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!
Funnily enough, if you answered "Mike Anderson" (i.e. "The Starter") every time, you would have been right as often as you would have expected for the RB10.Seriously, in 2005, Mike Anderson was the RB10 in terms of FBG standard scoring. In 2004, Brian Westbrook was RB10. In 2003, Edgerrin James was RB10. In 2002, Eddie George was RB10.In 2005, Anderson scored 10 or fewer points 6 weeks.In 2004, Westbrook scored 10 or fewer points 6 times.In 2003, Edgerrin James scored 10 or fewer points 5 times.In 2002, Eddie George scored 10 or fewer points 5 times.Mike Anderson had exactly as many bad games as you would expect the RB10 to have, yet somehow because his backup had some good games, Mike Anderson in 2005 was a "guessing game" while Brian Westbrook or Edgerrin James or Eddie George were not. I just don't understand it.I don't care how my player's backup produces. I only care how my player produces, and last year, Mike Anderson produced exactly like he was supposed to.
I've just transferred my Dayne projections to MBell. 270/1200/10 and 20/150/1 sound about right to me. Discount those numbers a little bit because of uncertainty (I discount all rookie numbers due to uncertainty, because they've never played a single down of real football), but I'd still take him as one of the top 20 RBs off the board. In fact, of the top 20 RBs (according to ADP), I'd take him over Domanick Davis, Julius Jones, Chester Taylor, Reggie Bush, and Jamal Lewis, and rank him in a tier with Willis McGahee, Kevin Jones, Edgerrin James, LaMont Jordan, and Willie Parker. I'd need to micromanage my projections a bit more to figure out where he'd fall among those 6, but that should give you an idea of how I feel about Bell (as well as how down I am on some FBG favorites, like James and Jordan).And I hope you all appreciate this, because I'm absolutely killing any possible bargaining power I might have once had. A leaguemate of mine was on the clock when the Mike Bell news broke and poached him a couple of rounds before I was going to handcuff him to Dayne. This leaguemate is an avid FBGs reader, and there's no way in hell I can possibly get fair value for MBell in trade now.
Exactly where he did last year. Absolutely nothing has changed for Tatum this season.More importantly, where will Tatum end up
Agree, someone will reach for him in the 3rd. I don't think he'll be there for me at pick 3.8. We also remember Bell from his college days, with his constant nagging injuries, and his propensity for fumbling. With these problems, I wouldn't be as confident in Bell as you were with the 2005 Mike Anderson situation. Bell is not Clinton Portis, but he may not have to be...Disagreed. Especially in a 14-team league, that's at least a round too late. Depending on where in the round we're talking about, it's possibly two rounds too late.JohnnyU said:That's about 6 rounds too early.WarRedbirds said:In my draft, 90% of us our Univ. of Arizona alums. Add to that the fact that we are all, I estimate that Bell will go in the early 4th round of a 14-team league.
Not sure why you are surpised. Especially if we are talking about LenDale White.1.3 before White and Maroney
Had our 12 team ppr league draft last night and Mike Bell went either 5.11 or 6.02. I don't recall which pick the guy took him with, but it was definitely end of 5/start of 6.Tatum went at least 3-4 rounds later and Dayne went about round 14.
You will see what I mean when he's on your league WW after 5 weeks.
It sounds to me like Tater is starting to offer some serious value in a lot of leagues.
Not so much in others.
As you should be. With your starting lineup requirements, had you known you could get both Bells with the 6th and 9th, you could have gone WR, WR, QB, WR, QB in the first five rounds, start Bell and Bell at RB every week and have a brutally good team.
Tatum at 5.01 in a 12-teamer is a very solid pick, even though I don't expect anything to change from last year's CoP role. Remember, he finished 23rd last year in his current role, and absolutely nothing has changed for him since then. If anything, according to reports, he's actually running BETTER than last season.Dayne at 6.07 was definitely too high. If he comes back and gets the #3 role again, then I have him lumped in with Betts, Pittman, and Michael Turner as really good late-round RBs to gamble on and pray the guy ahead of him gets injured. But that's only if he comes back and gets the #3 role again. Mike Bell at 1.07 was WAAAY too high. I could see him in the second round without any problems, but in a 12-teamer there's almost no way in hell that Mike Bell wouldn't still be there at 2.06. Grab a different RB in round one and Mike Bell in round two.All the guys in our 12 team, 1 keeper redraft league were shocked when mike Bell was drafted at 1.07
I'm actually more confident in MBell than I was in Anderson last year, simply because we now have another season's worth of evidence that Tatum's not going to get the job (which last year was still a big uncertainty).I agree that I'm probably overprojecting him a little bit. That 1200/10 projection is really for whatever RB is in the "Mike Anderson Role". At least last season, the #3 RB (Dayne) nibbled a bit at those numbers, and there's still a good chance that Mike Bell gets injured or proves ineffective. Assign those numbers to the role, understand that MBell will get the huge majority of them, and draft accordingly.
