The Reason For Mike Bell Being Inactive This Week (1 Viewer)

[packersfan]

From John Clayton:

The reason Broncos rookie halfback Mike Bell and tight end Tony Scheffler were inactive Sunday came down to decisions by Mike Shanahan about their performances lately. It had nothing to do with discipline. The Broncos thought Mike Bell left too many yards on the field last week against the Steelers, so they went with Tatum Bell as the starter. Tatum Bell missed last week's game with toe injuries on each foot. Scheffler has three starts but he only has six catches for 67 yards in eight games. Shanahan wanted to go another way.

 

[malice]

From John Clayton:The reason Broncos rookie halfback Mike Bell and tight end Tony Scheffler were inactive Sunday came down to decisions by Mike Shanahan about their performances lately. It had nothing to do with discipline. The Broncos thought Mike Bell left too many yards on the field last week against the Steelers, so they went with Tatum Bell as the starter. Tatum Bell missed last week's game with toe injuries on each foot. Scheffler has three starts but he only has six catches for 67 yards in eight games. Shanahan wanted to go another way.

Now wait a minute- I don't buy the Scheffler talk at all.He caught every pass thrown to him in the Colts game (and had a 3 yd run on a reverse). He didn't have a single target in the PIT game. If anything, they've been underutilizing him. Maybe he's not as good of a blocker as they need him to be, but he's definitely a better receiving threat than Stephen Alexander.

 

[CrossEyed]

From John Clayton:The reason Broncos rookie halfback Mike Bell and tight end Tony Scheffler were inactive Sunday came down to decisions by Mike Shanahan about their performances lately. It had nothing to do with discipline. The Broncos thought Mike Bell left too many yards on the field last week against the Steelers, so they went with Tatum Bell as the starter. Tatum Bell missed last week's game with toe injuries on each foot. Scheffler has three starts but he only has six catches for 67 yards in eight games. Shanahan wanted to go another way.

Somebody might want to call Shanahan and tell him how long it's been since ANY RB has had a good game on the ground against Pittsburgh.

 

[phillzphan]

From John Clayton:The reason Broncos rookie halfback Mike Bell and tight end Tony Scheffler were inactive Sunday came down to decisions by Mike Shanahan about their performances lately. It had nothing to do with discipline. The Broncos thought Mike Bell left too many yards on the field last week against the Steelers, so they went with Tatum Bell as the starter. Tatum Bell missed last week's game with toe injuries on each foot. Scheffler has three starts but he only has six catches for 67 yards in eight games. Shanahan wanted to go another way.

Somebody might want to call Shanahan and tell him how long it's been since ANY RB has had a good game on the ground against Pittsburgh.

if there were holes and shanny saw MBell missed a lot, then there were yards "left on the field". On top of that, there is a lot more than his stat line may show. I'm sure shanny saw the tape of the game. He didn't just look at fantasy performances of other RBs vs. Pitt and say its OK.

 

[JuniorNB]

I wonder if he was happy with Tatum and Damien's performance yesterday(against Oakland, no less).

 

[snogger]

I wonder if he was happy with Tatum and Damien's performance yesterday(against Oakland, no less).

 

[Da Guru]

I did hear on the NFL Network that the Denver staff thinks Mike Bell runs up the backs of his blockers, sometimes hitting them first and going down before he is even hit by the defense.

From here on in you are rolling the dice with any Denver RB.

 

[Warpig]

From John Clayton:The reason Broncos rookie halfback Mike Bell and tight end Tony Scheffler were inactive Sunday came down to decisions by Mike Shanahan about their performances lately. It had nothing to do with discipline. The Broncos thought Mike Bell left too many yards on the field last week against the Steelers, so they went with Tatum Bell as the starter. Tatum Bell missed last week's game with toe injuries on each foot. Scheffler has three starts but he only has six catches for 67 yards in eight games. Shanahan wanted to go another way.

Now wait a minute- I don't buy the Scheffler talk at all.He caught every pass thrown to him in the Colts game (and had a 3 yd run on a reverse). He didn't have a single target in the PIT game. If anything, they've been underutilizing him. Maybe he's not as good of a blocker as they need him to be, but he's definitely a better receiving threat than Stephen Alexander.

In the games I've seen, Plummer's throws have barely been in the general direction of Scheffler. The poor guy has had to lay out or contort his body to make a play on them. I don't think it's Schefflers abilities that have hindered him...it's Plummer's accuracy (or lack thereof). But Skeletor would never say anything bad about his handpicked qb.

