Which RB Tandem Will Score More (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

This has come up in several other threads, so I figured I would survey the masses on this one. Standard scoring, add the total production of both guys together.

If you want double brownie points, post your projections for these 4 guys . . .

 

[-OZ-]

This has come up in several other threads, so I figured I would survey the masses on this one. Standard scoring, add the total production of both guys together.

If you want double brownie points, post your projections for these 4 guys . . .

Ignorant question - does "standard scoring" include PPR?Haven't really gone into it much, but I'd guess the Bush/Deuce combo will be better in PPR leagues.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is an interesting question.

McAllister and Bush had just 335 yards last year -- so it's hard to project them for this year. New Orleans is going to be a totally different team (not to mention a new QB).

Mike Anderson and Bell combined for 1935 rushing yards and 20 TDs last year. Dayne is a bigger question mark than some seem to perceive -- that lofty YPC on a small number of carries could be misleading. Dayne had exactly three highlights last year:

A drive against the Chargers in week two.

A run against the Cowboys in week twelve.

Two 16-yard runs against the Chargers in week seventeen.

52 carries just doesn't tell us very much.

Bruce Harper had 51 carries for 354 yards (6.94) in 1983.

Kimble Anders had 58 carries for 398 yards (6.86) in 1995.

A couple of Falcons -- Bob Christian and Byron Hanspard -- had similar seasons. Same goes for Skip Hicks and Michael "the burner" Turner.

With McAllister, Bush and Dayne as huge question marks, along with the entire Saints offense, this is a real hazy question right now. The safe (and therefore best) response would be the Broncos, since Denver always runs well and we can rely on Bell to do well.

Maurice Hicks for the 49ers had more carries than Dayne last year and a higher YPC -- some perspective is key here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This has come up in several other threads, so I figured I would survey the masses on this one. Standard scoring, add the total production of both guys together.

If you want double brownie points, post your projections for these 4 guys . . .

Ignorant question - does "standard scoring" include PPR?Haven't really gone into it much, but I'd guess the Bush/Deuce combo will be better in PPR leagues.

I don't believe standard scoring includes PPR.

 

[ninerfan]

Addai/Rhodes.

 

[SSOG]

Denver in a landslide.

I've projected the total points New Orlean's RBs will score, but I haven't broken down who will get what yet (frankly, I have no idea where to start, so I've been putting it off). I currently predict Dayne for 210 points, Bell for 130, and all New Orleans RBs COMBINED to 280 points.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Denver in a landslide.

I've projected the total points New Orlean's RBs will score, but I haven't broken down who will get what yet (frankly, I have no idea where to start, so I've been putting it off). I currently predict Dayne for 210 points, Bell for 130, and all New Orleans RBs COMBINED to 280 points.

Projecting Dayne to have a better year than Mike Anderson did last year is really out there IMO. What makes you think that?

 

[SSOG]

Denver in a landslide.

I've projected the total points New Orlean's RBs will score, but I haven't broken down who will get what yet (frankly, I have no idea where to start, so I've been putting it off). I currently predict Dayne for 210 points, Bell for 130, and all New Orleans RBs COMBINED to 280 points.

Projecting Dayne to have a better year than Mike Anderson did last year is really out there IMO. What makes you think that?

Mike Anderson missed 1 game entirely, received 4 carries in a second game, and was limited in two others (week 2 and week 12). I make my projections based on the assumption that a player will remain healthy, and if Dayne remains healthy, I see him getting at least 30 more carries than Anderson did last season, while still maintaining the same basic number of carries per game.You might also have noticed that I predicted fewer points from Tatum Bell than he scored last season. I anticipate a reduction in Denver's total carries, but I see those carries coming more from Bell's total, as well as the totals of all the other RBs, than from Dayne's numbers.

Finally, I don't ignore injury risk entirely. Based on injury risk, I will perform a "gut check" and bump a player's numbers up or down a little bit to get a more accurate, if less scientific, final ranking. Dayne's numbers actually INCREASE after the injury risk gut check, because I feel like Tatum Bell has a much higher chance of getting injured than Dayne does, and if Bell gets injured, I could see Dayne's numbers going through the roof.

