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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jackal
- Start date
Bell is being set up for a huge season this year. While Bell has some flaws, the Denver coaches have not completely forgotten the talent that prompted them to draft him in the second round after letting Portis go. Bell has been developing nicely the last two years, and I look for this year to be the one in which he puts it all together and becomes the stud Buffalo.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
Bell isn't going to be the stud buffalo just because you like him and think so.Mike Shanahan, the coach of the Denver Broncos, has said that Dayne is the man.
Ted Sundquist, the GM of the Denver Broncos, has said that Dayne is the man.
Cecil Lammey, the FBG writer who covers Denver, has said that Dayne is the man.
Jeff Legwold, the best-connected reporter covering Denver, has said that Dayne is the man, and that additionally, he will be hard to beat out unless he has a horrid preseason.
Plus all of the Denver Homers on the board that I know of all agree that Dayne will be the man.
At some point, saying Bell will win the workhorse role ceases being optimism and starts being foolishness.
Regarding the original question... I think that Tatum Bell will, in fact, wind up on some other team at some other point, although I couldn't comment whether he'll be a starter or not. I know three things. First, he's going to want a big contract. Second, he's going to have gaudy enough statistics that somebody will give him one. Third, Denver won't be that somebody. They just don't spend big on RBs, letting their #1 rusher walk for three straight years rather than give them a pay raise. Why would they suddenly go against form and offer up a pay raise for their #2 then?
Necro Butcher Superstar
Footballguy
One big, fat problem with the theory here...Dayne.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Let's review the brief career of Tatum Bell.
As a rookie in 2004, many people felt he would come in and become the next in the long line of successful Denver tailbacks. Mike Anderson was in the running to start but got hurt. Quentin Griffin (with a career total of 345 rushing yards and a 3.7 ypc) got the nod instead with Bell not really more than an afterthought. With Griffin struggling and ultimately placed on IR, Denver turned to . . . Reuben Droughns instead (he of the 97 career rushing yards in Detroit with a 2.4 ypc). Pecking order for the year: Anderson, Griffin, Droughns, and then Bell (and Garrison Hearst was in there too but he got hurt and fell off the radar).
Jump ahead to 2005. Droughns got traded, leaving the Broncos without a starter. Certainly Bell was a consideration for a lot bigger workload. Who got the majority of carries? 32-year-old Mike Anderson--who had not played much role in the offense in 5 seasons and missed the previous season with a knee injury. Bell got 170 carries but Anderson got 210+ and the goal line carries.
Now we get to 2006. Everyone and their brother is saying Dayne is the start and Bell will be a change of pace back and more importantly will not get a ton of carries. This the same Ron Dayne that did not play in 2003 and had a 3.4 ypc the past two years he played before coming to Denver. Once in Denver, he had a whopping 53 carries. Yet Denver STILL has named him the starter. And now there's been talk that if he got hurt, Cedric Cobbs would step in for Dayne and Bell would again be "the other guy."
So someone explain to me where in the real world that Denver has any intention AT ALL in making Bell a featured back. They have had many, many opportunities to do so and have not. Worse still, they have gone out and signed no names, has beens, and retreads that have taken the job and left Bell mostly on the sidelines.
IMO, if Denver doesn't think Bell is capable (when seemingly anyone playing RB in Denver can be), that should be an indicator that he may never be the full time stud that many people are suggesting.
As a rookie in 2004, many people felt he would come in and become the next in the long line of successful Denver tailbacks. Mike Anderson was in the running to start but got hurt. Quentin Griffin (with a career total of 345 rushing yards and a 3.7 ypc) got the nod instead with Bell not really more than an afterthought. With Griffin struggling and ultimately placed on IR, Denver turned to . . . Reuben Droughns instead (he of the 97 career rushing yards in Detroit with a 2.4 ypc). Pecking order for the year: Anderson, Griffin, Droughns, and then Bell (and Garrison Hearst was in there too but he got hurt and fell off the radar).
Jump ahead to 2005. Droughns got traded, leaving the Broncos without a starter. Certainly Bell was a consideration for a lot bigger workload. Who got the majority of carries? 32-year-old Mike Anderson--who had not played much role in the offense in 5 seasons and missed the previous season with a knee injury. Bell got 170 carries but Anderson got 210+ and the goal line carries.
Now we get to 2006. Everyone and their brother is saying Dayne is the start and Bell will be a change of pace back and more importantly will not get a ton of carries. This the same Ron Dayne that did not play in 2003 and had a 3.4 ypc the past two years he played before coming to Denver. Once in Denver, he had a whopping 53 carries. Yet Denver STILL has named him the starter. And now there's been talk that if he got hurt, Cedric Cobbs would step in for Dayne and Bell would again be "the other guy."
