What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Thoughts on Denver's 06 backfield? (1 Viewer)

Rushmore

Footballguy
Same as this year? Bell featured more? Anderson be a great value pick, as he drops again for fear of Bell (or drafted rb)? Any predictions?

 
Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.The Dayne Train rumbles, stumbles, and bumbles on...

 
Shanny will draft Michael Hart of Michigan in the 2nd or the 3rd to make it more cloudy.
Michael Hart is a 1st round grade RB and isnt eligible for another year yet.
 
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.
:goodposting: I agree. IF Mike Anderson is for some reason phased out, I'd put my money on Dayne to get 20 a game before Bell.Football is about moving the chains and guys like Bell leave you with too many 2nd or 3rd and 8's. And coaches just aren't willing to sacrifice drives waiting for that 50 yard home run.
 
Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.

The Dayne Train rumbles, stumbles, and bumbles on...
...and Dayne performed quite well when given the opportunity this year at 5.2 a carry. However, is he a good enough pass blocker and receiver to be on the field enough to get twenty carries? Don't forget that Anderson was the best overall package to have on the field, so he got the bulk of the work this season. We won't know until the pre-season but I do agree that Dayne will definitely be in the hunt to be the starter in 2006.

 
Shanny will draft Michael Hart of Michigan in the 2nd or the 3rd to make it more cloudy.
Michael Hart is a 1st round grade RB and isnt eligible for another year yet.
Maybe he has the talent for the first round, but he's been injured almost all year and hasn't done much of anything. He is a sophmore though. He was absolutely shut down last night in the bowl game against Nebraska, and was completely healthy for once.
 
Plummer will hand someone the ball. Seriously, I have no idea this early for next year in the confusing mess that is the Denver RB situation. This year it was pretty clear early on the Anderson was the guy, yet there was still a ton of debate. Bell has put up a fair amount of yards while Anderson has been dinged, but hasn't outplayed Anderson. Dayne has shown flashes. We'll talk again during pre-season.

 
Bell will be back but they dont intend to feature him full time. Anderson is old. If Dayne extends they could get by another year with these three guys plus whatever they can steal from other team's leftovers. Dont think for a second that means Shanny wont look for a new young back. Look for them to draft another and keep an eye on who they pick up on waivers as well.

 
1)Anderson back to fullback/goal line duty until he gets hurt2)Bell remains a change of pace, scat back (ie, D. Meggett)3)Dayne is gone4)Shanny drafts yet ANOTHER RB in the 3rd-4th round. The saga continues......

 
Anderson is the "starter" but splits carries with Bell who is looking more and more like Warrick Dunn.Dayne is a joke and won't get a sniff at the starter's role.

 
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.
:goodposting: I agree. IF Mike Anderson is for some reason phased out, I'd put my money on Dayne to get 20 a game before Bell.

Football is about moving the chains and guys like Bell leave you with too many 2nd or 3rd and 8's. And coaches just aren't willing to sacrifice drives waiting for that 50 yard home run.
in my dynasty league after i was knocked out of the playoffs i dropped mike anderson & grabbed ron dayne.thats how much i believe in dayne.

 
I think Bell will put on more mass in the off-season, come in and win the job in '06.
The problem is, if Bell puts on mass, does he lose speed? His game has always been speed, and if he loses some, he might find himself dropping down the depth chart instead of moving up. Besides, he has had a propensity to get nicked up a lot so far in his admittedly still young career.
Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.

The Dayne Train rumbles, stumbles, and bumbles on...
Dayne didn't beat out Anderson this season, and I don't know that he will next season, either. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter is most definitely NOT because he isn't all that talented. It's because he's had to fight with Terrell Davis and Clinton Portis for carries, but didn't have to fight with ANYONE for blocking duties. Shanahan said he switched Anderson to FB because Anderson was too talented to leave wasting away on the bench as a #2/#3 RB. Shanny wanted to keep him on the field.I'd say Anderson still has another good year or two left in him. I'll pick Dayne to beat him out as soon as Dayne shows me something, anything, saying he's worthy of beating out Anderson.

