Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Because like as not, the RB who Shanahan named as the #1 RB a month before the season started and "DEN's #1 RB" when the season is over are not the same guy. Either way, you know as well as I that Denver's most productive fantasy back at the end of the year is hardly ever a "#1 RB" in the true sense of the term--the guy at the top of the depth chart from wire-to-wire, getting 15-20 touches a game. GB a good work of fiction. You really don't bother with facts much when you spin you tall tales, do you? But do you really expect everyone here to accept your nonsense at face value? Try this out for size: 2005 Week 1 #1 RB Mike Anderson Week 16 #1 RB Mike Anderson Mike Anderson touches per game: 17.1 tpg Comment: Mike Anderson wire to wire, and with only 17.1 tpg is the #10 FF RB in the league. 2004 Week 1 #1 RB Quentin Griffin Week 16 #1 RB Reuben Droughns Reuben Droughns touches per game: 21.6 tpg Comment: Mike Anderson was #1 RB, hurt in preseason game on last play of game on special teams when he ran out on his own to substitute for missing player on KO team. Q Griffin substituted as #1 in week 1, but disclaimers were all over that he couldn't keep job, gets hurt in week 4, R Droughns takes over as literally last healthy RB left on roster (actually FB, but top 4 RBs were hurt). 2003 Week 1 #1 RB Clinton Portis Week 16 #1 RB Clinton Portis Clinton Portis touches per game: 25.2 tpg Comment: Portis wire to wire, continues as FF stud. 2002 Week 1 #1 RB Olandis Gary Week 16 #1 RB Clinton Portis Clinton Portis touches per game: 19.1 tpg Comment: Portis as rookie fumbles 3 times in week 3 preseason, puts off starting RB duties but gets significant work until week 5 after Gary got hurt week 4. Disclaimers everywhere on FF boards that Portis was #1 RB and would take over job by week 4. Portis begins journey as FF stud. 2001 Year is complete cluster-ford. TD trying to come back from injury started as #1 RB, got hurt, came back later in year. Gary coming back from injury gets hurt again, in and out as #1 along with M Anderson. Injuries made complete mess of season for RBs. 2000 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Mike Anderson Mike Anderson touches per game: 22.8 tpg Comment: TD is #1 RB/workhorse until wrecked knee tackling DL making fumble recovery. 6th round pick Anderson takes over as sole #1 RB and puts up 1500 yards rushing in 12 games. 1999 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Olandis Gary Olandis Gary touches per game: 24.8 tpg Comment: TD has first injury bout, 4th round pick Gary takes over and puts up over 1000 yds. 1998 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 26.1 tpg Comment: TD continues as top RB. 1997 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 27.4 tpg Comment: TD continues as top RB. 1996 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 23.8 tpg Comment: TD continues as top RB. 1995 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 20.4 tpg Comment: 6th round pick Terrell Davis gets chance with starting backfield after preseason week 3 special teams gigantic hit in Tokyo vs SF, rest is history. *************************************************** So, what we see is that with the exception of injury replacement, whomever is named the #1 RB in week 1 is the #1 RB in week 16. Now, unless you are suggesting that Shanahan intentionally schedules injuries for his RBs so he can plug another RB in, your speculation about rotaing RBs is a myth. In fact, last season was the first year that Shanahan intentionally ran a RBBC, and his wire-to-wire #1 RB, Mike Anderson, even in RBBC situations sharing time with T Bell put up top 10 FF RB numbers (and T Bell put up numbers that put him as the #22/#23 FF RB in limited duty). Please note that Anderson easily had the least touches per game, but was still over your 15 tpg criteria with 17.1 tpg, and his production was outstanding for a RB who could be had very late in FF drafts. In fact, the only mistake that Shanahan looks like he made in 11 years with his #1 RB was with Griffin, who was widely regarded as a poor choice as a featured RB on FF boards (but it should be noted was behind Anderson on the depth chart until Anderson got hurt in the fluke ST injury), and that proved to be true when he was replaced by Droughns (who could be had in week 3 on the WW for sharp FF owners) when Griffin was hurt, joining preseason #1 RB M Anderson, G Hearst, & T Bell on the injury list. 2001 stands out as a true mess with all the injuries having the RB position as a merry-go-round seemingly every week. I see your assertion of a "hardly ever" wire-to-wire #1 RB being disclaimed by 6 of 11 years with a wire-to-wire #1 RB, 5 of the 11 years with an injury change in the #1 RB during the year, with 2 of those 5 years easily predictable before the season started (Griffin to anyone but Griffin, and Gary to Portis). I'll await your rebuttal........ Edited August 31, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Burning a fourth or fifth rounder to build your team around the 1-2 punch of a legit #1 and one of the Denver RBs, thinking to yourself "Ohhh, yeah, I got the inside dope on (Denver RB), he's going to be the starter!" is dain bramaged. Explain to the class again why getting a top 10 FF RB in the 4th/5th round - well after the top 10 RBs are selected in the 1st/early 2nd round - is exhibiting brain damage. The only time a DEN RB has finished out of the top 10 in FF numbers was in the cluster-ford 2001 season, when Droughns finished as the #14 FF RB in 2004 despite playing his first 4 games at FB, and O Gary in 1999. That's 8 of 11 seasons with a top 10 FF RB, and another damn close to top 10 after being available as a WW pickup in week 3 in FF leagues - and that includes a top 10 FF RB despite being in a bonafide full season RBBC last year. Edited August 31, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Plane Out Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 nice research Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 GB a good work of fiction. You really don't bother with facts much when you spin you tall tales, do you? But do you really expect everyone here to accept your nonsense at face value? Try this out for size: 2005 Week 1 #1 RB Mike Anderson Week 16 #1 RB Mike Anderson Mike Anderson touches per game: 17.1 tpg Comment: Mike Anderson wire to wire, and with only 17.1 tpg is the #10 FF RB in the league. 2004 Week 1 #1 RB Quentin Griffin Week 16 #1 RB Reuben Droughns Reuben Droughns touches per game: 21.6 tpg Comment: Mike Anderson was #1 RB, hurt in preseason game on last play of game on special teams when he ran out on his own to substitute for missing player on KO team. Q Griffin substituted as #1 in week 1, but disclaimers were all over that he couldn't keep job, gets hurt in week 4, R Droughns takes over as literally last healthy RB left on roster (actually FB, but top 4 RBs were hurt). 2003 Week 1 #1 RB Clinton Portis Week 16 #1 RB Clinton Portis Clinton Portis touches per game: 25.2 tpg Comment: Portis wire to wire, continues as FF stud. 2002 Week 1 #1 RB Olandis Gary Week 16 #1 RB Clinton Portis Clinton Portis touches per game: 19.1 tpg Comment: Portis as rookie fumbles 3 times in week 3 preseason, puts off starting RB duties but gets significant work until week 5 after Gary got hurt week 4. Disclaimers everywhere on FF boards that Portis was #1 RB and would take over job by week 4. Portis begins journey as FF stud. 2001 Year is complete cluster-ford. TD trying to come back from injury started as #1 RB, got hurt, came back later in year. Gary coming back from injury gets hurt again, in and out as #1 along with M Anderson. Injuries made complete mess of season for RBs. 2000 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Mike Anderson Mike Anderson touches per game: 22.8 tpg Comment: TD is #1 RB/workhorse until wrecked knee tackling DL making fumble recovery. 6th round pick Anderson takes over as sole #1 RB and puts up 1500 yards rushing in 12 games. 1999 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Olandis Gary Olandis Gary touches per game: 24.8 tpg Comment: TD has first injury bout, 4th round pick Gary takes over and puts up over 1000 yds. 1998 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 26.1 tpg Comment: TD continues as top RB. 1997 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 27.4 tpg Comment: TD continues as top RB. 1996 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 23.8 tpg Comment: TD continues as top RB. 1995 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Terrell Davis Terrell Davis touches per game: 20.4 tpg Comment: 6th round pick Terrell Davis gets chance with starting backfield after preseason week 3 special teams gigantic hit in Tokyo vs SF, rest is history. *************************************************** So, what we see is that with the exception of injury replacement, whomever is named the #1 RB in week 1 is the #1 RB in week 16. Now, unless you are suggesting that Shanahan intentionally schedules injuries for his RBs so he can plug another RB in, your speculation about rotaing RBs is a myth. In fact, last season was the first year that Shanahan intentionally ran a RBBC, and his wire-to-wire #1 RB, Mike Anderson, even in RBBC situations sharing time with T Bell put up top 10 FF RB numbers (and T Bell put up numbers that