The Wolf Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 This from Sportsline: Analysis: Mike Bell might be Denver's healthiest running back, but his poor running at Pittsburgh in Week 9 really discouraged Shanahan (Bell admitted to not following the gameplan and was benched in Week 10). Nash and Cobbs are fliers at best, but Mike Bell could end up being Denver's best option towards the end of the season as Tatum Bell is hurt with sprained toes. Don't start Bell in Week 11 vs. San Diego, but keep him on your bench as he could surprise you. Maybe there was a method to Skeletaur's madness after all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Ahhh, and here I thought maybe he was having relations with Shanahan's wife or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I just saw that the report is from CBSSportsline. They're about as reliable as Shanahan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) I just saw that the report is from CBSSportsline. They're about as reliable as Shanahan. Yeah...I mean, take it for what it's worth but it is an angle we've not yet heard. Mrs. Skeletaur? Ouch...now I have some HUGHly bad images in my head... Edited November 17, 2006 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 He was inactive - much worse than a benching, and very poor judgement IMO. Shananigans is lucky to have the D he does, or the season woulda been long over by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Funny that we haven't heard one word about this in any of the Denver media, including & especially DEN beat writers Legwold of the News & Williamson of the Post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 Funny that we haven't heard one word about this in any of the Denver media, including & especially DEN beat writers Legwold of the News & Williamson of the Post. I agree. As soon as I posted this I looked at the links to the Denver papers to see if anything was mentioned and theres nothing there. It's completely different than anything we've heard before but like HUGH said, it DOES come from SportsLine. To me, it makes more sense to bench/inactivate a player who openly did not follow the game plan. Mike Bell has shown to be a level-head, humble kid, almost to a fault, so I am sure that there was no malice involved here. Shanny, however, does have to make a point and by benching a guy who did not follow the game plan would make much more sense to me than to simply state that there were yards left on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I would not be surprised that Shanahan is pissed at Mike Bell for some reason but if Bell "doesn't folllow the gameplan" means what? He gets a handoff that directs him to run in some particular direction and it is either open or it is not. As I mentioned in the Predictions and Projections, Bell ran 17 times for 28 yards while the previous opposing running back in PIT had been Larry Johnson who only had 26 yards on 15 carries - almost the exact same result. I would buy that Shanahan doesn't like something about Mike Bell but following the game plan in PIT? I guess Larry Johnson did not either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Shanny did say that M Bell had left a lot of yards on the field. Could that be the tie in, to not following the game plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Shanny did say that M Bell had left a lot of yards on the field. Shanny also admits he says that about every one of his backs that plays each week. His RB obsession has finally taken its toll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 The gameplan was to gain at least 5 ypc, MB failed to do that so he didn't follow the gameplan. Sheesh, don't you guys know anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundaynfl Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Funny that we haven't heard one word about this in any of the Denver media, including & especially DEN beat writers Legwold of the News & Williamson of the Post. Drew Sochier on 9 News mentioned this the other night. It's the only thing that makes sense to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Shanny did say that M Bell had left a lot of yards on the field. Could that be the tie in, to not following the game plan? Whew. It's good to know that Denver's game plan doesn't call for leaving yards on the field. Maybe that's what Oakland and Arizona's problem are. Their game plan does call for leaving yards on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I would not be surprised that Shanahan is pissed at Mike Bell for some reason but if Bell "doesn't folllow the gameplan" means what? He gets a handoff that directs him to run in some particular direction and it is either open or it is not. As I mentioned in the Predictions and Projections, Bell ran 17 times for 28 yards while the previous opposing running back in PIT had been Larry Johnson who only had 26 yards on 15 carries - almost the exact same result. I would buy that Shanahan doesn't like something about Mike Bell but following the game plan in PIT? I guess Larry Johnson did not either... I would guess not following the game plan would not necessarily mean not running the ball where he was supposed to. I would think that it would have more to do with perhaps blocking on a specific assignment, staying in to block instead of going out for a pass, or visa-versa. As I said before, MB looked pretty good in his 4th quarter runs. It looked like he was starting to get the offense. But hey, apparently Nash actually looked better on the practice squad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Sportsline = Sportslies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I just saw that the report is from CBSSportsline. They're about as reliable as Shanahan. Why go there then? Even doing the opposite of what they recommend is risky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 I'm still sitting on Mike Bell. Tatum is a Rosie O'Donnell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Sportsline = Sportslies Did you really ever expect CBS to provide you with hot news 1st? If so, then you are (to put it nicely) naive. If not, then why are you telling us this as if we believe in CBS. CBS bashing is so old. 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.