So someone explain to me where in the real world that Denver has any intention AT ALL in making Bell a featured back. They have had many, many opportunities to do so and have not. Worse still, they have gone out and signed no names, has beens, and retreads that have taken the job and left Bell mostly on the sidelines.
IMO, if Denver doesn't think Bell is capable (when seemingly anyone playing RB in Denver can be), that should be an indicator that he may never be the full time stud that many people are suggesting.
Jackal
Footballguy
i don't and would'nt expect denver to offer a pay raise. but don't you think they would have to tender him at some level? he is going to be wanted on the open market. to be fair, their past 3 leading rushers have been portis, droughns, and anderson. portis and droughns were traded, and yes anderson was permitted to walk. i think that had more to do with age and their confidence in dayne and bell. i do think dayne will be the starter this year, but this thread isnt about that. he has shown more than lamont jordan did with the jets before he signed with oakland. i believe he has the skills to be an every down back. just wanted to gather thoughts on his future beyond denver.
what is his contract status? two more years?
David Yudkin
Footballguy
2006 425000.00 2007 460000.00 2008 545000.00
The Man Who Met Andy Griffith
Footballguy
David, what you forget to consider is that many of us drafted Bell 1.03 (before Fitz & Roy Williams), and thus he has to become a stud.
Silver & Black
Footballguy
Dayne = speed.
Dude, it hurts saying that even when it is sarcastic.
Dude, it hurts saying that even when it is sarcastic.
SSOG
Moderator
In all fairness, I give Bell a pass for 2004. Rookies always take a long time to catch on in Denver. No rookie RB has started a game from weeks 1-4 in Denver since Terrell Davis did it back in '95. There's simply too much to take in. Bell was already coming in behind the curve because he got injured on like the third snap of camps. He really wasn't ready to start getting phased into the game plan until after midseason... and that's about when he DID start getting phased into the game plan. Like I said, I give him a pass.
Oh, I absolutely expect Denver to tender Bell at some level. Shanahan really likes Bell, and likes what he offers the team. Given his druthers, Bell would probably remain a Bronco (at least, that's my interpretation of things). Realistically, though... Bell will probably want more money than Denver is willing to offer. As a result, I see him walking as soon as he gets the chance.
In defense of Tatum Bell, I absolutely 100% believe that he has the skills to be an everydown back somewhere other than Denver. It just so happens that Denver prizes consistancy more than pretty much any other team in the entire NFL, and views statistics like Success Rate as the holy grail of RB success. Lots of teams DO NOT share that view, and would LOVE to get a guy like Tatum Bell running the show.For a list of teams whose RBs' ypc tend to rank drastically higher than their success rate (the kind of back Bell is)... hmm... New Orleans comes to mind. Minnesota (with the exception of Moe Williams). Baltimore (even in his 2,000 yard, 5+ ypc season... Jamal Lewis ranked 25th in the NFL in success rate).
I also think that Bell has a skillset that is very conducive to success on a team with a below-average offensive line, since he CAN create for himself. Barry Sanders never had a very good success rate, either.
I think that Tatum Bell could be a successful everydown back (again, I'm not going to comment on whether he WILL be until I see where he lands). If he was starting for a team other than Denver right now, I would absolutely draft him in the first three rounds and expect 1200+ yards out of him (assuming he remained healthy).
I know, this may come as a complete and total shock to a lot of people... but I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Bell-hater. In fact, I even think he's a decent pickup where his current ADP has him going.
He's faster than Terrell Davis, Mike Anderson, and Olandis Gary were.
Family Matters
Footballguy
While I'm not going to argue any of your points I will say that if this pans out and Dayne is the man I will be shocked. When a guy gets as low as Dayne has and then becomes tha man in an offense like Denver's then you have say to yourself "WTF just happened?" It's like a person who is arrested for DUI in his Ford Focus on multiple occassions and loses his license. Then all of a sudden he's driving a Beemer 6 series. It just doesn't happen like that.
It would be the feel good story of the year for sure.
SSOG
Moderator
Sure it does. Thomas Jones, anyway? Ed McCaffrey got cut from two different teams before he landed with Denver. Bertrand Berry spent an entire year out of the sport of football, and he was an ALL-PRO two years ago. Heck, Ron Dayne might have fallen out of favor and been considered a real bust of a high first-round pick... obviously Denver doesn't have any recent history with getting solid production out of high first round picks that busted, right Courtney Brown/Gerard Warren/Ebenezer Ekuban?Lots of first round picks are busts with their first teams and studs with their second or third. I honestly don't believe it's any less likely for Dayne than it was for any of the other names I mentioned. Heck, it's not really that much less likely that Dayne would succeed than that Denver would get a 1,000 yard rushing season out of a 32 year old former fullback who had spent an entire season on IR and hadn't played RB since the 2001 season. Or a 5th string backup fullback. The Denver rushing machine is not to be underestimated.