 

[-OZ-]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

 

[David Yudkin]

I posted this in another thread (which probably was missed by many, so here it is again):

I have often looked at how and why players did as well as they have done, and IMO Deuce McAllister did well in the past based mostly on the fact that there was practically no one else on the roster to help give him a blow.For starters, I will say that predicting what will happen in New Orleans with a new coach, adding a new banged up QB, recovering from the post-hurricane issues, drafting the greatest supposed can't miss RB in history, and factoring a return of Deuce post ACL is a daunting and almost impossible task.But consider this. When McAllister ranked as the RB6 and RB7 in 2002 and 2003, he did so grabbing 89% and 91% of the RB touches in New Orleans. Needless to say, that is AN INSANE percentage. In those years, the team ranked 20th and 15th in rushing attempts. Unless the Saints start adding A TON to their RB workload and subsequent production, Deuce will be handing his production on a silver platter right to Bush. Maybe the Saints give the ball a lot more to RB than they did in the past, and perhaps they do a lot more with it than in the past . . .I have outlined in many, many articles and posts just how much a RB machine Denver truly is. I hate roling out the stat book, but here are the year by year breakdowns of the Denver backfield since Shannahan took over:2005: 2745 total yards/28 total TD2004: 2595/172003: 2783/212002: 2810/262001: 2367/212000: 2143/121999: 2585/291998: 2590/181997: 2687/181996: 2350/15That's an average of 2566/20.5 per season.As I said, I don't know what to expect from New Orleans RBs this year. But they have a lot going against them (for starters) as outlined above. But they are starting with a baseline of 1894/6, and IMO they have TWO mountains to climb to get anywhere near what the Denver RB corps will do this year, NO MATTER WHO THEY TROT OUT TO CARRY THE BALL.All I'm saying is that by 9/1 we should have a much better idea what the plan in Denver is, and by then one would hope that (most likely) the Dayne/Bell pairing will outrank the Bush/McAllister pairing in preseason rankings provided the Broncos don't get themselves another RB by then. But something tells me that the rankings will not change all that much, and if so that would be a grave misreading of the tea leaves.

Sure, the situation in New Orleans is changing and could be radically different, but I find it interesting that people are choosing to ignore YEAR AFTER YEAR of elite Denver RB production.Could Bush/McAllister trump Dayne/Bell? Of course they could, especially with injuries, but I'd put my money on the Denver duo--and I am NOT a Ron Dayne fan.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

DM 210 882 7 25 178 0

RB 155 701 5 44 352 2

RD 216 929 8 9 38 0

TB 180 918 7 25 195 0

Giving Dayne/Bell a slight lead. Add in cobbs (54 227 0 3 22 0 ), and Denver wins by more.

 

[wannabee]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

How about SA/MoMo?

 

[SSOG]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

How about SA/MoMo?

I'd take Dayne/Bell over Alexander/MoMo. The KC "duo" is the only "tandem" that I think will come close to Dayne/Bell this year, and even then, with all the questions, I'd consider taking the Denver tandem first.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

How about SA/MoMo?

I'd take Dayne/Bell over Alexander/MoMo. The KC "duo" is the only "tandem" that I think will come close to Dayne/Bell this year, and even then, with all the questions, I'd consider taking the Denver tandem first.

And here I thought the RonDayne06 > MikeAnderson05 comment was bad.C'mon SSOG, seriously?

KCC RBs from 2004-2005: 484.2 FP/year

Den RBs from 2004-2005: 402.0 FP/year

 

[SSOG]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

How about SA/MoMo?

I'd take Dayne/Bell over Alexander/MoMo. The KC "duo" is the only "tandem" that I think will come close to Dayne/Bell this year, and even then, with all the questions, I'd consider taking the Denver tandem first.

And here I thought the RonDayne06 > MikeAnderson05 comment was bad.C'mon SSOG, seriously?

