Tatum Bell: "I'll Be Fine In Week 10" (1 Viewer)

[Marc Levin]

In light of this latest info (that Tatum is "expected to play" this weekend), the relevant question becomes do you take a chance and play him over various other RB2/RB3 running backs that almost definitely will get a good number of touches but don't have a lot of upside for a big game. In other words, do you play Tatum over guys like Droughns, Cadillac, Washington, Lundy, et al.? All these guys are projected to get 16-22 carries, 60-70 yards, and .2-.3 TD's. My initial thought is that if Bell is going to play, it's worth taking a shot with him over the above-mentioned guys because his upside is significantly higher. Thoughts?

I wouldn't be confident starting Bell over any of those guys this week. Keep in mind that even if Tatum plays there are no guarantees he's going to start and even if he starts there are no guarantees he'll look good or get the bulk of the carries. You could argue Tatum has more upside than all of them and I wouldn't dispute that but I think he also has considerably more downside as well. The risk is too great to start him over someone who's healthy and will be in line to get a good number of carries (well assuming Gruden remembers that running the ball can be part of an offense, of course). The only way I'd start Tatum this week is if my other options absolutely sucked. There's just too much risk involved in my opinion otherwise.But that's just my

When you have an option like that - considerably more upside and downside than your other options - you generally want to sit him when you're the favorite, or when you expect a close game, because in these cases the pedestrian output from your safer options will likely be enough. However, you should probably play him when you're a heavy underdog, and will likely need an outburst from at least a few players to pull off the victory.

True, but even if I was an underdog I don't think I'd feel very confident starting Tatum this week. I'd rather start someone I felt could give me some production and hope other players in my lineup stepped up. I agree with the poster above that even if Tatum plays I think he loses the goal-line carries. Keep in mind that appeared to be a change Shanahan was going to make before Tatum's problems against the Colts since Mike Bell was getting the short-yardage and goal-line snaps in the first half of that game when Tatum was still the primary RB. So I think the best you can do is hope for some decent yardage from Tatum. Is that really worth it? I just don't think it is - unless your other options stink to high heaven.

???I think you've got some facts wrong - MBell was getting no love at all until TBell was hurt = that was NOT a change Shannie was putting in "anyway" as you contend.

 

[packersfan]

In light of this latest info (that Tatum is "expected to play" this weekend), the relevant question becomes do you take a chance and play him over various other RB2/RB3 running backs that almost definitely will get a good number of touches but don't have a lot of upside for a big game. In other words, do you play Tatum over guys like Droughns, Cadillac, Washington, Lundy, et al.? All these guys are projected to get 16-22 carries, 60-70 yards, and .2-.3 TD's. My initial thought is that if Bell is going to play, it's worth taking a shot with him over the above-mentioned guys because his upside is significantly higher. Thoughts?

I wouldn't be confident starting Bell over any of those guys this week. Keep in mind that even if Tatum plays there are no guarantees he's going to start and even if he starts there are no guarantees he'll look good or get the bulk of the carries. You could argue Tatum has more upside than all of them and I wouldn't dispute that but I think he also has considerably more downside as well. The risk is too great to start him over someone who's healthy and will be in line to get a good number of carries (well assuming Gruden remembers that running the ball can be part of an offense, of course). The only way I'd start Tatum this week is if my other options absolutely sucked. There's just too much risk involved in my opinion otherwise.But that's just my

When you have an option like that - considerably more upside and downside than your other options - you generally want to sit him when you're the favorite, or when you expect a close game, because in these cases the pedestrian output from your safer options will likely be enough. However, you should probably play him when you're a heavy underdog, and will likely need an outburst from at least a few players to pull off the victory.

True, but even if I was an underdog I don't think I'd feel very confident starting Tatum this week. I'd rather start someone I felt could give me some production and hope other players in my lineup stepped up. I agree with the poster above that even if Tatum plays I think he loses the goal-line carries. Keep in mind that appeared to be a change Shanahan was going to make before Tatum's problems against the Colts since Mike Bell was getting the short-yardage and goal-line snaps in the first half of that game when Tatum was still the primary RB. So I think the best you can do is hope for some decent yardage from Tatum. Is that really worth it? I just don't think it is - unless your other options stink to high heaven.

???I think you've got some facts wrong - MBell was getting no love at all until TBell was hurt = that was NOT a change Shannie was putting in "anyway" as you contend.

Mike Bell got both the short-yardage snaps and the goal-line snaps in the Colts game in the first half. That was before Tatum Bell went to Shanahan and told him his turf toe injuries were a problem. Unless Shanahan went into the game already knowing Tatum wasn't going to be very effective (which is possible but doesn't match with the comments we've been given from him or Tatum) than it's pretty clear there was a change in the works for the goal-line option. Maybe it was just for the Colts' game. That's possible as well. But in that game it was Mike Bell who got those snaps even though Tatum Bell was still getting the bulk of the carries. Unless it just so happened that Tatum Bell asked for a break during each of the first two short-yardage plays the Broncos had (again that's possible but that seems to be one helluva coincidence) I think we saw a sign that Mike Bell's involvement was going to increase even before the issue of Bell's injuries came to more light.

