DeAngelo Williams vs. Michael Turner (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

I just posted this in another thread, but wondered if it deserved it's own to discuss what it is we like and dislike about 2 seemingly similar players. Especially with Foster leaving, there's a good chance that Williams gets the starting job.

So, here's the thing that sometimes confuses me. Believe me, I'm not a big fan of DeAngelo Williams at all nor am I sure he can carry the full load. But, while stats don't always tell the story, I see a pretty big disconnect between 2 guys---1 that people lobby for and another people seem to lobby against (with the exception of his owners).

DeAngelo Williams in 2007 (1st round selection, 5'10, 217 lbs)

---144 carries/717 yds/4 TDs at 5.0 ypc and 23 rec/177 yds/1 TD

Michael Turner in 2007 (5th round selection, 5'10, 237 lbs)

---71 carries/316 yds/1 TD at 4.5 ypc and 4 rec/16 yds/0 TD

Now, again, stats can definitely be misleading in terms of how a player looks on the field. However, there seems to be an overwhelming majority of people who feel Turner is a top talent and deserved the starting job he got. There's some disappointment he landed in Atlanta, but still feel he will do well. However, there doesn't seem to be a similar sentiment, esp. among some known Turner supporters that DeAngelo can do the same thing. Many Turner supporters point to his stats to show how well he's done yet when I've seen the same done for DeAngelo it doesn't seem to be good enough.

I agree that on the field, overall, I'm more impressed with Turner than DeAngelo at this point. However, when you look above, it just seems to be a large disconnect when you compare what the 2 have done on the field and how they are thought of. Is it the 20 lb difference? Is it stricly what's been seen (DeAngelo "dancing"), or is it something else I'm missing? I would also argue that DeAngelo played behind a far inferior line with less around him and put up better #'s.

So why is the general sentiment that DeAngelo can't cut it as a starter and isn't that good while Turner can cut it as a starter and is a top talent when the #'s, at least from 2007, tell a completely different story.

 

[travdogg]

Excellent topic!

It does seem that people are higher on Turner than DeAngelo despite the fact that their stats are very similar.

Turner's size makes him seem more likely to be a workhorse but that isn't necessarily true, DeAngelo isn't big, but he's squatty like Emmitt Smith or Curtis Martin were(not that he's on those guys' levels.)

I think they are pretty close personally, and they'd both be in my 15-20 range.

 

[EBF]

Turner is a bit bigger and bulkier with much better power. Moreover, the fact that the Falcons went out and spent decent money on him means he's almost certainly going to be their starter next year.

DeAngelo has a bit of a "change of pace back" vibe to him. My big knock on him coming out of college was that he ran soft and seemed to be an easy tackle once the defender made contact. So I think the risk with him is that he might never be more than what he is right now. However, I do think he has a big upside if a team decides to use him like Westbrook. He is a more explosive player than Turner.

 

[TaxMan]

I think because one of them got good huge thick legs, the other has skinny ones

wait, i thought we were talking about Peterson vs. McFadden's legs once again.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Turner couldn't get a starting job on the Chargers, which means the coaching staff probably think he isn't the best RB in the league.

Williams couldn't get a starting job on the Panthers, which means the coaching staff probably think he isn't one of the top 20 RBs in the league.

Coaches don't always play the right guy, but there's a good bit of evidence that Williams isn't an elite talent because he couldn't steal the job from DeShaun Foster. On the other hand, he did perform well, and I think you'll see his stock rise quite a bit if Carolina doesn't add anyone in the draft or free agency. Lots of people were high on Williams two years ago, and he hasn't really underperformed or disappointed since then. He'll get a chance to show it this year.

Turner has averaged nearly a full yard more per carry so far into his career, so it's understandable why the hype is a bit higher there.

 

[teamroc]

I personally think Turner is going to be a bust.

But the reason is, Dwill couldn't beat out Foster. Who is now a backup RB in the NFL.

Turner couldn't beat out LT, which is not much of a criticism.

 

[EBF]

I think they are pretty close personally, and they'd both be in my 15-20 range.

Agreed.I think Turner is Rudi Johnson. Nothing fancy, but he'll grind out the yards.DeAngelo is more of a boom-or-bust pick. Maybe he's Brian Westbrook. Maybe he's Kevin Faulk. Tough to say.

 

[travdogg]

I think they are pretty close personally, and they'd both be in my 15-20 range.

Agreed.I think Turner is Rudi Johnson. Nothing fancy, but he'll grind out the yards.DeAngelo is more of a boom-or-bust pick. Maybe he's Brian Westbrook. Maybe he's Kevin Faulk. Tough to say.

I agree with the Turner-Rudi comparison, though Turner has more breakaway speed.DeAngelo kinda reminds me of Tiki Barber around 2001 or so.

 

[gianmarco]

I understand some points being made. However, Williams actually had more carries (144) than Turner ever had in a single season. His ypc improved to a very healthy 5.0. And again, he had MUCH less talent around him and was behind a much worse line. I just think that Williams arguably has better evidence he could succeed in a feature role based on the above yet popular opinion states the opposite.

As far as not being able to beat out Foster, Fox has repeatedly shown himself to be very loyal to vets. I don't think that's a legit reason.

 

[Brutis]

I'll have alot more love for Deangelo after the draft, or less love.

