Jerious Norwood (1 Viewer)

[The Man With No Name]

I'm willing to hold onto him for the last 2 years of his contract until he becomes a free agent. If he signs somewhere to be a starter, great. If not, no problem. But I would bet he starts for Atlanta at some point.

Look at what he did in college against the tuff SEC.

2002- 6.0 avg. on 66 carries.

2003- 5.3 avg. on 121 carries.

2004- 5.4 avg. on 195 carries.

2005- 5.9 avg. on 191 carries.

He did only have 17 touchdowns, but that was mainly because his team totally sucked, winning only 11 games in his 4 years there.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Falcons | Dunn's future with team could be unsettled

Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:07:09 -0800

Steve Wyche, of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports Atlanta Falcons RB Warrick Dunn's future with the team could be unsettled.

 

[Weiner Dog]

* At 6' and 205lbs, he is built very much like Darren McFadden (6'2" 205lbs)

You say that like it's a good thing. Norwood is too lanky to ever be a starting RB in the NFL. He is a skilled player, but he's best suited to a change of pace role. I don't see him as a guy who will consistently get more than 8-12 carries each week.

I find it interesting that you say this and have Norwood ranked 47 when you could easily apply the same statement to Reggie Bush who you have ranked somthing like 8-10.

They have the same body type on paper, but they definitely don't have the same body type in person. Bush has thicker legs and a stockier body. Also, he was a much higher pick and was twice the college player Norwood was.

Bush:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete90291/305242950/

Norwood:

http://www.tigerweekly.com/images/2005_09_...ous-Norwood.jpg

Both guys have thick upper bodies and skinny legs.

 

[EBF]

* At 6' and 205lbs, he is built very much like Darren McFadden (6'2" 205lbs)

You say that like it's a good thing. Norwood is too lanky to ever be a starting RB in the NFL. He is a skilled player, but he's best suited to a change of pace role. I don't see him as a guy who will consistently get more than 8-12 carries each week.

I find it interesting that you say this and have Norwood ranked 47 when you could easily apply the same statement to Reggie Bush who you have ranked somthing like 8-10.

They have the same body type on paper, but they definitely don't have the same body type in person. Bush has thicker legs and a stockier body. Also, he was a much higher pick and was twice the college player Norwood was.

Bush:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete90291/305242950/

Norwood:

http://www.tigerweekly.com/images/2005_09_...ous-Norwood.jpg

Both guys have thick upper bodies and skinny legs.

Look at some more recent pictures. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/1...iants.1.190.jpg

http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/2003/photo...usNorwood_v.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/bucky_b.../p1_norwood.jpg

http://beat.bodoglife.com/wp-content/uploads/reggie-bush.jpg

http://www.clubbush.com/wp-content/uploads...0/rboct14-2.jpg

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/pa...ls/7m992ol1.jpg

There's a big difference there. Norwood is built tall and thin, which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a pro runner. Bush is significantly stockier. He much more closely resembles a starting NFL runner.

 

[Weiner Dog]

* At 6' and 205lbs, he is built very much like Darren McFadden (6'2" 205lbs)

You say that like it's a good thing. Norwood is too lanky to ever be a starting RB in the NFL. He is a skilled player, but he's best suited to a change of pace role. I don't see him as a guy who will consistently get more than 8-12 carries each week.

I find it interesting that you say this and have Norwood ranked 47 when you could easily apply the same statement to Reggie Bush who you have ranked somthing like 8-10.

They have the same body type on paper, but they definitely don't have the same body type in person. Bush has thicker legs and a stockier body. Also, he was a much higher pick and was twice the college player Norwood was.

Bush:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete90291/305242950/

Norwood:

http://www.tigerweekly.com/images/2005_09_...ous-Norwood.jpg

Both guys have thick upper bodies and skinny legs.

Look at some more recent pictures. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/1...iants.1.190.jpg

http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/2003/photo...usNorwood_v.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/bucky_b.../p1_norwood.jpg

http://beat.bodoglife.com/wp-content/uploads/reggie-bush.jpg

http://www.clubbush.com/wp-content/uploads...0/rboct14-2.jpg

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/pa...ls/7m992ol1.jpg

There's a big difference there. Norwood is built tall and thin, which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a pro runner. Bush is significantly stockier. He much more closely resembles a starting NFL runner.

Come on...there's not a "big difference" and Bush is not "significantly" stockier. Both guys are 6' 205-210lbs.If you're #1 knock on Norwood is size, how can you rank Bush #10 overall and Norwood #48 overall?? Sure...I can understand Bush is more talented. I just think don't think he's 38 spots more talented.

 

[EBF]

* At 6' and 205lbs, he is built very much like Darren McFadden (6'2" 205lbs)

You say that like it's a good thing. Norwood is too lanky to ever be a starting RB in the NFL. He is a skilled player, but he's best suited to a change of pace role. I don't see him as a guy who will consistently get more than 8-12 carries each week.

