WOW! You think he's that bad? Even from a Dynasty standpoint?Question is if he is really worth trading for or not?
I'm thinking along the same lines here.If he does nothing for the 1st couple games though I expect a lot of people to dump him for just about anything they could get.
Oh lord not you. Didn't you say this about Bell?All of you that think you can get Bell on the cheap right now are out of your mind. The Denver RB situation is still very fluid at the moment. Clinton Portis didn't become the full-time starter until week 5? of his rookie year. Point is, Bell could not play at al the first month of the season, but if the opportunity comes that he gets named the starter he will put up huge numbers. Bell owners are holding right now because people won't be willing to pay what they potentially feel Bell is worth. So those of you that think you can offer up Travis Taylor for tatum Bell will get a swift kick in the nads. You have been warned.
Shanahan was so commited to Bell that Mike Anderson is startingWhen Shanahan finds a back he truly likes and has that homerun speed he stays committed to him, unless said back threatens to holdout. Shanahan likes Bell....ALOT. The only thing that can bring Bell down at this point is injury or ego.
Are you figuring on an injury to Mike Anderson?Obviously, my enthusiasm on Bell was a bit off, though Mike Anderson will not remain the starter forever. Yes, Mike Anderson is starting this week, but there is no guarantee he will even be starting in Week 2. I haven't seen Shanahan come out and say that Anderson the 2005 starting tailback for the entire year. All we know is that Anderson is the starter right now. So you're dreaming if you can get Tatum Bell on the cheap, or off the waiver wire in a few weeks. Bell had a great preseason, Anderson had a better preseason that was sugar-coated by a 93 yard TD run. Anderson deserves to start right now, but I don't know if come week 8 Anderson will still be the starter.
I'm not figuring on anything right now. I'm not predicting a Mike Anderson injury, Mike Anderson ineffectiveness, or Mike Anderson hitting Mary Jane again. What I am counting on is that the NFL is unpredictable and to assume Mike Anderson is the starter for the entire year in a very fluid backfield is kind of ridiculous right now. Anderson doesn't have much room to slip because there's two guys behind him waiting to take his job. Maybe Anderson keeps the job the entire year, but personally I'm not counting on that. And for the record, yes I think Anderson deserves to be the starter RIGHT NOW. The edge always goes to the veteran, IMO, and yes Anderson looked great in the 3rd game of the pre-season. Anderson went out and won the job, but Bell didn't exactly lose it because he stunk it up. If Bell could have played with the first team offense against that porous Indianapolis defense I think Bell could have done just as well. All I'm saying is that Bell owners are very aware of the uncertainty of the Denver backfield and you won't find them ditching Bell as easily as you assume.Are you figuring on an injury to Mike Anderson?Obviously, my enthusiasm on Bell was a bit off, though Mike Anderson will not remain the starter forever. Yes, Mike Anderson is starting this week, but there is no guarantee he will even be starting in Week 2. I haven't seen Shanahan come out and say that Anderson the 2005 starting tailback for the entire year. All we know is that Anderson is the starter right now. So you're dreaming if you can get Tatum Bell on the cheap, or off the waiver wire in a few weeks. Bell had a great preseason, Anderson had a better preseason that was sugar-coated by a 93 yard TD run. Anderson deserves to start right now, but I don't know if come week 8 Anderson will still be the starter.
I agree. Too much invested in Bell to trade him away for a bunch of garbage. Better to just hold on and see how things play out.All of you that think you can get Bell on the cheap right now are out of your mind. The Denver RB situation is still very fluid at the moment. Clinton Portis didn't become the full-time starter until week 5? of his rookie year. Point is, Bell could not play at al the first month of the season, but if the opportunity comes that he gets named the starter he will put up huge numbers. Bell owners are holding right now because people won't be willing to pay what they potentially feel Bell is worth. So those of you that think you can offer up Travis Taylor for tatum Bell will get a swift kick in the nads. You have been warned.