I do also agree that if Dayne rushes for 1000+ yards, he's a very strong candidate for comeback player of the year, like Anderson would have been last year if Steve Smith hadn't come on like gangbusters.
I really think that Ron Dayne's chances are subject to extreme hyperbole just because so many people have been burned by him in the past.
Why does anyone here listen to this SSOG clown? He knows nothing more than any other Joe who reads internet news sites. All he does is come into every Denver RB thread and rehashes out the same, tired argument over and over, citing Mike Shanahan said this....Ted Sundquist said that....Pony Boy said this... 
SSOG, get a clue, no one earns the starting job in April, May, or June. And if you believe that is the case then please join my leagues (we'd feed on you like chum).
SSOG, get a clue, no one earns the starting job in April, May, or June. And if you believe that is the case then please join my leagues (we'd feed on you like chum).
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackal
Footballguy
wowWhy does anyone here listen to this SSOG clown? He knows nothing more than any other Joe who reads internet news sites. All he does is come into every Denver RB thread and rehashes out the same, tired argument over and over, citing Mike Shanahan said this....Ted Sundquist said that....Pony Boy said this...
SSOG, get a clue, no one earns the starting job in April, May, or June. And if you believe that is the case then please join my leagues (we'd feed on you like chum).
Bears_Man2
Footballguy
Why does anyone here listen to this SSOG clown? He knows nothing more than any other Joe who reads internet news sites. All he does is come into every Denver RB thread and rehashes out the same, tired argument over and over, citing Mike Shanahan said this....Ted Sundquist said that....Pony Boy said this...
SSOG, get a clue, no one earns the starting job in April, May, or June. And if you believe that is the case then please join my leagues (we'd feed on you like chum).
Anonymous Internet User
Footballguy
you eat chum?!Why does anyone here listen to this SSOG clown? He knows nothing more than any other Joe who reads internet news sites. All he does is come into every Denver RB thread and rehashes out the same, tired argument over and over, citing Mike Shanahan said this....Ted Sundquist said that....Pony Boy said this...
SSOG, get a clue, no one earns the starting job in April, May, or June. And if you believe that is the case then please join my leagues (we'd feed on you like chum).
Sleeper 43
Footballguy
1. Even best case for Dayne he will split time with Bell.
2. Shanny has said he wants Bell to be the man if he can prove he is durable. 2a Bell is working out hard in this offseason putting on some bulk.
3. Bell has taken advantage of every opportunity hes been given.
Sometimes I wonder how many people actually watched the guy play last year. Maybe we didnt watch the same guy?
If the only knock on Bell is his durability I'll take him 9 times out of 10 over Dayne. Everything I've heard from Bell's mouth I take it as hes highly motivated to prove everyone wrong.
On a final note, last I heard from Shanny is he would love to play Tatum and give him the load he just needs Tatum to prove he can stay healthy.
That doesnt sound like as much of an uphill battle as all the Dayne nutthuggers are making it out to be.
2. Shanny has said he wants Bell to be the man if he can prove he is durable. 2a Bell is working out hard in this offseason putting on some bulk.
3. Bell has taken advantage of every opportunity hes been given.
Sometimes I wonder how many people actually watched the guy play last year. Maybe we didnt watch the same guy?
If the only knock on Bell is his durability I'll take him 9 times out of 10 over Dayne. Everything I've heard from Bell's mouth I take it as hes highly motivated to prove everyone wrong.
On a final note, last I heard from Shanny is he would love to play Tatum and give him the load he just needs Tatum to prove he can stay healthy.
That doesnt sound like as much of an uphill battle as all the Dayne nutthuggers are making it out to be.
Bell's success rate:2005: 43% 29th/532004: 57% 2nd/52 (Q.Griffin was #52 btw)I'd hardly say that's a slamdunk case against him.Dayne's success rate:2003-05: didn't play enough to qualify (sending SSOG scrambling for his own calculation of Dayne's SR, thus missing the point FO makes by not including it in their statistics for small sample size RBs in the first place)2002: 42% 39th/512001: 41% 37th/472000: 45% 20th/46This is SSOG's argument in a nutshell:1. Mike Anderson was really good last year.2. Sundquist said Dayne will fill Anderson's "role" this year.2b. Shanahan said Bell seems to do better not getting too many carries.3. Ron Dayne will more or less duplicate Anderson's numbersThere's also a version of this argument that includes:2c. Dayne has played in x number of games in his career, "proof" that he's durable.I call that the "LHUCKS variation."If you try to bring in statistics to point out that the leap from 2 to 3 is at the least debatable, SSOG confuses the issue by putting together a case against Bell being a workhorse everydown RB for Denver this year. Who's the strawman making that argument?
