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

[SSOG]

I wonder how well Bell would do in a different city. I think he has Portis talent.

I don't. I don't think he's shifty enough in traffic, and I don't think he breaks tackles NEARLY as well as Portis. Also, the thing that always struck me about Portis- and the reason he was such a good between-the-tackles runner despite not having huge size- is that he could find the smallest holes I've ever seen an RB hit. He didn't need a hole, he didn't even need a crease. All he needed was a wrinkle. Bell definitely has Portis speed, though, and can look very Portis-like when turning the corner or when getting to the second level. And trust me, I'm rooting for him to get the rest of his game together, because I would love to have another Clinton Portis in town.

 

[Garts]

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.

Talking to a lot of Bronco Fans like myself on other boards....Bell almost hits the hole TOO FAST....before the hole is actually there and he ends up running up the back of his lineman.Just need to settle down and only start sprinting when he's in the open field....not right off the hand-off.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Denver will bring in Lee Suggs, DeShaun Foster and Chris Brown with Bell still on the roster. All four will find themselves on IR by week 6.

 

[JohnnyU]

....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.

Got a link?

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

I hope you don't use fanball as a source of info. Yes, I've seen sites give praise on players in one facet of their game, and another site blast the same part of his game. I guess it depends on which source you believe. There is nothing wrong with Bell's vision. However, I may agree with his lack of patience.

 

[Garts]

I wonder how well Bell would do in a different city. I think he has Portis talent.

I don't. I don't think he's shifty enough in traffic, and I don't think he breaks tackles NEARLY as well as Portis. Also, the thing that always struck me about Portis- and the reason he was such a good between-the-tackles runner despite not having huge size- is that he could find the smallest holes I've ever seen an RB hit. He didn't need a hole, he didn't even need a crease. All he needed was a wrinkle. Bell definitely has Portis speed, though, and can look very Portis-like when turning the corner or when getting to the second level. And trust me, I'm rooting for him to get the rest of his game together, because I would love to have another Clinton Portis in town.

I think Bell has the drive to succeed and the attitude as well....First asking for #7 when he came to Denver and then settling for Portis's old #....

 

[Garts]

....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.

Got a link?

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

I hope you don't use fanball as a source of info. Yes, I've seen sites give praise on players in one facet of their game, and another site blast the same part of his game. I guess it depends on which source you believe. There is nothing wrong with Bell's vision.

Johnny U.....you gotta read the header on the topic. It was written by an NFC SCOUT, not a Fanball employee.

 

[JohnnyU]

....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.

Got a link?

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

I hope you don't use fanball as a source of info. Yes, I've seen sites give praise on players in one facet of their game, and another site blast the same part of his game. I guess it depends on which source you believe. There is nothing wrong with Bell's vision.

Johnny U.....you gotta read the header on the topic. It was written by an NFC SCOUT, not a Fanball employee.

You're right, but like I said, one site says he has good vision, and another says what Scout.com said. Patience may be his problem more than vision. I agree with you on that.

 

[wannabee]

to achieve his high side numbers, as chuck sees (portis), bell will need to prove durable. it seems he has improved his blocking and fumbling - two issues plagueing his past. but, two questions:will he get enough touches and prove durable for an extended time period?and, if not, will 15 touches a gmae be enough to achieve stud status?

 

[Garts]

....can't consistently move the chains and lacks vision.

Got a link?

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

I hope you don't use fanball as a source of info. Yes, I've seen sites give praise on players in one facet of their game, and another site blast the same part of his game. I guess it depends on which source you believe. There is nothing wrong with Bell's vision.

Johnny U.....you gotta read the header on the topic. It was written by an NFC SCOUT, not a Fanball employee.

You're right, but like I said, one site says he has good vision, and another says what Scout.com said. Patience may be his problem more than vision. I agree with you on that.

I think he may be playing back at OSU sometimes....but inthe NFL...you have to be patient....wait for the hole and explode through it....Bell just seems to run super-fast into an O-Line that just got off the snap.

 

[Garts]

I could see Dayne starting and Bell being the relief guy......mixed in with Mike Anderson. Oh boy....a 3 man RBBC.

 

[SSOG]

Denver will bring in Lee Suggs, DeShaun Foster and Chris Brown with Bell still on the roster. All four will find themselves on IR by week 6.

They will be replaced with a 3-headed RB committee of Cecil Sapp, Gary Kubiak, and the ghost of Brian Piccolo. They will become the first team in history to have a FB, an assistant coach, and an apparition each rush for 1500 yards in the same season.