 

[gianmarco]

Btw, I'm gonna single out Switz on this as well. This isn't meant in a bad way at all, but I know he's a very vocal supporter of Turner and not so much of DeAngelo. He also has the benefit of living in Carolina and seeing Williams a lot. I wonder, aside from what's seen on the field (which, admittedly, is worth a considerable amount), why there's the discrepancy when there doesn't exist one looking at 2007 #'s. I know that Turner has 3 previous years of fine work as well that relate and that William's 1st year was lower, however, even given that, it's worrisome that Turner's #'s declined and William's improved if you're a Turner fan, I think.

Another question I have is this. If you are indeed a Turner proponent and not a big William's fan, how would you feel if:

1. in 2006, Turner was traded to Carolina and SD drafted Williams so that it was DeAngelo in SD sitting behind LT and Turner behind Foster for the last 2 yrs in Carolina

2. Their #'s are exactly the same (Williams with a 5.0 ypc on 144 carries while in SD and Turner with 4.5 on fewer carries behind Foster)

3. For whatever reason that we'll say is solely bc Fox decided, Turner was #2 behind Foster.

If those 3 were the case, would you still feel the same way about the 2 based on what you've seen? I ask this because I wonder how much their situations play into how some of you feel about these guys.

 

[FUBAR]

I think they are pretty close personally, and they'd both be in my 15-20 range.

Agreed.I think Turner is Rudi Johnson. Nothing fancy, but he'll grind out the yards.DeAngelo is more of a boom-or-bust pick. Maybe he's Brian Westbrook. Maybe he's Kevin Faulk. Tough to say.

If I had Turner (traded him away a year ago), I'd easily trade him for DeAngelo + the perceived difference.

 

[Christo]

Is it stricly what's been seen (DeAngelo "dancing"), or is it something else I'm missing?

That's the biggest part. Even in college Williams wanted to find a reason to go outside.

 

[mdog1967]

I understand some points being made. However, Williams actually had more carries (144) than Turner ever had in a single season. His ypc improved to a very healthy 5.0. And again, he had MUCH less talent around him and was behind a much worse line. I just think that Williams arguably has better evidence he could succeed in a feature role based on the above yet popular opinion states the opposite.As far as not being able to beat out Foster, Fox has repeatedly shown himself to be very loyal to vets. I don't think that's a legit reason.

You make a logical point. Last year SD running game in general started off pretty slow and LT looked ordinary at times. LT averaged 4.7 yards a game last year, 9 of those games LT average fell far below 4 yards a carry. The O-Line got much better and resulted in much mongo stats for LT down the stretch. Result is that Turners numbers suffered last year as well. As others have all ready stated; Turner was never going to win the starting Job from LT, Williams was supposed to win the Job from foster. I don’t know if either Turner or Williams will be studs or not. I would bet that Turner would excel in Atlanta, I will not bet against Williams excelling if given a chance. If the Falcons return to some type of zone blocking scheme and get some kind of passable play at QB, Turner could develop into a complete monster, I think he's that talented.Most of us who post and pimp a particular player do so out of wishful thinking. If you own Turner you’re likely to see the cup filled to the brim, if you traded turner away last year or don’t own him your going to convince yourself that Turner is a turd until proven otherwise.The only player I’ve owned that I wouldn’t defend as a good player while I owned him was and is Cedric “Run into the lineman” Benson. He’s that bad and I cant give him away.

 

[switz]

Btw, I'm gonna single out Switz on this as well.

This seems to be the week everyone is calling me out LOL

This isn't meant in a bad way at all, but I know he's a very vocal supporter of Turner and not so much of DeAngelo. He also has the benefit of living in Carolina and seeing Williams a lot. I wonder, aside from what's seen on the field (which, admittedly, is worth a considerable amount), why there's the discrepancy when there doesn't exist one looking at 2007 #'s. I know that Turner has 3 previous years of fine work as well that relate and that William's 1st year was lower, however, even given that, it's worrisome that Turner's #'s declined and William's improved if you're a Turner fan, I think.

I think the drop in numbers had more to do with a change in coaching than anything with Turner.As for DeAngelo, he just hasn't seemed to improve at all in his problem areas. He doesn't work very hard. And he's a bit smallish to be an every down back. And I have the impression his stats were more situational based. I may be wrong on that....

Another question I have is this. If you are indeed a Turner proponent and not a big William's fan, how would you feel if:

1. in 2006, Turner was traded to Carolina and SD drafted Williams so that it was DeAngelo in SD sitting behind LT and Turner behind Foster for the last 2 yrs in Carolina

I would feel the same in reference to who his competition was... however, I don't believe if Turner were in CAR that he would have been behind Foster.

2. Their #'s are exactly the same (Williams with a 5.0 ypc on 144 carries while in SD and Turner with 4.5 on fewer carries behind Foster)

Then I would be of the opinion that Turner was not as good as I had thought originally in all likelihood

3. For whatever reason that we'll say is solely bc Fox decided, Turner was #2 behind Foster.

That would be really hard to prove. Which is why I don't like that excuse...

If those 3 were the case, would you still feel the same way about the 2 based on what you've seen? I ask this because I wonder how much their situations play into how some of you feel about these guys.