Nigel Tufnel
Footballguy
SSOG, I think you should put your well-thought out Dayne arguments in your sig. It would beat having to type them out every time.
Bell is liked by Shanny? Bell has routinely been in the dog house with Shanny for missed blocks and questionable effort.
Bell will be the same thing he was last year...a change of pace back with some great games thrown in that nobody can predict. Dayne, much to everybody's dismay, will produce similar numbers to what Anderson had. IMO if you have a late round draft pick and can't think of anybody to draft...Cedric Hobbs and Mike Bell.
Bell will be the same thing he was last year...a change of pace back with some great games thrown in that nobody can predict. Dayne, much to everybody's dismay, will produce similar numbers to what Anderson had. IMO if you have a late round draft pick and can't think of anybody to draft...Cedric Hobbs and Mike Bell.
Like the one up above where he argues that, because Denver loves success rate, the guy with 1 year of excellent success rate and 1 year of average could never be an everydown back for them, and the guy with the career poor success rate will replace the guy who had an excellent success rate last year and put up similar to better* numbers?*I'm guessing better, because SSOG projected less carries for Bell this year than last, and has been in the threads where anyone suggesting another RB could get significant carries for them has been shouted down.
B-Deep
Footballguy
OK, so if #2 is true and #3 is true, then why isn't he an uberstud RB?shanhan likes him and wants him to be a stud, he could be a stud if given a chance, but droughns, Q, mike anderson, and now Dayne are all better options?
Wasn't Anderson getting hurt last year a pretty good chance for Bell to step up?
Nigel Tufnel
Footballguy
I guess. I'm waiting to see how this all shakes out. No opinion either way, really. I'm just saying SSOG has to type more words per post than anyone in here and it's got to take a toll. This isn't meant to be a dig at him, either. I admire his dedication.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
No one is disputing that it will be RBBC. Dayne should get the majority of the workload.
SSOG
Moderator
If nobody earned the starting job in April, May, or June, then why was Mike Anderson such a steal in the 16th last year (or the 6th, for that matter)? And why is Jeff Legwold, a guy who I assure you knows more about the Denver rushing situation than "any other Joe who reads internet news sites", say "When it comes to running back take Mike Shanahan at his word. Ron will enter camp as the starter and it will be tough to nudge him out unless he has a bad preseason or the Broncos don't swing a trade for Ashley Lelie that includes a running back."?If you should be making ANY arguement, it should be that Denver might trade for a new RB, which is a fully valid arguement and the ONLY reason that I would hold off on drafting Dayne.Why does anyone here listen to this SSOG clown? He knows nothing more than any other Joe who reads internet news sites. All he does is come into every Denver RB thread and rehashes out the same, tired argument over and over, citing Mike Shanahan said this....Ted Sundquist said that....Pony Boy said this...
SSOG, get a clue, no one earns the starting job in April, May, or June. And if you believe that is the case then please join my leagues (we'd feed on you like chum).
Also, I love those "if you were in my league!" arguements. If I was in your leagues, I would have grabbed Mike Anderson in the 16th last year and beat you all silly.
You're stretching your points a little bit. I mean, point #1 is valid, but it's equally valid for Bell (even best case has him splitting time). Point #2 is also valid, but point #2a is total bunk. Tatum Bell entered camp last season weighing 213. Because of the wear and tear of the season, he finished at 203, and because of an injury, he couldn't get in the weight room as much as he liked. The last thing that he's said on the subject of "bulking" up is that he's HOPING to open the season at... 213, the exact same weight he opened last season. That's not "bulking up". Point #3 is just flat out incorrect. In week 17 last year, with Anderson out and a chance to not only show Shanny he could carry the load, but ALSO to hit the 1,000 yard mark, he averaged 3.06 yards per carry. Ron Dayne, for the record, averaged 4.92, and his longest run was shorter than Bell's, so that wasn't the result of stat-padding. I would say somebody took advantage of their opportunity in that game, yes. I would be hard pressed to say it was Bell.Also, you're incorrect. The last thing Shanny has said is that he would love to play Tatum and give him the load, he just needs Tatum to prove that his play won't decline so drastically with use. That's a much different thing than staying healthy.
