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!
Nope - you are 110% correct.One of these two guys will be th emain ball carrier - that does not mean that Bell will NOT be the main fantasy guy - that is still up in the air. Catching passes and breaking big plays seems to be something Bell does well.
Yeah, I put OBVIOUSLY in caps for exaggeration purposes, hoping it'd let everyone know that it's only obvious to Ashley.
Don't get me wrong- I think Shanny has a huge ego. I think every single head coach in the NFL does. I mean, you HAVE to have a ridiculous ego to get to and excel at such a high level of such a competitive field. You have to honestly believe that you're the best. I'm sure even the quiet, unassuming coaches like Tony Dungy are closet egomaniacs. Everyone except Vermeil- I would buy it if someone told me he was a no-ego guy. I just don't think that Shanahan does anything that he does because of his ego. I think he does what he does because he thinks it's in the best interest of his team. Now, he might OVERESTIMATE his abilities sometime, and his ego might hurt the team that way. He might let a Clinton Portis go because he's convinced he can turn a Ron Dayne into an 1800 yard rusher... but I don't think he's ever done anything to stroke his ego. I don't think he made Ron Dayne the starter or drafted Clarett so he could turn around to the rest of the league and say "I am Genius! Hear me roar!" I think he just honestly believes that Dayne is a guy who can get 1200+ yards in Denver.
What games? Mike Anderson scored under 10 points just 4 times last year (and once, maybe twice were due to injury). The RB who finished a position above and a position below were under 10 points the same amount. Mike Anderson, the #10 RB last season, was every bit as reliable as the #9 RB and the #11 RB. Now, public perception is that since Anderson's BACKUP scored a lot of points, that Shanny was screwing them over... but the reality was, Mike Anderson was every bit as consistant as every other RB who ever scores a similar number of points.The only "games" are the games that fantasy footballers play where they think they can outsmart Shanny.
You are not wrong. Shanahan has publicly said that he would love more than anything for Dayne or Bell to step up and become a guy who he gives the ball to 20-25 times a game. He *wants* a workhorse RB. He just knows that he'll have more success with a platoon. If he could get a back with Bell's talent and Dayne/Anderson's durability and reliability, then we'd be right back in the Terrell Davis/Clinton Portis days again.
In other news, Ashley Lelie is in actuality a #1 Wideout.You crack me up.This gets a *BIG* fatfrom me. If that's the case, then why the hell did Shanny even bother drafting Bell in the second round in the first place? Are you honestly suggesting that Shanahan spent a 2nd round pick just so he'd have a more talented back to start Dayne in favor of?
You know what? I think you're on to something here.First, Denver has two of its starting CBs becoming restricted free agents. They give the high tender to Lenny Walls, and let KELLY Herndon walk without getting compensated. Next, they start discriminating against ASHLEY Lelie, who would OBVIOUSLY be one of the best #1 WRs in the league, by bringing in other WRs and bumping him down the depth chart. Now, they're REFUSING to give TATUM Bell a chance to be the full-time guy. Are you noticing a pattern here?
That's right. Shanny's a misogynist!
Shanahan doesn't do it to feed his ego. He does it because, why pay $4 million a year for a 1500 yard running back when he could just spend $500,000 a year on a 1200 yard running back instead? Simple economics. Makes a lot of sense, too. I mean, did everyone refuse to trade for Edgerrin James and Shaun Alexander last offseason because their EGO told them that anyone could succeed in their systems? HECK NO! They refused to trade for James/Alexander because they knew they could get comparable production at a mere fraction of the price!Funny that you chose 4+ yards as the breakpoint. I've posted several times this offseason comparing Bell and Dayne's "success rate" last year. A run is "successful" if it gains 40% of the yards necessary on first down, 60% on 2nd down, or 100% on 3rd/4th down. Tatum Bell's success rate last year was 43% (29th in the NFL). Ron Dayne's was 60% (2nd in the NFL).
Marc (or anyone in the know for that matter),
That "short yardage runs" statement doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't short-yardage runs be short, hence the name "short yardage runs"? How can you rush for more than 3 yards when you are on the goal line? Didn't Bettis have like 10 rushes for 8 yards and three TDs several times? That's about .8 yards per carry, so Bettis must be worse than Bell at short-yardage runs.