I think their situations do play a large role. But my opinion on these two players isn't much different than when I ranked them before the NFL drafts they were taken in. So, yes, situation matters... but it hasn't changed my view of their talent level and ability to translate into NFL starter versus COP roles.I just did a bit of research since you got me thinking:

Here are all their games with 10+ carries, I know that's a bit arbitrary, but it's not chose as a cutoff with any particular intent, rather I would assume a starting RB is going to get a minimum of ten carries...

Turner

10-41-4.1 vs. CHI '07

10-147-14.7 vs. DEN '07 (-74yd TD, still 4.9YPC)

11-42-3.8 vs OAK '07

17-71-4.2 vs IND '07

17-65-3.8 vs NE '07

10-37-3.7 vs OAK '06

13-138-10.6 vs TEN '06

11-56-5.1 vs PIT '06

11-58-5.3 vs. ARI '06

11-44-4.0 vs NE '05

15-87-5.8 vs KC '04

Williams

15-62-4.1 vs STL '07

11-47-4.3 vs ATL '07

10-121-12.1 vs ARI '07 (-75 TD still 5.0 YPC)

17-82-4.8 vs SF '07

16-61-4.1 vs SEA '07

10-60-6.0 vs DAL '07

20-121-6.1 vs TB '07

13-74-5.7 vs MIN '06

20-114-5.7 vs STL '06

17-63-3.7 vs WAS '06

17-74-4.4 vs PHI '06

21-82-3.9 vs ATL '06

It's pretty interesting, and I would even say that from those statistics DeAngelo "looks" like the better player. Maybe he is. I don't fell that way, but I really have no way to prove the legitimacy of why Turner is better in my opinion.

I guess if I were to narrow it down, I feel Turner while making big plays, is going to put up consistent number even if he doesn't break a big one. On the other hand, DeAngelo is "dependent" on big plays to put up good stats.

If two backs are going to both finish the season with 160 points, I'd prefer the guy who gets 10 each week, instead of the guy that gets 20 one week, 0 the next. I get that boom or bust feeling with DeAngelo. I dunno...

 

[trader jake]

Why the love for one and not so much for the other?

Short Answer: Even if all other things are equal...DeAngelo Williams is unlikely to ever be the goal-line back in CAR while Michael Turner will in ATLLong answer: see above

 

[Anthony Borbely]

When I watch DeAngelo play, I just don't see a starting RB. When I see Michael Turner play, I see a 300 carry RB with breakaway speed. It's not close for me. DeAngelo may have talent, but it is telling to me that he could not take the job from Foster when he had ample opportunity to do it.

 

[Banger]

D. Williams optimism springs eternal. They'll draft a RB and it will be the same situation as last year.

 

[FavreCo]

Sweet. DeAngelo has put on almost 2 inches in height since the end of the season. He's listed at 5-9 at NFL .com but he measured under 5'-9" at the combine.

The knock on Williams is his size. There is no knock on Jones-Drew at 5-7" 206. Makes total sense since Jones-Drew gets to show what he can do and John Fox is an idiot.

 

[gianmarco]

Btw, I'm gonna single out Switz on this as well.

This seems to be the week everyone is calling me out LOL

This isn't meant in a bad way at all, but I know he's a very vocal supporter of Turner and not so much of DeAngelo. He also has the benefit of living in Carolina and seeing Williams a lot. I wonder, aside from what's seen on the field (which, admittedly, is worth a considerable amount), why there's the discrepancy when there doesn't exist one looking at 2007 #'s. I know that Turner has 3 previous years of fine work as well that relate and that William's 1st year was lower, however, even given that, it's worrisome that Turner's #'s declined and William's improved if you're a Turner fan, I think.

I think the drop in numbers had more to do with a change in coaching than anything with Turner.As for DeAngelo, he just hasn't seemed to improve at all in his problem areas. He doesn't work very hard. And he's a bit smallish to be an every down back. And I have the impression his stats were more situational based. I may be wrong on that....

Another question I have is this. If you are indeed a Turner proponent and not a big William's fan, how would you feel if:

1. in 2006, Turner was traded to Carolina and SD drafted Williams so that it was DeAngelo in SD sitting behind LT and Turner behind Foster for the last 2 yrs in Carolina

I would feel the same in reference to who his competition was... however, I don't believe if Turner were in CAR that he would have been behind Foster.

2. Their #'s are exactly the same (Williams with a 5.0 ypc on 144 carries while in SD and Turner with 4.5 on fewer carries behind Foster)

Then I would be of the opinion that Turner was not as good as I had thought originally in all likelihood

3. For whatever reason that we'll say is solely bc Fox decided, Turner was #2 behind Foster.

That would be really hard to prove. Which is why I don't like that excuse...

If those 3 were the case, would you still feel the same way about the 2 based on what you've seen? I ask this because I wonder how much their situations play into how some of you feel about these guys.

I think their situations do play a large role. But my opinion on these two players isn't much different than when I ranked them before the NFL drafts they were taken in. So, yes, situation matters... but it hasn't changed my view of their talent level and ability to translate into NFL starter versus COP roles.I just did a bit of research since you got me thinking:

Here are all their games with 10+ carries, I know that's a bit arbitrary, but it's not chose as a cutoff with any particular intent, rather I would assume a starting RB is going to get a minimum of ten carries...

