Tatum Bell

[nocarbs 0]

22 carries for 83 yards and 1td. Come on, its the Raiders at home.

[ArnieBragg 1]

Yeah I was expecting more than that. I thought Madden had a good point when he stated that Shanahan was quite conservative with his playcalling last night. If he had let Jake open up a bit more I think Tatum would have had more room to run.

[NewbieJr 541]

He was unimpressive, to say the least. How do you average less than four yards per carry against the Raiders at home?

 

Obviously, he's the best of the sorry lot of backs they have right now in Denver, but the days of the Broncos tailback automatically being a fantasy stud are over.

 

It looks like Mike Bell was a Shanahan-created hoax, but I can see why Tatum couldn't beat out Droughns or Mike Anderson.

[16 and 33 0]

Yeah I don't think too many would have picked the Denver RB to be low scorer amongst the RBs OAK faced in the first 5 weeks (LT2, Jamal, Droughns, Gore).

[ArnieBragg 1]

He was unimpressive, to say the least. How do you average less than four yards per carry against the Raiders at home?

 

Obviously, he's the best of the sorry lot of backs they have right now in Denver, but the days of the Broncos tailback automatically being a fantasy stud are over.

 

It looks like Mike Bell was a Shanahan-created hoax, but I can see why Tatum couldn't beat out Droughns or Mike Anderson.

 

 

Tatum looked mighty impressive against the Pats and then against that nasty Ravens D a couple weeks back.

 

Perhaps just a little off last night.

[dreadlocks34 0]

These responses can't possibly be serious. Ok I will go next then.

 

Tomlinson only had 71 yards on 21 carries against the horrible 49er defense? Terrible. I'm done with him. Good luck if you have him on your roster. Yeah, that is pretty easy and makes good sense also.

[NewbieJr 541]

These responses can't possibly be serious. Ok I will go next then.

 

Tomlinson only had 71 yards on 21 carries against the horrible 49er defense? Terrible. I'm done with him. Good luck if you have him on your roster. Yeah, that is pretty easy and makes good sense also.

I don't think anyone has said that Bell should be dropped.

I just think that people remembered Bell's long runs from the last two years and figured that if he was ever named starter, it would be one long run after another.

To me, Bell is a dancer. He can find a seem from time to time and take it to the house, but he won't be that consistant stud that Denver backs normally are. He's a decent RB2 who will give you the huge game now and then and the clunker now and then. It's just that the Oakland game should have been one of the huge ones.

[The Next Generation 10]

Yeah, a game against a divisional opponent where the whole team only score 13 pts. Who got the TD? Oh yeah, T Bell. Please...it's one game and this is the NFL people.

[nocarbs 0]

These responses can't possibly be serious. Ok I will go next then.

 

Tomlinson only had 71 yards on 21 carries against the horrible 49er defense? Terrible. I'm done with him. Good luck if you have him on your roster. Yeah, that is pretty easy and makes good sense also.

 

how can you compare LT to T.Bell. The Chargers have a high powered offensive. Denver's offensive is avg. only 13 points a game. I would expect more nights like last night from Bell than 22 carries for 135 yards and 2 tds.

Again, I was not impressed by T.Bell last night.

[NewbieJr 541]

Yeah, a game against a divisional opponent where the whole team only score 13 pts. Who got the TD? Oh yeah, T Bell. Please...it's one game and this is the NFL people.

Don't you think that Bell's three yards per carry had a lot to do with why Denver only scored 13 points?

[The Next Generation 10]

Don't you think that Bell's three yards per carry had a lot to do with why Denver only scored 13 points?

 

Do you think the o-line's blocking had something to do with that? Do you think Plummer only throwing for 102 yds had anything to do with that? Sure, it all contributed to it. But again, it's one game against a division opponent in the NFL. And, he did have 94 apy with a TD and they won the game. Not bad, IMO.

[The Hood 9]

I don't think anyone has said that Bell should be dropped.

I just think that people remembered Bell's long runs from the last two years and figured that if he was ever named starter, it would be one long run after another.