KCC RBs from 2004-2005: 484.2 FP/year

Den RBs from 2004-2005: 402.0 FP/year

I said I'd consider it, not that I would actually do it. In the end, I would probably wind up with the KC tandem... but I'm very nervous about them, after losing Vermeil and Saunders, not to mention almost losing Roaf and Shields to retirement. Let's just say that Herm Edwards as the coach of my fantasy RB doesn't inspire the kind of confidence that #### Vermeil as the coach of my fantasy RB did.Also, I told you my reasoning behind Dayne06 > Anderson05. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning? Do you think I overlooked anything drastic? If you really think it's such a bad projection, I would certainly love to hear why, as well as what you are predicting instead. It's always nice to get some well-articulated opposing viewpoints to assimilate.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

How about SA/MoMo?

I'd take Dayne/Bell over Alexander/MoMo. The KC "duo" is the only "tandem" that I think will come close to Dayne/Bell this year, and even then, with all the questions, I'd consider taking the Denver tandem first.

And here I thought the RonDayne06 > MikeAnderson05 comment was bad.C'mon SSOG, seriously?

KCC RBs from 2004-2005: 484.2 FP/year

Den RBs from 2004-2005: 402.0 FP/year

I said I'd consider it, not that I would actually do it. In the end, I would probably wind up with the KC tandem... but I'm very nervous about them, after losing Vermeil and Saunders, not to mention almost losing Roaf and Shields to retirement. Let's just say that Herm Edwards as the coach of my fantasy RB doesn't inspire the kind of confidence that #### Vermeil as the coach of my fantasy RB did.Also, I told you my reasoning behind Dayne06 > Anderson05. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning? Do you think I overlooked anything drastic? If you really think it's such a bad projection, I would certainly love to hear why, as well as what you are predicting instead. It's always nice to get some well-articulated opposing viewpoints to assimilate.

I just don't think Dayne is very good, that's all. Mike Anderson ran for 1500 yards as a rookie, and looked strong again last year. But I don't need to tell you how good Anderson is.Dayne's career regressed each year until 2005. His career YPC is nothing special at 3.7. And last year's numbers fail to impress me, since he only had 53 carries, including zero in the post-season.

Seeing Dayne go north of the 200 FP barrier would be pretty shocking.

Since 1970, 15 different 7th year RBs have scored 200 FPs in a season. Exactly two of those RBs scored less than 350 combined FPs the previous two years: Lamar Smith (2000) and Charlie Garner (2000). Smith was by far the lowest, with 135 FPs the previous two years. Ron Dayne had 60 FPs the past two years.

So let's look at it another way. Let's look at all 7th year RBs who did really bad in years 5 and 6, and see who the best ones were in year 7.

I looked at all RBs that combined for less than 100 FPs the previous two years.

Only one broke the 150 FP barrier: Anthony Johnson on the expansion Panthers. He was a nobody for most of his career despite being a Notre Dame guy and a second round pick. Then he went to Carolina and had a pretty solid year. He then slipped back into nothingness.

Moe Williams (2002) had 11 TDs for the Vikings; Gary Brown rushed for 945 yards for the Chargers in 1997. He was a similar back to Dayne, but had more success prior to coming to San Diego.

So maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just look at all RBs in year 5 or greater, that did nothing (i.e., less than 100 FPs combined) the previous two years.

Four guys topped the 200 FP mark, with one of them being Mike Anderson. Derek Loville (1995), Charles White (1987), and Ottis Anderson (1989) would be the other three. White had a similar career path to Dayne in that they were both highly touted coming out of college and busted with their first teams. Only one other guy (Garrison Hearst, 2001) topped the 170 FP mark.

There is very little history to show that a NFL veteran RB that has been worthless most of his career will suddenly top the 200 FP mark. I agree that Denver seems like the place where it might happen, and Dayne isn't horrible. But to expect Dayne to do so well seems way too optimistic. If Dayne does as well as you project, he'd be making history.

 

[Two Deep]

You got to wonder about McAllisters knee and the fact that opposing D's are going to be extra motivated against Bush. I went with a healthy Dayne and more experienced Bell.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You got to wonder about McAllisters knee and the fact that opposing D's are going to be extra motivated against Bush. I went with a healthy Dayne and more experienced Bell.

Two Deep,Do you really expect that opposing D's will be extra motivated to stop Reggie Bush than they will be to stop Tatum Bell, and as a result Bush's numbers will take a hit?

