Battle of the Backups (1 Viewer)

[boboze]

Both are available on the WW... I like Norwood as a keeper for next season, but I don't see how he can contribute this season with a healthy Dunn.

By all accounts Michael Turner is contributing and may get loads of work against San Fran, but does his talent match what we now know Jerious is capable of?

 

[SSOG]

Both are available on the WW... I like Norwood as a keeper for next season, but I don't see how he can contribute this season with a healthy Dunn.By all accounts Michael Turner is contributing and may get loads of work against San Fran, but does his talent match what we now know Jerious is capable of?

In before someone shows up and flames you for not realizing that Michael Turner is secretly the best RB in the league. You may laugh at the thought, but I have seen many people seriously suggest that Turner is as talented as Tomlinson.To be honest, I don't know which one I'd rather have at this point. If Dunn retires and SD tenders Turner with the highest offer (he's an RFA this season), then obviously I'd rather have Norwood. If Dunn sticks around and San Diego trades Turner for a draft pick, then obviously I'd rather have Turner. Which is more likely at this point? I dunno, but I suspect that it's more likely next year that Dunn is not a Falcon than it is that Turner is not a Charger. No hard evidence to base this on, just a sneaking suspicion. As a result, as far as 1-year keeper prospects are concerned, give me Norwood. As far as long-term keeper prospects are concerned, I'd probably rather have Turner.Is there some reason why you can't pick up both?

 

[cantrell]

Norwood as long as Burner in backing LT. Roll the dice with Norwood. It's not like an Atlanta's passing game led by Vick will ever take away from the running game.

 

[boboze]

Is there some reason why you can't pick up both?

Our league only allows 4 players on bench and I'm reserving Chester, Rivers and Deuce already. Have Norwood, but I'm considering dropping him for Turner.

 

[thayman]

Both are available on the WW... I like Norwood as a keeper for next season, but I don't see how he can contribute this season with a healthy Dunn.By all accounts Michael Turner is contributing and may get loads of work against San Fran, but does his talent match what we now know Jerious is capable of?

well there are quite a few assumptions you have to make. I will assume that Turner stays in SD behind LT for another year, it is possible that he gets traded, but where would he go that he could make a impact? Jets? Indy may be a possibility, but we can't tell now.Norwood will still be in Atlanta, I love Dunn, but he's nearing the retirement/big injury age......So if I had to choose I'd go Norwood.

 

[mightyeskimo]

Found this in another thread about Turner and thought I'd throw it out here. Turners salary this year is $425,000.

The player's original team maintains the First Refusal Right if the team tenders a contract offer of one year at $685,000 (estimate for 2006) for players with 3 accrued seasons or $725,000 (estimate for 2006) for players with four accrued seasons in uncapped years.

The player's original team maintains the Right of First Refusal and Draft Selection at the Player’s Original Draft Round (from the team with which he signs) if the team tenders an offer of one year at roughly $1 Million (or some different sum to be defined by the league in 2006) OR at least 110% of the player’s prior year’s salary -- whichever is greater.

The player's original team maintains the Right of First Refusal and First Round Draft Selection (from the team with which he signs) if the team tenders an offer of one year at an estimated $1.5 million (or some different sum as defined by the league in 2006) OR at least 110% of the player’s prior year’s salary -- whichever is greater.

The player's original team maintains the Right of First Refusal and First Round Draft Selection and Third Round Draft Selection (both from the team with which he signs) if the team tenders an offer of one year at $2 million (or some different sum as defined by the league in 2006) OR at least 110% of the player's prior year’s salary -- whichever is greater.

It doesn't sound like the Chargers will have to spend that much to either keep him for 2007 or get a 1st round pick for him. Considering his performance so far in his career, I think he would be worth more than a 5th round pick. If a team picks him up he'd either be the outright starter or given a huge chance to win the job in camp simply due to the draft selection the team that picks him up is giving away.

 

[zamboni]

Is there some reason why you can't pick up both?

Our league only allows 4 players on bench and I'm reserving Chester, Rivers and Deuce already. Have Norwood, but I'm considering dropping him for Turner.

