policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Some of you might have noticed that I haven't been around much lately. Some of you might not care. SOME OF YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH DENVER RUNNING BACK WILL BE THE "STARTER". Denver will have a stable of mediocre backs who will all get touches. Period. End of story. There is no fantasy gold in them thar hills. There is no diamond in the rough. There is no oasis in the desert. If you have a Denver running back on ANY of your fantasy rosters (as higher than your fourth RB), then your Fantasy Football liscense is hereby revoked. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I agree 100%. The whole Denver RB situation reeks of fantasy death. Good to see you back dropping knowlege Policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Some of you might have noticed that I haven't been around much lately. Some of you might not care. SOME OF YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH DENVER RUNNING BACK WILL BE THE "STARTER". Denver will have a stable of mediocre backs who will all get touches. Period. End of story. There is no fantasy gold in them thar hills. There is no diamond in the rough. There is no oasis in the desert. If you have a Denver running back on ANY of your fantasy rosters (as higher than your fourth RB), then your Fantasy Football liscense is hereby revoked. Peace policy So, I have to somewhat disagree here. I was in a draft recently in a 10 team league that allows teams to keep up to 2 players. 1.04 Ladainian Tomlinson (keeper) 2.07 Steve Smith 3.04 Antonio Gates 4.07 Anquan Boldin 5.04 Mike Bell You can read the whole draft here. In any case, after having stocked up nicely at these other positions, the RB pool was thin. It is during times like thse when you take chances on guys like Denver RBs. I don;t think you can make a blanket statement that anyone that drafts a Denver RB hoping to get some production from that player is a complete momo, because some situations call for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Some of you might have noticed that I haven't been around much lately. Some of you might not care. SOME OF YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH DENVER RUNNING BACK WILL BE THE "STARTER". Denver will have a stable of mediocre backs who will all get touches. Period. End of story. There is no fantasy gold in them thar hills. There is no diamond in the rough. There is no oasis in the desert. If you have a Denver running back on ANY of your fantasy rosters (as higher than your fourth RB), then your Fantasy Football liscense is hereby revoked. Peace policy Just like last year. I mean, who needed a RB like Mike Anderson who you could have drafted in the 8th round or later of FF drafts and then have him finish as the 10th best FF RB last year? FF "eckspurts" like you should just go RB-RB-RB the first 3 rounds and let the rest of we poor suckers have to deal with RBs like Anderson later in the draft. That's surely a formula for FF championships for you. :thumbsup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Good to see you back dropping knowlege Policy. He's dropping something, alright. Some things never change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I agree 100%. The whole Denver RB situation reeks of fantasy death. Good to see you back dropping knowlege Policy. That's all the does. He simply drops his knowledge and peaces out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Some of you might have noticed that I haven't been around much lately. Some of you might not care. SOME OF YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH DENVER RUNNING BACK WILL BE THE "STARTER". Denver will have a stable of mediocre backs who will all get touches. Period. End of story. There is no fantasy gold in them thar hills. There is no diamond in the rough. There is no oasis in the desert. If you have a Denver running back on ANY of your fantasy rosters (as higher than your fourth RB), then your Fantasy Football liscense is hereby revoked. Peace policy I see your point. I sure wouldn't want a back that rushes for 1000+ yards and 6+ TDs on my roster either. The previous 6 years of Den RBs have produced. I'll take a flyer on a Bell if they fall to me at the right spot. I definitely will NOT have more than 1 on my roster though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) He's dropping something, alright. Some things never change. I grabbed M. Bell on Tuesday night, 12 team redraft. pick 6.11 after I already had LT and Portis (trade). If he's "only" as good as Mike Anderson, I'll take his 1,000 yards and 8-10 TD's any day of the week....and he could produce more. Why to people still question Denver RB's? Bronco backs have always produced...maybe it's Skeletaur that people don't like. The list of productive backs is long and not always so distinguished. They're doing something right in Denver...just choose one and sit back and reap the benefits. Edited August 31, 2006 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavinRJohnson Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I grabbed M. Bell on Tuesday night, 12 team redraft. pick 6.11 after I already had LT and Portis (trade). If