 

[Tag]

I dont have the cajones to start Tatum. He was listed as probable last week and ended up being inactive. I'd like to wait a week before I make the plunge.

 

[fornov]

I was hoping Clayton might have a little insight in his injury report on ESPN Insider tonight but he isn't telling us anything here we don't already know. Maybe he or Mort will have something on Sunday. Here's the info from Clayton tonight:The Broncos should have Tatum Bell back in the backfield. He missed last Sunday's game with two toe injuries, but the toes feel better this week. Mike Shanahan will have to decide whether to start Tatum or Mike Bell.

Hopefully, the rest of you have better options than I do for my second RB this week.I have a TON of guys who can replace Tatum. Unfortunately, they all play second fiddle on their own team. Benson, Davenport, LenDale, Mewelde, Rhodes and Perry. In other words..... :X :X :X

I was able to get A-Train on the WW this week with the express purpose of playing him over the next two weeks (good matchups) while Tatum hopefully has a chance to get healthy. My other option is Droughns. I'm hopeful that over the next couple of weeks we can see the severity of the turf toe injury and figure out how Shanny intends to use Tatum in light of the circumstances.

Are you spying on my team and reproting my plans to this forum? That exact message could have been sent from my keyboard.Let's hope Thomas goes off the next 2 weeks and Bell returns to health for the FF playoffs. :fingerscrossed:

 

[fornov]

In light of this latest info (that Tatum is "expected to play" this weekend), the relevant question becomes do you take a chance and play him over various other RB2/RB3 running backs that almost definitely will get a good number of touches but don't have a lot of upside for a big game. In other words, do you play Tatum over guys like Droughns, Cadillac, Washington, Lundy, et al.? All these guys are projected to get 16-22 carries, 60-70 yards, and .2-.3 TD's. My initial thought is that if Bell is going to play, it's worth taking a shot with him over the above-mentioned guys because his upside is significantly higher. Thoughts?

I wouldn't be confident starting Bell over any of those guys this week. Keep in mind that even if Tatum plays there are no guarantees he's going to start and even if he starts there are no guarantees he'll look good or get the bulk of the carries. You could argue Tatum has more upside than all of them and I wouldn't dispute that but I think he also has considerably more downside as well. The risk is too great to start him over someone who's healthy and will be in line to get a good number of carries (well assuming Gruden remembers that running the ball can be part of an offense, of course). The only way I'd start Tatum this week is if my other options absolutely sucked. There's just too much risk involved in my opinion otherwise.But that's just my

When you have an option like that - considerably more upside and downside than your other options - you generally want to sit him when you're the favorite, or when you expect a close game, because in these cases the pedestrian output from your safer options will likely be enough. However, you should probably play him when you're a heavy underdog, and will likely need an outburst from at least a few players to pull off the victory.

True, but even if I was an underdog I don't think I'd feel very confident starting Tatum this week. I'd rather start someone I felt could give me some production and hope other players in my lineup stepped up. I agree with the poster above that even if Tatum plays I think he loses the goal-line carries. Keep in mind that appeared to be a change Shanahan was going to make before Tatum's problems against the Colts since Mike Bell was getting the short-yardage and goal-line snaps in the first half of that game when Tatum was still the primary RB. So I think the best you can do is hope for some decent yardage from Tatum. Is that really worth it? I just don't think it is - unless your other options stink to high heaven.

???I think you've got some facts wrong - MBell was getting no love at all until TBell was hurt = that was NOT a change Shannie was putting in "anyway" as you contend.

Mike Bell got both the short-yardage snaps and the goal-line snaps in the Colts game in the first half. That was before Tatum Bell went to Shanahan and told him his turf toe injuries were a problem. Unless Shanahan went into the game already knowing Tatum wasn't going to be very effective (which is possible but doesn't match with the comments we've been given from him or Tatum) than it's pretty clear there was a change in the works for the goal-line option. Maybe it was just for the Colts' game. That's possible as well. But in that game it was Mike Bell who got those snaps even though Tatum Bell was still getting the bulk of the carries. Unless it just so happened that Tatum Bell asked for a break during each of the first two short-yardage plays the Broncos had (again that's possible but that seems to be one helluva coincidence) I think we saw a sign that Mike Bell's involvement was going to increase even before the issue of Bell's injuries came to more light.

Mike Bell was given the goalline snaps in the first half, but that was already after Tatum Bell proved to be running ineffectively. I don't think Shanahan went into the game knowing Tatum wouldn't be effective, but he figured it out after his first 15 carries or so. He really made the switch to Mike Bell about halfway through the 2nd quarter. From that point on, Mike was getting the majority of the carries, and Tatum was the relief/breather guy, instead of the other way around (as it had been for the first 20 minutes and all the other previous regular season games).Edited for spelling

 

[packersfan]

Mike Bell was given the goalline snaps in the first half, but that was already after Tatum Bell proved to be running ineffectively.