1)Anderson back to fullback/goal line duty until he gets hurt

2)Bell remains a change of pace, scat back (ie, D. Meggett)

3)Dayne is gone

4)Shanny drafts yet ANOTHER RB in the 3rd-4th round.

The saga continues......
Anderson is most definitely NOT going back to fullback. Kyle Johnson is the current Denver FB, and Shanahan is extremely happy with him. I strongly doubt that Shanahan would move Anderson there and have him compete, especially since the RB corps is a lot more fragile than the FB corps (the backup FB, Cecil Sapp, is more than capable). Even if Anderson loses the starting job, I believe he'll remain an RB.You have one thing right on, though- Shanahan will draft another RB this season. He drafts an RB *every* season.

How do *I* see next season shaking out? It's still awfully early, and a lot of things will shape events. First, let's see how Bell performs in the featured role this week. Second, let's see if the Broncos sign Dayne to an extended contract (more than a 1 year extension). Third, let's see JUST HOW HIGH the Broncos draft an RB. If the Broncos don't sign Dayne to a multi-year deal, and if the Broncos don't take an RB with a first-day draft pick, then I suspect Anderson retains the starting job for another year. If either of those things happens, then we're going to have to wait until we get to training camps and see what happens.

I still believe that Anderson is the best suited RB to keep this offense running at the highest level possible, though.

 
Denver will be one of the best rushing teams in the league (again) no matter who is toting the rock.Not good for fantasy ballers if it's a comittee again, but superb for the Broncos. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

 
Denver will be one of the best rushing teams in the league (again) no matter who is toting the rock.

Not good for fantasy ballers if it's a comittee again, but superb for the Broncos. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I dunno, it wasn't too bad this season. Anderson was still a top-10 commodity. Just don't start him against the 3-4.
 
Bell will probably be in the same role. He is still very valuable to them though...many backs aren't this fast.

 
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.
:goodposting: I agree. IF Mike Anderson is for some reason phased out, I'd put my money on Dayne to get 20 a game before Bell.

Football is about moving the chains and guys like Bell leave you with too many 2nd or 3rd and 8's. And coaches just aren't willing to sacrifice drives waiting for that 50 yard home run.
in my dynasty league after i was knocked out of the playoffs i dropped mike anderson & grabbed ron dayne.thats how much i believe in dayne.
:eek:
 
I'd like to see what Bell could do with 20 carries or more for a few games in a row. Maybe he couldn't handle it, but I'd like to at least see what he could do with the chance. I'm anxious to see him run this week, though it's a shame that it's against a 3-4 Defense like San Diego's. It'll be a tough matchup for him. I had both Denver backs this year and played musical chairs with them for a while. Finally, i realized that the safest bet was to keep Anderson in, despite the excitement and homerun threat that Bell brings. I'm going to have to decide after the NFL draft if I want to keep Bell, Anderson, or neither. All three scenarios seem equally likely at this point.

 
Don't count Kevan Barlow out of the equation........ :eek:

Shanny could make a play for him. :rolleyes:
You do bring up a good point. IIRC, when the Niners drafted Barlow, Shanahan supposedly congratulated Mooch on grabbing the best RB in the draft (which included LT, I believe).Shanny's opinion may have changed about Barlow, but that doesn't mean Shanahan still doesn't think highly of the guy.

If Shanny can rejuvenate Dayne's career, one would think he can certainly do it with Barlow (who's proven more than Dayne has).

 
Denver will be one of the best rushing teams in the league (again) no matter who is toting the rock.

Not good for fantasy ballers if it's a comittee again, but superb for the Broncos. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I dunno, it wasn't too bad this season. Anderson was still a top-10 commodity. Just don't start him against the 3-4.
Why not? Quick LBs are the death of this blocking scheme or what? :shock: What's the word on Barlow and Shanahan's infatuation w/ him?

 
Don't know how much he'll play, but one I will be watching very closely next year in training camp is Cedric Cobbs.
:goodposting: i keep wondering how this guy will turn out. do you think his problems at NE were attitude or did they just cut bait on the injury?

the other question i have is can shanny straighten him out? does he even need 'straightening out'? he seems to be off of most FBG radar.