he's "only" as good as Mike Anderson, I'll take his 1,000 yards and 8-10 TD's any day of the week....and he could produce more. Why to people still question Denver RB's? Bronco backs have always produced...maybe it's Skeletaur that people don't like. The list of productive backs is long and not always so distinguished. They're doing something right in Denver...just choose one and sit back and reap the benefits. ...and he could produce less, MUCH less. It's the nature of the Shananagan beast. Yeah, you might get lucky, but most likely you will not be sitting back and reaping the benefits. If you buy into the Bronco back gamble, rather than "sitting and reaping", you'll be WDISing and planning your hit on Shanahan because he misled you. Enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 ...and he could produce less, MUCH less. It's the nature of the Shananagan beast. Yeah, you might get lucky, but most likely you will not be sitting back and reaping the benefits. If you buy into the Bronco back gamble, rather than "sitting and reaping", you'll be WDISing and planning your hit on Shanahan because he misled you. Enjoy. I do understand your point...but name me a starting Bronco RB...starting with TD...that failed to produce 1,000 yards and 8 TD's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavinRJohnson Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I do understand your point...but name me a starting Bronco RB...starting with TD...that failed to produce 1,000 yards and 8 TD's... I'm not saying they won't. I am saying nobody knows which one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 So, I have to somewhat disagree here. <SNIP> In any case, after having stocked up nicely at these other positions, the RB pool was thin. It is during times like thse when you take chances on guys like Denver RBs. I don;t think you can make a blanket statement that anyone that drafts a Denver RB hoping to get some production from that player is a complete momo, because some situations call for it. Yes, that's right. Situations wherein you fail to draft well often call for desperate measures. Seriously, though, what's really got me flipped is all these yahoos trying to read the tea leaves over which of the slew of completely nondescript backs in Denver's stable are going to be the #1, every-down, workhorse back. Week-by-week, day-by-day, minute-by-minute: It's Bell, it's the OTHER Bell, it's Cobb, it's Dayne, it's Anderson, it's Gary, it's Droughns . . . oh wait. A late-round flier is a late-round flier. The bottom of the barrel is the bottom of the barrel. Some of the Denver running backs might do well on a spot basis. All of them will probably have an outstanding game or two. One might even end up more than their share of the work, and be a nice surprise. But you can't draft based off that. Everyone who drafts a Denver RB to start has visions of a Top 10 RB dancing in their heads, but then Denver would have three or four Top 10 RBs every year, now, wouldn't they? Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Just like last year. I mean, who needed a RB like Mike Anderson who you could have drafted in the 8th round or later of FF drafts and then have him finish as the 10th best FF RB last year? FF "eckspurts" like you should just go RB-RB-RB the first 3 rounds and let the rest of we poor suckers have to deal with RBs like Anderson later in the draft. That's surely a formula for FF championships for you. :thumbsup: LOL, just the opposite. I favor big-time QBs and WRs while everyone else fights for table scraps at RB. As I said above, a late-round flier is a late-round flier. Nobody in their right mind was predicting that good of a year for Anderson, and rightly so--because you never know. EVERY YEAR, it's a total crapshoot. You may win big, you may come up snake eyes, but stop pretending like three or four carries one way or the other in the preseason is going to suddenly turn the fourth-round-draft-pick-flavor-of-the-minute into a 250-carry stud. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Plane Out Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Just like last year. I mean, who needed a RB like Mike Anderson who you could have drafted in the 8th round or later of FF drafts and then have him finish as the 10th best FF RB last year? FF "eckspurts" like you should just go RB-RB-RB the first 3 rounds and let the rest of we poor suckers have to deal with RBs like Anderson later in the draft. That's surely a formula for FF championships for you. :thumbsup: you got him in the 8th because TBell was supposed to be "the man" TBell owners prolly were not too happy just gotta pick one and hope you get lucky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 I see your point. I sure wouldn't want a back that rushes for 1000+ yards and 6+ TDs on my roster either. The previous 6 years of Den RBs have produced. Oh, so you play with "Team RBs" in your league? Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I feel the Tatum is too good not to get the job inside of week 5 and run away with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Plane Out Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I feel the Tatum is too good not to get the job inside of week 5 and run away with it hopefuly he doesn't fumble away his chance.......again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Yes, that's right. Situations wherein you fail to draft well often call for desperate measures. And if that's drafting wrong I don't want to be right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 I grabbed M. Bell on Tuesday night, 12 team redraft. pick 6.11 after I already had LT and Portis (trade). If he's "only" as good as Mike Anderson, I'll take his 1,000 yards and 8-10 TD's any day of the week....and he could produce more. Why to people still question Denver RB's? Bronco backs have always produced...maybe it's Skeletaur that people don't like. The list of productive backs is long and not always so distinguished. They're doing something right in Denver...just choose one and sit back and reap the benefits. Yeah, just like last year, when all those chose Tatum Bell, the Next Clinton Portis, and reaped the benefits of having Mike Anderson . . . oh, wait, that's right, NO. Mike Bell could be a Top 10 back or completely worthless. You passed on plenty of players with a much higher floor to take a swipe at a third stud RB. That's a HUGE gamble! It's a very slim chance at having a very huge payoff--the most likely outcome is that Bell produces in the same league as all the other RBBC backs, or that he lights it up for a couple games and you trade off one of your studs for an upgrade at another position and you're left holding the bag when he comes back to earth. If you want to take that monster gamble, fine, but don't act like you're making the smart play while everyone else is clueless. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) I feel the Tatum is too good not to get the job inside of week 5 and run away with it Tatum has not been able to take the starting job in over two years...this is his third season! Mike Anderson and Ron Dayne have been bashed in this forum and yet TBell could never over take them as the unquestioned #1. Why? It's because the coaching staff does not feel he can handle it. A staff so arrogant as to their ability to turn waterboys into 1,000 yard backs, does not feel that this kid can produce. So, who else is there in Denver? Cobbs? Dayne? Nope. it's Mike Bell and it's gonna be Mike Bell. I am not predicting the second coming of TD but 1,000 yards and 8-10 TD's is not out of the question...and that's not too shabby for a #3 back, even a #2 on some teams. Tatum will still get his touches, for sure, as he produced IN HIS ROLE last year. Edited August 31, 2006 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 And if that's drafting wrong I don't want to be right! The winky face was to indicate that I agreed with your overall drafting strategy, but I would have probably taken another back with a higher floor and lower ceiling--i.e., NOT a Denver RB. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Mike Bell could be a Top 10 back or completely worthless. You passed on plenty of players with a much higher floor to take a swipe at a third stud RB. That's a HUGE gamble! It's a very slim chance at having a very huge payoff--the most likely outcome is that Bell produces in the same league as all the other RBBC backs, or that he lights it up for a couple games and you trade off one of your studs for an upgrade at another position and you're left holding the bag when he comes back to earth. In general I agree with what you are saying. That whole thread is there to make the point you are making, with Frank Gore as the guy with the target on his head. What you aren't allowing for is people drafting solidly in the forst several rounds and then taking a stab. Why is Mike Bell more of a stab than DeShaun Foster, Lawrence Maroney, Domanic Rhodes, some mid tier TE, or a guy like Mushin Muhammed? They are all stabs and all have bust factors. Draft well early and pick your spots with where you want to take bust risks, and you should do well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) you got him in the 8th because TBell was supposed to be "the man" TBell owners prolly were not too happy just gotta pick one and hope you get lucky There was no luck involved. Shanahan said M Anderson was tha starting RB, I believed him, and I picked up Anderson in the 9th round. The only luck involved was bad luck for the T Bell owner when he apparently convinced himself in his own mind despite what Shanahan said outright that T Bell was going to be the featured RB. That's his fault, not anyone else's including Shanahan's. Edited August 31, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Oh, so you play with "Team RBs" in your league? Peace policy LOL! I disagree with your drafting philosophy, and you wanna think I'm simple. If it came down to Fraud Taylor and Mike Bell as my #3, I'm going Bell. At that point you're looking at high risk starters, RBBC, rooks, or upside players. I'd rather take a chance on potential than get burned again on injuries or play the WDIS game with 2-3 RBBCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tega Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 It's good to see you in the Huddle policyvote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.