This isn't correct. Mike Bell's first snap on a short-yardage play came on Denver's first series of the game. He then got the goal-line snaps with 12 minutes to go in the first half:1-2-IND2 (12:00) M.Bell up the middle to IND 1 for 1 yard (G.Brackett).2-1-IND1 (11:19) J.Plummer right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.After that series, Tatum Bell got every rushing attempt for the rest of the first half. He had 4 rushes for 16 yards on Denver's next possession and their only other possession of the first half.What we have been told by both Tatum Bell and Shanahan is Tatum went to Shanahan at halftime and told him he was having trouble cutting and his injuries were a problem. All of the examples I've cited occurred before that. Now it's possible Tatum simply asked out of the game on both of Denver's short-yardage situation and their only goal-line situation of the first half. That's possible but again I think it's a pretty big coincidence that those happened to be the times when he asked to come out. But that's speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that in the Colts' game it was Mike Bell who got the short-yardage and goal-line looks in the first half even though Tatum was still the primary ballcarrier. Now whether that was just something Shanahan wanted to do for the Colts game (if you'll recall, the announcers did say during that game that Shanahan told him he thought Mike Bell matched up very well against the Colts and he wanted to use him more in that game) or something he was planning longer-term is the question.

 

[fornov]

Mike Bell was given the goalline snaps in the first half, but that was already after Tatum Bell proved to be running ineffectively.

This isn't correct. Mike Bell's first snap on a short-yardage play came on Denver's first series of the game. He then got the goal-line snaps with 12 minutes to go in the first half:1-2-IND2 (12:00) M.Bell up the middle to IND 1 for 1 yard (G.Brackett).2-1-IND1 (11:19) J.Plummer right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.After that series, Tatum Bell got every rushing attempt for the rest of the first half. He had 4 rushes for 16 yards on Denver's next possession and their only other possession of the first half.What we have been told by both Tatum Bell and Shanahan is Tatum went to Shanahan at halftime and told him he was having trouble cutting and his injuries were a problem. All of the examples I've cited occurred before that. Now it's possible Tatum simply asked out of the game on both of Denver's short-yardage situation and their only goal-line situation of the first half. That's possible but again I think it's a pretty big coincidence that those happened to be the times when he asked to come out. But that's speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that in the Colts' game it was Mike Bell who got the short-yardage and goal-line looks in the first half even though Tatum was still the primary ballcarrier. Now whether that was just something Shanahan wanted to do for the Colts game (if you'll recall, the announcers did say during that game that Shanahan told him he thought Mike Bell matched up very well against the Colts and he wanted to use him more in that game) or something he was planning longer-term is the question.

You're right, I must have been remembering things wrong. I should have looked it up instead of going on memory. Tatum did still get the rest of the carries after Mike came in at the GL. And in fact, that was Mike's first carry of the game. Do you know if he came in on the 3rd-and-1 situation in the first quarter? That was really their only other short yardage opportunity of the first half.You're absolutely right about Tatum and Shanahan reporting their halftime conversation about his injuries. And it makes total sense that Mike Bell got (almost) all of the carries in light of that. As far as the speculation on why Mike was used more at the GL in this game, your guess is as good (better) than mine. It could have been a planned trend, or just for the Indy game specifically, or Tatum asking for or needing a breather. There's really not enough data to draw a conclusion in my mind, but it's enough to bear watching.Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[Garts]

In previois games, Tatum was the GL back and had NO problems down there. There wasn't any reason besides his own doing that he was pulled.

 

[thatguy]

Whether Mike Got the goal line work because of Tatum's injury or in spite of it, I for one think Shanny would be wise to keep using him down there. He has that Priest-like ability to go over the top. As a Denver fan, I think that is the best move. As a Tatum owner, I hate to have to say that.

 

[packersfan]

Mike Bell was given the goalline snaps in the first half, but that was already after Tatum Bell proved to be running ineffectively.

This isn't correct. Mike Bell's first snap on a short-yardage play came on Denver's first series of the game. He then got the goal-line snaps with 12 minutes to go in the first half:1-2-IND2 (12:00) M.Bell up the middle to IND 1 for 1 yard (G.Brackett).2-1-IND1 (11:19) J.Plummer right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.After that series, Tatum Bell got every rushing attempt for the rest of the first half. He had 4 rushes for 16 yards on Denver's next possession and their only other possession of the first half.What we have been told by both Tatum Bell and Shanahan is Tatum went to Shanahan at halftime and told him he was having trouble cutting and his injuries were a problem. All of the examples I've cited occurred before that. Now it's possible Tatum simply asked out of the game on both of Denver's short-yardage situation and their only goal-line situation of the first half. That's possible but again I think it's a pretty big coincidence that those happened to be the times when he asked to come out. But that's speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that in the Colts' game it was Mike Bell who got the short-yardage and goal-line looks in the first half even though Tatum was still the primary ballcarrier. Now whether that was just something Shanahan wanted to do for the Colts game (if you'll recall, the announcers did say during that game that Shanahan told him he thought Mike Bell matched up very well against the Colts and he wanted to use him more in that game) or something he was planning longer-term is the question.