Sig bet?
Actually, except in the rare instances where Mike Bell is going in the first or second, I think both Bells present very solid value. It's Dayne who is the overrated one at this point. He might not even be the primary backup if he doesn't start getting back on the field in a hurry.
)
Thanks for this information SSOG - having read alot of threads on the Broncos - I know that this posting should be accurate (excluding intangibles that no one can predict: injuries / trades / etc.)...While we might disagree on your Edge and Lamont rankings... that is not the question at hand here...I've just transferred my Dayne projections to MBell. 270/1200/10 and 20/150/1 sound about right to me. Discount those numbers a little bit because of uncertainty (I discount all rookie numbers due to uncertainty, because they've never played a single down of real football), but I'd still take him as one of the top 20 RBs off the board. In fact, of the top 20 RBs (according to ADP), I'd take him over Domanick Davis, Julius Jones, Chester Taylor, Reggie Bush, and Jamal Lewis, and rank him in a tier with Willis McGahee, Kevin Jones, Edgerrin James, LaMont Jordan, and Willie Parker. I'd need to micromanage my projections a bit more to figure out where he'd fall among those 6, but that should give you an idea of how I feel about Bell (as well as how down I am on some FBG favorites, like James and Jordan).And I hope you all appreciate this, because I'm absolutely killing any possible bargaining power I might have once had. A leaguemate of mine was on the clock when the Mike Bell news broke and poached him a couple of rounds before I was going to handcuff him to Dayne. This leaguemate is an avid FBGs reader, and there's no way in hell I can possibly get fair value for MBell in trade now.
Exactly where he did last year. Absolutely nothing has changed for Tatum this season.More importantly, where will Tatum end up
Pipe down there, Mr. 14114.Not to hijack this thread as it seems this issue has been dropped, but I just have to add this:
To all FBG's with low member numbers:
Your low number does not reflect how much you know about fantasy football. It also does not reflect how long you have been playing fantasy football. It simply means you registered before other posters.
Kit, while I agree with your first point, I disagree with the second. Why would someone register here if they didn't play FF? Also, you need ot bear in mind that most of the low 4-digit members jumped on this board because they had been members on the old yellow board, they've been involved in FF for a LONG time.It does seem, more so this year than others, that newer members of the boards - no doubt some of whom have played FF for a while, but it is more reasonable to assume that most of which are relatively new to the sport - seem to get pretty uptight and prideful about their imagined genius at FF. And that gets presented in an agressive haughty manner, to which most of us longtimers try to ignore, but in general I'd imagine find rather offensive.Not to hijack this thread as it seems this issue has been dropped, but I just have to add this:
To all FBG's with low member numbers:
Your low number does not reflect how much you know about fantasy football. It also does not reflect how long you have been playing fantasy football. It simply means you registered before other posters.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest...
Thanks SSOG...
My stance on Dynasty is always that Denver's RBs are underrated in redraft and overrated in Dynasty. This year was the third straight season where Denver let their leading rusher leave town rather than pay him even a modest (for a starting RB) salary. They have enough confidence that they won't ever overpursue a player. Also, as a rule, Denver is always bringing in new RBs to compete for the job. It doesn't matter WHO they have at RB, whether it's Olandis Gary, Terrell Davis, Clinton Portis, or Quentin Griffin... Denver always brings in more RBs.Mike Bell throws a bit of a wrench into this "overrated in dynasty" theory. He was an undrafted free agent, so he'll be DIRT CHEAP over the life of his contract. That gives a chance that he'll be starting for two or even three straight seasons. On the other hand, the fact that he won the starting job doesn't mean he's really good- it only means he's better than everything else Denver had on the roster. If they draft a solid RB next season, Mike Bell could go all Reuben Droughns on us and disappear into the sunset.
I agree completely with your posting switz... having a low member number evidently shows someone that has gain experience in FF - I'm not registering at gardening forums if it's not of any interest to me (and no - I'm not registered at any gardering site!)Also, like you mentioned (along with Kit), having a low member number does not automatically gives you the "FF knowledge potion" - that is, in my opinion, spread across newcomers and FBG old timers...Kit, while I agree with your first point, I disagree with the second. Why would someone register here if they didn't play FF? Also, you need ot bear in mind that most of the low 4-digit members jumped on this board because they had been members on the old yellow board, they've been involved in FF for a LONG time.It does seem, more so this year than others, that newer members of the boards - no doubt some of whom have played FF for a while, but it is more reasonable to assume that most of which are relatively new to the sport - seem to get pretty uptight and prideful about their imagined genius at FF. And that gets presented in an agressive haughty manner, to which most of us longtimers try to ignore, but in general I'd imagine find rather offensive.Not to hijack this thread as it seems this issue has been dropped, but I just have to add this:
To all FBG's with low member numbers:
Your low number does not reflect how much you know about fantasy football. It also does not reflect how long you have been playing fantasy football. It simply means you registered before other posters.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest...