To me, Bell is a dancer. He can find a seem from time to time and take it to the house, but he won't be that consistant stud that Denver backs normally are. He's a decent RB2 who will give you the huge game now and then and the clunker now and then. It's just that the Oakland game should have been one of the huge ones.

 

I've seen plenty of broken tackles and hard running. Its not dancing when defensive linemen are in the backfield. That O-line is not quite what it used to be for one. Most of the problem is with the much improved play of the defense, Shanahan seems to be content to go very conservative against lesser opponents this year (Raiders, Chiefs, Ravens Offense) and not let Plummer give games away like against the Rams week 1. They're fine to just run it against 8 in the box and punt it away instead of attacking defenses with the pass like they used too which helped set up the running game. I was expecting more but great match-ups don't always work out like they're suppossed to. 90 total yds and a TD is still pretty good.

[Cruzer 1,993]

big ben and walter and the only qbs with lower qb ratings - i'm sure this has a bit to do with it. i'm not too worried about it - the thing i look at is touches, as long as he's getting the ball it will work itself out.

[R8RMick 242]

Do you think the o-line's blocking had something to do with that? Do you think Plummer only throwing for 102 yds had anything to do with that? Sure, it all contributed to it. But again, it's one game against a division opponent in the NFL. And, he did have 94 apy with a TD and they won the game. Not bad, IMO.

 

 

I think you gotta give just a little credit to the Raiders defense here, I mean Burgess was all over the field. Every year they step up and win at least one game where no one gives them a chance. Plus it's Denver on primetime. With anything from their offense, Oakland wins that game.

 

Bell didn't have a heckuva lot of wholes to run through, and Plummer was just pathetic. Take away the one long pass to Walker and he was even worse. Horrible decisions and execution meant he couldn't sustain any drives to keep them on the field.

 

But true, I've seen enough Raider football over theyears to imagine Bell running through gaping holes last night, especially late in the game. Like I said, they ALWAYS step up for one big game every year. Maybe this was it. 0-16 here we come...

[nadnewob 1]

You cannot blame the O-Line for anything, Denver's O-Line is consistently one of the best in the league. I'm high on Tatum but last night was disconcerting, no matter how you slice it.

[The Next Generation 10]

You cannot blame the O-Line for anything, Denver's O-Line is consistently one of the best in the league. I'm high on Tatum but last night was disconcerting, no matter how you slice it.

 

Disconcerting that he was the ONLY player besides the kickers to be of ANY real fantasy value in the game. C'mon people...

[Skeets 0]

It looked to me Denver just wanted to run the clock out, and that was beginning in the 2nd quarter. I think Madden had a point that Shanahan wanted to rely on his defense. Shanahan had very conservative playcalling with Plummer and the offense because he didn't want Plummer to have some picks or Bell to have a costly fumble, knowing he could beat the Raiders with a vanilla offense.

 

I think, this season, he's more concerned about mistakes with the offense he has.

 

Not vintage Shanahan when he doesn't run it up against the Raiders.

[ppierce 2]

what the hell is wrong with 83 yds, 1 td and 10 yds receiving from your #2 RB? not to mention, that was one of the worst called games i've ever seen. Shanahan was awful and John Madden noticed it as well. It was just a sluggish, lethargic game.

[rambler 0]

These responses can't possibly be serious. Ok I will go next then.

 

Tomlinson only had 71 yards on 21 carries against the horrible 49er defense? Terrible. I'm done with him. Good luck if you have him on your roster. Yeah, that is pretty easy and makes good sense also.

 

Yeah, peeps are overreacting to this Raiders game, I mean one week ago Tatum ran over the vaunted Ravens so games like this need to be taken in stride. But you forgot one little stat regarding Tomlinson... he took it to the house 4 times.

 

-R

[Turf Nazi 0]

Everybody was on Tatum Bell's jock last week when he ran for 92 yards in a game against the Ravens. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Shanahan knows that he can beat these teams with 10-13 points and that defense? Shanahan knows what he is doing, and you will see in the next few weeks the offense come alive. Admittedly, as a Bronco fan, it is kind of frustrating to watch their offense sputter, but the 4-1 record is just fine with me. Also, I never own any Bronco players for FFL.