You're right, I must have been remembering things wrong. I should have looked it up instead of going on memory. Tatum did still get the rest of the carries after Mike came in at the GL. And in fact, that was Mike's first carry of the game. Do you know if he came in on the 3rd-and-1 situation in the first quarter? That was really their only other short yardage opportunity of the first half.

Yes Mike Bell was in for that play. I remember that because I recall thinking at the time it was curious that he was in there and not Tatum since Tatum had been doing a very good job in short-yardage/goal-line situations. And then when Mike Bell came in at the goal line I was even more surprised because there was no reason that we knew of at the time for Tatum to not be in for those critical snaps.

You're absolutely right about Tatum and Shanahan reporting their halftime conversation about his injuries. And it makes total sense that Mike Bell got (almost) all of the carries in light of that. As far as the speculation on why Mike was used more at the GL in this game, your guess is as good (better) than mine. It could have been a planned trend, or just for the Indy game specifically, or Tatum asking for or needing a breather. There's really not enough data to draw a conclusion in my mind, but it's enough to bear watching.Thanks for clearing this up.

You're welcome. And you're right, we don't have enough data but given what we've seen since and what we do know I don't think it's unrealistic to project Mike Bell to remain in the goal-line role even if Tatum's healthy and regains his starting job. Both have done well in those situations so it's not like Tatum has failed but I think Mike Bell offers more of a Mike Anderson-type option in those situations compared to Tatum and I also believe no matter what happens Mike Bell is going to continue to have a major role on offense barring injury or poor play. This would be way for that to occur. I've said before that I think we may end up seeing a situation similar to what we saw last season with Anderson and Tatum with Mike Bell taking on the Anderson role with Tatum going back to the change-of-pace option who gets 10-15 carries a game. As a Tatum owner I hope I'm wrong and he regains the starting job and gets 20 carries a game. But I would at least take solace in knowing that even in that role he can be a very viable RB3 option most weeks. And that's certainly better than getting nothing from him at all.

 

[cmv5]

Mike Bell was given the goalline snaps in the first half, but that was already after Tatum Bell proved to be running ineffectively.

This isn't correct. Mike Bell's first snap on a short-yardage play came on Denver's first series of the game. He then got the goal-line snaps with 12 minutes to go in the first half:1-2-IND2 (12:00) M.Bell up the middle to IND 1 for 1 yard (G.Brackett).2-1-IND1 (11:19) J.Plummer right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.After that series, Tatum Bell got every rushing attempt for the rest of the first half. He had 4 rushes for 16 yards on Denver's next possession and their only other possession of the first half.What we have been told by both Tatum Bell and Shanahan is Tatum went to Shanahan at halftime and told him he was having trouble cutting and his injuries were a problem. All of the examples I've cited occurred before that. Now it's possible Tatum simply asked out of the game on both of Denver's short-yardage situation and their only goal-line situation of the first half. That's possible but again I think it's a pretty big coincidence that those happened to be the times when he asked to come out. But that's speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that in the Colts' game it was Mike Bell who got the short-yardage and goal-line looks in the first half even though Tatum was still the primary ballcarrier. Now whether that was just something Shanahan wanted to do for the Colts game (if you'll recall, the announcers did say during that game that Shanahan told him he thought Mike Bell matched up very well against the Colts and he wanted to use him more in that game) or something he was planning longer-term is the question.

This is not the whole story. Tatum Bell went into the Indy game as questionable with turf toe. Shanahan was completely aware of him reaggravating his turf toe in the Cleveland game. This is why, more than likely, Mike Bell received goal-line carries.

 

[packersfan]

Mike Bell was given the goalline snaps in the first half, but that was already after Tatum Bell proved to be running ineffectively.

This isn't correct. Mike Bell's first snap on a short-yardage play came on Denver's first series of the game. He then got the goal-line snaps with 12 minutes to go in the first half:1-2-IND2 (12:00) M.Bell up the middle to IND 1 for 1 yard (G.Brackett).2-1-IND1 (11:19) J.Plummer right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.After that series, Tatum Bell got every rushing attempt for the rest of the first half. He had 4 rushes for 16 yards on Denver's next possession and their only other possession of the first half.What we have been told by both Tatum Bell and Shanahan is Tatum went to Shanahan at halftime and told him he was having trouble cutting and his injuries were a problem. All of the examples I've cited occurred before that. Now it's possible Tatum simply asked out of the game on both of Denver's short-yardage situation and their only goal-line situation of the first half. That's possible but again I think it's a pretty big coincidence that those happened to be the times when he asked to come out. But that's speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that in the Colts' game it was Mike Bell who got the short-yardage and goal-line looks in the first half even though Tatum was still the primary ballcarrier. Now whether that was just something Shanahan wanted to do for the Colts game (if you'll recall, the announcers did say during that game that Shanahan told him he thought Mike Bell matched up very well against the Colts and he wanted to use him more in that game) or something he was planning longer-term is the question.

This is not the whole story. Tatum Bell went into the Indy game as questionable with turf toe. Shanahan was completely aware of him reaggravating his turf toe in the Cleveland game. This is why, more than likely, Mike Bell received goal-line carries.