Turner

10-41-4.1 vs. CHI '07

10-147-14.7 vs. DEN '07 (-74yd TD, still 4.9YPC)

11-42-3.8 vs OAK '07

17-71-4.2 vs IND '07

17-65-3.8 vs NE '07

10-37-3.7 vs OAK '06

13-138-10.6 vs TEN '06

11-56-5.1 vs PIT '06

11-58-5.3 vs. ARI '06

11-44-4.0 vs NE '05

15-87-5.8 vs KC '04

Williams

15-62-4.1 vs STL '07

11-47-4.3 vs ATL '07

10-121-12.1 vs ARI '07 (-75 TD still 5.0 YPC)

17-82-4.8 vs SF '07

16-61-4.1 vs SEA '07

10-60-6.0 vs DAL '07

20-121-6.1 vs TB '07

13-74-5.7 vs MIN '06

20-114-5.7 vs STL '06

17-63-3.7 vs WAS '06

17-74-4.4 vs PHI '06

21-82-3.9 vs ATL '06

It's pretty interesting, and I would even say that from those statistics DeAngelo "looks" like the better player. Maybe he is. I don't fell that way, but I really have no way to prove the legitimacy of why Turner is better in my opinion.

I guess if I were to narrow it down, I feel Turner while making big plays, is going to put up consistent number even if he doesn't break a big one. On the other hand, DeAngelo is "dependent" on big plays to put up good stats.

If two backs are going to both finish the season with 160 points, I'd prefer the guy who gets 10 each week, instead of the guy that gets 20 one week, 0 the next. I get that boom or bust feeling with DeAngelo. I dunno...

That's a great post and I'm glad you were able to put aside whatever "biases" you may have to look at this objectively. I, too, am surprised by those #'s you pulled up and show that maybe there is a chance Williams can do well in a featured role. I'm not a fan of his at all, to be honest, so this thread was in no way a Williams' fan club meeting. But, as I was reading the other thread about him, the similarities between him and Turner (1st round talent, backup RB, pretty good #'s when given the chance, possible feature role) dawned on me so I wanted to see how they compared and was surprised at what I saw.

I have to admit, even after looking at this a little closer, I still agree with the general sentiment that Turner is better and probably is more suited to a full-time load. I'm not even sold on him yet, but I agree with others that DeAngelo may not be cut out for it. However, I just caution that we may be quite wrong about this, and at this point at least, the #'s seem to indicate we should be paying just as much attention to DWill as to Turner. And he can be had much cheaper, I think.

Another question, since I gotta run soon but will look later----Do these 20 lbs really make a difference? I don't see 217lbs as that small for someone who is 5'10". Is that really smallish?

 

[Biabreakable]

DeAngelo > Turner pre-nfl prospect and now.

Carolina's Oline on the other hand is not very good. Atlantas isn't either. Not sure which one is worse. They are both somewhere in the bottom 10 units in the league imo.

I like Fox and this he is a decent coach but his handling of the RBs has been specious.

I think DeAngelo's issues with pass protection may have had more to do with his situational use than anything else. Not sure if that issue has been corrected yet.

Good topic and I think optimistic Turner supporters are about to see how a talented RB will still struggle in a poor offense behind a poor offensive line.

As for the original post I do believe Turner was a 4th round pick by SD not a 1st like DeAngelo Williams was. I thought it was a steal for SD or any team to get Turner that late in the draft as his talent warranted a higher pick but still, he does not have the same talent that DeAngelo Williams does. I think people fail to recognise how good Williams is as a runner including his coaching staff up until later last season.

 

[az_prof]

It is really simple: Williams was a high draft pick and people expect those guys to start right away; yet, Williams could not beat out a very average Foster. Turner, on the other hand, has come in for LT and looked as good or even better than LT, eventhough he was not as heralded when he was drafted.

Personally, I am not so high on Turner because the sample size of carries is too small. But, Williams really doesn't have a lot of carries either; we don't know if either of these guys can be a featured back yet.

 

[zamboni]

I'll have alot more love for Deangelo after the draft, or less love.

A key point here. We have to see what Carolina does in the rookie draft before making such a comparison. Team brass has already gone on record saying they need another back - who that is, and how much PT he may take away from DeAngelo remains to be seen.

 

[BigJim®]

Interesting topic. I think most would be surprised that Deangelo has equaled Turner's rushing production, and has 7 times the receiving production, despite playing just half as many years as Turner.

Turner

2004 20/104/0 (5.2 YPC), 5/21/0 receiving

2005 57/335/3 (5.9), 3/47/0

2006 80/502/2 (6.3), 0/0/0

2007 71/316/1 (4.5), 4/8/0

Totals 228/1257/6, 11/71/0

Williams

2006 121/501/1 (4.1 YPC), 23/177/1 receiving

2007 144/717/4 (5.0), 33/313/1

Totals 265/1218/5, 56/488/2

It makes sense to me that Turner is more valued by FFers, given Atlanta's seeming commitment to him. But I'd argue Turner was deemed more valuable than Deangelo even before that trade. Williams has always been undervalued based on how Fox evaluated/utilized him. His production has been good. For whatever reason, Deangelo gets penalized while other 'backups' like Turner get hyped when they outproduce starters. These backs are pretty even to me though, as I see Turner overvalued and Williams undervalued.

 

[jurb26]

When I watch DeAngelo play, I just don't see a starting RB. When I see Michael Turner play, I see a 300 carry RB with breakaway speed. It's not close for me. DeAngelo may have talent, but it is telling to me that he could not take the job from Foster when he had ample opportunity to do it.