put him as the #22/#23 FF RB in limited duty). Please note that Anderson easily had the least touches per game, but was still over your 15 tpg criteria with 17.1 tpg, and his production was outstanding for a RB who could be had very late in FF drafts. In fact, the only mistake that Shanahan looks like he made in 11 years with his #1 RB was with Griffin, who was widely regarded as a poor choice as a featured RB on FF boards (but it should be noted was behind Anderson on the depth chart until Anderson got hurt in the fluke ST injury), and that proved to be true when he was replaced by Droughns (who could be had in week 3 on the WW for sharp FF owners) when Griffin was hurt, joining preseason #1 RB M Anderson, G Hearst, & T Bell on the injury list. 2001 stands out as a true mess with all the injuries having the RB position as a merry-go-round seemingly every week. I see your assertion of a "hardly ever" wire-to-wire #1 RB being disclaimed by 6 of 11 years with a wire-to-wire #1 RB, 5 of the 11 years with an injury change in the #1 RB during the year, with 2 of those 5 years easily predictable before the season started (Griffin to anyone but Griffin, and Gary to Portis). I'll await your rebuttal........ Oh, Snap, Policy was just taken... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Oh, Snap, Policy was just taken... He ought to know better by now. You can lead a horse to water.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Nobody in their right mind was predicting that good of a year for Anderson, and rightly so--because you never know. That is false. I made a bet with Turf Smurf about Mike Anderson. He said he would be the starter through the year, I told him he wouldn't be by week 3. We agreed to week 6 dead line. I lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Peace policy Would you just put this in your sigline and be done with it? P.S. I miss wayne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Policy- on point I agree- I have not touched either Bell in any of my drafts. We will let the genius that is Bronco Billy look into his John Elway magic 8 ball and figure this out. The reality is, will I take a chance on MBell if he falls to the right spot? ehh maybe, do I draft a Gore, CT,WDunn as my #2 RB, yep probably... TBell late- possibly but unlikey. Do I expect either to produce enough to crack my lineup? absolutely not. Playing the Shanny game and who MAY get the bulk of the carries week to week? uh no thanks. BBilly can just make you fall in love with the 'COS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) I have never said that the Denver running game is not effective. I'm saying that when your fantasy team needs a starting RB, if you burn a high draft pick or spend lots of auction cash to bring in a Denver RB, you're taking a big risk, emperically speaking. 2005Week 1 #1 RB Mike Anderson Week 16 #1 RB Mike Anderson Mike Anderson touches per game: 17.1 tpg Comment: Mike Anderson wire to wire, and with only 17.1 tpg is the #10 FF RB in the league. Rebuttal: again, although Anderson was the announced the nominal "starter", many thought that Bell's youth and athleticism would have him hitting the home runs, and eventually displacing the then-32-year-old Anderson. Bell clearly had more speed and explosion; it was perfectly legitimate to think that he could produce well, and perhaps wrest the starting job away from Anderson in a hurry. Lest you think this mere folly, most were taking their cue from what Portis did to Gary and Anderson years before. Our own Huddle had Anderson ranked as the 27th best available back, and Bell ranked close behind him at #37. Given his age, the punshiment his body took in pro ball, college ball, and the Marines, and the fact that he was coming off a season-ending injury, all FF common sense pointed to staying away from Anderson on risk factor alone. Again, late-round flyers are late-round flyers. You, BB, took Anderson in the sixth? IMO that was a reach in terms of draft value, many could have had him in the seventh or the eighth in their leauge. As a third or fourth back when all your other starters are fleshed out--great, sure, why not? But the higher you took Anderson last year, the bigger risk you were taking. It just happened to pan out in your case. 2004 Week 1 #1 RB Quentin Griffin Week 16 #1 RB Reuben Droughns Reuben Droughns touches per game: 21.6 tpg Comment: Mike Anderson was #1 RB, hurt in preseason game on last play of game on special teams when he ran out on his own to substitute for missing player on KO team. Q Griffin substituted as #1 in week 1, but disclaimers were all over that he couldn't keep job, gets hurt in week 4, R Droughns takes over as literally