Mathews On Short Leash (1 Viewer)

[golfguy]

something tells me if they weren't crushing the chiefs they would have mathews in their sooner for his "punishment" having that lead allowed norv to sit mathews there.

hopefully it makes the spark go on for this kid.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And I love how people keep saying that they blew the Chiefs out as if it had anything to do with Jackie Battle. Battle did nothing on the field today that Mathews couldnt have done and done better. The Chargers destroyed the Chiefs b/c KC turned the ball over 6 times. It had NOTHING to do with Jackie Battle.

I am pretty sure no one is saying otherwise. The point is that the Chargers blew the Chiefs out today with minimal production from Mathews, their supposed best offensive player (hint: Rivers is better).

 

[Tau837]

Coach Norv Turner said after the game he has “great trust” in Mathews.

“We just have a lot of guys that can make plays,” Turner said. “I thought it was important to let Jackie start the game. I wanted to make sure we got into a rhythm."

We must get JACKIE BATTLE into a rhythm. Nothing is more important!!!Go play in traffic, Norv.

 

[Tau837]

Really hard to believe Norv keeps getting head coaching gigs

Pretty sure this is the last one.

 

[Tau837]

Really hard to believe Norv keeps getting head coaching gigs

I agree, but you do realize the Chargers won pretty easily on the road today, right? So it's not like his decision to not give Mathews the ball a lot cost them the game or anything. In fact, they grabbed control of the game before Mathews ever saw the field.

Are you familiar with process vs. outcome? It is possible to get a good outcome with a bad process. That is what happened here. The Chargers were fortunate that the Chiefs completely imploded in the first half and made the game a blowout. The Chargers did well to capitalize on the opportunities they were provided, and that's a credit to them. But it had more to do with the Chargers defense and the lousy play by the Chiefs.So it turned out that the Chargers had the luxury of not needing quality play from the RBs today. That's a good thing, because had the Chargers actually needed quality play from their RBs to win this game, they wouldn't have gotten it with today's game plan.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Really hard to believe Norv keeps getting head coaching gigs

I agree, but you do realize the Chargers won pretty easily on the road today, right? So it's not like his decision to not give Mathews the ball a lot cost them the game or anything. In fact, they grabbed control of the game before Mathews ever saw the field.

Are you familiar with process vs. outcome? It is possible to get a good outcome with a bad process. That is what happened here. The Chargers were fortunate that the Chiefs completely imploded in the first half and made the game a blowout. The Chargers did well to capitalize on the opportunities they were provided, and that's a credit to them. But it had more to do with the Chargers defense and the lousy play by the Chiefs.So it turned out that the Chargers had the luxury of not needing quality play from the RBs today. That's a good thing, because had the Chargers actually needed quality play from their RBs to win this game, they wouldn't have gotten it with today's game plan.

I am aware of that, and I get that many are frustrated that a player they thought could anchor their RB corps on their FF teams has been a major disappointment, but that doesn't change the fact that going off about Norv Turner today, like he is an idiot who cost the Chargers a game cause he didn't give Mathews the ball enough, is kind of dumb. If anything, FF owners should be mad at themselves for overvaluing this guy. Trust me, I am kicking myself for getting Fred Jackson on multiple teams, but you don't see me crying about it, do ya? Nope. It's part of the game.

 

[zandbak]

He's played in 2 games this year and has looked amazing whenever he gets touches. The only ones flipping out are those that overvalued him and/or are 0-4 or 1-3 in their fantasy leagues.

 

[Wadsworth]

The thread is almost funnier than the mind games of the Bolts.

 

[Tau837]

Really hard to believe Norv keeps getting head coaching gigs

I agree, but you do realize the Chargers won pretty easily on the road today, right? So it's not like his decision to not give Mathews the ball a lot cost them the game or anything. In fact, they grabbed control of the game before Mathews ever saw the field.

Are you familiar with process vs. outcome? It is possible to get a good outcome with a bad process. That is what happened here. The Chargers were fortunate that the Chiefs completely imploded in the first half and made the game a blowout. The Chargers did well to capitalize on the opportunities they were provided, and that's a credit to them. But it had more to do with the Chargers defense and the lousy play by the Chiefs.So it turned out that the Chargers had the luxury of not needing quality play from the RBs today. That's a good thing, because had the Chargers actually needed quality play from their RBs to win this game, they wouldn't have gotten it with today's game plan.