 
As an official Pats homer, I can tell you that Cobbs was cut for lacking desire, not talent. He was said to just not "want it". Meaning he was just happy to be there, didn't practice hard, didn't care to succeed.There's a definition of washout if I ever saw one. Stay far, far away.Back on track: I am a Bell and Barlow owner so I'm mixed. MA did get nicked up alot this year, and I can only think that propensity increases as time goes on.

 
I'd like to see what Bell could do with 20 carries or more for a few games in a row. Maybe he couldn't handle it, but I'd like to at least see what he could do with the chance. I'm anxious to see him run this week, though it's a shame that it's against a 3-4 Defense like San Diego's. It'll be a tough matchup for him. I had both Denver backs this year and played musical chairs with them for a while. Finally, i realized that the safest bet was to keep Anderson in, despite the excitement and homerun threat that Bell brings. I'm going to have to decide after the NFL draft if I want to keep Bell, Anderson, or neither. All three scenarios seem equally likely at this point.
Here's a preview for you:http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6800/s...UGnSE5_Pxn.uLYF

Carries 1-5: 65/369/2, 5.7 per.

Carries 6-10: 53/399/2, 7.5 per.

Carries 11-15: 34/92/1, 2.7 per.

Carries 16-20: 4/9/0, 2.3 per.

I dunno, it wasn't too bad this season. Anderson was still a top-10 commodity. Just don't start him against the 3-4.
Why not? Quick LBs are the death of this blocking scheme or what? :shock:
I'm not going to look the numbers up again, so I'll summarize. Over the past 3 seasons, Denver has faced the 3-4 defense something like 15 times. During that 3 year span, only TWICE have they matched or exceeded their season average in yards, carries, OR yards per carry. Both times were against Oakland last year, who was simply ABYSMAL against the run.Even during the preseason, Denver's RBs ran for 200+ yards every single game against the 4-3, but only 80 yards against the 3-4 HOUSTON TEXANS.

 
As an official Pats homer, I can tell you that Cobbs was cut for lacking desire, not talent. He was said to just not "want it". Meaning he was just happy to be there, didn't practice hard, didn't care to succeed.

There's a definition of washout if I ever saw one. Stay far, far away.

Back on track: I am a Bell and Barlow owner so I'm mixed. MA did get nicked up alot this year, and I can only think that propensity increases as time goes on.
Cobbs seems to have had that problem (along with many injuries) dating back to his days at Arkansas.
 
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.
:goodposting: I agree. IF Mike Anderson is for some reason phased out, I'd put my money on Dayne to get 20 a game before Bell.

Football is about moving the chains and guys like Bell leave you with too many 2nd or 3rd and 8's. And coaches just aren't willing to sacrifice drives waiting for that 50 yard home run.
I believe today's game in SD went a long way to showing how right you both are. If Anderson doesn't get the work load next year, it should definitely be Dayne. Today Dayne had 13 carries for 64 yds while Bell had 17 for 52. I like Bell and Shanahan has used him perfectly for the most part. However, he is not as good for short yardage plays or as a power runner. If he gets good blocks and breaks it, he's gone. He should continue to be a great reliever for Anderson or Dayne. Dayne might even be a better short yardage back than Anderson and fits Denver's system very well. Anderson gets the nod for blocking and short pass plays to the flat, but Dayne should be his replacement rather than Bell. I've seen Bell crushed and stopped cold in too many games this year. All this said, I should definitely acknowledge that Shanahan trusted Bell to pick up the goal line yardage for 3 TDs today - and it was some of the best short yardage he picked up all season. After watching every Broncos game this season, I still think Dayne is the best option if Anderson is phased out in the future. :football:
 
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Ron Dayne will be the starting RB next season with Bell still heavily involved as the 2nd RB. Dayne will have a year under his belt. The reason Anderson hasn't been a starter for most of his career is that he just isn't all that talented. Ron Dayne is a former Heisman winner just waiting for the right system, and he has found it in Denver.
:goodposting: I agree. IF Mike Anderson is for some reason phased out, I'd put my money on Dayne to get 20 a game before Bell.

