After a statistically impressive season last year, many fantasy football gurus are encouraging us all to drink the Travis Henry Kool-Aid in 2007.

Travis Henry had a bounce back year in 2006 and ran like the Travis Henry of 2002 and 2003..... Or did it have more to do with Henry often being untouched until he was deep into the front 7 of a defense or farther due to the team trying to figure out what Vince Young was doing on any given play?

Is Travis Henry going to be the guy that convinced Mike Shanahan to not play musical running backs? Or is it yet another year of not knowing which running back will be getting the majority of the carries?

Is Henry, who has admitted now that this one cut and run mentality is something that he has never done and has not yet become comfortable with it going to be able to buy into this running style 100% by September?

Does Travis Henry run hard this year and keep his starting job, or does he yet again under perform and get pushed out of the starting lineup?

Tell us why he will or wont be the 1200-1300 yard and 10 touchdown running back that he is being projected as right now.

I've always liked Henry, I finally gave up on him last season and was burnt due to it. I think Henry fits that system like a glove. When he is healthy he will produce. But given his injury history I don't think he starts all 16 games. Still shouold be good for 14 games, 1200 yds and 10 TD's.

There are a couple things that I can't get past in regard to Travis Henry in Denver.

This is an open competition, Henry hasn't been handed the starting job, and knowing Shanahan, he won't be.

Mike Bell, though he wasn't the starter, was the guy that performed very well in this offense last season down the stretch, and in limited duty managed 800 yards of offense and 8 touchdowns.

Some little things that might be more news if they continue. Travis Henry is learning to run in a system that he is not used to. He is admittedly struggling with the altitude in Denver, and what might be the most important thing to creep up in this conversation as the off-season moves along, Mike Bell is having a very good off-season this year. He knows the system, ran it in college, and averaged 4.3 per carry in it with Denver last year.

To say the least, Henry has his work cut out for him in Denver if he is to get the 25-30 touches per game that many are speculating. Personally, I don't think he gets it, at least not on a regular basis.

Won't surprise me at all to see Mike Bell as the main guy at some point in the season.

I'm not sold at this pt in season about Henry or Bell 'being the man' and to be honest may have learned my lesson with the Denver RB situation.

It brings up another topic I hope to look into at some pt:
The evolution of football coaching in the NFL...particularly by the better coaches in the league.

Once upon a time the credo was 'a coach doesn't change...he goes with what works.'

Those of us who knew Shanny's history prior to the last few years, used that credo again and again when we went after Den RBs.

He ALWAYS favored and was successful with a ONE RB system...he won't change.

Boy were we wrong.

I also look at Parcells and one may even include Gibbs, though the latter was likely a situation of circumstance with Portis getting hurt than Gibbs 'wanting' to go to a RBBC in Washington.

Pt is, just as some good baseball managers once upon a time recognized the value of a pitcher who could 'close' a game out, good HC's in the NFL are recognizing that what worked 5, 10, 15 years ago, may not work today...so they're willing to change things up.

To pt where Shanny seems to have totally flip-flopped and at this pt, may even FAVOR the RBBC. Some would argue, he just hasn't found the talent, since trading Portis or the golden age of Terrell Davis.

Some one else may argue that he saw what happened to TD after an enormous workload, started to do it with Portis, but realized he may have been doing the same thing to him and made him expendable in a trade.
Meanwhile committing to going with less talent rbs, but using them in a RBBC so as to make up with 'fresher legs'/'competitiveness' what the rbs lacked in talent.

Then there's Parcells, who if you looked back at his most successful years, had ONE rb carrying the load....over past couple years he's shown that that may have been the way once upon a time, but not necessarily now.

Not sure where I'm going with this other than to say I guess my answer to the question about Henry is I don't think we'll see quite those numbers...But not b/c of his talent level, but the situation and 'reformed' HC he'll be working under.

Henry could have a good season but he's not the best back on that team. Mike Bell will be the feature back on that team. He's so much more athletic and able to make crisper cuts then Henry. Denver is a running team, and they still want to protect their young QB, Jay Cutler. As such, Bell will run for over a thousand yards, and Henry will end up with 700 to 800 yards. Not great, but not bad.

Not to take this too far off track, but a not on parcells. While he has had years where he rolled with one primary back, according to his interviews, he has always preferred to have 2-3 running backs, just didn't always have those players available to him. Now, whether that is true, or just another case of Parcells rambling, I don't know.

Interesting...here's a link to Parcell's career:
Bill Parcells coaching record - pro-football-reference.com

If you look at his winning seasons, he predominantly had ONE rb carrying the load.