Tatum was probable that game. In any event, he was getting all of the carries in the first half of the Colts game with two notable exceptions - the short-yardage and goal-line looks.In any event, here's an interesting development from Denver that may impact Tatum Bell this week. From RotoWorld:Tatum Bell's status for Week 10 is now far less certain following the Broncos' addition of Damien Nash to the active roster.The Broncos now have four tailbacks on the roster, and they've carried three all year, even when Cedric Cobbs had a high ankle sprain. The Broncos might be smart to rest Tatum's turf toes another week anyways. We'd definitely pull Tatum Bell out of fantasy lineups.

 

[Two Deep]

Mike Bell was given the goalline snaps in the first half, but that was already after Tatum Bell proved to be running ineffectively.

This isn't correct. Mike Bell's first snap on a short-yardage play came on Denver's first series of the game. He then got the goal-line snaps with 12 minutes to go in the first half:1-2-IND2 (12:00) M.Bell up the middle to IND 1 for 1 yard (G.Brackett).2-1-IND1 (11:19) J.Plummer right guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.After that series, Tatum Bell got every rushing attempt for the rest of the first half. He had 4 rushes for 16 yards on Denver's next possession and their only other possession of the first half.What we have been told by both Tatum Bell and Shanahan is Tatum went to Shanahan at halftime and told him he was having trouble cutting and his injuries were a problem. All of the examples I've cited occurred before that. Now it's possible Tatum simply asked out of the game on both of Denver's short-yardage situation and their only goal-line situation of the first half. That's possible but again I think it's a pretty big coincidence that those happened to be the times when he asked to come out. But that's speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that in the Colts' game it was Mike Bell who got the short-yardage and goal-line looks in the first half even though Tatum was still the primary ballcarrier. Now whether that was just something Shanahan wanted to do for the Colts game (if you'll recall, the announcers did say during that game that Shanahan told him he thought Mike Bell matched up very well against the Colts and he wanted to use him more in that game) or something he was planning longer-term is the question.

This is not the whole story. Tatum Bell went into the Indy game as questionable with turf toe. Shanahan was completely aware of him reaggravating his turf toe in the Cleveland game. This is why, more than likely, Mike Bell received goal-line carries.

Tatum was probable that game. In any event, he was getting all of the carries in the first half of the Colts game with two notable exceptions - the short-yardage and goal-line looks.In any event, here's an interesting development from Denver that may impact Tatum Bell this week. From RotoWorld:Tatum Bell's status for Week 10 is now far less certain following the Broncos' addition of Damien Nash to the active roster.The Broncos now have four tailbacks on the roster, and they've carried three all year, even when Cedric Cobbs had a high ankle sprain. The Broncos might be smart to rest Tatum's turf toes another week anyways. We'd definitely pull Tatum Bell out of fantasy lineups.

Broncos | Nash signed to active rosterSat, 11 Nov 2006 17:27:13 -0800Mike Klis, of the Denver Post, reports Denver Broncos RB Damien Nash has been signed from the team's practice squad to their active roster.Very interesting indeed.

 

[packersfan]

The reasons for this could be:

1. Tatum Bell had a relapse with his injuries today.

2. Shanahan was BSing Tatum's status all week long just as he did last week.

3. Something's up with Mike Bell or Cobbs.

The first two seem the most logical conclusions.

 

[Two Deep]

The reasons for this could be:1. Tatum Bell had a relapse with his injuries today.2. Shanahan was BSing Tatum's status all week long just as he did last week.3. Something's up with Mike Bell or Cobbs.The first two seem the most logical conclusions.

Or maybe as stated before Shanny fiqures to give T. Bell another weeks recovery. Anyway you look at it, it seems to scream T. Bell is not going to play IMO.

 

[packersfan]

The reasons for this could be:1. Tatum Bell had a relapse with his injuries today.2. Shanahan was BSing Tatum's status all week long just as he did last week.3. Something's up with Mike Bell or Cobbs.The first two seem the most logical conclusions.

Or maybe as stated before Shanny fiqures to give T. Bell another weeks recovery.

I'd consider that falling into option No. 2

Anyway you look at it, it seems to scream T. Bell is not going to play IMO.

Agreed. It definitely does not look good for Tatum this week.

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field agianst Oakland.

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

In light of this latest info (that Tatum is "expected to play" this weekend), the relevant question becomes do you take a chance and play him over various other RB2/RB3 running backs that almost definitely will get a good number of touches but don't have a lot of upside for a big game. In other words, do you play Tatum over guys like Droughns, Cadillac, Washington, Lundy, et al.? All these guys are projected to get 16-22 carries, 60-70 yards, and .2-.3 TD's. My initial thought is that if Bell is going to play, it's worth taking a shot with him over the above-mentioned guys because his upside is significantly higher. Thoughts?