Football is about moving the chains and guys like Bell leave you with too many 2nd or 3rd and 8's. And coaches just aren't willing to sacrifice drives waiting for that 50 yard home run.
I believe today's game in SD went a long way to showing how right you both are. If Anderson doesn't get the work load next year, it should definitely be Dayne. Today Dayne had 13 carries for 64 yds while Bell had 17 for 52. I like Bell and Shanahan has used him perfectly for the most part. However, he is not as good for short yardage plays or as a power runner. If he gets good blocks and breaks it, he's gone. He should continue to be a great reliever for Anderson or Dayne. Dayne might even be a better short yardage back than Anderson and fits Denver's system very well. Anderson gets the nod for blocking and short pass plays to the flat, but Dayne should be his replacement rather than Bell. I've seen Bell crushed and stopped cold in too many games this year. All this said, I should definitely acknowledge that Shanahan trusted Bell to pick up the goal line yardage for 3 TDs today - and it was some of the best short yardage he picked up all season. After watching every Broncos game this season, I still think Dayne is the best option if Anderson is phased out in the future. :football:
Dayne is a horrible short yardage back for a big guy...he has no burst and little instinct to find a crack in the line. He didn't have a carry until the 3rd quarter today, Bell carried the rock when the starters where in the game.Don't waste your time on Dayne, he's strictly filler material.

 
SSOG, your numbers have some serious sample size issues. Bell went 4 for 9 on carries 16-20 and that's what's going to make someone decide he can't handle the load? That trendline doesn't even hold up if you go back to 2004 (6.5 ypc on 11-20 carries versus 5.0 on 1-10 carries). Maybe Bell can't handle 20 carries a game consistently, but you're not going to prove it with those splits.

 
Dayne is a horrible short yardage back for a big guy...he has no burst and little instinct to find a crack in the line. He didn't have a carry until the 3rd quarter today, Bell carried the rock when the starters where in the game.

Don't waste your time on Dayne, he's strictly filler material.
Yes, yes, yes, that was the word on Dayne coming out of New York. And I can see he's done nothing to prove that wrong. Except, of course, averaging over 5 yards a carry (first time in his career he's broken FOUR yards a carry, actually). And pretty much saving two games for Denver.Tell me, was San Diego playing its reserves at the end of the week 2 game, to keep them fresh for week 3? And was Dallas playing its reserves in overtime on Thanksgiving?

For the record, San Diego played its starters all game, just like it was a meaningful game. Schotty really wanted those 10 wins bad. Dayne played when the starters were TIRED, true, but the starters were still in.

I'm seriously beginning to question if maybe Ron Dayne is Mike Shanahan's secret weapon against the 3-4, though. :shock:

SSOG, your numbers have some serious sample size issues. Bell went 4 for 9 on carries 16-20 and that's what's going to make someone decide he can't handle the load? That trendline doesn't even hold up if you go back to 2004 (6.5 ypc on 11-20 carries versus 5.0 on 1-10 carries). Maybe Bell can't handle 20 carries a game consistently, but you're not going to prove it with those splits.
I never meant to pretend that my numbers DIDN'T have sample size issues. That's why I listed the carries and the yards AS WELL as the yards per carry- so that people could draw their own conclusions. Actually, the first time I posted those numbers, I posted a big disclaimer about how they suffered from sample size issues, but I was too lazy to retype it all this time.Trust me, I'm not trying to pull a fast one on anyone. *YOUR* numbers, on the other hand, definitely are misleading. Yes, he had more ypc on 11-20 than 1-10... but he only had 15 carries from 11-20, which means your numbers are just as biased by a small sample size as mine were, but you didn't make your sample size bias apparent by posting carry counts.

Here, here are Tatum Bell's career averages. Again, please pay close attention to sample sizes before deciding how much weight you are going to put on these numbers, I'm merely providing these numbers for informational purposes.

1-5: 108/568/3, 5.3 ypc

6-10: 80/520/5, 6.5 ypc

11-15: 51/198/2, 3.9

16-20: 9/31/1, 3.4

Please note two things: First, those numbers include this week's totals. Second: Mike Shanahan STILL hasn't given Bell more than 17 carries in a single game, despite Mike Anderson not even suiting up this week. This would concern me if I was counting on Tatum Bell to carry the load, but as I mentioned before, one good offseason and all the concerns in the world will disappear.