[p00h 85]

I think the issue at hand is that the broncos offense as a whole is uninpressive, which will obviously make tatum look uninpressive. That might have been the most boring game I've ever seen. I've seen low scoring games, but they were not necessarily boring, just good defensive battles. This game had nothing going for it. Denver actually gave up some chunks of yards and could very easily have lost that game if not for a play or 3...

[Guest ramrock11]

It seemed like the Raiders D was only concerned about Tatum Bell and dared Plummer to beat them so Jake and tatum did just enough to get the win.

Facing Bell in both of my fantasy games last night i was worried he would go off, glad he didn't.

[football_scooter 0]

this topic is retarded.

 

Would I have liked one big breakout run for a score? Absolutely - it would have won me the week. Instead I lost by .45 points.

 

However one thing to note about the Raiders is that even though they suck, they have played pretty good defense all year. They're currently 3rd or 4th against the pass, and they've been decent if unspectacular against the run. They stacked the line all night and Bell still managed to amass 90+ total yards and a TD.

 

Shanny called the most conservative gameplan I've seen. The Raiders were inept when it counted but in between managed some clock killing drives. They actually kept the Broncos off the field for a big chunk of the 2nd half. When the Donkeys finally got the ball back in the 3rd quarter, Shanny ran that play action to Bell/fake end around to Rod Smith, throw to Rod Smith that failed entirely to fool anyone and left them in 2nd and 6. Bell got the rock in predictable fashion and there were 8 in the box waiting for him.

 

I hated that series. Looking at the D on 1st down, they were playing for the pass - had the 1st & 10 play been an actual hand-off, Bell had HUGE holes to run through.

 

But this was not a bad game for him by any means, and judging the Raiders defense by their overall record is stupidity. Oakland might be a crappy team but they are a crappy team with a 1/2 way decent defense. In the 1st half of most games, it's very close. If their offense could sustain some drives and keep the D from getting winded by the 2nd half they'd be a top 10 D IMO.

[NewbieJr 541]

this topic is retarded.

 

 

However one thing to note about the Raiders is that even though they suck, they have played pretty good defense all year. They're currently 3rd or 4th against the pass, and they've been decent if unspectacular against the run. They stacked the line all night and Bell still managed to amass 90+ total yards and a TD.

This is inaccurate.

 

This is how other backs have performed against the Raiders this season:

LT 31-131 4.2 ypc

J.Lewis 19-70 3.7

Gore 27-134 5.0

Droughns 25-100 4.0

Bell 23-83 3.6

 

As you can see, other than Jamal Lewis, backs have been very successful against Oakland. Also, Bell has the worst yards per carry of all backs who've faced them.

 

Does this mean that Bell is a bust? Absolutely not. But I think it may be a peak into why Bell has never been able to carry the starting job. He looked awesome in the beginning of the game. A back is supposed to get stronger as the game goes on.

Bell will have great games. He's usually worth a start. I just don't think he's going to be the stud that his owners had hoped for.

[football_scooter 0]

This is inaccurate.

 

This is how other backs have performed against the Raiders this season:

LT 31-131 4.2 ypc

J.Lewis 19-70 3.7

Gore 27-134 5.0

Droughns 25-100 4.0

Bell 23-83 3.6

 

As you can see, other than Jamal Lewis, backs have been very successful against Oakland. Also, Bell has the worst yards per carry of all backs who've faced them.

 

Does this mean that Bell is a bust? Absolutely not. But I think it may be a peak into why Bell has never been able to carry the starting job. He looked awesome in the beginning of the game. A back is supposed to get stronger as the game goes on.

Bell will have great games. He's usually worth a start. I just don't think he's going to be the stud that his owners had hoped for.

 

Re-read my post. The Raiders have been stronger in the 1st half and as games got out of hand, they got blown out more and more.

 

In this game, the Broncos let the Raiders hang around, and the Raiders offense was able to sustain some drives keeping the D fresher.