I am aware of that, and I get that many are frustrated that a player they thought could anchor their RB corps on their FF teams has been a major disappointment, but that doesn't change the fact that going off about Norv Turner today, like he is an idiot who cost the Chargers a game cause he didn't give Mathews the ball enough, is kind of dumb. If anything, FF owners should be mad at themselves for overvaluing this guy. Trust me, I am kicking myself for getting Fred Jackson on multiple teams, but you don't see me crying about it, do ya? Nope. It's part of the game.

Perhaps it isn't clear. I'm not talking about fantasy football. I'm talking about NFL football.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Uh, so am I. Go back and read all of my posts. I mention FF because I get that the root of most peoples' problems with Norv today stems from their aggravation about how his lack of use of Mathews is hurting their teams, but the Chargers won their game today handily, so the alleged "misuse" of Mathews didn't hurt SD today, hence today not being the day to rip good old Norv. I think i was pretty clear about that.

 

[Tau837]

Uh, so am I. Go back and read all of my posts. I mention FF because I get that the root of most peoples' problems with Norv today stems from their aggravation about how his lack of use of Mathews is hurting their teams, but the Chargers won their game today handily, so the alleged "misuse" of Mathews didn't hurt SD today, hence today not being the day to rip good old Norv. I think i was pretty clear about that.

Sure, just like I was clear about bad process, good outcome.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Coach Norv Turner said after the game he has “great trust” in Mathews.

“We just have a lot of guys that can make plays,” Turner said. “I thought it was important to let Jackie start the game. I wanted to make sure we got into a rhythm."

We must get JACKIE BATTLE into a rhythm. Nothing is more important!!!Go play in traffic, Norv.

Norv did not want Matthews to lose a fumble in a hostile environment. That is what he means by rhythm

 

[otb_lifer]

I might just try to trade him off for a RB with a sane HC.

Try for AlfMo ... Shanny seems downright lucid in comparison ...

 

[Wadsworth]

Coach Norv Turner said after the game he has “great trust” in Mathews.

“We just have a lot of guys that can make plays,” Turner said. “I thought it was important to let Jackie start the game. I wanted to make sure we got into a rhythm."

We must get JACKIE BATTLE into a rhythm. Nothing is more important!!!Go play in traffic, Norv.

Norv did not want Matthews to lose a fumble in a hostile environment. That is what he means by rhythm

Is that what he meant? Cool. Can you call him and ask him if Battle gets the start next week? tia

 

[Wadsworth]

But every week, it's the same thing with Mathews owners..."Just wait till next week!" It is downright comical at this point.

Every week? We are in week 4 and he missed the first two. He was a top 10 back last year and is coming back from a broken collarbone. Are you surprised that people on a fantasy football site would be interested? Are you shocked that people might think a young RB who has put up good numbers in the past might do so again? The tool factor in the thread has been pretty dang high from a few posters. This is a fantasy football message board, of course people are going to look at NFL events from a fantasy perspective.

 

[ponchsox]

This guy being hurt during a lot of drafts saved people from making a disastrous 1st/2nd round pick.

 

[marshall88]

Uh, so am I. Go back and read all of my posts. I mention FF because I get that the root of most peoples' problems with Norv today stems from their aggravation about how his lack of use of Mathews is hurting their teams, but the Chargers won their game today handily, so the alleged "misuse" of Mathews didn't hurt SD today, hence today not being the day to rip good old Norv. I think i was pretty clear about that.

Sure, just like I was clear about bad process, good outcome.

I think what Ghost was saying is that Norv was able to extend the time of Matthew's "punishment" because the Chargers were able to jump out to a big lead. If it was a close game, we might have seen Matthews play more of a role in the offense. We'll never know, but if Norv were looking to make a statement to Matthews by sitting him, then the game situation made that much easier of a decision.You seem to be stating that Norv was dead set on sitting Matthews for as long as he did no matter what the game situation. If that's the case, then I agree it's a bad decision. But I don't think that Norv would have been so inflexible as to refuse to play Matthews if the game were close.