 

[Two Deep]

You got to wonder about McAllisters knee and the fact that opposing D's are going to be extra motivated against Bush. I went with a healthy Dayne and more experienced Bell.

Two Deep,Do you really expect that opposing D's will be extra motivated to stop Reggie Bush than they will be to stop Tatum Bell, and as a result Bush's numbers will take a hit?

I do think D's will be a little more motivated to stop the 9th world wonder Bush (sarcasm)welcome him to the league. Yes

 

[CalBear]

I didn't vote on the poll question, because I think that there's not enough information yet. My view is that, given equal RB talent, Denver will produce significantly more RB fantasy points than New Orleans, and that the Denver system will allow an less-talented set of RBs to outproduce better RBs in a less RB-friendly system. But the Denver RB effect is not all-powerful; in fact, Denver as a team hasn't finished as #1 in rushing yards or TDs since TD himself was there (in fact, in TDs they finished #15 in 2004 and #30 in 2001), so someone is out-producing Denver RBs.

A sufficiently good set of RBs in a sufficiently good system will out-produce sufficiently weak RBs in Denver's system.

So the question is, are Bush/McAllister/New Orleans sufficiently good, and are Dayne/Bell sufficiently weak?

The worst Denver as a team has finished in rushing yardage under Shanahan is #12, in 1999. In my opinion, if Ron Dayne gets 60% of the Denver RB carries, this year Denver will finish worse than #12 overall. That's how weak I think Dayne is as a RB; I think he is clearly weaker than Anderson, even at age 32. But the question of Denver's team productivity is tied to how many carries Dayne gets, because I think Bell can produce good numbers if he's given the ball, and if Dayne isn't getting it done, Shanahan will give the ball to Bell, from whom we'd see more traditional Denver RB production.

I think Bush and McAllister are both more talented than either Bell or Dayne. I think Brees is at least as talented as Plummer. New Orleans' WRs are better than Denver's, at least until Walker proves he can return from the ACL and play at the level he did in his best year in Green Bay. Payton, as a first-year coach, is unlikely to have a system working as well as Shanahan's does, but the talent is certainly there.

If I had to choose today, I would choose Bell and Dayne, but a lot more information is needed before I'd want to make a choice. One thing I really would stress is that production can fall off the map really quickly and without warning; the fact that Denver has produced lots of great running stats in the past doesn't mean they will in 2006. Look at the Rams; from 1999-2001 they ranked #1 each year in both yardage and scoring, ranking among the best offensive runs ever in the NFL. In 2002 they ranked #9 in yardage and #23 in scoring. A lot of that is due to the injury to Kurt Warner, but even before the injury, Warner had 1 TD and 8 INTs in just over three games, and in the past the Rams had had the ability to plug a new QB into their system and still produce, much as Denver has with RBs. (And in fact, Bulger produced better than Warner did in 2002). In 2001, the Rams had 8.9 yards per pass attempt (#1 in the league and an absurdly high number) as well as 4.87 yards per rushing attempt (also #1 in the league) and ranked #1 in both passing TDs and rushing TDs. In 2002, yards per pass attempt dropped to 7.06, yards per rush dropped to 4.1, pass TDs dropped to #12 and rushing TDs dropped to #21 in the league. Those kinds of things can happen, and they will happen to Denver RBs, it's just a question of when.

 

[SSOG]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

How about SA/MoMo?

I'd take Dayne/Bell over Alexander/MoMo. The KC "duo" is the only "tandem" that I think will come close to Dayne/Bell this year, and even then, with all the questions, I'd consider taking the Denver tandem first.

And here I thought the RonDayne06 > MikeAnderson05 comment was bad.C'mon SSOG, seriously?

KCC RBs from 2004-2005: 484.2 FP/year

Den RBs from 2004-2005: 402.0 FP/year

I said I'd consider it, not that I would actually do it. In the end, I would probably wind up with the KC tandem... but I'm very nervous about them, after losing Vermeil and Saunders, not to mention almost losing Roaf and Shields to retirement. Let's just say that Herm Edwards as the coach of my fantasy RB doesn't inspire the kind of confidence that #### Vermeil as the coach of my fantasy RB did.Also, I told you my reasoning behind Dayne06 > Anderson05. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning? Do you think I overlooked anything drastic? If you really think it's such a bad projection, I would certainly love to hear why, as well as what you are predicting instead. It's always nice to get some well-articulated opposing viewpoints to assimilate.