 

[TinHat]

MBell didn't look so good vs Pitt -- I think he was too nervous, but the Denver O runs very smoothly with him in there and looks like garbage when tatum is in there.

 

[JuniorNB]

Bottom line is, Mike Bell is better than the Tatum Bell that is being forced out there at this point in time.

I know that Shanahan is known as a great motivator, but this error nearly cost them a divisional game.

 

[Foosball God]

Bring on Cedric Cobbs!!

 

[Biabreakable]

From here on in you are rolling the dice with any Denver RB.

This is the status quo.

 

[zamboni]

From John Clayton:The reason Broncos rookie halfback Mike Bell and tight end Tony Scheffler were inactive Sunday came down to decisions by Mike Shanahan about their performances lately. It had nothing to do with discipline. The Broncos thought Mike Bell left too many yards on the field last week against the Steelers, so they went with Tatum Bell as the starter. Tatum Bell missed last week's game with toe injuries on each foot. Scheffler has three starts but he only has six catches for 67 yards in eight games. Shanahan wanted to go another way.

Somebody might want to call Shanahan and tell him how long it's been since ANY RB has had a good game on the ground against Pittsburgh.

Given his long-term track record, normally I think it's safe to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt. But I think his ego is really starting to get in his own way.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

Bottom line is, Mike Bell is better than the Tatum Bell that is being forced out there at this point in time. I know that Shanahan is known as a great motivator, but this error nearly cost them a divisional game.

Dude...I'm sorry, but Mike isn't going to blow up for you. Just accept it.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Bring on Cedric Cobbs!!

 

[Couch Potato]

Given his long-term track record, normally I think it's safe to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt. But I think his ego is really starting to get in his own way.

I'm not willing to just assume he ever said this. I've not seen it anywhere except from John Clayton, and I think ESPN guys are increasingly dreaming #### up instead of just reporting from actual sources, now that they have to compete with NFL Network. This has been the worst year ever for ESPN being way off base on things. I don't believe half of what they say any more, not ever from John Turtleface Clayton.

 

[JuniorNB]

Bottom line is, Mike Bell is better than the Tatum Bell that is being forced out there at this point in time.

I know that Shanahan is known as a great motivator, but this error nearly cost them a divisional game.

Dude...I'm sorry, but Mike a Denver running back isn't going to blow up for you. Just accept it.

Fixed.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

Bottom line is, Mike Bell is better than the Tatum Bell that is being forced out there at this point in time.

I know that Shanahan is known as a great motivator, but this error nearly cost them a divisional game.

Dude...I'm sorry, but Mike a Denver running back isn't going to blow up for you. Just accept it.

Fixed.

I actually agree with you. The state of affairs in the Denver backfield doesn't look so hot at the moment. But I don't think the benching of Mike "almost cost them the game".

 

[JuniorNB]

Bottom line is, Mike Bell is better than the Tatum Bell that is being forced out there at this point in time.

I know that Shanahan is known as a great motivator, but this error nearly cost them a divisional game.

Dude...I'm sorry, but Mike a Denver running back isn't going to blow up for you. Just accept it.

Fixed.

I actually agree with you. The state of affairs in the Denver backfield doesn't look so hot at the moment. But I don't think the benching of Mike "almost cost them the game".

Tatum Bell looked horrible yesterday. I know he's not a horrible back, but he's running horribly with his injury. Shanahan was trying to teach Mike Bell a lesson. It did almost backfire. No running game allowed the terrible Raiders to stay close. His move of inactivating Mike Bell "almost cost them the game". No doubt about it. Playing an injuured back over a healthy one is a mistake that most Pop Warner coaches wouoldn't make.

 

[packersfan]

Maybe Tatum looked really good in practice and showed no ill effects of his injuries. That's certainly possible and if so, it makes sense for Shanahan to go back to him since he's been the best RB on the team for the bulk of the season. So without knowing what went on in practice I think it's only fair to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt here.

But there's no question Tatum looked bad. Nash looked overmatched and he definitely wasn't the answer. Given that, I wouldn't expect to see Mike Bell inactive again anytime soon unless he really is buried in Shanahan's dog house for reasons other than a poor game against Pittsburgh.

 

[JuniorNB]

Maybe Tatum looked really good in practice and showed no ill effects of his injuries. That's certainly possible and if so, it makes sense for Shanahan to go back to him since he's been the best RB on the team for the bulk of the season. So without knowing what went on in practice I think it's only fair to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt here.But there's no question Tatum looked bad. Nash looked overmatched and he definitely wasn't the answer. Given that, I wouldn't expect to see Mike Bell inactive again anytime soon unless he really is buried in Shanahan's dog house for reasons other than a poor game against Pittsburgh.