In 2004, Bell got 75 carries and finished 2nd in Success Rate. In 2005, Bell got 173 carries and finished 29th in success rate. Tell me how this isn't a strong case that Bell's carries should be limited?You say I miss the point of FO not including Dayne's success rate because of limited statistics, but you ENTIRELY MISSED THE FACT that if Bell had gotten one fewer carry in 2004, HE WOULD HAVE MISSED THE CUT, TOO. Then we'd be looking at this: Dayne's average success rate IN NEW YORK- 42.7%. Bell's average success rate IN DENVER- 43%.
If you'd rather go by rank than percentages, Dayne ranked, on average, 32nd in the league in success rate in New York, and Bell would have ranked, on average, 29th in the league in success rate IN DENVER. Again, I'd say that gives an advantage to Dayne.
If you remove a single carry from an RB's career and your entire arguement falls apart, I would say it's not a very solid arguement in the first place. Dayne has finished as high as Bell has when both had a limited workload, and he's finished as low as Bell has when he's had a heavier workload, but the difference is that Dayne's heavier workload came on a far worse rushing team.
That's not my arguement in a nutshell. My arguement in a nutshell is as follows.1. According to EVERYONE with any inside knowledge of the situation (Shanahan, Sundquist, Lammey, Legwold... heck, even Bell himself has complained that he doesn't seem to be getting a fair chance)- all people who know more about the situation than SSoG or J R - Dayne is the guy, and that's unlikely to change.
2. According to past history, as well as comments by Shanahan and Sundquist, Tatum Bell will be limited to about a dozen carries a game.
3. According to past history, that will leave 15-17 carries per game for Ron Dayne.
4. 15-17 carries per game times 16 games makes 240-272 carries for the season, if he stays healthy.
5. Given injury histories (Bell has a long one, Dayne does not), it is more likely that BELL gets injured (which would adjust those numbers UPWARDS) than it is that DAYNE gets injured (which would adjust those numbers DOWNWARDS). As a result, I ignore injury entirely as a factor (although, as I said, in fairness, I should probably be shading those numbers upwards just a touch).
6. Denver's leading rusher under Shanahan has averaged 4.2, 4.5, 5.5, 5.5, 4.2, 5.0, 4.2, 5.1, 4.7, and 4.7 ypc. Assuming Dayne conforms to those numbers (which everyone else has), he'll get at least 4.2 ypc, and probably closer to the 4.4+, which translates to anywhere between 1008 yards (240@4.2) to 1197+ yards (272@4.4+).
7. Denver's RBs have accounted for 23, 15, 19, 22, 5, 21, 12, 29, 18, 18, and 15 TDs under Shanahan. This is NOT counting receiving TDs by the fullbacks or H-backs. I choose to ignore the year they scored 5, because I feel like that is an outlier year in every way imagineable for Denver (that was the 2001 season). As a result, the lowest number of TDs Denver generated was 12, and the average was 19.2. I choose to assign 2/3s of those TDs to Dayne, since that's about how many Anderson accounted for in 2005 (not counting the 3 that Bell scored in week 17 with Anderson on the bench). Even if I shade those numbers down and say 50% (which seems like a low percentage for the guy who is supposed to be the goal line back), that's still a low of 6 TDs and an average of 9.5 for Dayne this year. Using my aforementioned 2/3s number, that's anywhere between 8 and 12.8 TDs.
8. In addition to the rushing yardage, Denver's main RB is usually responsible for about 200 yards receiving. The lowest receiving yardage for a featured RB in Denver (not counting 2001) was 169 yards. The featured RB has broken 200 yards receiving in 80% of Shanahan's non-2001 campaigns. I think this is a fairly solid, if conservative, projection.
9. Adding up all of those previous points, Ron Dayne should be in line for anywhere between 1200/6 at the absolute lowest end and 1400/12.8 as a more reasonable average (with the possibility to exceed all projections if Bell gets hurt, if his ypc is better than "below average" for a Denver RB, or if Denver has an above-average rushing season). That's anywhere between 156 and 216.8 fantasy points.
10. Those numbers would have ranked Dayne anywhere between 21st in fantasy points last year, all the way up to just ahead of Anderson at 9th (with the, in my opinion, more reasonable projection). As you can see, I'm not just slotting Dayne in for Anderson's production. I'm actually predicting he'll be less valuable on a per-touch basis, he'll just have more touches than Anderson did.
That's my arguement "in a nutshell". If you have any problems with it, please argue with THOSE points, and not the bastardized points that people keep attributing to me. If you disagree with any of those claims, then please, quote it and respond and we'll discuss it.