I wouldn't be confident starting Bell over any of those guys this week. Keep in mind that even if Tatum plays there are no guarantees he's going to start and even if he starts there are no guarantees he'll look good or get the bulk of the carries. You could argue Tatum has more upside than all of them and I wouldn't dispute that but I think he also has considerably more downside as well. The risk is too great to start him over someone who's healthy and will be in line to get a good number of carries (well assuming Gruden remembers that running the ball can be part of an offense, of course). The only way I'd start Tatum this week is if my other options absolutely sucked. There's just too much risk involved in my opinion otherwise.But that's just my

When you have an option like that - considerably more upside and downside than your other options - you generally want to sit him when you're the favorite, or when you expect a close game, because in these cases the pedestrian output from your safer options will likely be enough. However, you should probably play him when you're a heavy underdog, and will likely need an outburst from at least a few players to pull off the victory.

True, but even if I was an underdog I don't think I'd feel very confident starting Tatum this week. I'd rather start someone I felt could give me some production and hope other players in my lineup stepped up. I agree with the poster above that even if Tatum plays I think he loses the goal-line carries. Keep in mind that appeared to be a change Shanahan was going to make before Tatum's problems against the Colts since Mike Bell was getting the short-yardage and goal-line snaps in the first half of that game when Tatum was still the primary RB. So I think the best you can do is hope for some decent yardage from Tatum. Is that really worth it? I just don't think it is - unless your other options stink to high heaven.

???I think you've got some facts wrong - MBell was getting no love at all until TBell was hurt = that was NOT a change Shannie was putting in "anyway" as you contend.

Actually I think you have some facts wrong. Mike Bell got 10 carries vs Cleveland and was getting the goal line carries vs Indy before Tatum's injuries took him out.

 

[fsufan]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field against Oakland.

why would he be upgraded to probable

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field against Oakland.

why would he be upgraded to probable

Posturing? Gamesmanship?

 

[Raider Nation]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field against Oakland.

why would he be upgraded to probable

Posturing? Gamesmanship?

That'll get Denver fined if true.

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field against Oakland.

why would he be upgraded to probable

Posturing? Gamesmanship?

That'll get Denver fined if true.

I guess I figure they'll suit him up and he'll get 5 touches max. I just don't see the logic behind playing him this week.

 

[packersfan]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field against Oakland.

why would he be upgraded to probable

Posturing? Gamesmanship?

That'll get Denver fined if true.

Doubtful. He was listed as probable last week and didn't even dress. The league has tried to crack down on head coaches making a mockery of the injury report and it's only made things worse (like Jeff Fisher listing everyone as "questionable" and so forth). I don't think anything can be done here nor do I think anything will be done.

 

[rolliehouliranson]

Why even have an injury report? What is the purpose, from the teams' perspective?

 

[inc0herent]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field against Oakland.

why would he be upgraded to probable

Posturing? Gamesmanship?

That'll get Denver fined if true.

Doubtful. He was listed as probable last week and didn't even dress. The league has tried to crack down on head coaches making a mockery of the injury report and it's only made things worse (like Jeff Fisher listing everyone as "questionable" and so forth). I don't think anything can be done here nor do I think anything will be done.

Per Rotowire:

Mike Bell could reportedly be inactive at Oakland Sunday. The Denver Post reports "Tatum Bell is expected to start."

Damien Nash, signed from the practice team late Saturday night, has a chance to replace Mike, not Tatum, on Denver's game-day roster. Mike is in danger of not even dressing for Denver's afternoon game. Nov. 12 - 12:44 am et

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

I've had Mike Bell in my lineup all week. I don't care what Shanahan says, Tatum Bell with 2 turf toes is not going to see the field against Oakland.

why would he be upgraded to probable

Posturing? Gamesmanship?

That'll get Denver fined if true.

Doubtful. He was listed as probable last week and didn't even dress. The league has tried to crack down on head coaches making a mockery of the injury report and it's only made things worse (like Jeff Fisher listing everyone as "questionable" and so forth). I don't think anything can be done here nor do I think anything will be done.

Per Rotowire:

Mike Bell could reportedly be inactive at Oakland Sunday. The Denver Post reports "Tatum Bell is expected to start."

Damien Nash, signed from the practice team late Saturday night, has a chance to replace Mike, not Tatum, on Denver's game-day roster. Mike is in danger of not even dressing for Denver's afternoon game. Nov. 12 - 12:44 am et

Wow. Well, it appears that I could not have been more incorrect here.

 

[packersfan]

Wow. Looks like my third option was possibly the correct one. Pretty huge bump for Tatum Bell if this is true.

 

[Fantasy Bum]

Why would they make Mike Bell inactive? Is he hurt? Insubordination?? Did I miss something?

 

[One]

Why would they make Mike Bell inactive? Is he hurt? Insubordination?? Did I miss something?

*scratches head* I have NO IDEA. Freakin' Denver never makes any sense.

 

[SSOG]

Why would they make Mike Bell inactive? Is he hurt? Insubordination?? Did I miss something?