Were those interviews prior to '06 season?
Maybe coachspeak as he realized that Jones wasn't going to be the man and that Barber would be in mix, so then he says 'always preferred 2-3 RBs'?

Those interviews were last year. He would cite guys like Mo Carthon (70+ carries in 86, although Morris had 341), and guys like Meggett. The point he tried to make is that was what he preferred, but didn't have the luxury of doing so, as he played with what the team gave him.

Like I said, don't know if it is true or not, just what he said.

Since this was about Travis Henry, and not parcells, I think that despite his early "struggles" Henry will end up winning the job. Mike Bell will be the other back who gets fewer touches. I think Henry is a better back, even if he isn't more athletic, and he's proven to be successful in the NFL, even on bad teams. I'm interested to see how thi s plays out once we hi traiaing camp, but I am guessing that Henry will get the bulk of the carries (probably not 25+ a game, more like 20ish).

Didn't mean to hijack, my last take on this: I hear ya that it's just what he said, but even 70 carries is like 5-6 a game...nothing more than giving your main guy a breather.

And my thinking, citing his winning seasons, is no he didn't have luxury every year, but that when did have ONE RB he thought could carry the load, he went with that and it was when he was most successful.

Well 25 a game is 400 carries, which has happened a couple handful of times in the NFL.

20 a game is about 320, a pretty standard workload for what would be considered a 'main' RB (give or take 20 carries).

Again citing, my opinion on Shanny changing his ways, and that Mike Bell showed some definite talent last year, just don't see Bell being regulated to 4-7 carries a game.

Give one of them say 200, the other 150 (and your guess is as a good as mine as to even that distrubition) and you keep them fresh and strong throughout season and beyond.

I could very well see this happening, and in true Denver fashion, it could once again be a case of alternating who gets the bulk from week to week.

All signs are leading to Mike Bell showing significant improvement over last year, and as I mentioned previously, and last year, he is a natural for this style of running.

Henry is the kind of RB who is much better during carries 15-20+ than he is in the first few carries. He's a guy who wears defenses down even though he's not real big. I think having him split time with Mike Bell would actually limit his effectiveness.

even if they split, you better believe there will be more than 350 carries between the two of them. id say youre looking at more like 275 and 150, and thats if mike gets a lot of carries. but henry is far more talented and a better fit for denver, and i think he'll probably get 300+ carries and rank in the top 5-7 as such in the nfl.

That may be true with Henry, but I think the same case might be made for Bell.

I would have to wonder why you come to this assumption, and I will admit, it is an assumption that many share.

This is a new style of running for Henry, yet it is something that Mike Bell has dealth with all through college and last season.
I also have trouble following along with the "better talent" assumption. I think many are still underestimating Mike Bell.

i think i make that "assumption" because travis henry has now had several very successful nfl seasons, and mike bell has had... 0.

IF "several" = 3, THEN "yes"

um... yes it does. what does "several" mean in your world?

LOL. I was thinking back to my days of trying to learn to write programs on a commodore 64 computer

Looking at rookie seasons between the two, even though Henry was inserted into the starting lineup most of the season, I would say that Mike Bell had the better 1st year. If he is truly improving on what he did last season down the stretch, the Broncos are going to be hard pressed to keep him off the field.

I just don't see how one can argue that mike Bell is better than henry. Henry has been successful on two different teams with a total of three very good seasons. Just because this is a "new style" of running for him doesn't mean he won't be able to do it. By all accounts, Denver's style is the most running back friendly in the NFL. Mike Bell has done it since college, but he still didn't lock up the starting job last year over tatum bell, who isn't all that good himself. I'm With Bomb on this one, Henry is going to get most of the carries (300+) and put up big numbers.

Well Mike beat me to it, but since we’re getting smart with each other:
By several successful years, you mean 3 of 6, then okay.

And by Bell having zero, you mean to discount a season as a rookie where he had 157 cars, 677yds, 4.3ypc, 8tds and 20recs, 158yds, where if you left the recs/tds as is but pro-rated the carries to 300, you’d be looking at 1500totyds/8tds (and could easily see the tds at 10), then okay.

Aside from that your statement is Henry…‘much more talented and better fit’…than Bell.
I admit that Henry is a solid fit, but would argue from what I saw last year that Bell is just as good a fit and arguably just as talented. In fact, considering he’s only had 1 year under his belt and is still unpolished, may have much more to offer in upcoming year and years.

As for the breakdown of possible sharing carries, looks like your total carries are closer, but my distribution percentage is closer…here are carry breakdowns of leading Bronco RBs past 4 years:
‘06
233, 157 = 390
‘05
239, 176 = 415
‘04
275, 85, 75 = 435
‘03
290, 94,70 = 454