 

[Da Guru]

This guy being hurt during a lot of drafts saved people from making a disastrous 1st/2nd round pick.

Plus with Jackie Battle taking over the goal line and short yardage is going to cut into Matthews point total even more.

 

[Gr00vus]

Battle did nothing on the field today that Mathews couldnt have done and done better...It had NOTHING to do with Jackie Battle.

He didn't turn the ball over and gained enough yards to keep the defense honest. Turns out that's all they needed from their RB to win the game. Norv's coaching for his life now - he can't afford the turnovers. If you keep that in mind, what's going on is a bit more understandable. I'm not saying I support it (in fact, as a Charger fan, I'd rather give Matthews the year to prove whether he was actually worth the 1st round pick they traded up for to get him), but I get it from the perspective of where Turner is in his career.I think best case scenario for Matthews owners at this point is a thunder and lightening type of thing where Matthews works his way back to a majority of the touches but may get lifted in short yardage and close to the goal line.

 

[Tau837]

Uh, so am I. Go back and read all of my posts. I mention FF because I get that the root of most peoples' problems with Norv today stems from their aggravation about how his lack of use of Mathews is hurting their teams, but the Chargers won their game today handily, so the alleged "misuse" of Mathews didn't hurt SD today, hence today not being the day to rip good old Norv. I think i was pretty clear about that.

Sure, just like I was clear about bad process, good outcome.

I think what Ghost was saying is that Norv was able to extend the time of Matthew's "punishment" because the Chargers were able to jump out to a big lead. If it was a close game, we might have seen Matthews play more of a role in the offense. We'll never know, but if Norv were looking to make a statement to Matthews by sitting him, then the game situation made that much easier of a decision.You seem to be stating that Norv was dead set on sitting Matthews for as long as he did no matter what the game situation. If that's the case, then I agree it's a bad decision. But I don't think that Norv would have been so inflexible as to refuse to play Matthews if the game were close.

Well, I think there are two issues:1. Benching Mathews to start the game due to his "fumbling problem." IMO it should take more than one fumble for him to deserve being punished or being sent a message by the team.2. Limiting Mathews' touches throughout the game. If you are right, that Norv would have used him more if the game was closer, this is a non-issue. If that is what Ghost Rider was saying, then I agree, I just didn't get that out of his posts. If, on the other hand, Norv would have used the RBs in the same manner in a closer game, that would reflect even poorer judgment than #1.

 

[OU#1]

I think we all need to accept the reality that this is nothing more than a full blown RBBC. Everybody was high on Matthews because Tolbert was sent packing. Ronnie Brown and Brinkley aren't much of a threat, but this Battle guy has shown he can be a bell cow in KC and is doing nothing but proving that again in SD. I would offload Matthews before this gets even more RBBC; with Matthews always hurt and a coaching staff that doesn't seem committed to give him the 25-30 touches per game he needs to be a RB2 with RB1 upside, I hate to say it but Battle might be the guy to own in SD.

 

[Tau837]

Battle did nothing on the field today that Mathews couldnt have done and done better...It had NOTHING to do with Jackie Battle.

He didn't turn the ball over and gained enough yards to keep the defense honest. Turns out that's all they needed from their RB to win the game. Norv's coaching for his life now - he can't afford the turnovers. If you keep that in mind, what's going on is a bit more understandable. I'm not saying I support it (in fact, as a Charger fan, I'd rather give Matthews the year to prove whether he was actually worth the 1st round pick they traded up for to get him), but I get it from the perspective of where Turner is in his career.I think best case scenario for Matthews owners at this point is a thunder and lightening type of thing where Matthews works his way back to a majority of the touches but may get lifted in short yardage and close to the goal line.

The best case scenario for Mathews owners is:1. Mathews stays healthy the rest of the way.2. Mathews has no more fumbles.3. "Message" sent, from here forward he gets the majority of RB touches except in short yardage and at the goal line, with Battle initially getting those touches.4. Battle shows over the next few games that he is ineffective in short yardage and at the goal line, leading to Mathews slowly taking over those touches.Given #1 and #2, #3 should be a lock to happen. Would anyone be surprised if #4 happens? I doubt it. It still comes down to staying healthy. If he does, I fully expect Mathews to finish in the top 10 again.