And, as to a matter of technicality, there are very few methods to determine a poster's FF experience or knowedge. The best method would be to read numerous posts, over adequate time, and discern from the content the vlaue of the poster. However, for new members, someone with a very low number probably has been playing FF longer than them, and probably knows more than them simply from experience.
It may not hold true in every case, but it's a stereotype, and stereotypes are built on general truths in most cases.
The best thing we all could do, is help one another by our posting. Add something of value, not promoting ourself, but the sport and general knowledge. And when we, by personal attacks, or insults, turn away the most knowledgable posters, we only hurt ourself.
Come on, get over yourself. We are all here because we love football - simple as that. I don't post alot because english isn't my 1st or even 2nd language, but I have been on other boards for years. And even before that I still loved footballKit, while I agree with your first point, I disagree with the second. Why would someone register here if they didn't play FF? Also, you need ot bear in mind that most of the low 4-digit members jumped on this board because they had been members on the old yellow board, they've been involved in FF for a LONG time.It does seem, more so this year than others, that newer members of the boards - no doubt some of whom have played FF for a while, but it is more reasonable to assume that most of which are relatively new to the sport - seem to get pretty uptight and prideful about their imagined genius at FF. And that gets presented in an agressive haughty manner, to which most of us longtimers try to ignore, but in general I'd imagine find rather offensive.Not to hijack this thread as it seems this issue has been dropped, but I just have to add this:
To all FBG's with low member numbers:
Your low number does not reflect how much you know about fantasy football. It also does not reflect how long you have been playing fantasy football. It simply means you registered before other posters.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest...
And, as to a matter of technicality, there are very few methods to determine a poster's FF experience or knowedge. The best method would be to read numerous posts, over adequate time, and discern from the content the vlaue of the poster. However, for new members, someone with a very low number probably has been playing FF longer than them, and probably knows more than them simply from experience.
It may not hold true in every case, but it's a stereotype, and stereotypes are built on general truths in most cases.
The best thing we all could do, is help one another by our posting. Add something of value, not promoting ourself, but the sport and general knowledge. And when we, by personal attacks, or insults, turn away the most knowledgable posters, we only hurt ourself.
Nice reply. Seriously. And I get your point.But guys shouldn't be calling people n00bs based soley on their number. And veterans shouldn't assume that low-number guys are all 1337 trolling teenagers. I, for example have been playing FF since '94. I only registered at this site in '04. Longtimer to FF, new to posting at FBG.Kit, while I agree with your first point, I disagree with the second. Why would someone register here if they didn't play FF? Also, you need ot bear in mind that most of the low 4-digit members jumped on this board because they had been members on the old yellow board, they've been involved in FF for a LONG time.It does seem, more so this year than others, that newer members of the boards - no doubt some of whom have played FF for a while, but it is more reasonable to assume that most of which are relatively new to the sport - seem to get pretty uptight and prideful about their imagined genius at FF. And that gets presented in an agressive haughty manner, to which most of us longtimers try to ignore, but in general I'd imagine find rather offensive.Not to hijack this thread as it seems this issue has been dropped, but I just have to add this:
To all FBG's with low member numbers:
Your low number does not reflect how much you know about fantasy football. It also does not reflect how long you have been playing fantasy football. It simply means you registered before other posters.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest...
And, as to a matter of technicality, there are very few methods to determine a poster's FF experience or knowedge. The best method would be to read numerous posts, over adequate time, and discern from the content the vlaue of the poster. However, for new members, someone with a very low number probably has been playing FF longer than them, and probably knows more than them simply from experience.
It may not hold true in every case, but it's a stereotype, and stereotypes are built on general truths in most cases.
The best thing we all could do, is help one another by our posting. Add something of value, not promoting ourself, but the sport and general knowledge. And when we, by personal attacks, or insults, turn away the most knowledgable posters, we only hurt ourself.
Thanks again SSOG - your thoughts are matching my beliefs... I think the two bolded parts are the most important parts of your reply... I would expect Mike Bell do go all Reuben Droughns in a few years like you mention - the big question then is, for [DYNASTY] purposes: After leaving Denver in a few years, is Mike Bell going to be Reuben Droughns (i.e. starting tailback for another NFL team) or Quentin Griffin (i.e. nowhere to be found on sundays)?...