Umm, isn't this exactly what he did by Car trading Foster?

 

[Tau837]

I'll have alot more love for Deangelo after the draft, or less love.

A key point here. We have to see what Carolina does in the rookie draft before making such a comparison. Team brass has already gone on record saying they need another back - who that is, and how much PT he may take away from DeAngelo remains to be seen.

Did they go on record with this before or after they resigned Hoover and signed Toefield? I'm not saying those guys are great, but they did sign them. In fact, that they aren't great is actually a positive for Williams... IF they don't draft a rookie RB early. I think they have the same size stable of RBs right now as last season, with Toefield in place of Foster.Now, I suppose they could still draft a rookie RB and cut Toefield if necessary. But they would have to draft one in the first couple of rounds for that RB to be a threat to Williams. And Fox's loyalty to his veterans is well known... wouldn't that apply to Williams now? That is, if they draft a rookie RB, at least if it is not in the first round, wouldn't it be likely for that rookie RB to have a small role just as Williams did?

 

[jurb26]

Interesting topic. I think most would be surprised that Deangelo has equaled Turner's rushing production, and has 7 times the receiving production, despite playing just half as many years as Turner.

Turner

2004 20/104/0 (5.2 YPC), 5/21/0 receiving

2005 57/335/3 (5.9), 3/47/0

2006 80/502/2 (6.3), 0/0/0

2007 71/316/1 (4.5), 4/8/0

Totals 228/1257/6, 11/71/0

Williams

2006 121/501/1 (4.1 YPC), 23/177/1 receiving

2007 144/717/4 (5.0), 33/313/1

Totals 265/1218/5, 56/488/2

It makes sense to me that Turner is more valued by FFers, given Atlanta's seeming commitment to him. But I'd argue Turner was deemed more valuable than Deangelo even before that trade. Williams has always been undervalued based on how Fox evaluated/utilized him. His production has been good. For whatever reason, Deangelo gets penalized while other 'backups' like Turner get hyped when they outproduce starters. These backs are pretty even to me though, as I see Turner overvalued and Williams undervalued.

Pretty much agree. Turner is one of the most overrated RBs in the FF (has been for 3 years) and Williams is one of the most underrated. Williams is a better overall talent IMO. These guys are certainly much closer in ability than most think.It also seems that people continue to site the fact that Atl made a "commitment" to Turner and that he will be their bell-cow. I'm not so certain. Isn't it ironic how much hype Norwood was receiving this time last year? Now, I've never thought Norwood was as good as people would have liked to believe back then but I still think he will eat into Turner's numbers. Furthermore, didn't Car make just a big a commitment to Williams by trading Foster? Seems to be some selective reasoning here.

 

[jurb26]

Now, I suppose they could still draft a rookie RB and cut Toefield if necessary. But they would have to draft one in the first couple of rounds for that RB to be a threat to Williams. And Fox's loyalty to his veterans is well known... wouldn't that apply to Williams now? That is, if they draft a rookie RB, at least if it is not in the first round, wouldn't it be likely for that rookie RB to have a small role just as Williams did?

Exactly.

 

[renesauz]

Glad to see someone putting numbers to somethng I was already feeling.

I've been honestly confused as to why everybody seemed so "down" on Williams, and it's nice to know I'm not alone in that confusion.

FWIW...I'm not 100% sold on either player, but I think both have an excellant chance to be successful.

 

[squistion]

DeAngelo > Turner pre-nfl prospect and now.

Carolina's Oline on the other hand is not very good. Atlantas isn't either. Not sure which one is worse. They are both somewhere in the bottom 10 units in the league imo.

I like Fox and this he is a decent coach but his handling of the RBs has been specious.

I think DeAngelo's issues with pass protection may have had more to do with his situational use than anything else. Not sure if that issue has been corrected yet.

Specious? Meaning having a false look of truth or genuiness? Or showy? Or having deceptive attraction or allure? The choice of that word confuses me in the context of the points you were making.

 

[gianmarco]

I keep reading these replies and I can't help but think that a big part of this is that Turner had the "excuse" of playing behind LT as to why he hasn't given a chance and should succeed. On the flipside, Williams couldn't beat out Foster as the "excuse" why his value is lower. In the end, I'm not sold on either one but I also think both have potential to do some pretty good things. I really hope Carolina doesn't bring in another RB to muddy up the situation and that Williams is given a shot to prove whether or not he can handle the load.

 

[gianmarco]

This isn't meant in a bad way at all, but I know he's a very vocal supporter of Turner and not so much of DeAngelo. He also has the benefit of living in Carolina and seeing Williams a lot. I wonder, aside from what's seen on the field (which, admittedly, is worth a considerable amount), why there's the discrepancy when there doesn't exist one looking at 2007 #'s. I know that Turner has 3 previous years of fine work as well that relate and that William's 1st year was lower, however, even given that, it's worrisome that Turner's #'s declined and William's improved if you're a Turner fan, I think.

I think the drop in numbers had more to do with a change in coaching than anything with Turner.

Btw, I read through this post again and this line is a little concerning to me. This may very well be the reason, but if it's true, then there may be reason to worry being in Atlanta with a different coaching staff. It may not have been Turner's fault directly, but the bottomline is that without the former coaching staff, his numbers decreased considerably. I hope his success isn't dependent on the right coaches. That's not to say 4.5 ypc still isn't good, but it's far less spectacular than the #'s he put up his first 3 yrs. Again, possibly the product of the system and situation similar to Chester Taylor in Minnesota in 2006.