From everything I've seen, it's nothing but rank speculation entirely unsubstantiated by the evidence.I have not heard a WORD from any reliable source anywhere about Mike Bell possibly being a game-day inactive. Rotoworld said that MBell might be inactive and linked to a Denver Post article that didn't even mention Mike Bell- which means they're guessing here. They're throwing darts at a board.I think the REASON why they're guessing MBell will sit is pretty obvious- Damien Nash got elevated to the 53-man roster, and Bell's probable to play. They're drawing the conclusion that Nash was elevated because he was at a position of need- and if Denver doesn't need him to replace Tatum, they must need him to replace Mike Bell. Personally, I think that's a load of bunk and not at all indicative of how Shanahan operates.Shanahan was more than content to let his roster sit with open spots for a while. He wasn't in a hurry to promote Nash (he's had a roster spot since Monday that he just now filled). Shanahan also has demonstrated a history of adding players to the 53-man roster, not because he thinks they'll help out now, but because he thinks they'll help out a year or more from now. Last season, Shanny carried David Terrell and Wesley Duke for the entire season, despite the fact that both players were just glorified benchwarmers (I don't think Terrell was ever even activated). It's entirely possible that Shanahan elevated Nash for no better reason than because he had a roster spot and he didn't want another team nabbing Nash off of the practice squad.Now, it's entirely POSSIBLE Mike Bell sits... I just don't think it's at all PLAUSIBLE. The only possible reason for it is if Tatum had dispelled *ALL* injury concerns (so Shanny was comfortable running with a sub-par backup), and Shanahan decided Nash would be better on special teams than Mike Bell. It's a pretty thin possibility, given how Turf Toes tend to linger.If I were in Vegas, I would lay a very substantial wager that Mike Bell will be active against Oakland. I might possibly lose (that's why it's called gambling), but I would still be VERY confident laying that wager.

 

[thatguy]

Man, I've been waivering all week as to who my RB3 will be. Started as TJ, then I was leaning Mike Bell, then went back to TJ, now I'm considering Tatum. What a headache. I'll prolly stick with TJ. I atleast know he's good for ~20 touches.

 

[ddog9876]

Why would they make Mike Bell inactive? Is he hurt? Insubordination?? Did I miss something?

From everything I've seen, it's nothing but rank speculation entirely unsubstantiated by the evidence.I have not heard a WORD from any reliable source anywhere about Mike Bell possibly being a game-day inactive. Rotoworld said that MBell might be inactive and linked to a Denver Post article that didn't even mention Mike Bell- which means they're guessing here. They're throwing darts at a board.

This line does appear in the Denver Post article :There's a chance Nash could replace Mike Bell on the Broncos' game-day roster today.

So, if someone's guessing as you suggest - it's the Denver Post - not Rotoworld.

 

[eefflrat]

I can't see any reason to deactivate Mike Bell, when he has trouble running he still contributes in the apssing game, and he is a viable option when Tater goes down.

But it is Shanny.

 

[Two Deep]

Why would they make Mike Bell inactive? Is he hurt? Insubordination?? Did I miss something?

From everything I've seen, it's nothing but rank speculation entirely unsubstantiated by the evidence.I have not heard a WORD from any reliable source anywhere about Mike Bell possibly being a game-day inactive. Rotoworld said that MBell might be inactive and linked to a Denver Post article that didn't even mention Mike Bell- which means they're guessing here. They're throwing darts at a board.

This line does appear in the Denver Post article :There's a chance Nash could replace Mike Bell on the Broncos' game-day roster today.

So, if someone's guessing as you suggest - it's the Denver Post - not Rotoworld.

I think the post f-ed up and mentioned the wrong Bell. It is more likely to be a injured Tatum Bell not a completely healthy Mike Bell that will be inactive.

 

[Da Guru]

Is anybody else sick of the name "Bell"?

I vowed not to take a Denver RB..now I have both of these friggen Bells!

 

[cracKer]

I can't see any reason to deactivate Mike Bell, when he has trouble running he still contributes in the apssing game, and he is a viable option when Tater goes down.But it is Shanny.

The only thing that I can think of is special teams duty. Mike Bell has returned kicks for the Broncos, maybe they don't want to risk him there any longer (or are unsatisfied with his production on kickoff returns). If they are comfortable going into the game with Tatum Bell, Nash and Cobbs may be more valuable for their work on special teams (assuming they excel on special teams)

 

[packersfan]

Why would they make Mike Bell inactive? Is he hurt? Insubordination?? Did I miss something?

From everything I've seen, it's nothing but rank speculation entirely unsubstantiated by the evidence.I have not heard a WORD from any reliable source anywhere about Mike Bell possibly being a game-day inactive. Rotoworld said that MBell might be inactive and linked to a Denver Post article that didn't even mention Mike Bell- which means they're guessing here. They're throwing darts at a board.

This line does appear in the Denver Post article :There's a chance Nash could replace Mike Bell on the Broncos' game-day roster today.

So, if someone's guessing as you suggest - it's the Denver Post - not Rotoworld.

Yup. So then it comes down to the reliability of the beat writer. Bill Williamson is the main Broncos beat writer and he's pretty decent and one thing he would never do is conjure up something without having A LOT of inside information first. However, he's not the person who wrote this story last night so I'd have to ask Bronco homers who read the Post regularly how reliable this reporter is.Edited to add Williamson was the first one to write that Tatum would start today. My guess is he got that after plenty of discussion with Broncos coaches and insiders. That's how he operated when he was covering the Packers several years ago. I doubt his work has changed since then.