 

[Wadsworth]

This guy being hurt during a lot of drafts saved people from making a disastrous 1st/2nd round pick.

Plus with Jackie Battle taking over the goal line and short yardage is going to cut into Matthews point total even more.

I am not sure how much, he was RB 8 in standard last season and only had 6 TDs.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

This BS going on in San Diego is costing me FF games now. That is all.

 

[Wadsworth]

I think we all need to accept the reality that this is nothing more than a full blown RBBC. Everybody was high on Matthews because Tolbert was sent packing. Ronnie Brown and Brinkley aren't much of a threat, but this Battle guy has shown he can be a bell cow in KC and is doing nothing but proving that again in SD. I would offload Matthews before this gets even more RBBC; with Matthews always hurt and a coaching staff that doesn't seem committed to give him the 25-30 touches per game he needs to be a RB2 with RB1 upside, I hate to say it but Battle might be the guy to own in SD.

He was okay. But I am not sure how much he proved, obviously the Chiefs were not that impressed. He had 8 games with double digit carries and was only over 4 yards per in two of them. I owned Battle last year in a few league and followed him closely. He has enough to speed to break off a big gain if the hole is clean, but other than that he is a plodder. He could find a role in the Chargers offense, but I have not seen enough talent to think that he is going to get in a full blown committee.

 

[Tau837]

I think we all need to accept the reality that this is nothing more than a full blown RBBC. Everybody was high on Matthews because Tolbert was sent packing. Ronnie Brown and Brinkley aren't much of a threat, but this Battle guy has shown he can be a bell cow in KC and is doing nothing but proving that again in SD. I would offload Matthews before this gets even more RBBC; with Matthews always hurt and a coaching staff that doesn't seem committed to give him the 25-30 touches per game he needs to be a RB2 with RB1 upside, I hate to say it but Battle might be the guy to own in SD.

LOL at the bolded. Last year, Mathews averaged 19.4 touches per game and finished as RB7, despite missing 2 games and splitting touches with Tolbert.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Uh, so am I. Go back and read all of my posts. I mention FF because I get that the root of most peoples' problems with Norv today stems from their aggravation about how his lack of use of Mathews is hurting their teams, but the Chargers won their game today handily, so the alleged "misuse" of Mathews didn't hurt SD today, hence today not being the day to rip good old Norv. I think i was pretty clear about that.

Sure, just like I was clear about bad process, good outcome.

Okay then.

The best case scenario for Mathews owners is:1. Mathews stays healthy the rest of the way.2. Mathews has no more fumbles.3. "Message" sent, from here forward he gets the majority of RB touches except in short yardage and at the goal line, with Battle initially getting those touches.4. Battle shows over the next few games that he is ineffective in short yardage and at the goal line, leading to Mathews slowly taking over those touches.Given #1 and #2, #3 should be a lock to happen. Would anyone be surprised if #4 happens? I doubt it. It still comes down to staying healthy. If he does, I fully expect Mathews to finish in the top 10 again.

Okay, but you are basically holding out hope for the perfect storm, as if a guy who fumbles as often as he does is magically gonna stop doing so, for one. And with the season already 1/4 over, it's gonna be that much harder for Mathews to finish top 10, especially since he is around 50 right now in most leagues. Can he still do it? Sure. I could see him having a couple of big games with multiple touchdowns that inflate his overall numbers (kind of the RB equivalent of Vincent Jackson), but again, you are gonna need the perfect storm for it to happen.

 

[Tau837]

The best case scenario for Mathews owners is:1. Mathews stays healthy the rest of the way.2. Mathews has no more fumbles.3. "Message" sent, from here forward he gets the majority of RB touches except in short yardage and at the goal line, with Battle initially getting those touches.4. Battle shows over the next few games that he is ineffective in short yardage and at the goal line, leading to Mathews slowly taking over those touches.Given #1 and #2, #3 should be a lock to happen. Would anyone be surprised if #4 happens? I doubt it. It still comes down to staying healthy. If he does, I fully expect Mathews to finish in the top 10 again.

Okay, but you are basically holding out hope for the perfect storm, as if a guy who fumbles as often as he does is magically gonna stop doing so, for one. And with the season already 1/4 over, it's gonna be that much harder for Mathews to finish top 10, especially since he is around 50 right now in most leagues.