I find it interesting that you say this and have Norwood ranked 47 when you could easily apply the same statement to Reggie Bush who you have ranked somthing like 8-10.

They have the same body type on paper, but they definitely don't have the same body type in person. Bush has thicker legs and a stockier body. Also, he was a much higher pick and was twice the college player Norwood was.

Bush:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete90291/305242950/

Norwood:

http://www.tigerweekly.com/images/2005_09_...ous-Norwood.jpg

Both guys have thick upper bodies and skinny legs.

Look at some more recent pictures. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/1...iants.1.190.jpg

http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/2003/photo...usNorwood_v.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/bucky_b.../p1_norwood.jpg

http://beat.bodoglife.com/wp-content/uploads/reggie-bush.jpg

http://www.clubbush.com/wp-content/uploads...0/rboct14-2.jpg

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/pa...ls/7m992ol1.jpg

There's a big difference there. Norwood is built tall and thin, which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a pro runner. Bush is significantly stockier. He much more closely resembles a starting NFL runner.

Come on...there's not a "big difference" and Bush is not "significantly" stockier. Both guys are 6' 205-210lbs.If you're #1 knock on Norwood is size, how can you rank Bush #10 overall and Norwood #48 overall?? Sure...I can understand Bush is more talented. I just think don't think he's 38 spots more talented.

I really do think there's a big difference in size. Their listed heights and weight don't tell the entire story. All you have to do is look at the pictures and watch them play to realize that they have two different body types. Reggie looks like the second coming of Tiki Barber, whereas Norwood looks like an ostrich in football pads. He's all legs. I strongly believe that function follows form at the RB position, which is why I continually reference heights, weights, and BMI scores when I talk about these guys. My opinion from watching Norwood is that he doesn't have the physical composition required to be a starting RB in the NFL.

 

[hitman2]

I am a Falcons fan (and yes I still admit it).

I bought a dynasty team a couple weeks ago and ripped it apart to go young.

Traded for Norwood and Roddy White.

I am happy, but I fear that ATL will draft a big back like Forte to compliment Norwood.

Even if they don't, I fear that Snelling will steal the GL carries.

 

[cstu]

Here's a list of RB's with the highest YPC that had 2 years in the league and between 100-200 carries (part-time backs their first two seasons).

I think he's more like Westbrook than the other RB's on the list.

2 Jerious Norwood rb 2007 24 2 15 102 615 6.03 1 28 277 9.89 0 95.20

3 Ted McKnight rb 1978 24 2 16 104 627 6.03 6 14 83 5.93 1 113.00

4 Napoleon Kaufman rb 1996 23 2 16 150 874 5.83 1 22 143 6.50 1 113.70

8 Amos Marsh rb 1962 23 2 14 144 802 5.57 6 35 467 13.34 2 174.90

12 Charlie Garner rb 1995 23 2 15 108 588 5.44 6 10 61 6.10 0 100.90

14 Nick Pietrosante rb 1960 23 2 12 161 872 5.42 8 13 129 9.92 0 148.10

16 Delvin Williams rb 1975 24 2 14 117 631 5.39 3 34 370 10.88 1 124.10

17 Tatum Bell rb 2005 24 2 15 173 921 5.32 8 18 104 5.78 0 150.50

19 Brian Westbrook rb 2003 24 2 15 117 613 5.24 7 37 332 8.97 4 160.50

23 Freeman McNeil rb 1982 23 2 9 151 786 5.21 6 16 187 11.69 1 139.30

24 George Wonsley rb 1985 25 2 16 138 716 5.19 6 30 257 8.57 0 133.30

26 Troy Hambrick rb 2001 25 2 16 113 579 5.12 2 4 62 15.50 0 76.10

30 Dickie Post rb 1968 23 2 13 151 758 5.02 3 18 165 9.17 0 110.30

31 Mack Lee Hill rb 1965 25 2 13 125 627 5.02 2 21 264 12.57 1 107.10

32 John Fuqua rb 1970 24 2 14 138 691 5.01 7 23 289 12.57 2 152.00

33 DeAngelo Williams rb 2007 24 2 16 144 717 4.98 4 23 177 7.70 1 119.40

 

[Weiner Dog]

Dunn is carrying the 4th highest cap number of all NFL RB's heading into the '08 season.

link:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/sports...=7&cxcat=21

Tailback Warrick Dunn is entering the final year of his contract with a $6.2 million cap charge — the fourth highest of any running back in the league. If he is released, Atlanta could add $2.8 million to its salary cap. It is a tough choice but the new regime has to decide if Dunn, 33, fits into their plans.

 

[Two Deep]

* At 6' and 205lbs, he is built very much like Darren McFadden (6'2" 205lbs)

You say that like it's a good thing. Norwood is too lanky to ever be a starting RB in the NFL. He is a skilled player, but he's best suited to a change of pace role. I don't see him as a guy who will consistently get more than 8-12 carries each week.