 

[gianmarco]

As for the original post I do believe Turner was a 4th round pick by SD not a 1st like DeAngelo Williams was.

My mistake, you are right. In fact, he wasn't even a 4th, he was a late 5th round pick in 2004 (154th overall). He was the 8th RB selected from his class.

 

[cstu]

This isn't meant in a bad way at all, but I know he's a very vocal supporter of Turner and not so much of DeAngelo. He also has the benefit of living in Carolina and seeing Williams a lot. I wonder, aside from what's seen on the field (which, admittedly, is worth a considerable amount), why there's the discrepancy when there doesn't exist one looking at 2007 #'s. I know that Turner has 3 previous years of fine work as well that relate and that William's 1st year was lower, however, even given that, it's worrisome that Turner's #'s declined and William's improved if you're a Turner fan, I think.

I think the drop in numbers had more to do with a change in coaching than anything with Turner.

Btw, I read through this post again and this line is a little concerning to me. This may very well be the reason, but if it's true, then there may be reason to worry being in Atlanta with a different coaching staff. It may not have been Turner's fault directly, but the bottomline is that without the former coaching staff, his numbers decreased considerably. I hope his success isn't dependent on the right coaches. That's not to say 4.5 ypc still isn't good, but it's far less spectacular than the #'s he put up his first 3 yrs. Again, possibly the product of the system and situation similar to Chester Taylor in Minnesota in 2006.

I think you have to be a little concerned about him as a featured back because of the fact every RB on the team has done well since the OL improved in 2004. Chatman looked like a stud backing up LT (he showed he's a pretty good RB with the Dolphins though) and so have Turner and Sproles. I think it's very likely that his YPC next year will be just around 4.0, although that should be enough for him to end up with 1200 yards as well as 8-10 TD's.

 

[mr. furley]

i've been down on Williams because he couldn't beat out a very pedestrian Deshaun Foster. whatever the reason, attitude, practice production, lack of ability.. he just couldn't do it.

coaches are going to put players on the field who will help them win games. if Williams gave the Panthers a better chance to win than Foster then he woulda been in the starting lineup.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

When I watch DeAngelo play, I just don't see a starting RB. When I see Michael Turner play, I see a 300 carry RB with breakaway speed. It's not close for me. DeAngelo may have talent, but it is telling to me that he could not take the job from Foster when he had ample opportunity to do it.

Umm, isn't this exactly what he did by Car trading Foster?

They didn't cut Foster because of DeAngelo; they cut Foster because of Foster not doing much, plus the salary cap.

 

[EBF]

When I watch DeAngelo play, I just don't see a starting RB. When I see Michael Turner play, I see a 300 carry RB with breakaway speed. It's not close for me. DeAngelo may have talent, but it is telling to me that he could not take the job from Foster when he had ample opportunity to do it.

Umm, isn't this exactly what he did by Car trading Foster?

They didn't cut Foster because of DeAngelo; they cut Foster because of Foster not doing much, plus the salary cap.

Therein lies the difference. Signing a player to a fat contract is an endorsement of that player.

Cutting a starter is not (necessarily) an endorsement of his backup. What Carolina does in the draft should offer strong clues about their opinion of Williams. Personally, I would hold off on acquiring him until after the draft. His value won't shoot up a ton if he becomes their starter, but it will drop a ton if they draft Mendenhall or Stewart.

 

[jurb26]

When I watch DeAngelo play, I just don't see a starting RB. When I see Michael Turner play, I see a 300 carry RB with breakaway speed. It's not close for me. DeAngelo may have talent, but it is telling to me that he could not take the job from Foster when he had ample opportunity to do it.

Umm, isn't this exactly what he did by Car trading Foster?

They didn't cut Foster because of DeAngelo; they cut Foster because of Foster not doing much, plus the salary cap.

Therein lies the difference. Signing a player to a fat contract is an endorsement of that player.

Cutting a starter is not (necessarily) an endorsement of his backup. What Carolina does in the draft should offer strong clues about their opinion of Williams. Personally, I would hold off on acquiring him until after the draft. His value won't shoot up a ton if he becomes their starter, but it will drop a ton if they draft Mendenhall or Stewart.

Car drafted Williams in the 1st yet Foster was still given more chances than his play warranted. It doesn't appear that what Car does in the draft is really much of an indicator.

 

[Biabreakable]

DeAngelo > Turner pre-nfl prospect and now.

Carolina's Oline on the other hand is not very good. Atlantas isn't either. Not sure which one is worse. They are both somewhere in the bottom 10 units in the league imo.

I like Fox and this he is a decent coach but his handling of the RBs has been specious.

I think DeAngelo's issues with pass protection may have had more to do with his situational use than anything else. Not sure if that issue has been corrected yet.

