On the Clock!

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Man Scooter, I think this is the toughest one you've come up with yet....

 

My greatest concern with Henry is the "fumblitis" he had when he first got to the NFL. His first three seasons he fumbled 5, 11 (!), and 7 times. However, the last three years he seems to have pulled a Tiki Barber and corrected that (0, 2, 3). Knowing Shanahan doesn't put up with fumblers (see: Tatum Bell), this is something I worry about.

 

My greatest concerns with Maroney are the durability questions, but more importantly that he may not get the ball nearly as much as Henry might in Denver. The year Dillon rushed for 1635 yards, Brady had his lowest (by far) full season of pass attempts - his only full season under 500 attempts (474). With all the talent New England brought in to bolster their WR corps, I see Brady easily eclipsing the 500 attempt barrier, and as a result I just don't see Maroney getting as many opportunities as Henry could.

 

If my greatest concern about Henry is some fumbling that "seems" to have been cured, I'll go with that and take Henry. But force me to make the pick quickly - I might change my mind yet again.

[FreddieMercury 0]

Henry has had 28 fumbles in his career (4.6 ave per season). His season high was 11 in 2002, the 1 year he played a full season.

 

Maroney had 1 fumble last year.

 

It should be noted that Henry has only fumbled five times over the past three seasons (total of 34 games played), so it appears to not be an issue recently.

[Gepetto 982]

Aren't MJD & Portis RBBC guys you could have in the 2nd though?

 

Yes, based on ADP (Average), also if I want both, I've got to take one in the first and the other in the 2nd.

 

It's not my fault 95%+ of FF players have them both ranked to low. RBBC or not, I value them very highly based on talent and each teams offensive prowess.

[GobbleDog 816]

and each teams offensive prowess.

Byron Leftwich and his amazing offensive prowess is a site to behold!!!

[DankNuggs 305]

wouldn't having a young QB benefit the RB more? Typically teams lean more on the RB in those situations

 

 

 

 

Umm...No... That would make you stupid. RB's that accel in bad offenses do it in SPITE of the bad offense.

 

So Addai is harmed because he is in an offense that gives him tons of room to run?

 

 

Bad offenses don't score points, they don't get in the redzone as much, they punt more, they are forced to pass more late in the game....

 

 

Your comment is so idiotic i simply can't continue anymore.

[football_scooter 0]

Umm...No... That would make you stupid. RB's that accel in bad offenses do it in SPITE of the bad offense.

 

So Addai is harmed because he is in an offense that gives him tons of room to run?

Bad offenses don't score points, they don't get in the redzone as much, they punt more, they are forced to pass more late in the game....

Your comment is so idiotic i simply can't continue anymore.

 

wow - what a completely insulting post.

 

why be that guy?

 

I provided examples of the youthful QB being a benefit to the RB on those teams and I believe I supported it pretty well. Calling me an idiot or stupid really doesn't win you any points in an argument you know...just loses you credibility around here.

 

itsatip.

[DankNuggs 305]

wow - what a completely insulting post.

 

why be that guy?

 

I provided examples of the youthful QB being a benefit to the RB on those teams and I believe I supported it pretty well. Calling me an idiot or stupid really doesn't win you any points in an argument you know...just loses you credibility around here.

 

itsatip.

 

You are making an argument that a RB will do better facing 8 in the box, than if he is in a balanced offense. Done.

 

 

Don't be so fragile, you are an intelligent poster, i think your point was extremely flawed. No correlation between cause and effect. Hopefully you were playing devils advocate.

[football_scooter 0]

You are making an argument that a RB will do better facing 8 in the box, than if he is in a balanced offense. Done.

Don't be so fragile, you are an intelligent poster, i think your point was extremely flawed. No correlation between cause and effect. Hopefully you were playing devils advocate.

 

No, I most certainly did not make an argument that a RB would do better facing 8 in the box.

 

You assumed that and asserted it as my point.

 

I made no such point and you cannot quote me doing so.

 

You're a fairly unintelligent poster though, so I don't expect much different. Calling my point flawed when you've incorrectly interpreted it for your own convenience is quite creative though.

 

I stated (and read this s-l-o-w-l-y) that a young (note, not a "terrible") QB can be beneficial to a RB's production And I stand by that point

 

That is all I said. No need to interpret it or misrepresent it. No need to assume anything. Look at the examples I provided and see if you can spot a pattern. Here - I'll give you a hint: young QB on a solid team with a good defense and talented RB.

 

in that scenario, the RB gets more touches, and often produces more statistically. Further, the RB acts as an "out" for the young QB, much as LT2 did in his 100 reception season.

 

Thus my point is that Cutler is a young QB on a solid team with a solid O-Line and a D that can keep them in games, but because Cutler still has the reins on, the RB could be leaned on more heavily than Maroney in NE, where Brady runs the show and they are as likely to pass as run regardless of down and distance. I thought this was obvious, but you've demonstrated that you're one of those "special needs" posters, so I've tried to dumb it down a little for you.

 

Now take your insults and smug knowitall horsesh!t somewhere else you gigantic d0uchebag.

[Gepetto 982]

Byron Leftwich and his amazing offensive prowess is a site to behold!!!

 

I was referring more to their running game, and dump off passes, and screens.

[football_scooter 0]

I was referring more to their running game, and dump off passes, and screens.

 

another good example of where a less than stellar passing game has led to a solid statistical season for the running backs.

 

[DankNuggs 305]

No, I most certainly did not make an argument that a RB would do better facing 8 in the box.

 

You assumed that and asserted it as my point.

 

I made no such point and you cannot quote me doing so.

 

You're a fairly unintelligent poster though, so I don't expect much different. Calling my point flawed when you've incorrectly interpreted it for your own convenience is quite creative though.

 

I stated (and read this s-l-o-w-l-y) that a young (note, not a "terrible") QB can be beneficial to a RB's production And I stand by that point

 

That is all I said. No need to interpret it or misrepresent it. No need to assume anything. Look at the examples I provided and see if you can spot a pattern. Here - I'll give you a hint: young QB on a solid team with a good defense and talented RB.

 

in that scenario, the RB gets more touches, and often produces more statistically. Further, the RB acts as an "out" for the young QB, much as LT2 did in his 100 reception season.

 

Now take your insults and smug knowitall horsesh!t somewhere else you gigantic d0uchebag.

 

 

You little baby.

 

 

 

 

and your justification is LT2 (will go down as a top 5 RB of all time when he retires in all probability) and ONE SEASON from Frank Gore.

 

You mentioned TJ, but im not drinking your Koolaid, Benson was a stiff in that offense, and will be a stiff as the feature back. TJ is an extremely gifted underappreciated multidimensional back. Bears are morons for letting him go.

 

" Young QB and fewer receiving options would seem to favor the RB, whereas better QB and more receiving options would seem to favor the running back. "

 

So a bad QB/passing game helps the RB, and a good QB/passing game helps the running back Awesome insight.

 

 

 

Just awesome. The list of RB's that suffar in bad offenses are FAR more expansive than LT2, barry sanders, and one season of Frank Gore

 

 

 

 

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it

[football_scooter 0]

So a bad QB/passing game helps the RB, and a good QB/passing game helps the running back Awesome insight.

 

I see your problem. You lack comprehension skills.

 

I've now said twice, including in the post you quoted that I was talking about good young QBs. Not bad young QBs as you continue to assume/assert.

 

reading: it's fundamental.

 

But that's ok - keep insulting me for your own lack of comprehension - making yourself look smarter and smarter with every post there.

[justfsu 0]

Shiny happy people everywhere.

[DankNuggs 305]

I see your problem. You lack comprehension skills.

 

I've now said twice, including in the post you quoted that I was talking about good young QBs. Not bad young QBs as you continue to assume/assert.

 

reading: it's fundamental.

 

But that's ok - keep insulting me for your own lack of comprehension - making yourself look smarter and smarter with every post there.

Define good and bad young QBs.... They both don't put up stats, but some reinforce arguments you make, and some don't, is that how you define "good" vs "bad" young QB's?

 

 

Losman and Boller, Cutler and Grossman? Leinart?

 

If you were to argue that a great offense line can overcome a bad QB situation, I'd be more in line with you. But like I said, if the offense doesn't move the ball, the RB's can't gain yards on the sidelines watching the defense. or watching the QB pass from behind late in the game.

[Killer Elite 0]

What does the age of the QB have to do with anything? If a team is handing off to the RB because they are afraid to pass, the DEF will sniff that out in a heartbeat and start stacking the line thus stopping the running game forcing the young QB to pass thus making a turnover and less carries/scoring ops for the RB. Pretty much the story of the Broncos last year under cutler if you watched any of their games.

 

Is there some trend out there I am missing? Damn so we all need to look at the age of QBs and start bumping those RBs up our list? I'm taking Jemal Lewis #1! "championship!"

 

I don’t get your point either Scooter. And again, stop jumping all over everyone because they don’t follow your odd logic on everything. Just agree to disagree.

[football_scooter 0]

And again, stop jumping all over everyone because they don’t follow your odd logic on everything. Just agree to disagree.

 

I didn't - why you'd even say that is a mystery. Please quote where I jumped on someone because they "don't follow my logic" - In fact, I jumped on him because he insulted me for my opinion, first telling me I was stupid then telling me I was an idiot.

 

I guess you can't read or something?

 

What, do you trolls all call each other up and coordinate your efforts or something?

 

If I express an opinion, feel free to disagree all day - just leave the personal attacks behind. it's not asking a lot, and Mike already said he'd ban you for it. what else do you need, a written invitation to not attack someone personally for expressing their opinions?

 

Insulting others does nothing to support your point, make you look smarter or impress anyone. Calling someone stupid and telling them they're idiotic only drags down an otherwise interesting debate.

 

But since that's the whole motive of you trolls I don't know why I even bother wasting my breath. I'll just wait for your inevitable bans and move on with the next OTC.

 

What does the age of the QB have to do with anything?

Perhaps if you actually read my post that would be clear. I believe I explained it twice and even went as far as providing examples.

 

Is there some trend out there I am missing? Damn so we all need to look at the age of QBs and start bumping those RBs up our list? I'm taking Jemal Lewis #1! "championship!"

I believe context is relevant to any discussion. I didn't mention Jamal Lewis, did I? No, I did not. Why? Because I am in the context of this topic, which is comparing the situations of Maroney and Henry.

 

Why you insist on taking one thing I say in one context and projecting it onto another by making these broad generalizations is a mystery and only serves to make you appear clueless as to the topic at hand.

 

Stick with me: this is about Henry who plays with Cutler, a young QB in a relatively mature run-oriented offense; and Brady, an far more experienced QB in a mature pass-oriented offense. please correct me if I'm wrong, but it occurred to me that the experience of the QB's behind them might be a relevant factor in estimating their respective roles in their offenses. No? If not, please explain why not - I'm all ears.

 

Do I need to spell that out for you any more than that? Do you and your boyfriend here actually think that turning that into a sweeping generalization about ALL young QBs and ALL RBs makes your point stronger? Here's a hint: it doesn't. it just makes you look foolish for distracting from the topic at hand. You know, the one in which we're discussing Henry Vs Maroney, a RB with a young QB and a RB with a more mature QB. The context in which I stated that.

 

I have been real, real polite so far, but I have my limits. Get a focking clue or just stop posting in here. You're both so far in left field with this crap that it's laughable.

[Ruphus 0]

The problem here is.... you guys are all making very VALID OPINIONS.

 

Obviously some believe Cutler is gonna be something better than Jake the Snake was, or Griese Jr, or whatever Denver bum QBs they have had since Elway hit the trail.

 

Obviously others do not feel so sure that Cutler is the QB of the future. He is still young, he does have some really good lineman, a good running game, and a good defense to work with. That's a lot of pressure on a young QB, and there is a better than even chance he is gonna stink.

 

QB is by far the hardest position for players to translate from College to NFL level. Remember, roughly 10-12 QB's get selected in every draft, every year. Your lucky if 1 every year becomes anything decent, and it almost always takes them time to "develop".

 

Statistically speaking, it is nearly guaranteed that one of last years drafted QB's is gonna suck. Really, HoF type QB's don't get produced every year.

[football_scooter 0]

The problem here is.... you guys are all making very VALID OPINIONS.

 

Obviously some believe Cutler is gonna be something better than Jake the Snake was, or Griese Jr, or whatever Denver bum QBs they have had since Elway hit the trail.

 

Obviously others do not feel so sure that Cutler is the QB of the future. He is still young, he does have some really good lineman, a good running game, and a good defense to work with. That's a lot of pressure on a young QB, and there is a better than even chance he is gonna stink.

 

QB is by far the hardest position for players to translate from College to NFL level. Remember, roughly 10-12 QB's get selected in every draft, every year. Your lucky if 1 every year becomes anything decent, and it almost always takes them time to "develop".

 

Statistically speaking, it is nearly guaranteed that one of last years drafted QB's is gonna suck. Really, HoF type QB's don't get produced every year.

 

I agree, but I do believe Cutler is one of the good ones. I thought he was actually ebtter than his draft position indicated. I think he is the QB of the future for Denver - but likewise, with only Walker as a talent at WR (and the ancient Rod Smith opposite), and with their up & coming TE breaking his foot and being limited early on, I see Denver as leaning on the run especially, and especially early in the season. with a young QB behind center and not a ton of receiving talent it just seems to make sense that they'd do this.

 

I didn't think that sounded silly or idiotic when I initially posted it, nor do i think it does now. Dank and Killer would disagree I suppose, but only because they're trying to make it into some hard & fast generalized statement or rule.

 

By comparison, Brady is in an offense that has 3 very capable WRs and two good receiving TEs. They have shown a propensity to turn Brady loose and throw early & often, regardless of down or distance. 1st & 10? 3rd and short? Brady passes as much, if not more than he hands it off. It's been the Pats style.

 

Again, I don't think that's a stupid or idiotic observation, and moreover I think it could bear relevance on our collective projections for these two running backs.

 

Given those trends and their respective situations, I'd rather have the back on the run-based team with the young QB than the back on the pass based team with the more experienced (and trusted) QB.

 

Call me crazy I guess. I thought that added something to the debate.

[GobbleDog 816]

Given those trends and their respective situations, I'd rather have the back on the run-based team with the young QB than the back on the pass based team with the more experienced (and trusted) QB.

Week 13 Cutler took over and started 5 games. During those games T Bell and M Bell combined for 630 yards for an average of 126 yards per game. However, they only had 3 combined Tds.

 

I think that says a lot. Tons of yardage (because Denver is a running machine), but limited TDs with an inexperienced QB who can't consistently get in the redzone.

 

[football_scooter 0]

Week 13 Cutler took over and started 5 games. During those games T Bell and M Bell combined for 630 yards for an average of 126 yards per game. However, they only had 3 combined Tds.

 

I think that says a lot. Tons of yardage (because Denver is a running machine), but limited TDs with an inexperienced QB who can't consistently get in the redzone.

 

 

 

A solid observation, with one exception....the TDs weren't down because Denver's QB couldn't get into the end zone...the TDs were down because Bell & Bell couldn't punch it in.

 

They had 3 red zone appearances against San Francisco in the last game of the season, and went 4 and out, 4 and out and 3 and out respectively. That includes 7 rushes from the 1 yd line.

 

SF stiffened up and the Bells couldn't punch it in.

 

I don't see that as particularly relevant to Henry, who I believe would have been able to punch it in given some of those same carries.

 

Why would that be a negative about Cutler? If anything your post seems to support my contention: teams with a solid offense but youthful/inexperienced QB tend to lean on the run more than emphasize the pass. I am much more confident that with Henry in the backfield those short yardage situations will translate to TDs, so what's important to me in your post is the 126 yards per game on the ground.

[Killer Elite 0]

Given those trends and their respective situations, I'd rather have the back on the run-based team with the young QB than the back on the pass based team with the more experienced (and trusted) QB.

 

Call me crazy I guess. I thought that added something to the debate.

 

I won’t call you crazy; I will leave the name calling to you, however:

 

2006 Patriots

Rushing plays = 499

Rushing TDs = 20

 

2006 Broncos

Rushing plays = 488

Rushing TDs = 12

 

 

So how is it that Denver is more a "run-based" team then the Patriots? WTF are you talking about? Do you research this stuff or make it up as you go?

 

There will not be more rushing/scoring opportunity for Henry, the stats suggest the reverse.

[GobbleDog 816]

teams with a solid offense but youthful/inexperienced QB tend to lean on the run more than emphasize the pass.

I don't know if that's always true because each situation is different (could have a bad RB, or the young QB is P Manning, etc.) , but in this situation I agree that Henry will likely be Cutler's crutch this year. Especially since Shanahan is coach.

 

Henry should get big yardage. He had a 4.5 average last year, while Denver had an overall team average of 4.4 yards. It's the TDs that makes me nervous. (that and M Bell's number of carries)

[football_scooter 0]

I won’t call you crazy; I will leave the name calling to you, however:

Right - because I called myself stupid and an idiot. Interesting.

 

2006 Patriots

Rushing plays = 499

Rushing TDs = 20

 

2006 Broncos

Rushing plays = 488

Rushing TDs = 12

So how is it that Denver is more a "run-based" team then the Patriots? WTF are you talking about? Do you research this stuff or make it up as you go?

 

There will not be more rushing/scoring opportunity for Henry, the stats suggest the reverse.

 

right - because your sample size from just last year with totally different running backs is relevant in the slightest. Pay no never mind to the ineffective running game in Denver that resulted in Tatum Bell becoming a Lion and the Broncos going out and signing Henry. Nah - that's not relevant at all.

 

I was speaking to the coaching philosophy of each team. Shannahan wants to run the ball. Ask anyone if you don't believe me. And I am projecting what i think will be the scenario in 2007, not fixating on what happened in 2006.

 

I believe I specifically mentioned the additions of Welker, Moss and Stallworth in NE, right? Pretty sure I did. Did any of them play in 2006 for the Pats? No? Then why would you even use 2006 stats - did you prove anything? Nope. Just that you're getting desperate to be contradictory.

 

I believe I mentioned the addition of Henry in Denver, which was due to the ineffectiveness of Bell & Bell, right? Yep - sure did. once again - projecting for 2007. Try to concentrate - I know it's hard for you, but context is important still. Nothing's changed there.

 

If anything, your stats from 2006 prove my case further - the Broncos didn't run as much as they wanted to, nor were they as effective as they've been in the past so they went out and signed a RB to facilitate improved RB production so they wouldn't have to lean on a 2nd year passer.

 

NE didn't pass as often or as effectively as they had in the past, so they went out and signed a trio of WRs to facilitate an improved passing game for Brady.

 

Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

Get a clue. You've been owned in here so many times it's getting ridiculous. Looking forward to your next desperate attempt.

 

I don't know if that's always true because each situation is different (could have a bad RB, or the young QB is P Manning, etc.) , but in this situation I agree that Henry will likely be Cutler's crutch this year. Especially since Shanahan is coach.

 

Henry should get big yardage. He had a 4.5 average last year, while Denver had an overall team average of 4.4 yards. It's the TDs that makes me nervous. (that and M Bell's number of carries)

 

Oh, I agree - there are no sweeping generalizations or absolute truths in the NFL or life for that matter, which is why I try to avoid them. That's exactly why I took issue with Killer & Dank - they tried to make it sound like I am saying that in EVERY case a young QB will help a RB regardless of team circumstances, which of course I never did. Jamal Lewis is going to be Rat's Ass because that team is going to be Rat's Ass, and the QB is likely to be spotty at best. It's partially why I'm not as high on Winslow or Edwards, but that's a topic for another day.

 

But my point was that on teams with an established offense, capable RB and good O-Line, having a young passer trying to carry the load can be a liability, which is why I've often seen those teams lean more on the RB.

 

I just know the Rat's tenancies as a coach and am using that to project Henry's numbers. I am not as concerned about TDs with Henry there because as a Bell/Bell owner last year I saw that it wasn't a matter of opportunity, it was a matter of ability. Bell & Bell had plenty of opportunity in the red zone, but just couldn't get the job done. Henry's not a bad GL runner and can punch it in. I project 11-14 TDs for him this year.

[Killer Elite 0]

Get a clue. You've been owned in here so many times it's getting ridiculous. Looking forward to your next desperate attempt.

 

wow.. I don’t recall being owned.. how is that defined exactly? So I show you that there is no statistical evidence that supports your claim and somehow I am desperate to what? I could care less about you, and if anything you are the one that propagates these rants by people. Why don’t you just allow people to post their opinions? Just look.. Any time someone posts different ideas then yours you have to respond and explain why their thinking is incorrect. So why shouldn’t others do the same to you?

 

You made an outlandish claim that, and I quote, "wouldn't having a young QB benefit the RB more? Typically teams lean more on the RB in those situations ". You made a broad general statement about teams "typically" use a RB more with a young quarterback. That statement is flat-out wrong as the other poster said and I mocked with my Jamal Lewis example. You then backpedaled to say that what you meant was you wanted a RB on a "run-based" team, however again that claim is flat-out wrong as the Pats run just as much as the Broncos do as shown by recent stats.

 

So please, stop making false statements followed by abusing those of us that oppose them with your name calling and condescending attitude. Be a man, just agree to disagree. I think both sides have posted their arguments. And I don’t think anyone is out to “win” here but you. So if you think I give a rat’s ass if you think you out wit me on these boards, you’re again flat-out wrong. I, like everyone else am just here to debate our stances on Football related topics and hopefully glean new knowledge through these debates.

 

Good luck.. I’ll go crawl back under my bridge now.

[football_scooter 0]

Good luck.. I’ll go crawl back under my bridge now.

 

good place for you. you still might want to look into that whole comprehension thing, since you still don't get it.

 

Feel free to disagree with me all you like. I invite the debate - it's why these topics exist. Reading through as you suggest it sure looks like you're the one who can't handle someone disagreeing with you.

 

You resort to insults, personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of people's points in order to rip on them if they're not aligned with your opinions. Kind of sad and pathetic, really.

 

But hey - each to their own. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and be ready to have a discussion with someone without needing to resort to personal attacks and threats of banishment by site moderators.

 

 

I note heartily that nowhere in this response do you address the valid points I've made - no, you just continue to claim that I'm off base without once addressing what i actually said. Brilliant. True troll tactic if I ever saw it. Then the generalizations and repeated assertions that I'm "flat out wrong" because you prop up the obvious straw man argument using *only* last year's stats, or taking my statement out of context - both tools of the committed troll.

 

So in response I'll just recommend reading the post right above yours and you can see how foolish you look for this pathetic rant.

 

In closing I'll say that if you're truly interested in increasing your football knowledge, actually taking the time to read people's posts and responding directly to them rather than taking what they say out of context would be a great start down that long road to intellectual stimulation. I'm afraid you appear to be on an uphill climb though.

[ieatchickens 0]

The reasoning behind Maroney having more value than Henry is two fold:

 

1) The Patriots will score more touchdowns (46 for NE and only 34 for Den in 06') and have a more potent offense becasue of Brady. NE offense has improved significantly while Denvers is only slightly improved. (I understand the thought that Denver will lean a little more on the running game because of Cutler but give me a QB who will pick a few extra 1st downs to keep those drives alive)

 

2) Belichick is more likely to stay with his starting QB. You never know when the Rat will make a switch.

[cyeaser 3]

wow all this tension and camps havent even started yet.........gotta love it

[Henwah 1]

I'm coming out of 12th again this year in a 12 2ppr high bonus league, so this could very well be a situation that I'm facing, although I have a feeling that Maroney goes 11, and I'm looking at a far less sexy OTC of Henry, McGahee, Portis, Edge, or MJD.

 

I don't think that there is a hands down choice with these guys, as there are numerous questions to be answered for each, most of which have already been stated above. Originally, I was all about Maroney, but I'm beginning to drink the Kool-Aid on Henry with some of the stuff I'm reading here.

 

My initial reservations with Henry were as follows:

1) While I think that Shanny would love to have a single back to carry the load, he has shown that he has a short leash in recent history, especially with fumbles, which Henry did have a past with... although not recently.

 

2) Henry is in the substance abuse program until week 4. One mistake and he's screwed.

 

3) From my perspective, and if evidence suggests otherwise, I could easily be swayed, but it seems as though Henry is always losing his job to the other running back. He lost the job to McGahee in Buffalo. I'm not sure exactly of what happened in Tennessee, but didn't he lose the job there for a while to Chris Brown! I mean, that one scares the heck out of me... CHRIS BROWN! And now he's stepping into a job that has recently become famous for running backs losing their job from one week to the next.

 

All of this being said, all the RB's at the back of the draft have questions of this kind, which is why they're back here. Although Henry is being plugged into THE SYSTEM for running backs, my initial instinct is to go with the guy whose career seems to be on the upswing of a promising future, rather than a back who's been up and down for so many years now.

 

Good OTC.

[Vince44 202]

Maroney over Henry...for many of the reasons stated above.

 

Do not rule out Mike Bell as a goaline vulture for Denver.

[Yippie Skippy 0]

Umm...No... That would make you stupid.

Your comment is so idiotic i simply can't continue anymore.

 

So after Mike warns everyone to keep the thread clean you then hurl these insults at Scooter. You struck the first blow, after being warned not to.

 

I hope that you got at least the same punishment as Scooter did. Scooter has been banned for 4 months from the site. Personally I think it is harsh, but Mike has the right to run his site anyway he sees fit.

[FreddieMercury 0]

So after Mike warns everyone to keep the thread clean you then hurl these insults at Scooter. You struck the first blow, after being warned not to.

 

I hope that you got at least the same punishment as Scooter did. Scooter has been banned for 4 months from the site. Personally I think it is harsh, but Mike has the right to run his site anyway he sees fit.

 

Scooter was banned for 4 months? Wow, that is harsh. That's a shame...I enjoyed what he had to say, attitude and all.

[Raider 84 29]

Very close race.

[devilsden 0]

I'm coming out of 12th again this year in a 12 2ppr high bonus league, so this could very well be a situation that I'm facing, although I have a feeling that Maroney goes 11, and I'm looking at a far less sexy OTC of Henry, McGahee, Portis, Edge, or MJD.

 

I don't think that there is a hands down choice with these guys, as there are numerous questions to be answered for each, most of which have already been stated above. Originally, I was all about Maroney, but I'm beginning to drink the Kool-Aid on Henry with some of the stuff I'm reading here.

 

My initial reservations with Henry were as follows:

1) While I think that Shanny would love to have a single back to carry the load, he has shown that he has a short leash in recent history, especially with fumbles, which Henry did have a past with... although not recently.

 

2) Henry is in the substance abuse program until week 4. One mistake and he's screwed.

 

3) From my perspective, and if evidence suggests otherwise, I could easily be swayed, but it seems as though Henry is always losing his job to the other running back. He lost the job to McGahee in Buffalo. I'm not sure exactly of what happened in Tennessee, but didn't he lose the job there for a while to Chris Brown! I mean, that one scares the heck out of me... CHRIS BROWN! And now he's stepping into a job that has recently become famous for running backs losing their job from one week to the next.

 

All of this being said, all the RB's at the back of the draft have questions of this kind, which is why they're back here. Although Henry is being plugged into THE SYSTEM for running backs, my initial instinct is to go with the guy whose career seems to be on the upswing of a promising future, rather than a back who's been up and down for so many years now.

 

Good OTC.

 

I am a NE Homer and I would take Henry over Maroney. Maroney has a shoulder problem and the Pats hope to have him back for the start of training camp. I was not impressed with what I saw from Maroney in the Indi playoff game last year. I will now address your notes from above.

 

1) Henry is playing behind a much better offensive line than he had in Tenn, He was able to run for 1200 yards after playing a limited roll in the first 4-5 games.

 

2) Yes he is in the substance abuse program for the first 4 games but has been clean for almost 2 years. He has a golden opportunity here and I find it hard to believe that he will do anything to mess that up.

 

3)Buffalo is not known for making good personel decisions. I will use the Flutie vs Rob Johnson controversy as an example. Rob Johnson got injured and is replaced by Doug Flutie for 9 games and Buffalo goes on a run and makes the playoffs behind Flutie. The playoffs come and Johnson is ready to go, so Flutie gets benched and Johnson comes in and looses. Buffalo drafted McGahee in the first round with the 21st pick I believe. They were going to use him and make themself look briliant for drafting him when everyone else was leary of the knee injury. They were going to showcase him regardless of what Henry did on the field. In Tenn he was brought in to battle Brown for the starting roll. They had a RBBC situation going there and added White to the mix. It took Henry some time to get familar with the offense and once he did you saw what he was able to do over the second half of the season last year.

 

The deciding factor is that Henry WILL play injured. His rookie year he played the final three games with a stress fracture in his leg. He plays through pain and seldom misses a game.

 

I do like Maroney and think he will be ok but the shoulder problem makes me leary of him. My thinking is that you do not want to draft someone in the first round that may start the season injured. I made that mistake with Terrel Davis a few years back and like to think that I learned from my mistakes.

 

 

 

I won’t call you crazy; I will leave the name calling to you, however:

 

2006 Patriots

Rushing plays = 499

Rushing TDs = 20

 

2006 Broncos

Rushing plays = 488

Rushing TDs = 12

So how is it that Denver is more a "run-based" team then the Patriots? WTF are you talking about? Do you research this stuff or make it up as you go?

 

There will not be more rushing/scoring opportunity for Henry, the stats suggest the reverse.

 

Killer what you are not taking into account by only using last years numbers is that the Patriots had to rely on the run more because they had WR's like Caldwell, Gafney, Brown for Brady to throw to and not the likes of Moss, Stalworth. Welker, Washington. The fact that Maroney is still recovering from his shoulder problem also makes me leary of him. I am from NE and I see them throwing more than they ever have before with the receivers they have.

 

The Broncos were running Mike Bell, Tatum Bell. Neither of those runners are in the same class as Henry. The Broncos did not have a lot of faith in either of them and that is why the numbers favor the Pats Running game.

 

Both players come with questions to them, but I have to say that if I was making this pick and even as a NE homer I would take Henry every time.

 

 

I won’t call you crazy; I will leave the name calling to you, however:

 

2006 Patriots

Rushing plays = 499

Rushing TDs = 20

 

2006 Broncos

Rushing plays = 488

Rushing TDs = 12

So how is it that Denver is more a "run-based" team then the Patriots? WTF are you talking about? Do you research this stuff or make it up as you go?

 

There will not be more rushing/scoring opportunity for Henry, the stats suggest the reverse.

[Killer Elite 0]

What if Maroney shows up for camp healthy, plays in all preseason games and plays well. Then who do you take?

[DankNuggs 305]

I think Marshall Faulk would have done better on the 2007 Broncos than the 2001-02 Rams....

 

Having a good offense is a killer for a RB.

[devilsden 0]

What if Maroney shows up for camp healthy, plays in all preseason games and plays well. Then who do you take?

 

I would take Henry, the Patriots have upgraded their WR's in a big way. With Moss and with Stalworth they have two solid starters. They have my sleeper for this year which is Welker and they still have Kevin Faulk to put in on 3rd downs. Watson will also play a larger roll because he will have more room to roam. Brady has proven he can move the ball through the air.

 

Denver has a second year QB and while he has Javon to throw to Rod Smith is to old to play a factor. They do not have the same weapons that the Patriots do and will rely on the running game to keep the pressure off of Cutler.

 

That is just how I view it.

[Killer Elite 0]

Which is exactly why I take Maroney. With Maroney's running style and the wide open lanes created by a defense focused on shutting down the pass equate to monster potential IMO. But I guess we too can agree to disagree. All will be clear in a month or 2.

[DankNuggs 305]

Which is exactly why I take Maroney. With Maroney's running style and the wide open lanes created by a defense focused on shutting down the pass equate to monster potential IMO. But I guess we too can agree to disagree. All will be clear in a month or 2.

Agreed. Take the guy in the good offense every time.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

No, I most certainly did not make an argument that a RB would do better facing 8 in the box.

 

You assumed that and asserted it as my point.

 

I made no such point and you cannot quote me doing so.

 

You're a fairly unintelligent poster though, so I don't expect much different. Calling my point flawed when you've incorrectly interpreted it for your own convenience is quite creative though.

 

I stated (and read this s-l-o-w-l-y) that a young (note, not a "terrible") QB can be beneficial to a RB's production And I stand by that point

 

That is all I said. No need to interpret it or misrepresent it. No need to assume anything. Look at the examples I provided and see if you can spot a pattern. Here - I'll give you a hint: young QB on a solid team with a good defense and talented RB.

 

in that scenario, the RB gets more touches, and often produces more statistically. Further, the RB acts as an "out" for the young QB, much as LT2 did in his 100 reception season.

 

Thus my point is that Cutler is a young QB on a solid team with a solid O-Line and a D that can keep them in games, but because Cutler still has the reins on, the RB could be leaned on more heavily than Maroney in NE, where Brady runs the show and they are as likely to pass as run regardless of down and distance. I thought this was obvious, but you've demonstrated that you're one of those "special needs" posters, so I've tried to dumb it down a little for you.

 

Now take your insults and smug knowitall horsesh!t somewhere else you gigantic d0uchebag.

 

 

Scooter, looks like you are in midseason form.

[Vince44 202]

I'd say Maroney mainly cause I beleive Mike Bell will be a vulture in Denver and steal TD's from Henry.