last healthy RB left on roster (actually FB, but top 4 RBs were hurt). Rebuttal: Mike Anderson, who hadn't produced in quantity or quality since ONE good season four years prior, was named the preseason #1. Quentin Griffin, however, had youth and speed, and for every "disclaimer" that was out there about him not getting the nod, there were two more articles proclaiming him the back of the near-future. Even for those that drafted pre-injury, it was again nearly a coin flip. Ultimately every RB on the roster ended up hurt, and the backup fullback blew up. There's no accounting for injuries, that's for sure. But again, people were trying to apply the lessons learned from Clinton Portis--take the young explosive guy over the iffy, aging also-rans. Griffin just wasn't explosive enough. 2003 Week 1 #1 RB Clinton Portis Week 16 #1 RB Clinton Portis Clinton Portis touches per game: 25.2 tpg Comment: Portis wire to wire, continues as FF stud. Yeah, pretty amazing what a back with speed and talent can do in the Denver system, eh? Portis is an exceptional talent and a true stud running back, no question. I have said and will say bad things about Shanahan when it comes to PR, but the man DOES run a real stud back if he has one at his disposal. 2002 Week 1 #1 RB Olandis Gary Week 16 #1 RB Clinton Portis Clinton Portis touches per game: 19.1 tpg Comment: Portis as rookie fumbles 3 times in week 3 preseason, puts off starting RB duties but gets significant work until week 5 after Gary got hurt week 4. Disclaimers everywhere on FF boards that Portis was #1 RB and would take over job by week 4. Portis begins journey as FF stud. Again, with your "disclaimers"--as we can see on this thread, and every other Denver RB thread every on any FF board, opinions are like buttholes; everyone's got one. For every "disclaimer" that Portis was going to steal the job from Gary and Anderson, there was someone else saying, "Are you crazy?? How does a rookie take the job from TWO 1,000-yard rushers??" You talk as if the ONLY preseason buzz surrounding Denver running backs projected what actually happened; in actuality it was a mess of conflicting info 24/7 for weeks if not months--just like this year. But if we're going with the announced preason #1 in every case, in THIS case you got screwed, plain and simple. 2001 Year is complete cluster-ford. TD trying to come back from injury started as #1 RB, got hurt, came back later in year. Gary coming back from injury gets hurt again, in and out as #1 along with M Anderson. Injuries made complete mess of season for RBs. Right-O. Well, then. Complete cluster-ford and rampant speculation with legit arguments to all sides. Everyone had their "sure fire" stud that was OBVIOUSLY the starter, and basically everyone in FF who took a Denver back got screwed. So yeah. Pretty much what I was talking about. 2000 Week 1 #1 RB Terrell Davis Week 16 #1 RB Mike Anderson Mike Anderson touches per game: 22.8 tpg Comment: TD is #1 RB/workhorse until wrecked knee tackling DL making fumble recovery. 6th round pick Anderson takes over as sole #1 RB and puts up 1500 yards rushing in 12 games. TD was announced as the starter for sure, and everyone knew he'd get the bulk of the load, but many were locked on to Gary as his backup . . . bummer for the Gary owners. 1999 - 1995 Didn't the title of the post say "six years"? Everyone knows that TD was a stud from the day he got the rock. Nowhere did anyone, anywhere, suggest that Terrell Davis was anything but a fantasy goldmine for the years he was the undisputed starter. After he went down in '99 and Gary was so effective, however, there's been at least moderate uncertainty, and in most years, complete anarchy from an FF perspective. So, what we see is that with the exception of injury replacement, whomever is named the #1 RB in week 1 is the #1 RB in week 16. This is true as long as you follow the always-true-and-never-conflicting Internet Message Board disclaimers, which in 2002 unanimously told us that Clinton Portis would, as a rookie, leapfrog two proven NFL backs on the official Depth Chart and become a fantasy rockstar, and in 2004 that rookie Quentin Griffin had no shot at keeping the starters' job, just look at the official Depth Chart, and in 2005 that other backs would get more touches than "#1 RB" Mike Anderson but "#1 RB" Mike Anderson would outproduce them anyway thanks to his status on the Depth Chart (and ignoring any concerns about age, injury, or rust) . . . . . . oh yeah and there was that year where everything was FUBAR. Oh and that other year where everything was FUBAR. Come on, man. You been breathing too much of that Mile High air. Come down for a minute and admit that the post-Terrell Denver RB picture is a hell of a lot more complicated and difficult to figure than drafting whoever is #1 on the depth chart come Week 1 and riding them to victory. Peace policy Edited August 31, 2006 by policyvote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Would you just put this in your sigline and be done with it? P.S. I miss wayne. Nah, that would be too easy. You know, I've been meaning to put 'ol Wayno back in there. You can't really read Saddam's Fire Millen sign. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Nobody in their right mind was predicting that good of a year for Anderson... Peace policy You sure about that, chief? Edited August 31, 2006 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 You sure about that, chief? Great call Dennis Leonard...whomever you are. Also look how many Experts called TBell their "Bust." I wouldn't think nearly 1,000 yeard and 10 TD's is a bust, but he clearly was not what people predicted. Maybe that's why so many people are down on MBell...? I am not one of them but it is food for thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 You sure about that, chief? Nice try. There's one other guy with Bell in his list of "sleepers", and there's three other guys saying listing Bell with their "busts"--why? Because with Anderson, Dayne, Mo-Clo, and the yearly clusterfudge that is Denver RBs and Mike Shanahans use of them, YOU SHOULD NOT BURN A GOOD PICK ON A DENVER RB TO START. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Also look how many Experts called TBell their "Bust." I wouldn't think nearly 1,000 yeard and 10 TD's is a bust, but he clearly was not what people predicted. Failing to secure the featured RB spot was a big disappointment for those who drafted Tatum in the 3rd and 4th round last year. Like you said, his stats weren't bad per se, but lots of folks overpaid for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) I have never said that the Denver running game is not effective. I'm saying that when your fantasy team needs a starting RB, if you burn a high draft pick or spend lots of auction cash to bring in a Denver RB, you're taking a big risk, emperically speaking. Rebuttal: again, although Anderson was the announced the nominal "starter", many thought that Bell's youth and athleticism would have him hitting the home runs, and eventually displacing the then-32-year-old Anderson. Bell clearly had more speed and explosion; it was perfectly legitimate to think that he could produce well, and perhaps wrest the starting job away from Anderson in a hurry. Lest you think this mere folly, most were taking their cue from what Portis did to Gary and Anderson years before. Our own Huddle had Anderson ranked as the 27th best available back, and Bell ranked close behind him at #37. Given his age, the punshiment his body took in pro ball, college ball, and the Marines, and the fact that he was coming off a season-ending injury, all FF common sense pointed to staying away from Anderson on risk factor alone. Again, late-round flyers are late-round flyers. You, BB, took Anderson in the sixth? And thus is a perfect illustration of the fallacy you keep repeating. First off, Anderson was named the #1 RB last year. That some dreamers sought to ignore direct statements from Shanahan - who has not lied about starting RBs before when all of his RBs were healthy - and I defy you to find even one instance of a contrary case - and insisted that T Bell would start doesn't make that fact false. I got M Anderson in the 9th round - and many people who drafted him took him in the 8th or later - all because of those misperceptions. Secondly, to predict that kind of performance for the DEN RBs: #27 & #37, is just stupid. DEN has had the #6 or better rushing offense in 9 of the 11 years that Shanahan has coached DEN. He has produced a top 10 FF RB in 8 of his 11 years. DEN is the top cumulative rushing team in the NFL over the time period in the NFL that Shanahan has been HC in DEN. To rank the DEN top 2 RBs that low as a tandem is downright ignorant - yet we're seeing the same kind of thinking this year. How exactly is DEN going to slip that far down the rushing rankings in the face of the track record that Shanahan has provided so far? That progosticators don't have the balls to make a bold prediction on the DEN RBs, even given all the history provided for them, shows nothing short of blatant ignorance. That ignorance leaves the DEN #1 RB - the guy who is going to be drafted in the 4th round or lower this year - as a low risk value pick who will manage to sneak into at least the top 10 FF RBs this year. You just need to figure out who that #1 RB will be, and to do