 
I am a huge Tatum supporter....but I don't think he would ever take alead role....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.

 
SSOG, don't misread me here, i've definitely appreciated and gained from your reading of the Denver RBs this year. but it 'did' look like you were trying to pull a fast one with those stats. i'm not trying to mislead with my numbers, but demonstrate that those small samples are indeed meaningless because two different conclusions could be drawn from the two sets of numbers (2004 and 05). if you ignore the small number of carries, you look at 2005 and say, man the guy can't carry the load. but you could look at 2004 and say, the guy just needs to get the carries. the fact of the matter is that those stats don't prove anything, which is what makes it so interesting to debate...

Here we go again. A whole offseason of Bell, Dayne, and Anderson supporters wailing away at each other. Sigh.
...unless however you think it's more fun to pop in and take a stupid potshot at a strawman. are lines like this one computer-generated or something? any issue that doesn't reach consensus by a certain number of threads gets these kinds of posts.
 
....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.
Got a link?
:cry:
ANALYSISPositives: Has a well-defined, muscular body with room to add additional bulk … Uses his quick initial step to burst through the holes … Shows good instincts and vision to see the rush lanes and tacklers … Has the strength to break tackles running inside and the speed to get to the corner, displaying above-average balance to turn it up field … Has made steady improvement in utilizing his second gear to break free in the open field … Adequate route runner who gets the job done on curls, flats and dump-offs … Has the blocking form and change-of-direction agility to pick up stunts and will not hesitate to take on a pass rusher … His ability to make the initial tackler miss brings back memories of another OSU great, Thurman Thomas (not as good a receiver, though) … Has a very fast running stride and looks natural bouncing off tackles when redirecting in-line.

NFL.com

 
Last edited by a moderator:
....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.
Got a link?
:cry:
ANALYSISPositives: Has a well-defined, muscular body with room to add additional bulk … Uses his quick initial step to burst through the holes … Shows good instincts and vision to see the rush lanes and tacklers … Has the strength to break tackles running inside and the speed to get to the corner, displaying above-average balance to turn it up field … Has made steady improvement in utilizing his second gear to break free in the open field … Adequate route runner who gets the job done on curls, flats and dump-offs … Has the blocking form and change-of-direction agility to pick up stunts and will not hesitate to take on a pass rusher … His ability to make the initial tackler miss brings back memories of another OSU great, Thurman Thomas (not as good a receiver, though) … Has a very fast running stride and looks natural bouncing off tackles when redirecting in-line.
I've watched EVERY play from scrimmage by the Broncos this year and have Bell on 2 of my teams....I watch him closely and I must say that he has good vision on sweeps and tosses...but misses many holes in the interior. Maybe what he lacks is patience in that situation....rather then vision.
 
....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.
Got a link?
:cry:
ANALYSISPositives: Has a well-defined, muscular body with room to add additional bulk … Uses his quick initial step to burst through the holes … Shows good instincts and vision to see the rush lanes and tacklers … Has the strength to break tackles running inside and the speed to get to the corner, displaying above-average balance to turn it up field … Has made steady improvement in utilizing his second gear to break free in the open field … Adequate route runner who gets the job done on curls, flats and dump-offs … Has the blocking form and change-of-direction agility to pick up stunts and will not hesitate to take on a pass rusher … His ability to make the initial tackler miss brings back memories of another OSU great, Thurman Thomas (not as good a receiver, though) … Has a very fast running stride and looks natural bouncing off tackles when redirecting in-line.
I've watched EVERY play from scrimmage by the Broncos this year and have Bell on 2 of my teams....I watch him closely and I must say that he has good vision on sweeps and tosses...but misses many holes in the interior. Maybe what he lacks is patience in that situation....rather then vision.
I wonder how well Bell would do in a different city. I think he has Portis talent.
 