Perfect storm? I'm expecting exactly what happened last season. Last season, Mathews missed 2 games. Last season, Mathews shared touches with Tolbert and did not get many short yardage or goal line carries. Last season, Mathews had 5 fumbles and lost 2. Yet last season, Mathews finished as a top 10 RB in total points and no worse than RB #12 in ppg in my leagues.Why do you seem convinced that Mathews repeating last season is a perfect storm?

 

[flapgreen]

Mathews fumbles that much? News to me.

 

[EFD]

I think that people are overrating the fumble issue as it relates to his usage yesterday. I read/saw something about how Antonio Gates spoke up in regards to easing Mathews back after his long layoff, and that makes sense. They threw him immediately into the fire in week 3 vs Atlanta, and in hindsight I think they thought that wasn't the best way to move forward with him. So, in a game against a team they likely were going to win in any event they limited his touches a bit.

That makes sense to me. I suspect that as time goes on we'll see less and less of Battle/Brown and Mathews will see his workload increase. So long as he doesn't put the ball on the ground, that is.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

This is just a ploy to motivate..........

 

[MAC_32]

Battle didn't do anything yesterday to take over for Mathews, on notice? Absolutely, but this is Mathews' job. The Chargers can't win a title with Battle shouldering a heavy load. Mathews may lose some goal line touches like Bryce Brown is doing to Shady, but that's it.

Buy now, ask questions later.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Perfect storm? I'm expecting exactly what happened last season. Last season, Mathews missed 2 games. Last season, Mathews shared touches with Tolbert and did not get many short yardage or goal line carries. Last season, Mathews had 5 fumbles and lost 2. Yet last season, Mathews finished as a top 10 RB in total points and no worse than RB #12 in ppg in my leagues.Why do you seem convinced that Mathews repeating last season is a perfect storm?

First off, one of the Mathews missed games last year came in Week 17, which is not a part of the fantasy season (except in clueless leagues). So, he has already missed twice as many fantasy games this year as last. Second, why do you keep differentiating between fumbles and fumbles lost? A fumble is a fumble. Whether or not a team recovers it is more luck than anything. Mathews fumbling is a problem, plain and simple, and it's obvious that the team thinks so. Third, all I keep reading is how poorly the Chargers offensive line is playing this year, and how the loss of Vincent Jackson has hurt the offense, so expecting the offense to click as much as it did last year might not be realistic. Yes, they had a bad stretch last year, and yes, the offense did well in 2010 when VJax didn't play for most of the season, but this is not the same Chargers line, and Rivers seems to have a lost a step or two (although he is still very good). Having said all of that, the Chargers do have some cream puff defenses on their schedule (NO, Carolina, TB), so if Mathews can stay healthy and not fumble enough to get a lot of touches in those games, he could certainly light it up, but you basically need him to do that in those games, and do all of these things you mentioned, to finish as a top 10 RB. Hence, the perfect storm.

 

[Tau837]

Second, why do you keep differentiating between fumbles and fumbles lost? A fumble is a fumble. Whether or not a team recovers it is more luck than anything. Mathews fumbling is a problem, plain and simple, and it's obvious that the team thinks so.

If Mathews' fumble in week 3 was recovered by him or a teammate or went out of bounds, meaning the Chargers retained possession, do you think the team would have viewed the event the same way? Do you think A.J. would have felt compelled to send him a message about it through the media? Do you think he would have been benched to open the game yesterday?Serious questions.I think it is fairly obvious that the situation would have been handled differently. Which shows that there is a difference between fumbles and fumbles lost.

 

[RUSF18]

Second, why do you keep differentiating between fumbles and fumbles lost? A fumble is a fumble. Whether or not a team recovers it is more luck than anything. Mathews fumbling is a problem, plain and simple, and it's obvious that the team thinks so.

If Mathews' fumble in week 3 was recovered by him or a teammate or went out of bounds, meaning the Chargers retained possession, do you think the team would have viewed the event the same way? Do you think A.J. would have felt compelled to send him a message about it through the media? Do you think he would have been benched to open the game yesterday?Serious questions.I think it is fairly obvious that the situation would have been handled differently. Which shows that there is a difference between fumbles and fumbles lost.