 

Bell didn't have as much success against the Raiders as other backs because the Broncos never wore down the Raiders as other teams did. Had Bell's carries been in the 25 range, I believe he would have broken more big runs - had the Raiders been down more and unable to maintain T.O.P., I'm quite certain that Bell would have had a bigger night. And let's not forget that Plummer was doing the bare minimum - I think his early erratic play has caused Shanny to put the reins on him and make him a "play to not lose" caretaker role - this is not going to help Bell's production either.

 

Tater Bell will have his big games, but this simply wasn't one of them for a variety of reasons.

[nocarbs 0]

This is inaccurate.

 

This is how other backs have performed against the Raiders this season:

LT 31-131 4.2 ypc

J.Lewis 19-70 3.7

Gore 27-134 5.0

Droughns 25-100 4.0

Bell 23-83 3.6

 

As you can see, other than Jamal Lewis, backs have been very successful against Oakland. Also, Bell has the worst yards per carry of all backs who've faced them.

 

Does this mean that Bell is a bust? Absolutely not. But I think it may be a peak into why Bell has never been able to carry the starting job. He looked awesome in the beginning of the game. A back is supposed to get stronger as the game goes on.

Bell will have great games. He's usually worth a start. I just don't think he's going to be the stud that his owners had hoped for.

 

if is funny how we can make #s play out any way we want. But when you get right down to it #s don't lie.

[Return of the King 0]

if is funny how we can make #s play out any way we want. But when you get right down to it #s don't lie.

 

 

agreed

 

Bottom line, Bell just did not do as well as most experts thought he would do against a VERY weak team.

[NewbieJr 541]

if is funny how we can make #s play out any way we want. But when you get right down to it #s don't lie.

Bell is what he is...an average back with sprinter's speed.

Bell has always been the kind of back to gain 2,1,0,3,-1 and then bust a sixty yarder.

People always say things like, "If you take away his long run, he had an average day" This is what you get when you take away the long run. 23 carries for 83 yards.

He will be a hit or miss guy all year, but when he hits, he will hit big.

Owners were fortunate this week, because he looked bad, but still gave them a touchdown. Normally, it will be the opposite.

[Cruzer 1,993]

Bell is what he is...an average back with sprinter's speed.

i don't buy that at all. i watched him close last night - and he was pretty great, given the play calling and the fact plummer sux. in addition to his incredible speed, he also blocks really well and is a fantastic pass catcher.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

Yeah, peeps are overreacting to this Raiders game, I mean one week ago Tatum ran over the vaunted Ravens so games like this need to be taken in stride. But you forgot one little stat regarding Tomlinson... he took it to the house 4 times.

 

-R

 

Who cares? How many times was Tatum within 10 yards of the goal line? Once. What happened? He scored. Tomlinson's 4 TDs are circumstantial, and it's because SD was highly proficient at moving the ball through the air.

[The Hood 9]

This is inaccurate.

 

This is how other backs have performed against the Raiders this season:

LT 31-131 4.2 ypc

J.Lewis 19-70 3.7

Gore 27-134 5.0

Droughns 25-100 4.0

Bell 23-83 3.6

 

As you can see, other than Jamal Lewis, backs have been very successful against Oakland. Also, Bell has the worst yards per carry of all backs who've faced them.

 

Does this mean that Bell is a bust? Absolutely not. But I think it may be a peak into why Bell has never been able to carry the starting job. He looked awesome in the beginning of the game. A back is supposed to get stronger as the game goes on.

Bell will have great games. He's usually worth a start. I just don't think he's going to be the stud that his owners had hoped for.

 

Conversly Tatum Bell has the highest ypc of any RB's to play the Ravens, NE, or St. Louis. His ypc suffered in this game in the 4th qtr when the Denver was trying to run out the clock and the Raiders were stacking the line. For the season his ypc that you hold so highly is 4.7 tied for 6th overall highest for RB's. Also didn't those other backs get off that "long run" to pad those stats against the Raiders?

[rambler 0]

Who cares? How many times was Tatum within 10 yards of the goal line? Once. What happened? He scored. Tomlinson's 4 TDs are circumstantial, and it's because SD was highly proficient at moving the ball through the air.

 

Think you misunderstood me. I was stating not to worry about Tatum; but also that comparing Tater to Tomlinson isn't fair to Tatum. But you bring up a valid point regarding the passing proficiency of their respective teams.

 

-R

[SmartassBoiler 0]

I was stating not to worry about Tatum

 

Completely agree. He had very good performances against the tough defenses of New England and Baltimore. Last night his overall YPC was a victim of them running the clock out against a stacked line. His YPC were fine last night up until the 2nd half of the 4th qtr where he was hit in the backfield on countless occasions when Denver was obviously running out the clock.

 

If anything, he's still a good "buy low" guy for value.

[WhoDat 1]

people just don't get it. T.Bell nor any other RB is gonna be top shelf each and every week in the NFL. Sometimes teams just have another teams number or another players #. Bottomlime, T.Bell was Den best weapon last night and Oak did a good job trying to offset that weapon. Shanahan played a very low risk, vanilla wrapped, conservative game plan agains an inferior team. The results showed but Denv got the win. We can't always win by 4 td's, and "our" fantasy players can't always soar in the stats. Sometimes you win ugly, and Denver did. Plain and simple.

[Bill E. 676]

Completely agree. He had very good performances against the tough defenses of New England and Baltimore. Last night his overall YPC was a victim of them running the clock out against a stacked line. His YPC were fine last night up until the 2nd half of the 4th qtr where he was hit in the backfield on countless occasions when Denver was obviously running out the clock.

 

If anything, he's still a good "buy low" guy for value.

 

I agree with this. By the middle of the 3rd Qtr Denver slowed it down and the D knew the runs were coming. The best thing was T.Bell had no fumbles. After last week I was praying that he would not put another one on the ground. I would have liked more points, but I was happy in the end.

[Ilov80s 0]

He scored easily from the GL and did not fumble. That made me happy. I'll take 13 points (standard scoring) from my #2 back everyday of the week.

[football_scooter 0]

It's a tip that facing a bad offense is not always going to result in a jackpot start for a RB. Especially when playing on a conservative offense like the Broncos.

 

If OAK had managed a TD score in the 1st half making it a 13-10 game, you would have seen a much better game for Bell - my guess is another 6-9 carries for 40-70 more yards with a 2nd TD.

 

However they didn't, which allowed Denver to play granny-ball, and when they got within FG range the whole offense went into "protect mode" and they settled for the easy FG.

 

They looked like they weren't even trying to score TDs for the rest of the game. Why should they? OAK lost the entire left side of their line by the 2nd quarter, and weren't doing anything offensively.

 

Run the clock down, take the points that the Raiders give you and win the game ugly. That was Denver's recipe.

 

The myth of facing a bad D = huge FFB points for a RB is exactly that: a myth. I've seen so many occations where this has proven to be the case. Note the SF/SD game: San Francisco managed 19 points, and in the 1st quarter actually looked to be competitive with the Chargers. Thus SD continued to compete. The Broncos had no reason to take risks in a game that was won in the 1st quarter.

[Devil Weasel 0]

I was pleased by Tatum's game. So far he is the #10 scoring RB this week in the league I own him

 

and very glad to see him find the endzone

[Chronic Husker 85]

not to mention, that was one of the worst called games i've ever seen.

 

The Broncos won by 10 and were never in jeopardy in the second half. How is that one of the worst called games you've ever seen?

 

Shanahan sat on the ball and he won easily.

[Brewtown 1]

 

The Broncos won by 10 and were never in jeopardy in the second half. How is that one of the worst called games you've ever seen?

 

Shanahan sat on the ball and he won easily.

 

Right on! ......... this conversation is comedy relief. Oakland couldn't move the ball on the Broncos and Shanny played it straight to the vest last night.

 

I was just fine with TBells number he also had a few catches for gravy in PPR league.

 

If your crying about TBells numbers my assumption is you lost! He's established himself as the guy in Denver be thankful you have no longer have a RBBC to deal with.