJURY. We've also shown the "starting" rb's in Denver OFTEN lose their jobs because of injury only to never see the starter's spot again. I am NOT a Bell hater. In fact, I think so highly of him he's on my dynasty roster. I believe he has incredible potential. But the football world is littered with guys filled with potential and nothing more. Quit acting as though he's a sure thing. IF he wins the starting job and IF he stays healthy he'll do great. But IF he doesn't win the job or IF he gets hurt (as all backs do) there's no guarantee he'll get the spot back. So I understand why someone would take Jordan or someone else. They'll at least be assured of the starting position if only by default.
mario8723
Footballguy
Nonsense. And I'm still asking for you to step in and explain to me your side of things Joe. Listen, nobody is going to be right or wrong at this point. None of us have a crystal ball as has been alluded to.My whole point is not that Bell is the greatest thing since sliced bread. My point is that people are completely dismissing him as an option this year for no good reason. The "crusade" that I am on is not to become Tatum Bell's personal champion, but rather to make some of you take a step back and analyze the way you go about evaluating players for the coming season.There are several players a year that provide an opportunity to positively affect your team for a small cost. Tiki Barber in 2004 would be an obvious example. Nate Burleson would be another. Does Tatum Bell come with risk? Absolutely. My point has been all along that so does everybody else. There are certainly varying degree of risk with each associated player, but some fail to realize the fact that there are NO guarantees. Zero.There are several facts out there that I feel make Tatum Bell somebody worthy of consideration. The upside of the Denver running game could propel him to be a Top-10 back this year based on their history of producing excellent backs. Shanny, as explained throughout the thread, has Bell as the favorite to win the job (Peter, Mike Anderson is NOT the starter and hasn't done anything of note since he WAS the starter). This sentiment has been echoed by the Broncos beat writers. Bell acquitted himself well last year, even giving you an advanced glimpse of what he can be capable of. It's not like the kid hasn't played a game yet.The thing that kills me is when folks like Peter (and don't take this as some personal attack Peter-just pointing out some of your statments that are pertinent to the conversation at hand) will willingly jump on somebody like Jordan because he is a "safer" bet. I would have to agree with Mr. Yudkin in saying that this just doesn't make much sense to me. In my mind, the risk associated with Bell is just the same as it is for Jordan. Being a Jets fan and being able to see Jordan on a full-time basis the last few years, I may even go out on a limb and suggest that the risk may even be greater going with Jordan (That's a conversation for another day though). Why is Jordan a safer bet? Based on what, exactly? What are some other backs that would be available at the same spot Bell would and why would you take them over Bell?Slash, Family Matters and others bring a good point to the table: At some point, you have to take the clues and piece them together yourself. Bell has all the makings and signs of being a breakout candidate at the RB spot (as does Jordan for that matter). This is not some arcane, convoluted reading of tea leaves here. Apparently, as Slash suggests, some are not going to be convinced until it actually happens and Bell morphs into the stud RB that I and others believe he will become. Unfortunately, it will already be too late at that point. He is, right now, a classic Buy-Low candidate. Doesn't get much better than this. And at the end of the year, chances are I'm going to Sell-High.
If you want to continue to just point fingers at backs of the past that got injured and somehow relate them to Bell, that's fine. Still makes no sense in my book, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. If you want to point to Bell's personal injury history and decide he's too much of a risk, that's fine too. Some people just can't stomach risk. But let's not sit here and dismiss Bell out of hand and try to back it up with anything other than fact. The fact is right now Bell is 100% healthy and near as I can tell torn ACL's and microfracture surgeries aren't contagious. As far as I can tell right now, based on the information we have in front of us, Bell is primed for a breakout year. Starting RBs getting hurt in Denver is not enough of a reason imo to convince me otherwise. It's almost gotten to the point with some of you that you speak of it like a curse. Denver runningbacks are cursed. The Blair Witch is going to get them all! 
To me, the best part of this entire argument against Bell is when somebody decides to throw Maurice Clarett into the equation. Just brings a smile to my face, that's all. 
Thanks to all that have been involved in the thread to this point. It's been a good argument on both sides. What fantasy football is really about. Keep 'em comin!