I find it interesting that you say this and have Norwood ranked 47 when you could easily apply the same statement to Reggie Bush who you have ranked somthing like 8-10.

They have the same body type on paper, but they definitely don't have the same body type in person. Bush has thicker legs and a stockier body. Also, he was a much higher pick and was twice the college player Norwood was.

Bush:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete90291/305242950/

Norwood:

http://www.tigerweekly.com/images/2005_09_...ous-Norwood.jpg

Both guys have thick upper bodies and skinny legs.

Look at some more recent pictures. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/1...iants.1.190.jpg

http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/2003/photo...usNorwood_v.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/bucky_b.../p1_norwood.jpg

http://beat.bodoglife.com/wp-content/uploads/reggie-bush.jpg

http://www.clubbush.com/wp-content/uploads...0/rboct14-2.jpg

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/pa...ls/7m992ol1.jpg

There's a big difference there. Norwood is built tall and thin, which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a pro runner. Bush is significantly stockier. He much more closely resembles a starting NFL runner.

Come on...there's not a "big difference" and Bush is not "significantly" stockier. Both guys are 6' 205-210lbs.If you're #1 knock on Norwood is size, how can you rank Bush #10 overall and Norwood #48 overall?? Sure...I can understand Bush is more talented. I just think don't think he's 38 spots more talented.

I really do think there's a big difference in size. Their listed heights and weight don't tell the entire story. All you have to do is look at the pictures and watch them play to realize that they have two different body types. Reggie looks like the second coming of Tiki Barber, whereas Norwood looks like an ostrich in football pads. He's all legs. I strongly believe that function follows form at the RB position, which is why I continually reference heights, weights, and BMI scores when I talk about these guys. My opinion from watching Norwood is that he doesn't have the physical composition required to be a starting RB in the NFL.

At this point of their careers Reggie Bush wishes he was Jerious Norwood. Norwood has yet to have the opprotunity to show what he's got as a starter. Reggie has and it ain't much.

 

[Banger]

At this point of their careers Reggie Bush wishes he was Jerious Norwood. Norwood has yet to have the opprotunity to show what he's got as a starter. Reggie has and it ain't much.

that's good.

 

[Two Deep]

* At 6' and 205lbs, he is built very much like Darren McFadden (6'2" 205lbs)

You say that like it's a good thing. Norwood is too lanky to ever be a starting RB in the NFL. He is a skilled player, but he's best suited to a change of pace role. I don't see him as a guy who will consistently get more than 8-12 carries each week.

I find it interesting that you say this and have Norwood ranked 47 when you could easily apply the same statement to Reggie Bush who you have ranked somthing like 8-10.

They have the same body type on paper, but they definitely don't have the same body type in person. Bush has thicker legs and a stockier body. Also, he was a much higher pick and was twice the college player Norwood was.

Bush:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete90291/305242950/

Norwood:

http://www.tigerweekly.com/images/2005_09_...ous-Norwood.jpg

Both guys have thick upper bodies and skinny legs.

Look at some more recent pictures. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/1...iants.1.190.jpg

http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/2003/photo...usNorwood_v.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/bucky_b.../p1_norwood.jpg

http://beat.bodoglife.com/wp-content/uploads/reggie-bush.jpg

http://www.clubbush.com/wp-content/uploads...0/rboct14-2.jpg

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/pa...ls/7m992ol1.jpg

There's a big difference there. Norwood is built tall and thin, which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a pro runner. Bush is significantly stockier. He much more closely resembles a starting NFL runner.

Come on...there's not a "big difference" and Bush is not "significantly" stockier. Both guys are 6' 205-210lbs.If you're #1 knock on Norwood is size, how can you rank Bush #10 overall and Norwood #48 overall?? Sure...I can understand Bush is more talented. I just think don't think he's 38 spots more talented.

He is ? I'm just asking because it is hard to tell from his whopping 3.6 yard career average.

 

[Garts]

Norwood is like a deep threat receiver.

Except he is a high YPC RB who instead of a bomb play, can take it to the house at anytime on the ground.

He is a weapon anyway you look at it.

I see his cap at around 200 carries/season.

 

[DoubleG]

Norwood is like a deep threat receiver.

Except he is a high YPC RB who instead of a bomb play, can take it to the house at anytime on the ground.

He is a weapon anyway you look at it.

I see his cap at around 200 carries/season.

Unfortunately, the Falcons (at least the 2007 regime) didn't see it that way - and that's the problem. If they want to run with a "power running attack" as has been said, it aint gonna be with Norwood as their primary runner. The low ranking, imho, is more a function of carries (or lack thereof) not necessarily talent.

If Atlanta came out tommorow and stated that Norwood was going to carry the load, and then drafted O-lineman, a QB and no RBs and let Dunn go, his stock would shoot through the roof (although some would be concerned about injury given his slighter build - and rightly so, imho). The fact is, they haven't said that, and instead have intimated quite the opposite.