 

[Raider Nation]

Why does a guy who has accomplished so little cause such an uproar.

Shame on all of us. The guy is not Portis. He's not even Olandis Gary.

 

[Two Deep]

I'm glad they made M. Bell inactive it was genius. T. Bell really showed how a RB rips off yardage.

 

[thatguy]

I don't know what the hell is going on, but I do know it's really annoying. Nash almost cost Denver the game. Congratuations Shanny.

Tatum showed some good flashes today, but no sooner would he rip off a good run then Shanny would stop giving him the ball, or bring in Nash.

I just don't understand. Deactivating Mike Bell in favor of Nash is one of the oddest coaching moves I've ever witnessed. He has to have done or said something to get in Shanny's doghouse. Sure, his performance against Pittsburgh was subpar, but seriously, that the hell?

 

[packersfan]

Props to the Denver Post for being 100% on the mark about the Denver RB situation this week. They were the first to write that Tatum would start and they were the first to report the Mike Bell inactive development as well.

As a Tatum owner, I'm not sure what to make of his game today. I thought he looked pretty poor in the first three quarters and showed no burst at all. Then in the fourth quarter he did run harder and looked better. I would guess he'll keep the starting job for next week's game against the Chargers.

Who backs him up is anybody's guess.

 

[Bonzai]

I don't know what the hell is going on, but I do know it's really annoying. Nash almost cost Denver the game. Congratuations Shanny.

Tatum showed some good flashes today, but no sooner would he rip off a good run then Shanny would stop giving him the ball, or bring in Nash.

I just don't understand. Deactivating Mike Bell in favor of Nash is one of the oddest coaching moves I've ever witnessed. He has to have done or said something to get in Shanny's doghouse. Sure, his performance against Pittsburgh was subpar, but seriously, that the hell?

didn't watch the game.what do you mean by this.

 

[packersfan]

I don't know what the hell is going on, but I do know it's really annoying. Nash almost cost Denver the game. Congratuations Shanny.

Tatum showed some good flashes today, but no sooner would he rip off a good run then Shanny would stop giving him the ball, or bring in Nash.

I just don't understand. Deactivating Mike Bell in favor of Nash is one of the oddest coaching moves I've ever witnessed. He has to have done or said something to get in Shanny's doghouse. Sure, his performance against Pittsburgh was subpar, but seriously, that the hell?

didn't watch the game.what do you mean by this.

Nash fumbled near the goal line but the Broncos recovered. He didn't get back on the field after that.

 

[Bonzai]

I don't know what the hell is going on, but I do know it's really annoying. Nash almost cost Denver the game. Congratuations Shanny.

Tatum showed some good flashes today, but no sooner would he rip off a good run then Shanny would stop giving him the ball, or bring in Nash.

I just don't understand. Deactivating Mike Bell in favor of Nash is one of the oddest coaching moves I've ever witnessed. He has to have done or said something to get in Shanny's doghouse. Sure, his performance against Pittsburgh was subpar, but seriously, that the hell?

didn't watch the game.what do you mean by this.

Nash fumbled near the goal line but the Broncos recovered. He didn't get back on the field after that.

ouch

 

[Raider Nation]

Tatum showed some good flashes today, but no sooner would he rip off a good run then Shanny would stop giving him the ball, or bring in Nash.

What "flashes" are we talking about here?

Other than MAYBE two carries in the 4th quarter, he looked horrible today.

 

[malice]

Well, the one thing we know going into next week is that Nash probably won't be in the starting lineup. Cobbs, anyone?

Apparently Shanahan thought he had this one in the bag regardless and decided to play a week 10 game like a week 17 game when you've sealed up a playoff spot. If the defense hadn't bailed them out on the last two possessions, he could have looked dumb making the move with Nash.

 

[thatguy]

Tatum showed some good flashes today, but no sooner would he rip off a good run then Shanny would stop giving him the ball, or bring in Nash.

What "flashes" are we talking about here?

Other than MAYBE two carries in the 4th quarter, he looked horrible today.

Had a few good runs. But didn't seem to get into any kind of rhythm. I blame Shanahan. I was drunk and still am so maybe I'm wrong.

 

[packersfan]

Tatum showed some good flashes today, but no sooner would he rip off a good run then Shanny would stop giving him the ball, or bring in Nash.

What "flashes" are we talking about here?

Other than MAYBE two carries in the 4th quarter, he looked horrible today.

He had one real good run in the first half but I agree prior to the last drive he did not look good at all today. He looked exactly the way he looked against the Colts. No burst, getting stopped after initial contact and showing no ability to cut at all.

 

[billyjoe]

If I were in Vegas, I would lay a very substantial wager that Mike Bell will be active against Oakland. I might possibly lose (that's why it's called gambling), but I would still be VERY confident laying that wager.

Lets hope you didn't make it to Vegas.

 

[The Z Machine]

This situation is a ####### mess.