I would put my arguements in my sig, but as you can see, they don't condense down well. What I really need to do is just make a thread with all of my arguements in one place, and then link to it in my sig.I don't mind typing a lot of words in response. It forces me to re-evaluate my position a lot. In fact, just during the course of this post, re-evaluating my stance on Dayne caused me to shade my projections for him down a touch, and to add those extra numbers into his "upside" instead. The result? Dayne just dropped two slots in my rankings.
I guess. I'm waiting to see how this all shakes out. No opinion either way, really. I'm just saying SSOG has to type more words per post than anyone in here and it's got to take a toll. This isn't meant to be a dig at him, either. I admire his dedication.
What had Droughns done in 3 years in the NFL to become the #1 RB for the best running team in the NFL over the past 10 years?Right now, I think it will be RBBC, too. I don't think Dayne's going to get much more than 17 carries per game. The difference is, though, that since Denver IS the best running team in the NFL over the past 10 years, 17 carries a game is all he needs.
Nigel Tufnel
Footballguy
I would put my arguements in my sig, but as you can see, they don't condense down well. What I really need to do is just make a thread with all of my arguements in one place, and then link to it in my sig.I don't mind typing a lot of words in response. It forces me to re-evaluate my position a lot. In fact, just during the course of this post, re-evaluating my stance on Dayne caused me to shade my projections for him down a touch, and to add those extra numbers into his "upside" instead. The result? Dayne just dropped two slots in my rankings.
I guess. I'm waiting to see how this all shakes out. No opinion either way, really. I'm just saying SSOG has to type more words per post than anyone in here and it's got to take a toll. This isn't meant to be a dig at him, either. I admire his dedication.
Like I said, didn't mean it as an insult, so I hope you didn't take it that way.
SSOG
Moderator
I certainly didn't. I don't even see how it could be taken as an insult, but maybe I'm missing something.I would put my arguements in my sig, but as you can see, they don't condense down well. What I really need to do is just make a thread with all of my arguements in one place, and then link to it in my sig.I don't mind typing a lot of words in response. It forces me to re-evaluate my position a lot. In fact, just during the course of this post, re-evaluating my stance on Dayne caused me to shade my projections for him down a touch, and to add those extra numbers into his "upside" instead. The result? Dayne just dropped two slots in my rankings.
I guess. I'm waiting to see how this all shakes out. No opinion either way, really. I'm just saying SSOG has to type more words per post than anyone in here and it's got to take a toll. This isn't meant to be a dig at him, either. I admire his dedication.
Nigel Tufnel
Footballguy
I certainly didn't. I don't even see how it could be taken as an insult, but maybe I'm missing something.I would put my arguements in my sig, but as you can see, they don't condense down well. What I really need to do is just make a thread with all of my arguements in one place, and then link to it in my sig.I don't mind typing a lot of words in response. It forces me to re-evaluate my position a lot. In fact, just during the course of this post, re-evaluating my stance on Dayne caused me to shade my projections for him down a touch, and to add those extra numbers into his "upside" instead. The result? Dayne just dropped two slots in my rankings.
I guess. I'm waiting to see how this all shakes out. No opinion either way, really. I'm just saying SSOG has to type more words per post than anyone in here and it's got to take a toll. This isn't meant to be a dig at him, either. I admire his dedication.
Just thought maybe you could have thought I was calling you overly "wordy." But, I wasn't. Atomic Punk
Footballguy
I'm not in either camp ... yet, but I keep reading this reference to the Mike Shanahan quote but in all of these Bell/Dayne threads nobody has ever provided a link to this supposed quote from Shanny.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I've searched for it and can't find anything.
Anyone ??
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I've searched for it and can't find anything.
Anyone ??
Sleeper 43
Footballguy
Hey SSOG in that same article we both read I guess the following held no validity to you?
"Some have pointed to the fact Bell averaged more than 5 yards a carry in five of the Broncos' first eight games last season, then, in the final eight games, averaged more than 5 yards a carry only once - against the Kansas City Chiefs.
Five of the games during the season's second half came after Bell suffered a chest injury Nov. 20 against the New York Jets. Bell said Wednesday the injury, which also kept him out of the Thanksgiving game in Dallas, prevented him from lifting weights as much as he normally would down the stretch."
Sounds like more of an injury than wearing down to me.
"Some have pointed to the fact Bell averaged more than 5 yards a carry in five of the Broncos' first eight games last season, then, in the final eight games, averaged more than 5 yards a carry only once - against the Kansas City Chiefs.