I would drop Rivers then and pick up both Turner and Norwood. You can always find QBs out there.As for Turner vs. Norwood, Turner strikes me as a guy that has all the tools to be a very good feature back, but the opportunity may be lacking for another year. The jury is still out on Norwood being a feature back, but he could have a sooner path. On balance though, I'd go with Turner as it's only a matter of time before he gets a job. If not in '07 then in '08.

 

[bumpman]

There are a few considerations in assessing value for 2007:

1) Probability that another team is going to sign Turner away for more than the Chargers are willing to match AND pay the 1st and 3rd round picks that likely will be necessary vs. Dunn retiring or being relegated to backup status.

2) If neither of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?

3) If both of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?

For question #1, I think this is a wash. Dunn doesn't look like he is slowing down at all. Thus, I think he will still be the primary guy in Atlanta in 2007. Perhaps Dunn is hit with a big injury or he seriously goes into the tank for the rest of the year. If so, there is a much better chance that Atlanta will go in a different direction next year. I don't see that as very likely. At this point, I would say that there is about a 10-15% chance that another team would sign Turner away. I can't think of too many similar situations in which a RB is signed away as a RFA and installed as a starter.

If neither of the above improbable events happens, Turner has more value. His role in SD is getting bigger as the season progresses and the success of the dual back approach this past game suggests that SD will continue to use it in the future. Turner has fantasy value as a RB3 as a result. Can't say the same for Norwood with Dunn and Vick taking the carries.

If both events happen, I would rather have Turner. He has all the indicia of a full time feature back. Norwood would still be giving up GL duties to Vick or or possibly some big back that Atlanta may bring in to share time at the RB position.

In light of the above, I would take Turner.

 

[mightyeskimo]

There are a few considerations in assessing value for 2007:

1) Probability that another team is going to sign Turner away for more than the Chargers are willing to match AND pay the 1st and 3rd round picks that likely will be necessary vs. Dunn retiring or being relegated to backup status.

2) If neither of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?

3) If both of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?

For question #1, I think this is a wash. Dunn doesn't look like he is slowing down at all. Thus, I think he will still be the primary guy in Atlanta in 2007. Perhaps Dunn is hit with a big injury or he seriously goes into the tank for the rest of the year. If so, there is a much better chance that Atlanta will go in a different direction next year. I don't see that as very likely. At this point, I would say that there is about a 10-15% chance that another team would sign Turner away. I can't think of too many similar situations in which a RB is signed away as a RFA and installed as a starter.

If neither of the above improbable events happens, Turner has more value. His role in SD is getting bigger as the season progresses and the success of the dual back approach this past game suggests that SD will continue to use it in the future. Turner has fantasy value as a RB3 as a result. Can't say the same for Norwood with Dunn and Vick taking the carries.

If both events happen, I would rather have Turner. He has all the indicia of a full time feature back. Norwood would still be giving up GL duties to Vick or or possibly some big back that Atlanta may bring in to share time at the RB position.

In light of the above, I would take Turner.

I think the bold section is the largest factor in the discussion of Turner. We all know that LT2 is the franchise of the Chargers. I think everyone would agree with that point. Also, LT2 has said that he really likes the way Turner comes in to spell him. I think if the Chargers organization has even the barest amount of common sense they will do everything possible to keep LT2 happy, fresh, and running strong because they know if they do that they'll be able to win.

 

[SSOG]