Specious? Meaning having a false look of truth or genuiness? Or showy? Or having deceptive attraction or allure? The choice of that word confuses me in the context of the points you were making.

seeming to be good, sound, correct, logical, etc. without really being so; plausible but not genuine specious logic

Fox let Stephen Davis continue to share a substantial workload after he clearly was too old and ineffective. Same thing with Foster the past couple years. While I am sure he has his reasons it does not seem like sound judgement when one looks at other facts. This is an important counter point to those here saying DeAngelo could not beat out Foster. It is my contention that DeAngelo would have and did beat out Foster (performance wise) but that Fox's judgement is flawed.http://www.yourdictionary.com/specious

 

[squistion]

DeAngelo > Turner pre-nfl prospect and now.

Carolina's Oline on the other hand is not very good. Atlantas isn't either. Not sure which one is worse. They are both somewhere in the bottom 10 units in the league imo.

I like Fox and this he is a decent coach but his handling of the RBs has been specious.

I think DeAngelo's issues with pass protection may have had more to do with his situational use than anything else. Not sure if that issue has been corrected yet.

Specious? Meaning having a false look of truth or genuiness? Or showy? Or having deceptive attraction or allure? The choice of that word confuses me in the context of the points you were making.

seeming to be good, sound, correct, logical, etc. without really being so; plausible but not genuine specious logic

Fox let Stephen Davis continue to share a substantial workload after he clearly was too old and ineffective. Same thing with Foster the past couple years. While I am sure he has his reasons it does not seem like sound judgement when one looks at other facts. This is an important counter point to those here saying DeAngelo could not beat out Foster. It is my contention that DeAngelo would have and did beat out Foster (performance wise) but that Fox's judgement is flawed.http://www.yourdictionary.com/specious

Sorry, but starting RBs that are old and ineffecitve is not specious. A lot of things in this world look better than they seem but they are not specious. You are just using this word wrong, IMO, but we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[gianmarco]

DeAngelo > Turner pre-nfl prospect and now.

Carolina's Oline on the other hand is not very good. Atlantas isn't either. Not sure which one is worse. They are both somewhere in the bottom 10 units in the league imo.

I like Fox and this he is a decent coach but his handling of the RBs has been specious.

I think DeAngelo's issues with pass protection may have had more to do with his situational use than anything else. Not sure if that issue has been corrected yet.

Specious? Meaning having a false look of truth or genuiness? Or showy? Or having deceptive attraction or allure? The choice of that word confuses me in the context of the points you were making.

seeming to be good, sound, correct, logical, etc. without really being so; plausible but not genuine specious logic

Fox let Stephen Davis continue to share a substantial workload after he clearly was too old and ineffective. Same thing with Foster the past couple years. While I am sure he has his reasons it does not seem like sound judgement when one looks at other facts. This is an important counter point to those here saying DeAngelo could not beat out Foster. It is my contention that DeAngelo would have and did beat out Foster (performance wise) but that Fox's judgement is flawed.http://www.yourdictionary.com/specious

I agree with this as well. I can understand if he was mired as a backup for a substantial period of time, but I don't think that was the case. In addition, he still get a decent workload both in years 1 and 2. It is somewhat disappointing for Williams' owners that he didn't come away with the job in 2007, but I still don't see it as definitive proof he wasn't better than Foster and shouldn't have had it. This draft should tell a lot.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think others have hit on the main point. Regardless of what WE think DeAngelo Williams is capable of, it only really matters what John Fox and his staff think. Since they felt compelled to keep Foster last year as a transition player when most of us thought he should've been cut, it does lend some credence to the notion that Williams hasn't won over the full confidence of the coaches yet (and may never).

My view on Williams will really hinge on what happens over the next few months. If the Panthers put little emphasis on the RB position via the draft, and don't sign a capable veteran to compete, I don't see how Williams' outlook wouldn't be promising enough to project as a top-15 type of prospect. But if the Panthers bring another able bodied contributor aboard, one has to wonder if he's ever going to see a full workload of touches.

 

[JAA]

Is it stricly what's been seen (DeAngelo "dancing"), or is it something else I'm missing?

That's the biggest part. Even in college Williams wanted to find a reason to go outside.

I remember watching Williams combine. I wasnt impressed at all. He performed horribly in the pass catching drills and didnt seem to have good concentration in general.

 

[jurb26]

Is it stricly what's been seen (DeAngelo "dancing"), or is it something else I'm missing?

That's the biggest part. Even in college Williams wanted to find a reason to go outside.

I remember watching Williams combine. I wasnt impressed at all. He performed horribly in the pass catching drills and didnt seem to have good concentration in general.

I haven't seen a great deal of Car games, but didn't Williams catch the ball very well the last couple years?

 

[Biabreakable]

DeAngelo > Turner pre-nfl prospect and now.

Carolina's Oline on the other hand is not very good. Atlantas isn't either. Not sure which one is worse. They are both somewhere in the bottom 10 units in the league imo.

I like Fox and this he is a decent coach but his handling of the RBs has been specious.

I think DeAngelo's issues with pass protection may have had more to do with his situational use than anything else. Not sure if that issue has been corrected yet.

Specious? Meaning having a false look of truth or genuiness? Or showy? Or having deceptive attraction or allure? The choice of that word confuses me in the context of the points you were making.

seeming to be good, sound, correct, logical, etc. without really being so; plausible but not genuine specious logic

Fox let Stephen Davis continue to share a substantial workload after he clearly was too old and ineffective. Same thing with Foster the past couple years. While I am sure he has his reasons it does not seem like sound judgement when one looks at other facts. This is an important counter point to those here saying DeAngelo could not beat out Foster. It is my contention that DeAngelo would have and did beat out Foster (performance wise) but that Fox's judgement is flawed.http://www.yourdictionary.com/specious

Sorry, but starting RBs that are old and ineffecitve is not specious. A lot of things in this world look better than they seem but they are not specious. You are just using this word wrong, IMO, but we will have to agree to disagree on this.