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
There are several players a year that provide an opportunity to positively affect your team for a small cost. Tiki Barber in 2004 would be an obvious example. Nate Burleson would be another. Does Tatum Bell come with risk? Absolutely. My point has been all along that so does everybody else. There are certainly varying degree of risk with each associated player, but some fail to realize the fact that there are NO guarantees. Zero.There are several facts out there that I feel make Tatum Bell somebody worthy of consideration. The upside of the Denver running game could propel him to be a Top-10 back this year based on their history of producing excellent backs. Shanny, as explained throughout the thread, has Bell as the favorite to win the job (Peter, Mike Anderson is NOT the starter and hasn't done anything of note since he WAS the starter). This sentiment has been echoed by the Broncos beat writers. Bell acquitted himself well last year, even giving you an advanced glimpse of what he can be capable of. It's not like the kid hasn't played a game yet.The thing that kills me is when folks like Peter (and don't take this as some personal attack Peter-just pointing out some of your statments that are pertinent to the conversation at hand) will willingly jump on somebody like Jordan because he is a "safer" bet. I would have to agree with Mr. Yudkin in saying that this just doesn't make much sense to me. In my mind, the risk associated with Bell is just the same as it is for Jordan. Being a Jets fan and being able to see Jordan on a full-time basis the last few years, I may even go out on a limb and suggest that the risk may even be greater going with Jordan (That's a conversation for another day though). Why is Jordan a safer bet? Based on what, exactly? What are some other backs that would be available at the same spot Bell would and why would you take them over Bell?Slash, Family Matters and others bring a good point to the table: At some point, you have to take the clues and piece them together yourself. Bell has all the makings and signs of being a breakout candidate at the RB spot (as does Jordan for that matter). This is not some arcane, convoluted reading of tea leaves here. Apparently, as Slash suggests, some are not going to be convinced until it actually happens and Bell morphs into the stud RB that I and others believe he will become. Unfortunately, it will already be too late at that point. He is, right now, a classic Buy-Low candidate. Doesn't get much better than this. And at the end of the year, chances are I'm going to Sell-High.
Joe T
Footballguy
This paragraph proves that the point has you
1. Bell was injured most of last year. And if you read this fine board at all you'd realize that backs who were injured before have a greater chance of getting injured again.... it is a fact. You may want to come to grips with this before the start of your league draft.2. No one is pointing to the fact of the Denver running backs in the past getting injured and saying this will somehow effect Bell's chances of getting injured. No one is saying that. The point of making note of the Denver running games past injuries is to deflate the argument that 'I'm getting a huge value in the second round because I am getting the Denver running game and look what the running game has done for the last X years.' The problem is that you are not getting the Denver running game with that pick... you are getting a back who carries a lot of risks being that he's only had 75 carries in the NFL most of which because he was either injured or not good enough to beat out the great Ruben Droughns.
I'm not Anti-Bell. I like the guy and hope he does really, really well. I love Denver and the Denver running game.
But I'm not an idiot either who is going to risk a mid-second rounder on a guy who has yet to do anything in the NFL because I think I'm locking up the great Denver running game in the second round.
Take a minute to ask all those people who locked up the Denver running game in the second round last year how fun the season was...
and no, I wasn't dumb enough to fall in this trap last year either.
Last edited by a moderator:
salmonstud
Footballguy
Let it go Joe, just let it go.........This paragraph proves that the point has you
2. No one is pointing to the fact of the Denver running backs in the past getting injured and saying this will somehow effect Bell's chances of getting injured. No one is saying that. The point of making note of the Denver running games past injuries is to deflate the argument that 'I'm getting a huge value in the second round because I am getting the Denver running game and look what the running game has done for the last X years.' The problem is that you are not getting the Denver running game with that pick... you are getting a back who carries a lot of risks being that he's only had 75 carries in the NFL most of which because he was either injured or not good enough to beat out the great Ruben Droughns.
I'm not Anti-Bell. I like the guy and hope he does really, really well. I love Denver and the Denver running game.
But I'm not an idiot either who is going to risk a mid-second rounder on a guy who has yet to do anything in the NFL because I think I'm locking up the great Denver running game in the second round.