....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.
Got a link?
:cry:
ANALYSISPositives: Has a well-defined, muscular body with room to add additional bulk … Uses his quick initial step to burst through the holes … Shows good instincts and vision to see the rush lanes and tacklers … Has the strength to break tackles running inside and the speed to get to the corner, displaying above-average balance to turn it up field … Has made steady improvement in utilizing his second gear to break free in the open field … Adequate route runner who gets the job done on curls, flats and dump-offs … Has the blocking form and change-of-direction agility to pick up stunts and will not hesitate to take on a pass rusher … His ability to make the initial tackler miss brings back memories of another OSU great, Thurman Thomas (not as good a receiver, though) … Has a very fast running stride and looks natural bouncing off tackles when redirecting in-line.
Not as tough inside as Portis and doesn't have the jukes Portis does, but has more straight-line speed.Here is what iw as referring to with his vision:

http://www.fanball.com/fb/article.cfm/ID.3871

I've watched EVERY play from scrimmage by the Broncos this year and have Bell on 2 of my teams....I watch him closely and I must say that he has good vision on sweeps and tosses...but misses many holes in the interior. Maybe what he lacks is patience in that situation....rather then vision.
I wonder how well Bell would do in a different city. I think he has Portis talent.
 
I am a huge Tatum supporter....but I don't think he would ever take alead role....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.
In my experience, 95% of the time someone talks about an RB's vision, he's trying to give that RB an upgrade or downgrade without a solid reason for doing so.Tatum's vision is just fine, from what I've seen, but I'm certainly no NFL scout. He could still improve his awareness in blitz pickup, but I have no problem with his vision. He identifies holes quickly, doesn't hesitate before cutting, and hits the hole with authority. He needs to get better at breaking arm-tackles, but I don't recall him having a problem with running right into the pile when there was a hole opening up somewhere else.

SSOG, don't misread me here, i've definitely appreciated and gained from your reading of the Denver RBs this year. but it 'did' look like you were trying to pull a fast one with those stats. i'm not trying to mislead with my numbers, but demonstrate that those small samples are indeed meaningless because two different conclusions could be drawn from the two sets of numbers (2004 and 05). if you ignore the small number of carries, you look at 2005 and say, man the guy can't carry the load. but you could look at 2004 and say, the guy just needs to get the carries. the fact of the matter is that those stats don't prove anything, which is what makes it so interesting to debate...
I don't know, I think he has enough 10+ carries to say that there's definitely a noticable decline. And the fact that he's never topped 17 carries says pretty clearly where Shanahan stands on the matter.As a Denver FAN, nothing would please me more than for Tatum Bell to put on 10 pounds without losing much speed and turn into the next Clinton Portis. I actually LIKE Tatum Bell. He says all the right things, doesn't complain about not getting the lion's share of the carries, but makes it clear that he wants to be on the field every single down, which is a desireable trait in runningbacks, from where I'm sitting. I'm just skeptical as to whether he CAN put on 10 pounds without losing much speed, or learn to break arm-tackles with more consistancy.

 
....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.
Got a link?
:cry:
ANALYSISPositives: Has a well-defined, muscular body with room to add additional bulk … Uses his quick initial step to burst through the holes … Shows good instincts and vision to see the rush lanes and tacklers … Has the strength to break tackles running inside and the speed to get to the corner, displaying above-average balance to turn it up field … Has made steady improvement in utilizing his second gear to break free in the open field … Adequate route runner who gets the job done on curls, flats and dump-offs … Has the blocking form and change-of-direction agility to pick up stunts and will not hesitate to take on a pass rusher … His ability to make the initial tackler miss brings back memories of another OSU great, Thurman Thomas (not as good a receiver, though) … Has a very fast running stride and looks natural bouncing off tackles when redirecting in-line.
I've watched EVERY play from scrimmage by the Broncos this year and have Bell on 2 of my teams....I watch him closely and I must say that he has good vision on sweeps and tosses...but misses many holes in the interior. Maybe what he lacks is patience in that situation....rather then vision.
I wonder how well Bell would do in a different city. I think he has Portis talent.
Bell's vision and scouting report.....http://www.fanball.com/fb/article.cfm/ID.3871

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top