Intersting. When you were pimping Bell earlier, you said this;I'm not figuring on anything right now. I'm not predicting a Mike Anderson injury, Mike Anderson ineffectiveness, or Mike Anderson hitting Mary jane again. What I am counting on is that the NFL is unpredictable and to assume Mike Anderson is the starter for the entire year in a very fluid backfield is kind of ridiculous right now. Anderson doesn't have much room to slip because there's two guys behind him waiting to take his job. Maybe Anderson keeps the job the entire year, but personally I'm not cointing on that. And for the record, yes I think Anderson deserves to be the starter RIGHT NOW. The edge always goes to the veteran, IMO, and yes Anderson looked great in the pre-season finale. Anderson went out and won the job, but Bell didn't exactly lose it because he stunk it up. If Bell could have played with the first team offense against that porous Indianapolis defense I think Bell could have done just as well. All I'm sating is that Bell owners are very aware of the uncertainty of the Denver backfield and you won't find them ditching Bell as easily as you assume.
But of course you wrote that when you were talking Bell up.BTW Slash, do you still like this move?Shanahan has never actively sought to replace his starting RB without good reason. Injuries have been the main reason and contract issues.
Last year in a dynasty rookie draft I passed over Steven Jackson in favor of Tatum Bell.
I still like that move.
Yeah, I still like the move. Obviously most right now would definitely favor Jackson over Bell, but in a dynasty league you have to keep perspective on the long-term outlook. Bell will be the Denver starter someday. That could be week 4, maybe not until 2006. Whatever, the case, I own Bell and will reap the benefits. I favor the Denver running scheme over St. Louis' by a wide margin. I'm not a big Steven Jackson fan. I think he'll have his big games, but I still like Tatum Bell's long-term outlook. Patience is a virtue in dynasty leagues. I was able to pick up Drew Brees off the waiver wire because some fickle owner gave up too early last year.Intersting. When you were pimping Bell earlier, you said this;I'm not figuring on anything right now. I'm not predicting a Mike Anderson injury, Mike Anderson ineffectiveness, or Mike Anderson hitting Mary jane again. What I am counting on is that the NFL is unpredictable and to assume Mike Anderson is the starter for the entire year in a very fluid backfield is kind of ridiculous right now. Anderson doesn't have much room to slip because there's two guys behind him waiting to take his job. Maybe Anderson keeps the job the entire year, but personally I'm not cointing on that. And for the record, yes I think Anderson deserves to be the starter RIGHT NOW. The edge always goes to the veteran, IMO, and yes Anderson looked great in the pre-season finale. Anderson went out and won the job, but Bell didn't exactly lose it because he stunk it up. If Bell could have played with the first team offense against that porous Indianapolis defense I think Bell could have done just as well. All I'm sating is that Bell owners are very aware of the uncertainty of the Denver backfield and you won't find them ditching Bell as easily as you assume.But of course you wrote that when you were talking Bell up.BTW Slash, do you still like this move?Shanahan has never actively sought to replace his starting RB without good reason. Injuries have been the main reason and contract issues.
Last year in a dynasty rookie draft I passed over Steven Jackson in favor of Tatum Bell.
I still like that move.
WOW! You've certainly changed your tune. Remember your lecture here?but in a dynasty league you have to keep perspective on the long-term outlook. Bell will be the Denver starter someday.
Let me guess. You're one of those guys in a dynasty league who's always playing for next year, and we know every dynasty league has them. With guys like you it's always about how a certain player will develop into a super-stud as soon as NEXT year. Yet somehow you always find yourself having losing seasons year after year.
I don't know what your point is. Tatum Bell could just as easily be a stud this year. Since you seem so ready to try and make me eat crow, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Let's see you back up your antics. I bet you Tatum Bell has more yards than Mike Anderson for the 2005 season. We can bet $100 dollars and have a FBG moderator hold the money.WOW! You've certainly changed your tune. Remember your lecture here?but in a dynasty league you have to keep perspective on the long-term outlook. Bell will be the Denver starter someday.Let me guess. You're one of those guys in a dynasty league who's always playing for next year, and we know every dynasty league has them. With guys like you it's always about how a certain player will develop into a super-stud as soon as NEXT year. Yet somehow you always find yourself having losing seasons year after year.
I'm just trying to figure out what you really mean Slash. You've posted multiple completely contradictory posts and I'm simply wondering which side of the fence you're really on?Contradiction #1)I don't know what your point is.
~ vs ~to assume Mike Anderson is the starter for the entire year in a very fluid backfield is kind of ridiculous right now.