I'm not at all surprised to find you've been playing FF for so long. You've always come off, to me, as someone who knew what he was talking about.High member number or low, if you're making quality posts, you will get recognized for doing so around here.Nice reply. Seriously. And I get your point.But guys shouldn't be calling people n00bs based soley on their number. And veterans shouldn't assume that low-number guys are all 1337 trolling teenagers. I, for example have been playing FF since '94. I only registered at this site in '04. Longtimer to FF, new to posting at FBG. Anyway....
Because you are spending a 3rd, 4th, or 5th round pick on a player with bust risk. If you want to believe there is no risk drafting him this high, then more power to you. I know Shanahan thinks he can plug any RB into his system and if he does it with M Bell I will be a believer. There is a reason Mike Bell went undrafted.My real question is... with knowing what we know now about M. Bell, how the heck is he still lasting until round 5 or higher?
*ALL* 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounders are bust risks. Mike Bell is no more so than anyone else.Here's the 4th and 5th round from drafts last year, according to the FBG's ADP.Because you are spending a 3rd, 4th, or 5th round pick on a player with bust risk. If you want to believe there is no risk drafting him this high, then more power to you. I know Shanahan thinks he can plug any RB into his system and if he does it with M Bell I will be a believer. There is a reason Mike Bell went undrafted.My real question is... with knowing what we know now about M. Bell, how the heck is he still lasting until round 5 or higher?
Quentin Griffin. That's it. I think Quentin Griffin clearly established the extreme levels of suck that are necessary to lose the starting job in Denver.Even that's arguable, because if he hadn't gotten injured that preseason, Mike Anderson would have been the starter that year- so I suppose you could say that Quentin Griffin only was named a starter because of injury in the first place.
Member number doesn't mean a hill of beans. Many new members were members at other boards and have been playing FF for as long or longer than low member number FBG vets.I agree completely with your posting switz... having a low member number evidently shows someone that has gain experience in FF - I'm not registering at gardening forums if it's not of any interest to me (and no - I'm not registered at any gardering site!)Also, like you mentioned (along with Kit), having a low member number does not automatically gives you the "FF knowledge potion" - that is, in my opinion, spread across newcomers and FBG old timers...Kit, while I agree with your first point, I disagree with the second. Why would someone register here if they didn't play FF? Also, you need ot bear in mind that most of the low 4-digit members jumped on this board because they had been members on the old yellow board, they've been involved in FF for a LONG time.It does seem, more so this year than others, that newer members of the boards - no doubt some of whom have played FF for a while, but it is more reasonable to assume that most of which are relatively new to the sport - seem to get pretty uptight and prideful about their imagined genius at FF. And that gets presented in an agressive haughty manner, to which most of us longtimers try to ignore, but in general I'd imagine find rather offensive.Not to hijack this thread as it seems this issue has been dropped, but I just have to add this:
To all FBG's with low member numbers:
Your low number does not reflect how much you know about fantasy football. It also does not reflect how long you have been playing fantasy football. It simply means you registered before other posters.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest...
And, as to a matter of technicality, there are very few methods to determine a poster's FF experience or knowedge. The best method would be to read numerous posts, over adequate time, and discern from the content the vlaue of the poster. However, for new members, someone with a very low number probably has been playing FF longer than them, and probably knows more than them simply from experience.
It may not hold true in every case, but it's a stereotype, and stereotypes are built on general truths in most cases.
The best thing we all could do, is help one another by our posting. Add something of value, not promoting ourself, but the sport and general knowledge. And when we, by personal attacks, or insults, turn away the most knowledgable posters, we only hurt ourself.
I am a relative newbie to the site - having been hooked here for 8 months now - mainly for the [DYNASTY] and IDP coverage - where FBG is king, in my opinion...
I think it's only a natural feeling for someone to want to feel included, to be part of the gang... and I think most newbies try to push to hard at this... Let the old timers see what you are made of, make well thought comments / have strong arguments to support your point of view... just don't try to show that "you know your stuff" by shouting how good you have been at FF the last few years...
It is only natural also, for veretans, to have strong ties with the others they have chatted for a long time - to have inside jokes that newbies won't get at first glance... just don't be unrespectful to them because you don't get it...
The last point that a newbie like me could add is, conversely, having a high member number don't not automatically mean that we don't know anything about FF... since it is only natural for a old timer to think "It surely won't be a guy that registered last month that will let me know who to pick as my RB3"... I think that everyone can gain from listening to knowledgeable replies - whatever the member number is - and I'm certain most do it already...
My 2 cents
That's the bottom line.