There are a few considerations in assessing value for 2007:1) Probability that another team is going to sign Turner away for more than the Chargers are willing to match AND pay the 1st and 3rd round picks that likely will be necessary vs. Dunn retiring or being relegated to backup status.2) If neither of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?3) If both of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?For question #1, I think this is a wash. Dunn doesn't look like he is slowing down at all. Thus, I think he will still be the primary guy in Atlanta in 2007. Perhaps Dunn is hit with a big injury or he seriously goes into the tank for the rest of the year. If so, there is a much better chance that Atlanta will go in a different direction next year. I don't see that as very likely. At this point, I would say that there is about a 10-15% chance that another team would sign Turner away. I can't think of too many similar situations in which a RB is signed away as a RFA and installed as a starter.If neither of the above improbable events happens, Turner has more value. His role in SD is getting bigger as the season progresses and the success of the dual back approach this past game suggests that SD will continue to use it in the future. Turner has fantasy value as a RB3 as a result. Can't say the same for Norwood with Dunn and Vick taking the carries.If both events happen, I would rather have Turner. He has all the indicia of a full time feature back. Norwood would still be giving up GL duties to Vick or or possibly some big back that Atlanta may bring in to share time at the RB position.In light of the above, I would take Turner.

There's another possibility that you've missed. It's possible that Dunn doesn't retire, but that he's cut or traded.Does anyone know the details of Dunn's contract? What's his base salary next season? Does he have any big bonuses due?

 

[Sleeper 43]

There are a few considerations in assessing value for 2007:1) Probability that another team is going to sign Turner away for more than the Chargers are willing to match AND pay the 1st and 3rd round picks that likely will be necessary vs. Dunn retiring or being relegated to backup status.2) If neither of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?3) If both of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?For question #1, I think this is a wash. Dunn doesn't look like he is slowing down at all. Thus, I think he will still be the primary guy in Atlanta in 2007. Perhaps Dunn is hit with a big injury or he seriously goes into the tank for the rest of the year. If so, there is a much better chance that Atlanta will go in a different direction next year. I don't see that as very likely. At this point, I would say that there is about a 10-15% chance that another team would sign Turner away. I can't think of too many similar situations in which a RB is signed away as a RFA and installed as a starter.If neither of the above improbable events happens, Turner has more value. His role in SD is getting bigger as the season progresses and the success of the dual back approach this past game suggests that SD will continue to use it in the future. Turner has fantasy value as a RB3 as a result. Can't say the same for Norwood with Dunn and Vick taking the carries.If both events happen, I would rather have Turner. He has all the indicia of a full time feature back. Norwood would still be giving up GL duties to Vick or or possibly some big back that Atlanta may bring in to share time at the RB position.In light of the above, I would take Turner.

Reason 1 is all you need to know, I would be shocked if someone came out of the pockets with those picks to get Turner.Go with Norwood. Even if Dunn stays, I could see Noroowd and Dunn switching roles from this year to next year and Dunn assuming more of a 3rd down back role. He a professional too so I do think thier would be a backlash from him about it.

 

[thayman]

There are a few considerations in assessing value for 2007:1) Probability that another team is going to sign Turner away for more than the Chargers are willing to match AND pay the 1st and 3rd round picks that likely will be necessary vs. Dunn retiring or being relegated to backup status.2) If neither of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?3) If both of the situations above happen, which player has the most value?For question #1, I think this is a wash. Dunn doesn't look like he is slowing down at all. Thus, I think he will still be the primary guy in Atlanta in 2007. Perhaps Dunn is hit with a big injury or he seriously goes into the tank for the rest of the year. If so, there is a much better chance that Atlanta will go in a different direction next year. I don't see that as very likely. At this point, I would say that there is about a 10-15% chance that another team would sign Turner away. I can't think of too many similar situations in which a RB is signed away as a RFA and installed as a starter.If neither of the above improbable events happens, Turner has more value. His role in SD is getting bigger as the season progresses and the success of the dual back approach this past game suggests that SD will continue to use it in the future. Turner has fantasy value as a RB3 as a result. Can't say the same for Norwood with Dunn and Vick taking the carries.If both events happen, I would rather have Turner. He has all the indicia of a full time feature back. Norwood would still be giving up GL duties to Vick or or possibly some big back that Atlanta may bring in to share time at the RB position.In light of the above, I would take Turner.

There's another possibility that you've missed. It's possible that Dunn doesn't retire, but that he's cut or traded.Does anyone know the details of Dunn's contract? What's his base salary next season? Does he have any big bonuses due?

Considering all the unknowns at this time. Norwood in ATL>>Turner in ???