Five of the games during the season's second half came after Bell suffered a chest injury Nov. 20 against the New York Jets. Bell said Wednesday the injury, which also kept him out of the Thanksgiving game in Dallas, prevented him from lifting weights as much as he normally would down the stretch."
Sounds like more of an injury than wearing down to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sleeper 43
Footballguy
And this sounds like a guy whose not dead set on Dayne being the #1 which has been a popular comment lately.
Andrew Mason, of DenverBroncos.com, reports Denver Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan is hoping RB Tatum Bell can become more consistent at the end of games. Shanahan said, "I like Tatum Bell. Any time you get a guy that averages over five yards a carry, it's pretty impressive. I'm hoping that he steps up, stays healthy and does the things that he's capable of doing. He's been very good early in the game and not as consistent at the end of the game and we're hoping he can get over that hump. But I'd sure like to give him the ball more considering how productive he was, and if a guy can average over five yards a carry and get almost 1,000 yards, that means he's pretty good, and hopefully he can get to the next level."
And ultimately I think Shanny calls the shots.
Andrew Mason, of DenverBroncos.com, reports Denver Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan is hoping RB Tatum Bell can become more consistent at the end of games. Shanahan said, "I like Tatum Bell. Any time you get a guy that averages over five yards a carry, it's pretty impressive. I'm hoping that he steps up, stays healthy and does the things that he's capable of doing. He's been very good early in the game and not as consistent at the end of the game and we're hoping he can get over that hump. But I'd sure like to give him the ball more considering how productive he was, and if a guy can average over five yards a carry and get almost 1,000 yards, that means he's pretty good, and hopefully he can get to the next level."
And ultimately I think Shanny calls the shots.
Yoda of the JediKnights
Footballguy
Great *POINTS*!!! Mike "The Other Bell" Bell went undrafted, even though it is rumored that he is a favorite amongst Denver fans. HC Shanahan has a *BIG* ego, and loves to drop a surprise RB onto the other NFL teams, in the form of a *SLEDGEHAMMER*...so to speak of such 'Thangs.In a Keeper/Dynasty/Salary Cap League, humble me is planning on taking RB Mike "The Other Bell" Bell. It is in the early 3rd round, and i don't have a pick until the 4.12. Roster limit is 18, and just 8 rounds this year, with the exception that rounds may go until all Owners reach 18. i currently have 13, and may take RB Mike "The Other Bell" Bell at that point, since i now need only depth at RB & WR, plus a defense and maybe 2 kickers (in case of pre-season injury). i could wait, but the no-news on RB Mike "The Other Bell" Bell may break into *SLEDGEHAMMER* News before my 5.12, and i'm done with waiting after trading my 2.12 and 3.12...so to speak.
Yoda
SSOG, you basically made your case for why Dayne is better rest entirely on SR (I mean aside from the quotes by Sundquist/Shanahan argument). This makes sense, because if you used more obvious stats, you're stuck with Dayne's seasons with the Giants, in which case you would have a difficult time of it. As you may note, if you read my post over again, I'm not claiming Bell has proven necessarily to be better at this stat than Dayne, only that there most clearly is not a case against him, and also not a case in favor of Dayne.Your own post gives this away very clearly, as even when you take out 1 of Bell's 2 seasons in an effort to make your point more convincing, you come up with Dayne and Bell virtually deadlocked at the one statistic you championed as Denver's HOLY GRAIL (i believe you even caps locked that one)--as the one stat that shows why Dayne is better than Bell, even though if we looked at Dayne's career stats we wouldn't see how Dayne could be better.So so far, you've argued that Dayne has to be the RB1 because(1) Bell's effectiveness drops off after 11 carries.(2) Bell isn't a good fit for Denver, because he doesn't have a good SR.I've argued, well not so much argued as bothered to look up the stats for myself, that:(1) Dayne's effectiveness also drops off after 11 carries.(2) Dayne isn't any better than Bell at SR.I point these things out in part to temper the enthusiasm of the pro-Dayne crowd, which you obviously have influenced, because you are making a case against Bell and assuming that's the same thing as making a case for Dayne.
Yoda of the JediKnights
Footballguy
Basically, Denver's history is not a "RBBC" approach...so to speak of T. Bell's value dropping by the second, and the Tic Toc Tic Toc sounds that a clock makes.There is really only one Newbie RB in Denver, the rest (including T. Bell) never made it, and remember that Denver tried to get T. J. Duckett whilst also having Dayne.
RB Mike "The Other Bell" Bell
Enough said...
