Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Tatum Bell or Mike Anderson


Recommended Posts

I have been hearing lately that Mike Anderson will be the starter this year in Denver. How did this happen? I thought Bell was the sure starter... anyone have any truth to this about what the deal is or is it up in the air still on who will start? Please email me with your response at dawgpounder92@msn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been hearing lately that Mike Anderson will be the starter this year in Denver.  How did this happen?  I thought Bell was the sure starter... anyone have any truth to this about what the deal is or is it up in the air still on who will start?  Please email me with your response at dawgpounder92@msn.com

 

876670[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No one knows for sure. Anderson is supposedly at the top of the RB depth chart right now in Denver, but everyone expects Bell to be the starter in Week 1. (With Bell averaging 5.3 ypc in limited duty last season (only Jesse Chatman and Mewelde Moore had a better ypc out of RBs who took more than 60 snaps last year), and scoring 3 TDs in just 75 snaps, he'll get his shot). However, while Shanny is known to prefer using one featured back, he is equally known for changing who that featured back is several times during the season. So regardless of who the starter is in Week 1, you shouldn't rely on that back remaining the starter on a week-to-week basis.

 

IMO, if you draft Bell early, you should acquire Mike Anderson as the handcuff. (And unless Andersen is still in serious contention for the starting position, he should fall pretty far in most drafts). But with Clarrett, Dayne, and Griffen also present, you just can't be sure of anything. So don't reach for Bell. But if you do draft Bell, you simply must add at least one - perhaps two - of the other Denver backs to your roster. Good luck picking the right one(s).

 

But if Bell isn't the starter, Shanny would have to be insane to give an unproven rookie like Clarrett the gig over Anderson (the only 1,000 rusher currently in the Bronco's backfield). Dayne is a joke. And here's an article that leads me to believe Griffen won't be an immediate participant in Denver's running game: http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=4284. So that's why I think Anderson is the best RB to handcuff to Bell, if you're only going to add one.

Edited by yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one knows for sure.  Anderson is supposedly at the top of the RB depth chart right now in Denver, but everyone expects Bell to be the starter in Week 1.  (With Bell averaging 5.3 ypc in limited duty last season (only Jesse Chatman and Mewelde Moore had a better ypc out of RBs who took more than 60 snaps last year), and scoring 3 TDs in just 75 snaps, he'll get his shot).  However, while Shanny is known to prefer using one featured back, he is equally known for changing who that featured back is several times during the season.  So regardless of who the starter is in Week 1, you shouldn't rely on that back remaining the starter on a week-to-week basis.

 

IMO, if you draft Bell early, you should try and to acquire Mike Anderson as the handcuff.  (And unless Andersen is still in serious contention for the starting position, he should fall pretty far in most drafts).  But with Clarrett and Griffen also present, you just can't be sure of anything.  So don't reach for Bell.  But if you do draft Bell, you simply must add at least one - perhaps two - of the other Denver backs to your roster.  Good luck picking the right one(s).

 

And if Bell isn't the starter, Shanny would have to be insane to give an unproven rookie like Clarrett the gig over Anderson (the only 1,000 rusher currently in the Bronco's backfield).  Dayne is a joke.  And here's an article that leads me to believe Griffen won't be an immediate participant in Denver's running game: http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=4284.  So that's why I think Anderson is the best RB to handcuff to Bell.

 

877098[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I completely dissagree with this. Shanny does not have a history of changing RB's week to week. Unless there is a situation that needs to be fixed, he sticks with on back the entire season. Injuries are an obvious, having a RB who gets worn down (ala Droughns) are the only reasons RB's have changed in Denver. This is not Minn., or even Pitt. Once the starting guy is picked, he'll get the carries. Expect this to be Bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I completely dissagree with this.  Shanny does not have a history of changing RB's week to week.  Unless there is a situation that needs to be fixed, he sticks with on back the entire season.  Injuries are an obvious, having a RB who gets worn down (ala Droughns) are the only reasons RB's have changed in Denver.  This is not Minn., or even Pitt.  Once the starting guy is picked, he'll get the carries.  Expect this to be Bell.

 

877154[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well, it doesn't sound like you comletely disagree with me. We both agree Bell will most likely be the starter come Week 1.

 

Regarding the week-to-week stuff, I'll concede you're correct in that Denver is not like Minn. They don't rotate backs for no apparent reason. But in 2004 the top 3 Denver RBs (based on number of carries) were: Droughns - 275; Bell - 75; and Griffen - 85. In the 2003 season there was a similiar distribution: Portis - 290; Griffen - 94; and Andersen - 70.

 

Let's contrast that with another run-heavy offense, like San Diego. In 2004 the top 3 RBs for San Diego (based on number of carries) was: LT - 339; Chatman - 65; and Turner 20. For the 2003 season it was: LT - 313; L. Neal - 18; Chatman - 8.