I just don't think Dayne is very good, that's all. Mike Anderson ran for 1500 yards as a rookie, and looked strong again last year. But I don't need to tell you how good Anderson is.Dayne's career regressed each year until 2005. His career YPC is nothing special at 3.7. And last year's numbers fail to impress me, since he only had 53 carries, including zero in the post-season.

Seeing Dayne go north of the 200 FP barrier would be pretty shocking.

Since 1970, 15 different 7th year RBs have scored 200 FPs in a season. Exactly two of those RBs scored less than 350 combined FPs the previous two years: Lamar Smith (2000) and Charlie Garner (2000). Smith was by far the lowest, with 135 FPs the previous two years. Ron Dayne had 60 FPs the past two years.

So let's look at it another way. Let's look at all 7th year RBs who did really bad in years 5 and 6, and see who the best ones were in year 7.

I looked at all RBs that combined for less than 100 FPs the previous two years.

Only one broke the 150 FP barrier: Anthony Johnson on the expansion Panthers. He was a nobody for most of his career despite being a Notre Dame guy and a second round pick. Then he went to Carolina and had a pretty solid year. He then slipped back into nothingness.

Moe Williams (2002) had 11 TDs for the Vikings; Gary Brown rushed for 945 yards for the Chargers in 1997. He was a similar back to Dayne, but had more success prior to coming to San Diego.

So maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just look at all RBs in year 5 or greater, that did nothing (i.e., less than 100 FPs combined) the previous two years.

Four guys topped the 200 FP mark, with one of them being Mike Anderson. Derek Loville (1995), Charles White (1987), and Ottis Anderson (1989) would be the other three. White had a similar career path to Dayne in that they were both highly touted coming out of college and busted with their first teams. Only one other guy (Garrison Hearst, 2001) topped the 170 FP mark.

There is very little history to show that a NFL veteran RB that has been worthless most of his career will suddenly top the 200 FP mark. I agree that Denver seems like the place where it might happen, and Dayne isn't horrible. But to expect Dayne to do so well seems way too optimistic. If Dayne does as well as you project, he'd be making history.

I strongly disagree with your methodology. Yes, very few 7th-year RBs will produce great numbers after two consecutive bad seasons... but very few 7th year RBs will BE NAMED A STARTER after two consecutive bad seasons. You're comparing apples to oranges- Ron Dayne to guys who were, for the most part, backups.I would like to see a list of all RBs who were "worthless" in years N-2 and N-1 (I'll let you set the baseline for "worthless"), and then received 150 or more carries in year N. Do they perform significantly worse, on a fantasy point per touch basis, than other 7th-year RBs?

As you mentioned, the biggest recent example of a veteran RB doing squat for two straight seasons, then coming back and starting for a good running team... was Mike Anderson. Anderson05 is a better parrallel for Dayne06 than anyone else I can think of. Another really good parrallel might be Reuben Droughns, who again did nothing for two straight seasons, and then in his fourth season became the starter in Denver. Do you disagree that these guys are better comparisons for Dayne than a bunch of 7th year scrubs and backups on worse running teams?

 

[Aaronur]

Non PPR I think it hands down will be the Bronco's unless Shanny throws another RB into the mix. It is as close to a fact as you can have predicting the future that Denver will run for more yards and TD than the Saints even if Jim Brown was the Saints runningback.

 

[brobe4]

I think the big question here is Deuce's health.Bush is going to be very good, but I do not see him carry the ball 30 times a game.I would take the saints running game over denvers if deuce is healthy big question mark.

 

[Bri]

Bush McAllister and I don't think it's close. While they seem likely to play on the field at the same time(Bush at WR) it seems unlikely Dayne and Bell will. I figure there's more opportunity there then.

Also I think they're eons better RBs

 

[Chase Stuart]

Addai/Rhodes.

If we're just going to select other "tandems", can I have LJ/Priest or LT/Turner? No PPR, it's Denver.

How about SA/MoMo?