Well, the Chargers are a terribly-run organization, so you're right in that they probably would have viewed it differently. But they would be wrong to, because on the greater point, he's right and you're wrong. Fumble recoveries are a completely random event. There isn't a "skill" to recovering a fumble. If you don't want to lose fumbles, don't fumble.

 

[Kiddnets]

Chargers coach Norv Turner insists Ryan Mathews' limited Week 4 role was not about sending a message, but because Jackie Battle gave the team its "best chance to win."

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Chargers coach Norv Turner insists Ryan Mathews' limited Week 4 role was not about sending a message, but because Jackie Battle gave the team its "best chance to win."

mathews got 16 touches, battle got 19. I think it has alot to do with easing him into action with a sore shoulder and AJ telling Norv to send a message about fumbling.

 

[phrozen]

Coach Norv Turner said after the game he has “great trust” in Mathews.

“We just have a lot of guys that can make plays,” Turner said. “I thought it was important to let Jackie start the game. I wanted to make sure we got into a rhythm."

We must get JACKIE BATTLE into a rhythm. Nothing is more important!!!Go play in traffic, Norv.

GET JACKIE BATTLE ACTIVE

 

[RUSF18]

Chargers coach Norv Turner insists Ryan Mathews' limited Week 4 role was not about sending a message, but because Jackie Battle gave the team its "best chance to win."

mathews got 16 touches, battle got 19. I think it has alot to do with easing him into action with a sore shoulder and AJ telling Norv to send a message about fumbling.

What about all those posts prior to him getting back on the field, that the bone is either healed or it isn't, there's no easing in, his cardio is great, etc?

 

[Cawbird]

I see Battle's role the rest of the way just like Tolbert's role last year. Turner may be dumb....but he can't be a complete idiot. He knows what was working last year with the RB's, and you don't have to feed Matthews the ball at every opportunity to have him be extremely valuable. It sort of reminds me of the Forte/Bush situation in Chicago. Forte doesn't need a ton of touches, and never really gets the goal-line work.......but he still puts up a ton of fantasy points. The same holds true for Matthews. He doesn't need to be pounded at the goal-line to be successful. The best chance for the Chargers to win that division is to keep Matthews healthy (if possible). Mix Battle in at times and keep Matthews more in open space. Don't worry....he'll break those runs from 20 yards out and will get the receptions.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Uh, so am I. Go back and read all of my posts. I mention FF because I get that the root of most peoples' problems with Norv today stems from their aggravation about how his lack of use of Mathews is hurting their teams, but the Chargers won their game today handily, so the alleged "misuse" of Mathews didn't hurt SD today, hence today not being the day to rip good old Norv. I think i was pretty clear about that.

Sure, just like I was clear about bad process, good outcome.

I think what Ghost was saying is that Norv was able to extend the time of Matthew's "punishment" because the Chargers were able to jump out to a big lead. If it was a close game, we might have seen Matthews play more of a role in the offense. We'll never know, but if Norv were looking to make a statement to Matthews by sitting him, then the game situation made that much easier of a decision.You seem to be stating that Norv was dead set on sitting Matthews for as long as he did no matter what the game situation. If that's the case, then I agree it's a bad decision. But I don't think that Norv would have been so inflexible as to refuse to play Matthews if the game were close.

Well, I think there are two issues:1. Benching Mathews to start the game due to his "fumbling problem." IMO it should take more than one fumble for him to deserve being punished or being sent a message by the team.2. Limiting Mathews' touches throughout the game. If you are right, that Norv would have used him more if the game was closer, this is a non-issue. If that is what Ghost Rider was saying, then I agree, I just didn't get that out of his posts. If, on the other hand, Norv would have used the RBs in the same manner in a closer game, that would reflect even poorer judgment than #1.

IMO, the biggest issue with #1 is that the GM called him out in public this past week. I think it's horse#### for a coach or GM or owner to call a player out in public, and then not let him "defend" himself on the field. You're clearly trying to get him riled up and then you sit him?? That's stupid. If you want to sit him because you legitimately can't accept the possibility of a fumble, then you don't call him out in public. You do it quietly and answer questions after the game with "No comment". Hell, they had a built in excuse this week with Battle going back to KC. Sure, that's a stretch of an excuse, but it would have worked post game. 1)You decide that Mathews needs to be "taught a lesson". 2)You tell him that privately. 3)You play Battle. 4)You tell the media after the game that Battle wanted a big role going back to KC or whatever. That's the intelligent play. Not belittling him in public, including the insinuation he could get traded or cut, then sitting him. Moronic. I feel bad for the guy.