Yoda
SSOG
Moderator
I think it's very possible that Bell's injury hampered his performance at the end of the season, but concerns were starting to rise about Bell in week 10. He averaged 2.75 ypc against a mediocre Oakland rushing defense, followed that up by averaging 3.4 ypc against a HORRIBLE New York rushing defense before he got injured. Remember, too, that he claimed he was fully healthy and would be ready to go for the Dallas game.Remember, too, before arguing that his performance in the final 8 games of the season wasn't representative of his true ability... Tatum Bell as averaging over 7 yards per carry over the first 8 games of the season. Just in case that doesn't scream "Fluke" to you, here is a list of RBs who never managed to average 7 yards per carry- even in limited action- any season in their entire career.
Clinton Portis
LaDanian Tomlinson
Emmitt Smith
Barry Sanders
Jim Brown
Walter Peyton
Eric Dickerson
Bo Jackson
Pretty much every RB to ever play the sport of football.
Most of those RBs never even broke SIX yards per carry. I would argue that Bell's pace was entirely unsustainable in the first place, and it was only a matter of time before he came crashing back to earth, and that even if he doesn't get injured this season, expecting him to replicate those numbers is overly optimistic.
I agree with Shanahan. If Bell can take what he showed on the early carries and carry it over to his later carries, he will be the next Clinton Portis. He will get 300 carries and 1500 yards and at least a dozen TDs. I mean, like I said, he was averaging SEVEN YARDS PER CARRY last season. And if Michael Bennett had the consistancy of Emmitt Smith, he'd be the greatest RB in the history of football. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen.
Big Score
Footballguy
This SSOG clown, as you call him, was the only poster here at FBG to get the Denver running game right last year. Multiple posters derided him for saying Anderson would be the workhorse and poo poo'ed him to no end. They were all sporting Bell Woody's, that would make the manufacturer of Viagra envious.In hindsight, SSOG was right and the clowns trying to shout him down (much like yourself this year), were the ones who ended up looking pretty stupid.Why does anyone here listen to this SSOG clown? He knows nothing more than any other Joe who reads internet news sites. All he does is come into every Denver RB thread and rehashes out the same, tired argument over and over, citing Mike Shanahan said this....Ted Sundquist said that....Pony Boy said this...
Frank Black
Footballguy
Your question may assume that Ron Dayne will be the man in Denver, or did I miss out on news that Denver has acquired some other RB? If your post assumes that Dayne will be the man, I simply don't know how to answer your post because Daye will NOT be the man.
Frank Black
Footballguy
SSOG, as long as you're still posting in this thread, I have a couple of Qs for you.
(1) You projected Bell to get less carries than last year. Do you project Dayne to get more carries than Anderson?
(2) FG right now projects Dayne to average 4.6 ypc, or .4 more than Anderson a year ago, .9 more than Dayne in his career. Too high or about right?
(1) You projected Bell to get less carries than last year. Do you project Dayne to get more carries than Anderson?
(2) FG right now projects Dayne to average 4.6 ypc, or .4 more than Anderson a year ago, .9 more than Dayne in his career. Too high or about right?
Yoda of the JediKnights
Footballguy
Well, even Shanahan can make mistakes, and he proved it by drafting T. Bell...in what, the second round of the 2004 NFL Draft!?! That was sooooooooooo un-Shanahan like, huh. Basically, T. spoiled Shanahan's previous record, and Bell is at best, an embarrassment to such a record. How does Shanahan reclaim his record, whilst soothing his ego?!? i suspect, by taking an un-Drafted RB, and featuring him as Denver's *MAIN* RB in Denver...in 2006.
Just my humble opinion,
Yoda
SSOG
Moderator
(1) Yes, I project him to get more carries than Anderson, simply because Anderson missed two games last season and was limited in a couple of others. I'm making my projections as if no one in Denver will get injured- which means I'm projecting Dayne to two full games more work than Anderson had. Like I said, I anticipate Dayne getting 15-17 carries a game, which equals out to 240-272 carries for the season. Mike Anderson last year had 238 carries.Also, I'm not really projecting fewer carries for Bell. Actually, I'm projecting about 20 more carries, again because I'm not concerned with injuries at the moment, and Bell definitely lost carries due to injury. I've got him down for 12 carries a game, which over 16 games makes for 192 carries, 19 more than he had last year.
I *am* projecting a slight decline in total carries, but I expect most of those to come from the RB3 position. This is the projection that I waver the most on- how many fewer times Denver will run this season, and where those carries will come from- Dayne, Bell, or RB3 (Cobbs)?
(2) Too high, but not unreasonably so. I have him at 4.4 ypc, but think there's a very good possibility that he outperforms that. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him finish anywhere between 4.2 and 4.6 yards per carry, although I would be shocked to see him finish at either 4.0 or 4.8 yards per carry.