I mean which one is it Slash? "A very fluid backfield"?Shanahan has never actively sought to replace his starting RB without good reason. Injuries have been the main reason and contract issues.
~ vs ~in a dynasty league you have to keep perspective on the long-term outlook. Bell will be the Denver starter someday. That could be week 4, maybe not until 2006.
In one instance you're saying "long-term outlook",Let me guess. You're one of those guys in a dynasty league who's always playing for next year, and we know every dynasty league has them. With guys like you it's always about how a certain player will develop into a super-stud as soon as NEXT year. Yet somehow you always find yourself having losing seasons year after year.
Were you heading the Bush campaign vs. Kerry last year? Either take the bet or you've lost all cred.I'm just trying to figure out what you really mean Slash. You've posted multiple completely contradictory posts and I'm simply wondering which side of the fence you're really on?Contradiction #1)I don't know what your point is.
~ vs ~to assume Mike Anderson is the starter for the entire year in a very fluid backfield is kind of ridiculous right now.I mean which one is it Slash? "A very fluid backfield"?Shanahan has never actively sought to replace his starting RB without good reason. Injuries have been the main reason and contract issues.
Or
"Shanahan has never actively sought to replace his starting RB"
Contradiction #2)
~ vs ~in a dynasty league you have to keep perspective on the long-term outlook. Bell will be the Denver starter someday. That could be week 4, maybe not until 2006.In one instance you're saying "long-term outlook",Let me guess. You're one of those guys in a dynasty league who's always playing for next year, and we know every dynasty league has them. With guys like you it's always about how a certain player will develop into a super-stud as soon as NEXT year. Yet somehow you always find yourself having losing seasons year after year.
the other
"one of those guys in a dynasty league who's always playing for next year...you always find yourself having losing seasons year after year"
What's your real position here Slash?
I can't figure you what you mean and am just asking for clarification.
Thanks Slash for acknowledging the question I asked. Way to step up, man.How about we bet $100.00 on this Slash?Thanks Big Score for acknowledging the bet I proposed. Way to step up, man.
I suppose come week 5 or 6 when something happens that Bell gets the start we can all dig up your old posts. Wait, some of us don't get our kicks digging up old posts.
Keep doubting Bell, keep sleeping. Come talk to me in 5 months and we'll see where things stand, by that point Bell should have logged in pre-Washington Clinton Portis-type numbers.
Ahem....exactly who dissapeared?And just like I thought, Big Score dissapears.
Nice try to turn the tables on me Big Score. Now you've changed the parameters of the bet in an attempt to one up me and make me look foolish. Look, if Tatum Bell is starting by week 5 I will most certainly take that bet. However, you seem to be in the camp that believes since Mike Anderson is the starter going into week 1 that he will remain the starter indefinitely and that Tatum Bell couldn't beat out a 32 year old running back. Given that, I urge you to steal $100 from me and take my bet that Mike Anderson WILL NOT outproduce Tatum Bell for the 2005 season. How much easier can winning $100 be for a man that is so sure Tatum Bell stinks?If you don't take the bet, you've lost your credibility as a previos poster mentioned. I'm willing to back up my statements, apparently you are not.Thanks Slash for acknowledging the question I asked. Way to step up, man.How about we bet $100.00 on this Slash?Thanks Big Score for acknowledging the bet I proposed. Way to step up, man.
I suppose come week 5 or 6 when something happens that Bell gets the start we can all dig up your old posts. Wait, some of us don't get our kicks digging up old posts.
Keep doubting Bell, keep sleeping. Come talk to me in 5 months and we'll see where things stand, by that point Bell should have logged in pre-Washington Clinton Portis-type numbers.
Umm...ever heard of it taking a guy a minute or two to type a response. You have me shaking in my boots, Big Score.Ahem....exactly who dissapeared?And just like I thought, Big Score dissapears.
Oh! I see....if I take a couple of minutes to type a response....I've dissapeared....but if you take a couple of minutes to type a response...that's cool. RightttttUmm...ever heard of it taking aguy a minute or two to type a response. You have me shaking in my boots, Big Score.Ahem....exactly who dissapeared?And just like I thought, Big Score dissapears.
$100.00?Keep doubting Bell, keep sleeping. Come talk to me in 5 months and we'll see where things stand, by that point Bell should have logged in pre-Washington Clinton Portis-type numbers.