 

[shadyridr]

Panthers should trade for Mathews

 

[JHuber77]

The Chargers should move to LA tonight and fire AJ Smith and Norv Turner

 

[Tau837]

Second, why do you keep differentiating between fumbles and fumbles lost? A fumble is a fumble. Whether or not a team recovers it is more luck than anything. Mathews fumbling is a problem, plain and simple, and it's obvious that the team thinks so.

If Mathews' fumble in week 3 was recovered by him or a teammate or went out of bounds, meaning the Chargers retained possession, do you think the team would have viewed the event the same way? Do you think A.J. would have felt compelled to send him a message about it through the media? Do you think he would have been benched to open the game yesterday?Serious questions.I think it is fairly obvious that the situation would have been handled differently. Which shows that there is a difference between fumbles and fumbles lost.

Well, the Chargers are a terribly-run organization, so you're right in that they probably would have viewed it differently. But they would be wrong to, because on the greater point, he's right and you're wrong. Fumble recoveries are a completely random event. There isn't a "skill" to recovering a fumble. If you don't want to lose fumbles, don't fumble.

That's all well and good. My point is that 1 fumble wasn't enough to justify taking any action.So I agree with you that the situation should have been handled the same way whether it was lost or not - it should have been handled by warning him that it won't be tolerated if it continues, then giving him the majority of the touches until and unless it happens again in circumstances that warrant taking further action.

 

[two_dollars]

Starting Mathews vs NO with confidence. The last drive forces Norv's hand. battle is terrible and has no burst. Mathews is also 6 ft 220, he is more than big enough for goal line work.

 

[leave a whisper]

per RotoWorld:

Jackie Battle - RB - Chargers

Jackie Battle admits he was shocked to receive the bulk of the Chargers' running back load in Week 4 against the Chiefs.

In other words, the Chargers didn't use Battle as the first-team back in practice to prepare him for the role. There's no depth-chart switch. They were sending Ryan Mathews a message. "I had no idea I was going to get that much work," Battle said. "They kept sending me back out and calling my number, so I figured I was doing something right." Since Mathews handled 16 touches without fumbling, look for him to handle the majority of work in Week 5 against New Orleans.

Related: Ryan Mathews

Source: North County Times Oct 1 - 6:08 PM

 

[Moldy Potato]

Starting Mathews vs NO with confidence. The last drive forces Norv's hand. battle is terrible and has no burst. Mathews is also 6 ft 220, he is more than big enough for goal line work.

In other words, Battle is a prime candidate to carve up the Saints defense. (Saints homer here)

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Chargers coach Norv Turner insists Ryan Mathews' limited Week 4 role was not about sending a message, but because Jackie Battle gave the team its "best chance to win."

mathews got 16 touches, battle got 19. I think it has alot to do with easing him into action with a sore shoulder and AJ telling Norv to send a message about fumbling.

Totally agree, they did in it Minny with ADP and they're doing it with Matthews in SD. Battle won't completely disappear but Matthews will keep getting the ball more as we move forward, now is a great time to trade for him.

 

[Gopher State]

Chargers coach Norv Turner insists Ryan Mathews' limited Week 4 role was not about sending a message, but because Jackie Battle gave the team its "best chance to win."

This statement says it all. Turner's not playing FF he is winning games. Battle is not going away, he get his touches, and end up with more TD's then Mathews, it be like the Bears, Forte gets the salad, but Bush gets the BEEF

 

[Mile High]

Chargers coach Norv Turner insists Ryan Mathews' limited Week 4 role was not about sending a message, but because Jackie Battle gave the team its "best chance to win."This statement says it all. Turner's not playing FF he is winning games. Battle is not going away, he get his touches, and end up with more TD's then Mathews, it be like the Bears, Forte gets the salad, but Bush gets the BEEF

What gave SD the best chance to win that game was 5 KC turnovers in the first half, Winning that game had nothing to do with who the RB was.