I'd take Dayne/Bell over Alexander/MoMo. The KC "duo" is the only "tandem" that I think will come close to Dayne/Bell this year, and even then, with all the questions, I'd consider taking the Denver tandem first.

And here I thought the RonDayne06 > MikeAnderson05 comment was bad.C'mon SSOG, seriously?

KCC RBs from 2004-2005: 484.2 FP/year

Den RBs from 2004-2005: 402.0 FP/year

I said I'd consider it, not that I would actually do it. In the end, I would probably wind up with the KC tandem... but I'm very nervous about them, after losing Vermeil and Saunders, not to mention almost losing Roaf and Shields to retirement. Let's just say that Herm Edwards as the coach of my fantasy RB doesn't inspire the kind of confidence that #### Vermeil as the coach of my fantasy RB did.Also, I told you my reasoning behind Dayne06 > Anderson05. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning? Do you think I overlooked anything drastic? If you really think it's such a bad projection, I would certainly love to hear why, as well as what you are predicting instead. It's always nice to get some well-articulated opposing viewpoints to assimilate.

I just don't think Dayne is very good, that's all. Mike Anderson ran for 1500 yards as a rookie, and looked strong again last year. But I don't need to tell you how good Anderson is.Dayne's career regressed each year until 2005. His career YPC is nothing special at 3.7. And last year's numbers fail to impress me, since he only had 53 carries, including zero in the post-season.

Seeing Dayne go north of the 200 FP barrier would be pretty shocking.

Since 1970, 15 different 7th year RBs have scored 200 FPs in a season. Exactly two of those RBs scored less than 350 combined FPs the previous two years: Lamar Smith (2000) and Charlie Garner (2000). Smith was by far the lowest, with 135 FPs the previous two years. Ron Dayne had 60 FPs the past two years.

So let's look at it another way. Let's look at all 7th year RBs who did really bad in years 5 and 6, and see who the best ones were in year 7.

I looked at all RBs that combined for less than 100 FPs the previous two years.

Only one broke the 150 FP barrier: Anthony Johnson on the expansion Panthers. He was a nobody for most of his career despite being a Notre Dame guy and a second round pick. Then he went to Carolina and had a pretty solid year. He then slipped back into nothingness.

Moe Williams (2002) had 11 TDs for the Vikings; Gary Brown rushed for 945 yards for the Chargers in 1997. He was a similar back to Dayne, but had more success prior to coming to San Diego.

So maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just look at all RBs in year 5 or greater, that did nothing (i.e., less than 100 FPs combined) the previous two years.

Four guys topped the 200 FP mark, with one of them being Mike Anderson. Derek Loville (1995), Charles White (1987), and Ottis Anderson (1989) would be the other three. White had a similar career path to Dayne in that they were both highly touted coming out of college and busted with their first teams. Only one other guy (Garrison Hearst, 2001) topped the 170 FP mark.

There is very little history to show that a NFL veteran RB that has been worthless most of his career will suddenly top the 200 FP mark. I agree that Denver seems like the place where it might happen, and Dayne isn't horrible. But to expect Dayne to do so well seems way too optimistic. If Dayne does as well as you project, he'd be making history.

I strongly disagree with your methodology. Yes, very few 7th-year RBs will produce great numbers after two consecutive bad seasons... but very few 7th year RBs will BE NAMED A STARTER after two consecutive bad seasons. You're comparing apples to oranges- Ron Dayne to guys who were, for the most part, backups.I would like to see a list of all RBs who were "worthless" in years N-2 and N-1 (I'll let you set the baseline for "worthless"), and then received 150 or more carries in year N. Do they perform significantly worse, on a fantasy point per touch basis, than other 7th-year RBs?

As you mentioned, the biggest recent example of a veteran RB doing squat for two straight seasons, then coming back and starting for a good running team... was Mike Anderson. Anderson05 is a better parrallel for Dayne06 than anyone else I can think of. Another really good parrallel might be Reuben Droughns, who again did nothing for two straight seasons, and then in his fourth season became the starter in Denver. Do you disagree that these guys are better comparisons for Dayne than a bunch of 7th year scrubs and backups on worse running teams?

Strong points all around. I'll give this some thought and get back to you.