 

[Garts]

Denver will bring in Lee Suggs, DeShaun Foster and Chris Brown with Bell still on the roster. All four will find themselves on IR by week 6.

They will be replaced with a 3-headed RB committee of Cecil Sapp, Gary Kubiak, and the ghost of Brian Piccolo. They will become the first team in history to have a FB, an assistant coach, and an apparition each rush for 1500 yards in the same season.

Cecil Sapp. Sad part is....he probably would do well if he started.

 

[Biabreakable]

I wonder how well Bell would do in a different city. I think he has Portis talent.

I don't think he has the agility or tackle breaking ability that Portis has. Not even close.Depending on who Denver aquires during the offseason at Rb right now I think Bell will have the best EOY numbers in 2006. However I will be watching for what Rbs they aquire as possibly supplanting him or having better EOY numbers in a platoon situation.I think Mike Anderson is too old now to be the best Denver Rb in 2006 although he certainly could still be part of the platoon.I doubt Bell would be more successful playing for any other team than Denver. Will have to see how things go for him over the offseason. It is possible that he can improve his durability and become Denvers feature back next year. He doesen't have to be as good of a player as Portis to be very successful in thier system. I don't think he will ever be as good as Portis is but could still have better numbers because of the respective systems.

 

[Floyd The Barber]

Johnny U wrote:

I hope you don't use fanball as a source of info. Yes, I've seen sites give praise on players in one facet of their game, and another site blast the same part of his game. I guess it depends on which source you believe. There is nothing wrong with Bell's vision. However, I may agree with his lack of patience.

Oh, I dunno. I thought that NFL scout Fanball pays pretty much nailed Tater's game, at least the extensive amount that I've seen.Great speed and burst. But an undeveloped lower base (spindly legs) not only compromises his inside running and pass blocking, it causes him to go down too easily on first contact with arm tackles as a running back.In fact, from what I've seen, here's how I would rank all three Denver RBs in these various categories.- Speed: Bell, Dayne, Anderson- Power: Anderson, Dayne, Bell- Short Yardage: Anderson, Dayne, Bell- Elusivness / Shiftiness: Not really a strength of any, but I would say Dayne, Anderson, Bell- Pass Blocking: Anderson, Dayne Bell- Pass Catching: Anderson, Bell/Dayne tieAnalysis: Anderson won and held the job because he was above average in most areas. Bell was 2nd string due to simply grading out too low in too many critical, non-ball carrying areas. Dayne was 3rd string because his game too closely mirrors Anderson, so Bell povided the needed change of style and pace that Dayne could not.IMO, if Anderson were out of the way, the same criteria that derailed Bell versus Anderson would also undermine him versus Dayne.I would be curious how others see them in these categories or in ones I may have missed.

 

[Preacher 1]

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.

Two words: Blind Squirrel...Any back who plays in the league long enough will have a bit of success here and there, it's the consistancy that's the key. There's a reason that Dayne didn't succedd in NY despite all of the attempts by the coaching staff to create a role for him...he's simply not that good. He can't create anything on his owm, and he's a terrible power runner for a big guy.

In Denver, he found himself in an RB's dream world, and still he had little success. A game here and there, but most of the time he was deactivated. He might be a useful sub, but as a main ballcarrier? Forget it...

I can certainly be wrong about this, but i'm pretty sure we'll never see Dayne be the main ballcarrier for a full season in the NFL.

 

[Irish]

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.

1st rd grade RB? I don't see it. Short and injury prone rbs don't get drafted in the 1st rd very often.

 

[SSOG]

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.

Two words: Blind Squirrel...Any back who plays in the league long enough will have a bit of success here and there, it's the consistancy that's the key. There's a reason that Dayne didn't succedd in NY despite all of the attempts by the coaching staff to create a role for him...he's simply not that good. He can't create anything on his owm, and he's a terrible power runner for a big guy.

In Denver, he found himself in an RB's dream world, and still he had little success. A game here and there, but most of the time he was deactivated. He might be a useful sub, but as a main ballcarrier? Forget it...

I can certainly be wrong about this, but i'm pretty sure we'll never see Dayne be the main ballcarrier for a full season in the NFL.

Well, let's put it this way- he's never averaged less than 5-yards per carry in a zone-blocking scheme.It's possible that this year was just the sun shining on a dog's hindquarters. It's also possible that this year was just Dayne finally finding a good fit. I don't think there's enough evidence to conclusively discount EITHER theory at this point.