that, one merely has to listen and stop with the idle speculation that runs rampant on FF boards every year. That the T Bell owners hope with all their might that T Bell will emerge as the #1 RB, the fact is that Shanahan has told us in words & actions that T Bell is the #2/CoP RB and no better. That people will hopefully that Cobbs emerges as the #1 RB ignore the reporting that Cobbs is in a dogfight with Dayne for the #3 RB spot and quite possibly a roster spot on the team. Shanahan has said that he has re-opened the RB race, but to think that M Bell doesn't have a huge leg up running with the #1 O amid such fanfare from DEN coaches AND players while Cobbs has been running with no better than alternating reps with the 2nd team and T Bell has been treated as only a CoP RB simply ignores the facts - again. Could M Bell be replaced? Sure, anything is possible until the regular season actually starts. But that it is improbable is also supported clearly by statements and actions. Plain & simple, M Bell would have to piss the job away. Be as skeptical as you want about the DEN RB situation. Ignore it in your draft all you want because you are sadly uniformed and rely on misperceptions that you in fact help perpetuate. But stop posting such blatantly false information and acting as though it is fact beyond reproach. Better to be silent and thought of as an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Edited August 31, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Failing to secure the featured RB spot was a big disappointment for those who drafted Tatum in the 3rd and 4th round last year. Like you said, his stats weren't bad per se, but lots of folks overpaid for them. Agreed...and I did have him as my keeper. Only cost me $13 out of a $300 cap so it did not hurt me that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Nice try. There's one other guy with Bell in his list of "sleepers", and there's three other guys saying listing Bell with their "busts"--why? Because with Anderson, Dayne, Mo-Clo, and the yearly clusterfudge that is Denver RBs and Mike Shanahans use of them, YOU SHOULD NOT BURN A GOOD PICK ON A DENVER RB TO START. Peace policy Nice Try?!?! You said "no one" called Anderson last year. Well, that's not exactly true: *I* called Anderson, and provided some meaty, substantive research to back that ultimately correct call. Now if you'll excuse me, I need some ice. All this patting myself on the back has been murder on my shoulder. (FYI, I'm just giving you a hard time PV. Everyone knows you're usually running around here dropping knowledge left and right). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) Saw the news on Tatum, where they told him "they'll no longer rotate backs" with him and Mike Bell, it'll be all Tatum, all the time. . . . ha ha, allegedly. Can we finally put the coffin back in the ground, now that the final nail's been driven through it? Beyond late-round fliers, Denver RBs are bad news. If you draft one and expect him to get 20 carries a game all season long, that is YOUR OWN FAULT. Unless and until Denver acquires a true, top-flight talent (one that would be the undisputed starter on most other teams), this will continue to be true. Stop wasting your time trying to figure out who will be "The Starter" in Denver, because there ain't one. Peace policy Edited September 29, 2006 by policyvote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Nice Try?!?! You said "no one" called Anderson last year. Well, that's not exactly true: *I* called Anderson, and provided some meaty, substantive research to back that ultimately correct call. Now if you'll excuse me, I need some ice. All this patting myself on the back has been murder on my shoulder. (FYI, I'm just giving you a hard time PV. Everyone knows you're usually running around here dropping knowledge left and right). Whoops, sorry dude. Didn't realize that was you in that article. I stand by my statements through this entire thread; that drafting a Denver RB for your fantasy team is a shot in the dark, a spin of the roulette wheel, and should be left to the later rounds. Everyone who's been trying Ouija boards and seances trying to channel the ghost of Skeletor to determine which guy is going to be the one who gets all the carries officially looks foolish right now, no matter who they predicted would get the rock. Furthermore, I fully expect at least one more flip-flop by season's end. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Whoops, sorry dude. Didn't realize that was you in that article. I stand by my statements through this entire thread; that drafting a Denver RB for your fantasy team is a shot in the dark, a spin of the roulette wheel, and should be left to the later rounds. Everyone who's been trying Ouija boards and seances trying to channel the ghost of Skeletor to determine which guy is going to be the one who gets all the carries officially looks foolish right now, no matter who they predicted would get the rock. Furthermore, I fully expect at least one more flip-flop by season's end. Peace policy I drafted Mike Anderson last year...and then I traded him with Andre Johnson for Holt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Shanahan said M Anderson was tha starting RB, I believed him, and I picked up Anderson in the 9th round. so if you believed shanahan so staunchly how come you passed on him 8 times? and policy, your whole premise in this thread is stupid. you start out saying people should ignore the denver backfield, "there's no gold in dem dar hills", blah blah blah. of course we all know there IS gold in dem dar hills, you're just not always certain where it's at. which means a savvy FFer is going to pay a LOT of attention to the probabilities and possibilites to try and get an edge. of course, anyone would have to have been stupid to have drafted either bell in the first 3 or so rounds this year. but whoever drafted tatum in all of your leagues is feeling pretty good right about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted September 30, 2006 Author Share Posted September 30, 2006 so if you believed shanahan so staunchly how come you passed on him 8 times? and policy, your whole premise in this thread is stupid. you start out saying people should ignore the denver backfield, "there's no gold in dem dar hills", blah blah blah. of course we all know there IS gold in dem dar hills, you're just not always certain where it's at. which means a savvy FFer is going to pay a LOT of attention to the probabilities and possibilites to try and get an edge. of course, anyone would have to have been stupid to have drafted either bell in the first 3 or so rounds this year. but whoever drafted tatum in all of your leagues is feeling pretty good right about now. . . . for about two days, sure, Tatum Bell looks great. But Bell has had like three seasons to distinguish himself and he just hasn't. He's no better than the other Bell, or Cobbs, or any of the other stiffs they'bve plugged into that system over the years. As I and others have been pointing out, what Shanahan says and what he does are two different things. I'll believe this "Bell gets 20 carries a game for the rest of the season" nonsense when I see it. All we know now is that the Shanny-proclaimed "starter", who BB assured us all was bound for a wonderful season because Skeletor hath proclaimed it so, is now apparently on the bench, after a few games' worth of sort-of-but-not-quite starting. Betcha a pair of tube socks that I'll be bumping this thread again before the trade deadline for another round of I-told-you-sos. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Betcha a pair of tube socks that I'll be bumping this thread again before the trade deadline for another round of I-told-you-sos. well, i don't doubt that. if you're gonna make yourself look like a complete idiot and bump it after tatum gets 27 carries for 135 or whatever and appears entrenched as the starting back, i wouldn't put much past you. you've got a very strange notion of i-told-you-so. you coulda had both bells in like the 5th and 7th rounds of most drafts this year. you think that's a situation to be avoided at all costs? yer an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted September 30, 2006 Author Share Posted September 30, 2006 well, i don't doubt that. if you're gonna make yourself look like a complete idiot and bump it after tatum gets 27 carries for 135 or whatever and appears entrenched as the starting back, i wouldn't put much past you. you've got a very strange notion of i-told-you-so. you coulda had both bells in like the 5th and 7th rounds of most drafts this year. you think that's a situation to be avoided at all costs? yer an idiot. Maybe not by the seventh, but in the fifth and sixth, you're still drafting starters and key backups. In the fifth, there's usually still quite the selection of quality QBs and WRs that will be better than any given Denver running back, especially considering the savings on Alka-Seltzer and Pepto from all the heartburn Skeletor WON'T be giving you. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 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. ?? Have you lost your mind? Some DEN RB will do great this year because DEN RBs always do, because it's the system, blah blah blah blah blah 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.