I tend to think it goes a little deeper than Shanny is letting on.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

From John Clayton:The reason Broncos rookie halfback Mike Bell and tight end Tony Scheffler were inactive Sunday came down to decisions by Mike Shanahan about their performances lately. It had nothing to do with discipline. The Broncos thought Mike Bell left too many yards on the field last week against the Steelers, so they went with Tatum Bell as the starter. Tatum Bell missed last week's game with toe injuries on each foot. Scheffler has three starts but he only has six catches for 67 yards in eight games. Shanahan wanted to go another way.

Now wait a minute- I don't buy the Scheffler talk at all.He caught every pass thrown to him in the Colts game (and had a 3 yd run on a reverse). He didn't have a single target in the PIT game. If anything, they've been underutilizing him. Maybe he's not as good of a blocker as they need him to be, but he's definitely a better receiving threat than Stephen Alexander.

In the games I've seen, Plummer's throws have barely been in the general direction of Scheffler. The poor guy has had to lay out or contort his body to make a play on them. I don't think it's Schefflers abilities that have hindered him...it's Plummer's accuracy (or lack thereof). But Skeletor would never say anything bad about his handpicked qb.

Are the other denver receivers having to do this too? Maybe Plummer's throwing to the right spot and Sheffler is running the route incorrectly so he's not in position to make the catch.

 

[Lord of the Rings]

Bottom line is, Mike Bell is better than the Tatum Bell that is being forced out there at this point in time. I know that Shanahan is known as a great motivator, but this error nearly cost them a divisional game.

Dude...I'm sorry, but Mike isn't going to blow up for you. Just accept it.

I watched all of the Indy-Denver game a couple weeks ago. Mike blew up! Granted it was the swiss cheese Indy D, but Tatum didn't do well at all in the offense. When Mike came it, he hit the holes quickly and with authority. His cutback was absolutely wicked. I seriously thought to myself that this 2 horse Bell race was history, based on Mike's performance. Not sure what happened since then, other than the obvious, they played against better defenses. With Tatum nursing foot injuries, I figured Mike would get more carries, not less. And I certainly didn't think he would be inactive this week. Weird stuff.

 

[brewer]

Maybe Tatum looked really good in practice and showed no ill effects of his injuries. That's certainly possible and if so, it makes sense for Shanahan to go back to him since he's been the best RB on the team for the bulk of the season. So without knowing what went on in practice I think it's only fair to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt here.But there's no question Tatum looked bad. Nash looked overmatched and he definitely wasn't the answer. Given that, I wouldn't expect to see Mike Bell inactive again anytime soon unless he really is buried in Shanahan's dog house for reasons other than a poor game against Pittsburgh.

I tend to think it goes a little deeper than Shanny is letting on.

To deactivate a healthy Mike Bell in favor of Nash doesn't make any sense to me at all unless it has something to do with matters outside the lines.

 

[JuniorNB]

Maybe Tatum looked really good in practice and showed no ill effects of his injuries. That's certainly possible and if so, it makes sense for Shanahan to go back to him since he's been the best RB on the team for the bulk of the season. So without knowing what went on in practice I think it's only fair to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt here.But there's no question Tatum looked bad. Nash looked overmatched and he definitely wasn't the answer. Given that, I wouldn't expect to see Mike Bell inactive again anytime soon unless he really is buried in Shanahan's dog house for reasons other than a poor game against Pittsburgh.

I tend to think it goes a little deeper than Shanny is letting on.

To deactivate a healthy Mike Bell in favor of Nash doesn't make any sense to me at all unless it has something to do with matters outside the lines.

Exactly. I'm not sure the public will ever know the true reason, but I'm sure Bell does.You don't inactivate a runner, two weeks removed from an awesome performance, just because he had a bad game against a top rushing defense. Especially with your number one guy banged up.I'm not disagreeing with Shanahan's decision to start Tatum Bell. However, not having Mike Bell be the backup had better be for disciplinary reasons and not because he felt theat he forgot how to be a running back in one week.

 

[packersfan]

Tatum didn't do well at all in the offense.

He was leading the AFC in rushing prior to the Colts game. Tatum Bell was doing a very good job as the starting RB prior to his injury.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

(waiving finger)..."Shanahan...you sly old fox you"....

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I wish they'd just give Sapp a shot.

 

[Two Deep]

The answer may be that Shanny is going completely insane. I agree that you don't make what amounts to at least your 2nd best running back inactive when you know your feature back is nursing a turf toe. It is probably most certainly a ploy to motivate Mike Bell.