I never said starting Stephen Davis was specious. I said Coach Fox's handling of the RBs has been specious. I could have said suspect or questionable instead. You could find definitions on those words that would not fit the context of my statement also. I happened to think specious was the most effective word to convey the idea.

 

[gianmarco]

Is it stricly what's been seen (DeAngelo "dancing"), or is it something else I'm missing?

That's the biggest part. Even in college Williams wanted to find a reason to go outside.

I remember watching Williams combine. I wasnt impressed at all. He performed horribly in the pass catching drills and didnt seem to have good concentration in general.

I didn't watch the combine and I also know that wikipedia info isn't necessarily completely accurate, but this is what's posted under his entry:"On March 24th, at Pro Day on the University of Memphis campus, Williams ostensibly improved his draft stock even further with an exceptional workout. He ran his 40 yard dash in 4.40 seconds with the wind and 4.48 seconds against the wind. He also impressed in the short shuttle, the three-cone drill, and the long shuttle. In addition, he recorded a 34½-inch vertical jump and a 10-foot-9 broad jump and caught the ball well in receiving drills."

Also, seems from what I've been looking briefly that he may not have even participated in the combine. Anyone know for sure what he did and how he did?

 

[BigJim®]

Also, seems from what I've been looking briefly that he may not have even participated in the combine. Anyone know for sure what he did and how he did?

He did attend the combine, and I believe participated all-around. Here was Bloom's post-combine ranking/report:

2(2). DeAngelo Williams, RB, Memphis – DeAngelo cemented his franchise RB status with a near spotless week at the Senior Bowl. There are some questions about his ability/willingness to run inside – he likes to bounce the run outside, but will he consistently beat NFL defenders to the corner? DeAngelo looks like a natural feature back in all other aspects of his game. He was a little bigger at the combine and had the second most bench press reps of the RBs, which should help ease concerns about his ability to pass protect. A lot of mocks have him going to Atlanta. I see him having the same current value as Ronnie Brown or Cadillac Williams at this time next year. One caveat: Williams has the spottiest durability record of the top 4 RBs.

Upside: Curtis Martin

Downside: Thomas Jones

I recalled exactly what Bloom wrote, that DeAngelo was great at senior bowl and added weight/strength for the combine. He did not have a full combine workout though... he just weighed in and did bench, vertical/broad jumps. I don't recall anyone sharing JAA's account of a poor combine. Here are his performance totals, and obviously he finished near the top in the few events he participated in. 2006 combine results

 

[yellowdog]

Also, seems from what I've been looking briefly that he may not have even participated in the combine. Anyone know for sure what he did and how he did?

Apparently participated in a few drills. No 40 yd. dash.

 

[a_rackowski]

Foster was not a "nobody". This was a local kid from North Carolina and a 2nd round pick! The 2nd pick in the 2nd round.

This is the same pattern as Foster took to the starting job in Carolina. He backed up Davis and eventually surpassed his mentor. He was a playoff hero.

Then in 2006 Carolina signed him to BIG money - of course he was going to be the starter.

I dont know the numbers but If someone could compare these #s below to the first round talent in this years draft id be forever thankful.

Wonderlic = 18.

4.4 40 time.

25 Reps of 225lbs.

5 foot 9 214 LBs.

35.5 inch verticle

10'9" Broad Jump

6.57 3 cone drill

4.10 20 yard shuttle.

390 LB Bench Press

520 LB Squat

 

[mdog1967]

When I watch DeAngelo play, I just don't see a starting RB. When I see Michael Turner play, I see a 300 carry RB with breakaway speed. It's not close for me. DeAngelo may have talent, but it is telling to me that he could not take the job from Foster when he had ample opportunity to do it.

Umm, isn't this exactly what he did by Car trading Foster?

They didn't cut Foster because of DeAngelo; they cut Foster because of Foster not doing much, plus the salary cap.

Therein lies the difference. Signing a player to a fat contract is an endorsement of that player.

Cutting a starter is not (necessarily) an endorsement of his backup. What Carolina does in the draft should offer strong clues about their opinion of Williams. Personally, I would hold off on acquiring him until after the draft. His value won't shoot up a ton if he becomes their starter, but it will drop a ton if they draft Mendenhall or Stewart.

Thanks EBF, I have been thinking about this for a couple of days and have watched all of the Youtube Highlights on Williams. I see a great third down back in the NFL, I'll Repeat I see a great third down back in the NFL that doesn’t catch the ball much out of the backfield (In College). Talent yes, but the person who wrote Williams > Turner is either biased or is going to have to point me to some video that clearly shows Williams the Complete back. I don’t see it, I thought I've missed something while watching football the last two years, only a couple of Carolina games, but I just don’t see it. I don’t know what Turner will do this year, but I'm going to bet that he will be a good 30-40% more productive than Williams. Stats don’t lie unless they do. Sometimes they don’t tell the whole story. Watch all the Video available online for these two. I believe that if you are objective you will come to the same conclusion that I do, Turner is clearly the more talented back.