Take a minute to ask all those people who locked up the Denver running game in the second round last year how fun the season was...
and no, I wasn't dumb enough to fall in this trap last year either.
mario8723
Footballguy
Name me backs that have never been injured. If I am to come to grips with it, as you suggest, then I'm afraid the pickings are going to be mighty slim.
I understand the point you're making. Some people are going to go conservative in the 2nd round. Fine by me. However, what I'm curious to know are what kinds of backs are available at the same spot (approximately-we'll say late 2nd) and which ones you are taking over Bell. While I will acknowledge he is a risk to some degree, IF he does work out I can't see too many backs available at that point with his upside. As far as your comparison to Quentin Griffin, I think even you could admit that there is a huge gap between the two talent-wise. So even though people probably would have been out of their mind in taking Griffin last year in the 2nd round, I don't think the comparison pertains here. Maybe just my opinion, but to me Griffin and Bell are miles apart.With regards to your use of BGO when referencing my paragraph on risk...The way some people have voiced their opinions in this thread lead me to believe that it's not such a BGO.
jurb26
Footballguy
These are the group of RBs you will likely be looking according to antsports mocks:
16. Brian Westbrook RB PHI 2.08.81 1.06 3.08 05.48 42 17. Steven Jackson RB STL 2.12.26 2.06 3.07 03.61 42 18. Curtis Martin RB NYJ 3.01.15 2.07 3.08 03.42 41 19. LaMont Jordan RB OAK 3.03.57 2.04 4.05 05.17 42 20. Tatum Bell RB DEN 3.05.86 2.07 4.07 05.33 42 21. Chris Brown RB TEN 4.01.05 2.05 5.01 06.97 41 22. Ronnie Brown RB MIA 4.03.23 3.02 5.10 06.68 40 23. Carnell Williams RB TBB 4.06.71 3.04 5.11 06.37 41 24. J.J. Arrington RB ARI 4.07.98 2.08 7.06 10.71 41 Looks to be about right IMO. I don't think I would take Bell ahead of the 4 guys in front of him, but I also wouldn't take the 4 guys behind him ahead of him either.
mario8723
Footballguy
Taking what I've learned today and applying it to this list, I guess we have to cross everybody off the list save Brown, and Arrington seeing as they haven't been injured yet (not sure about them either though). Apparently, everybody else is a big injury risk 
seeing as how that carries over year-to-year...
seeing as how that carries over year-to-year...
Last edited by a moderator:
Family Matters
Footballguy
Easily. Bell is just as good as thoses guys and he's in a better system. As for the rooks, we don't know enough about them right now to know how well they'll do. To assume all 4 will perform up to expectations may not be realistic. It doesn't usually work out that well all RB's drafted. You can expect at least one of them to underperform.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Bell and Arrington aside, here are the other Top 5 RBs from the past 20 years . . .LT
Jamal Lewis
Edge
Ricky Williams
Curtis Ennis
Ki-Jana Carter
Marshall Faulk
Garrison Hearst
Blair Thomas
Barry Sanders
Alonzo Highsmith
Brent Fuller
Bo Jackson
I see 6 home runs of the 13 listed. Hearst would be a double, but the other guys were not so great. I'd put it at 50/50.
Yes, I would take Tatum Bell above any rookie RB that came out in the 2005 draft in a keeper/dynasty league. Bell is arguably just as skilled as any of the rookie RB's, plays in an excellent system for RB's, has a stable QB, a very good O-line, solid WR's, improving defense, run-minded coach, etc. All the pieces of the puzzle are in place for Bell not only to have a good season, but an EXCELLENT season. I don't feel that good about any of the rookie RB's this season, or heading into the future. Bell is really undervalued right now simply because he hasn't had a lot of opportunity. You have to go with your gut on this one and look at the big picture. Bell is set up perfectly to become an elite RB in the NFL. Is that a strong statement? Yes it is. But if you haven't learned to not doubt a Denver RB by now then you never will. Nobody wants to take a bit of risk anymore, but everybody wants to jump aboard once the results are in. Bell is a relatively unknown stock that is about to skyrocket, don't be the one to buy-in when his stock value has increased twenty-fold.
Last edited by a moderator:
