for everyone on the mike bell bandwagon.

[mr. bronco man]

tatums stats above, mike below

(im looking at the running stats. No fumbles, no catches, just the ground)

STL- 15 att for 103 yards..6.9 average
- 10 att for 58 yards..5.8 average..1 td

KC- 16 att for 69 yards..4.3 average
- 13 att for 44 yards..3.4 average

NE- 27 att for 123 yards...4.6 average
- 4 att for 12 yards..3.0 average

BAL- 19 att for 92 yards..4.8 average
- 0 att for 0 yards

OAK- 23 att for 83 yards..3.6 average..1 td
- 1 att for 2 yard..2.0 average

CLE- 24 att for 115 yards..4.8 average..1 td
- 10 att for 25 yards..2.5 average

INDY- 12 att for 27 yards..2.1 average
- 15 att for 136 yards..9.1 average..2 tds

PIT- did not play
- 17 att for 28 yards..1.6 average*

OAK- 14 att for 27 yards..2.6 average
- did not play

SAN- did not play
- 20 att for 90 yards..4.5 average..2 tds*

KC- did not play
- 10 att for 28 yards..2.8 average*

SEA- 23 att for 133 yards..5.8 average
- 4 att for 12 yards..3.0 average

SAN- 17 att for 116 yards..6.8 average
- 10 att for 46 yards..4.6 average

AZ- 18 att for 29 yards..1.6 average
- 16 att for 61 yards..3.8 average..2 tds

CIN- 12 att for 50 yards..4.2 average
- 16 att for 69 yards..4.3 average..1 td

SF- 12 att for 48 yards..4.0 average
- 11 att for 66 yards..6.0 average

*- notes started


if you look at the 3 games that mike did start, he didnt do well. One game against San Diego, but other than that, hes better as a backup. When Tatum was bad, most of the time he picked up the slack. Because thats what a BACKUP is supposed to do. And if you look at it, Mike was very inconsistent. He was either good or bad, to really good, and to really bad. Tatum had his bad games to, but im just saying, Mike isnt as good as everyone hypes him to be. Tatum I think was way more consistent, he had alot more games that he did better, and thats what a starter is expected to have and do.(even though that indy game was rather good for mike).

[Javalon]

I like Mike. He's the kind of underdog you pull for. But there's not doubt that he was inconsistent.

I like Tatum. But I have my doubts that he's should be the starter. His stats definitely dipped (averages) on becoming the main guy.

I don't like either one as the starter but I like them both as change of pace backs. That's one of the reasons I won't be upset if we try to nab one of the top two backs in the draft, even though DL is by far a bigger need, IMO.

I believe a premier running back is what our offense needs to get back to the good old days of domination.

[BroncoSexyDaddy]

I like Mike. He's the kind of underdog you pull for. But there's not doubt that he was inconsistent.

I like Tatum. But I have my doubts that he's should be the starter. His stats definitely dipped (averages) on becoming the main guy.

I don't like either one as the starter but I like them both as change of pace backs. That's one of the reasons I won't be upset if we try to nab one of the top two backs in the draft, even though DL is by far a bigger need, IMO.

I believe a premier running back is what our offense needs to get back to the good old days of domination.

I think Mike Bell did amazingly good considering he was a walk on rookie,and ran behind a broken down line

[Bronx84]

Don't forget he was a rookie and Tatum has had a couple years under his belt.

[ballen]

Neither of them should be a starter for a championship caliber football team. Period.

[Freestyle]

I believe a premier running back is what our offense needs to get back to the good old days of domination.

I think what sets Shanahan apart from the rest of the pack is his expertise on offense. It's important to be balanced on offense and defense but geez, we've been ignoring offense for far too long. Besides it can only help out the new franchise QB that Shanahan's reputation is riding on.

[vicious2500]

I think Mike Bell did amazingly good considering he was a walk on rookie,and ran behind a broken down line

So Mike looks good behind a broken down line and its fine, but when Bell was doing its not fine? Can you please explain the reasoning behind this?

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Looking at the #s in the original post you can see where the turf toe injury really started to affect Tatum. Up until that point, he was doing very well. I think he got it in the Cleveland game, then sat out most of the practices, told Shanny he was GTG for Indy and he just wasn't. Remember the Shanny presser about the "guys are always going to say they're ready to go before they are and I need the training staff to make better decisions, Tatum just wasn't ready"?

I'm pretty sure that was after the Indy game.

[topscribe]

if you look at the 3 games that mike did start, he didnt do well. One game against San Diego, but other than that, hes better as a backup. When Tatum was bad, most of the time he picked up the slack. Because thats what a BACKUP is supposed to do. And if you look at it, Mike was very inconsistent. He was either good or bad, to really good, and to really bad. Tatum had his bad games to, but im just saying, Mike isnt as good as everyone hypes him to be. Tatum I think was way more consistent, he had alot more games that he did better, and thats what a starter is expected to have and do.(even though that indy game was rather good for mike).

Four words: Mike was a rookie.

-----

[ckstorm182000]

I think with Mike Bell you should expect some inconsistancies. He was a rookie that climbed up the ranks. Reggie Bush was inconsistant as well, so you couldn't expect the world from Mike. He was unsure of where to make some cuts or where to run but expect that, he is a rookie.

Tatum isn't a rookie. He couldn't take care of the ball when it mattered most. He had key fumbles in each of the last three games. As inconsistant as our offense was, I'm happy we got as much out of Mike as we did. He's a good kid who learned a lot and will continue to improve

[MasterShake]

Unless we could magically go back and have Bell start all 16 games with no injuries to himself or the team and then do the same with Tatum, all the stats in the world mean nothing. I don't think either back got to show his stuff due to rotations and injury both personal and to the O-line. If you ever watch Football Playbook on FSN Rocky Mountain, you would see both Bell and Tatum (who were regular guests) say the biggest problem was that once you got into a groove, you would be pulled for the other guy. It's hard to choose sides when the whole playing field is lop-sided.

[AlWilsonizKING]

Don't forget he was a rookie and Tatum has had a couple years under his belt.

Was gonna say this also....give MB some time to BULK up and gain the experience TB has.....

Mike was a rookie

Nuff said.


Mike Bell for Starter!!!



PEACE!!!

[NickTranOwnz]

I like them both. Tatum had a GREAT first 8 games, if I remember correctly he led the AFC in rushing yards for a week or two. But, Shanny overused him and he got injured.

If the Broncos rotate Mike and Tatum, they'll be fine.

Oh and Ilaoa would be a nice FB.

[MindField]

tatums stats above, mike below

(im looking at the running stats. No fumbles, no catches, just the ground)

STL- 15 att for 103 yards..6.9 average
- 10 att for 58 yards..5.8 average..1 td

KC- 16 att for 69 yards..4.3 average
- 13 att for 44 yards..3.4 average

NE- 27 att for 123 yards...4.6 average
- 4 att for 12 yards..3.0 average

BAL- 19 att for 92 yards..4.8 average
- 0 att for 0 yards

OAK- 23 att for 83 yards..3.6 average..1 td
- 1 att for 2 yard..2.0 average

CLE- 24 att for 115 yards..4.8 average..1 td
- 10 att for 25 yards..2.5 average

INDY- 12 att for 27 yards..2.1 average
- 15 att for 136 yards..9.1 average..2 tds

PIT- did not play
- 17 att for 28 yards..1.6 average*

OAK- 14 att for 27 yards..2.6 average
- did not play

SAN- did not play
- 20 att for 90 yards..4.5 average..2 tds*

KC- did not play
- 10 att for 28 yards..2.8 average*

SEA- 23 att for 133 yards..5.8 average
- 4 att for 12 yards..3.0 average

SAN- 17 att for 116 yards..6.8 average
- 10 att for 46 yards..4.6 average

AZ- 18 att for 29 yards..1.6 average
- 16 att for 61 yards..3.8 average..2 tds

CIN- 12 att for 50 yards..4.2 average
- 16 att for 69 yards..4.3 average..1 td

SF- 12 att for 48 yards..4.0 average
- 11 att for 66 yards..6.0 average

*- notes started


if you look at the 3 games that mike did start, he didnt do well. One game against San Diego, but other than that, hes better as a backup. When Tatum was bad, most of the time he picked up the slack. Because thats what a BACKUP is supposed to do. And if you look at it, Mike was very inconsistent. He was either good or bad, to really good, and to really bad. Tatum had his bad games to, but im just saying, Mike isnt as good as everyone hypes him to be. Tatum I think was way more consistent, he had alot more games that he did better, and thats what a starter is expected to have and do.(even though that indy game was rather good for mike).

Here's a stat for you....how about fumbles??

Look, Mike Bell is what he is, a backup. He was also a rookie and will get better. There is no doubt in my mind he will be bettrer and have a longer career than Tatum; at least in Denver.

Maybe Tater will get a fresh look elsewhere and will be a better fit for another team, but there is no question Mike Bell is better for us.

Now, having said that, I would perfer to add Antonio Pittman to our backfiled and have him and Bell as our RB tandem.

[Dream]

Mike did a great job as a rookie and should only get better. Conditioning is an issue, but I guarantee that Mike's working hard every day to get better for this team. Unfortunately, I think the Broncos will find an upgrade at running back, but if Mike's just a guy who is a situational 100-150 carry guy for this team to help us win, I'm cool with it. Depending on where we draft a back, I think that Mike's role this year should be bigger than last years.