I think Shanny is talking about when they get into any short yardage situation, not just the goal line, Bell only averages 2 ypc.Basically, when the D knows it's going to be a run and they put in their short yardage run defensive package, Tinker Bell can't get it done.
Could be that his blocking/blitz pick up is the reason he is viewed as a bit of a liability in the passing game.
I'd read that one of the big knocks on Bell was his suspect pass catching ability. Shanny viewed him as a bit of a liability in the passing game. It was definitely one of the reasons Anderson beat Bell out, for the Broncos starting RB gig last year.
Has Bell corrected this flaw in his game?
Yeap. Bell's blocking was below average at best.Could be that his blocking/blitz pick up is the reason he is viewed as a bit of a liability in the passing game.
I'd read that one of the big knocks on Bell was his suspect pass catching ability. Shanny viewed him as a bit of a liability in the passing game. It was definitely one of the reasons Anderson beat Bell out, for the Broncos starting RB gig last year.
Has Bell corrected this flaw in his game?
I have been saying that for over a year now. For some reason, the original poster and SSOG thought otherwise this time last year. Bell thinks of himself as a finesse guy, and that is not a good thing for NFL RBs.Yeap. Bell's blocking was below average at best.Could be that his blocking/blitz pick up is the reason he is viewed as a bit of a liability in the passing game.
I'd read that one of the big knocks on Bell was his suspect pass catching ability. Shanny viewed him as a bit of a liability in the passing game. It was definitely one of the reasons Anderson beat Bell out, for the Broncos starting RB gig last year.
Has Bell corrected this flaw in his game?
That's his AVERAGE yardage in short yardage. Now, if he was getting 2 yards every single time, that'd be fantastic, but remember that one long run really pulls up that average. If Bell had a 20 yard run in short yardage (and I know he had at least one against Washington), then it would take 9 runs for 0 yards in short yardage to bring his average back to 2 yards per carry.
I never thought that Bell was a good blocker. I simply said that Bell as considered a good blocker coming out of college- which was true. I've never thought of Bell as a good blocker- although I disagree with your point about finesse RBs. Marshall Faulk is a finesse RB, and I would argue that he's probably the best RB at blocking and blitz pickup that I've seen in the last decade.Bell had an Ole block against Houston that resulted in a punt getting blocked in the very first game of the preseason last year, and that auspicious start pretty much foreshadowed his entire season.I have been saying that for over a year now. For some reason, the original poster and SSOG thought otherwise this time last year. Bell thinks of himself as a finesse guy, and that is not a good thing for NFL RBs.Yeap. Bell's blocking was below average at best.Could be that his blocking/blitz pick up is the reason he is viewed as a bit of a liability in the passing game.
I'd read that one of the big knocks on Bell was his suspect pass catching ability. Shanny viewed him as a bit of a liability in the passing game. It was definitely one of the reasons Anderson beat Bell out, for the Broncos starting RB gig last year.
Has Bell corrected this flaw in his game?
Bell is soft, Faulk is not. My point last year was that Bell was a poor blocker and had been so since college. I still maintain it is so. You know which thread I am referring to and NOT ONCE did you say he was a poor blocker. You just jumped in with the original poster of this thread and said he was good blocking in college. So, no you had a chance to say he could not block and all you said that he was a good blocker at OSU. It is ok to admit you are wrong. We are all proven right and wrong all the time.That's his AVERAGE yardage in short yardage. Now, if he was getting 2 yards every single time, that'd be fantastic, but remember that one long run really pulls up that average. If Bell had a 20 yard run in short yardage (and I know he had at least one against Washington), then it would take 9 runs for 0 yards in short yardage to bring his average back to 2 yards per carry.I never thought that Bell was a good blocker. I simply said that Bell as considered a good blocker coming out of college- which was true. I've never thought of Bell as a good blocker- although I disagree with your point about finesse RBs. Marshall Faulk is a finesse RB, and I would argue that he's probably the best RB at blocking and blitz pickup that I've seen in the last decade.Bell had an Ole block against Houston that resulted in a punt getting blocked in the very first game of the preseason last year, and that auspicious start pretty much foreshadowed his entire season.I have been saying that for over a year now. For some reason, the original poster and SSOG thought otherwise this time last year. Bell thinks of himself as a finesse guy, and that is not a good thing for NFL RBs.Yeap. Bell's blocking was below average at best.Could be that his blocking/blitz pick up is the reason he is viewed as a bit of a liability in the passing game.
I'd read that one of the big knocks on Bell was his suspect pass catching ability. Shanny viewed him as a bit of a liability in the passing game. It was definitely one of the reasons Anderson beat Bell out, for the Broncos starting RB gig last year.
Has Bell corrected this flaw in his game?
I do know which thread you are talking about. It's this one. Read it again. You said that Bell had fallen in the draft because there were questions about his blocking. I provided a link where Shanny said that blocking was one of the main reason Shanny took Bell in the first place. I did not comment on the issue one way or another, I was simply disagreeing with your contention that Bell's blocking was a big strike against him coming out of college. I still disagree with that contention- blocking was not a big strike against Bell coming out of college. Once again, here's the link, and here's the quote:
Read the thread again. I didn't say that blocking wasn't a problem for Bell in the pros. In fact, I asked on the very first page of that thread if Bell had improved on his blocking any, and said that if he makes it on the field it was going to be by becoming a better blocker.Here's a link to another thread that preseason where I criticise Bell's blocking. There were more, but I was too lazy to search for them. I didn't say that Bell wasn't a bad blocker, I just said that Bell wasn't perceived as a bad blocker (at least by Shanahan) when he came out of college.
'You are sidestepping what I said. In that thread, I specifically say that I have always questioned his hands and blocking (post 57). Is this correct?
I don't know if that's correct or not. I haven't always known you. You did say that, however, yes.
???
I could have chimed in one way or another, but the fact that I didn't doesn't really show that I believed one way or another, now does it? I mean, I never chimed in agreeing with you... but I never chimed in DISAGREEING with you, either, so I don't know how you're drawing inferences about what I believed from that. The only thing I said definitively one way or another was that I believed that his injury, not his blocking skills, were what kept Tatum Bell off the field for so long in 2004. And I still believe that- I mean, his blocking was shoddy at the end of 2004, so obviously he didn't make it onto the field because his blocking was suddenly good. He made it onto the field because he was healthy. Same deal last year- he's still not a very good blocker, but he's still on the field, because he's healthy. It wasn't blocking that kept him off the field.
Why not say it then? Because frequently, my MO is to simply provide links and let people draw their own conclusions. If you pay attention, I've provided links to Tatum Bell fluff pieces as readily as I've provided them to Mike Anderson fluff pieces- even though everyone here knows I was firmly in Anderson's bandwagon. Providing a link and agreeing with a link are two drastically different things.Also, you're telling me to go back and read post #65? In post #65 I just told that guy that I provided the link before him. Explain to me how that's the same thing as saying Bell *WAS* a good blocker? The problem here is that you're trying to tell me what I believed because of what I *DIDN'T* say. You're saying "Oh, you could have responded to this, and you could have said this". If you want to know what I believed, why not try reading what I *DID* say? You know, like the other two posts I directed you towards- one where I said that Tatum Bell wouldn't get on the field unless he improved his blocking, and another where I criticized Tatum Bell for his blocking. But apparently, despite saying both of those things, I believed that Tatum Bell was a good blocker because I told Syrus that I provided the link before he did.
I never agreed with other articles posted, I just told Syrus I beat him to the link. Also, you're right- I never said that Bell was a bad blocker in that series of posts. Of course, I never said he was a GOOD blocker, either. I just said that Shanny said that blocking was one of the reasons they picked Bell in the first place.Now it's your turn. Apparently my silence implied that I thought Bell was a good blocker. If I thought Bell was a good blocker, can you explain to me why I was saying that Bell wouldn't see the field unless he improved as a blocker, or why I asked Cecil how Bell's blocking was, or why I called out Bell for bad blocking during the preseason? Those statements don't really jive with someone who thinks Bell is a good blocker, now do they?
And he's proving it now