 

And what about Seattle? In 2004: Alexander had 353; Strong had 36; Morris had 30. In 2003: Alexander had 326; Morris: 38; Strong 37.

 

So over the last two years Denver has undeniably spread the running game between multiple backs more than San Diego and Seattle have. Even if the only explanation for the difference in the numbers between Denver and San Diego/Seattle is based on injury replacements in Denver, that phenominon has nevertheless occured the last two years in a row in Denver. That was really my only point in that regard, NAUgrad.

Edited by yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it doesn't sound like you comletely disagree with me.  We both agree Bell will most likely be the starter come Week 1. 

 

Regarding the week-to-week stuff, I'll concede you're correct in that Denver is not like Minn.  They don't rotate backs for no apparent reason.  But in 2004 the top 3 Denver RBs (based on number of carries) were: Droughns - 275; Bell - 75; and Griffen - 85.  In the 2003 season there was a similiar distribution: Portis - 290; Griffen - 94; and Andersen - 70.

 

Let's contrast that with another run-heavy offense, like San Diego.  In 2004 the top 3 RBs for San Diego (based on number of carries) was: LT - 339; Chatman - 65; and Turner 20.  For the 2003 season it was: LT - 313; L. Neal - 18; Chatman - 8.

 

And what about Seattle?  In 2004: Alexander had 353; Strong had 36; Morris had 30.  In 2003: Alexander had 326; Morris: 38; Strong 37.

 

So over the last two years Denver has undeniably spread the running game between multiple backs more than San Diego and Seattle have. Even if the only explanation for the difference in the numbers between Denver and San Diego/Seattle is based on injury replacements in Denver, that phenominon has nevertheless occured the last two years in a row in Denver.  That was really my only point in that regard, NAUgrad.

 

877193[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I gottcha. Good info. there. It's really unfair to claim last year was a norm as Griffin was given every chance to do well and just didn't put up the numbers, then got hurt, and Droughns wore down so they had to play Bell.

 

The previous year Portis didn't take more of the carries because of an injured sturnum which he struggled with for a number of weeks, and he was allowed to sub himself as he pleased. (I think this allowed for more shared carries, but the injury was the biggest issue). So barring injury, Portis' numbers would have easily equaled LT.

 

Again, I can see how folks are all worked up because of the depth at RB. All I'm saying is there will be a clear #1 and it will be Bell. (Man I hope I'm right!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I can see how folks are all worked up because of the depth at RB.  All I'm saying is there will be a clear #1 and it will be Bell.  (Man I hope I'm right!!!)

 

877502[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Oh, I couldn't agree more, NAUgrad.

 

I think Denver's RB depth comes into play more in the context of which handcuff to select, rather than which featured RB will start the season. I suppose Anderson still has a shot. But like I said before, I think any Bell owner should acquire both, just to be sure. That way you've got: (1) both of the top featured RB candidates; and (2) their presumtive handcuff.

 

However, Denver RBs seem to get hurt a lot. Portis' sternum, Griffen, Anderson, and Droughns' wearing down (sort of counts). And maybe I'm crazy, but Bell doesn't give me that rock solid feeling when it comes to his durability. So I still think it is valuable to understand the Denver backfield beyond just Bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAUgrad and yo mama posted some really good information. I'll take some pictures of my screen with my digital camera, load it into my computer and email them right over.

 

Oh yeah. Shanny doesn't know :D so neither do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been hearing lately that Mike Anderson will be the starter this year in Denver.  How did this happen?  I thought Bell was the sure starter... anyone have any truth to this about what the deal is or is it up in the air still on who will start?  Please email me with your response at dawgpounder92@msn.com

 

876670[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Where do you live? maybe we can meet up for beers to discuss further. Seriously though, they spent a pretty high pick on Bell (highest running back picked by shanahan) and they will give him every chance to succeed. Anderson will be 32 by the start of the season and hasn't been a full time back since 2000. If bell is healthy, i can't see him not having a great year. But health is a question mark with him, so there is some risk involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alot of people will take Bell early, I'll wait a couple rounds and take Anderson...

 

Bell just reminds me of Julius Jones....both seem injury prone and very similar...and both of these backs, I will avoid unless I see them at a very reasonable spot on the draft board...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry it took me so long to reply, my bus got a flat somewhere in Montana. Bell will get his chance to see if he can play. In short, he can. 1500/10 is not at all out of the question here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all Shanahanagans

 

 

My guess is it will be much like last year toward the end of the year when everyone thought Droughns was the man then Bell started doing well and good old mike was non commital on who was the starter each week.

 

My guess is Bell will be the starter but Anderson may be the goal line guy. I plan on avoiding this situaiton if I can. Shanahan will drive fantasy owners crazy with his tactics :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information