Michael Turner-Shelf life (1 Viewer)

[Junta]

I am curious about experts' opinions on Michael Turner's shelf life going forward? I don't think there are too many arguing his potential for 2008-like performance next year or even the following, but he enters next season at 28.5 yrs, so the clock is defintely hanging around his neck when considering his value in Dynasty.

On the flip side, he has only logged 783 carries in six seasons compared to recent decliners' load over same, LT (2050), Portis (1708), and LJ (1243) . Barring major injury, does Turner's light wear have a significant impact on his ability to potentially be a viable RB into early 30's, a la Thomas Jones or Ricky Williams? Or will he have 1-2 solids, hit the cursed 30, and quickly fade into the good night?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I am curious about experts' opinions on Michael Turner's shelf life going forward? I don't think there are too many arguing his potential for 2008-like performance next year or even the following,

I don't see why not. His pace in 8 1/2 games prior to the ankle injury was for 310-1564-19. I don't think he showed any signs of slowing last year and should be good for at least a few more years.

 

[Pack43]

I am curious about experts' opinions on Michael Turner's shelf life going forward? I don't think there are too many arguing his potential for 2008-like performance next year or even the following,

I don't see why not. His pace in 8 1/2 games prior to the ankle injury was for 310-1564-19. I don't think he showed any signs of slowing last year and should be good for at least a few more years.

This.

 

[Aardvarks]

Mileage-wise, Turner's got good tires. I just wonder if he's one of those "ankle" guys who just can't stay on the field. Jamal Lewis couldn't shake the ankle thing after that 2,000yd season. I'm not sure where Turner is going in early mocks (early 2nd, like 2.2?) - but I'd bet he's got two 1300yd seasons left, with big handfuls of TDs. Maybe three nice years left.

 

[az_prof]

Someone here did a study a few years ago and my recollection is that the so-called "low wear" vs. "high wear" on the "tires" really is not a factor in terms of how long a back plays. It is pretty much a crap shoot when a back reaches 30. And in fact, guys who have played a long time and have carried it quite a bit without getting hurt seem to last a long time (think CMart or Emmett).

I like him for next year but beyond that you have to see anything you get as gravy. If I was in the competition for my league championship next year I would just keep running with him, but if by week 8 you are out of it and he is playing well, that will be the time to trade him.

 

[geoff8695]

He's a definite buy or hold IMO. He's a virtual lock for top 5 production for the next coople of years and perhaps beyond. Atlanta has a nice offensive core in place, but Turner's age (over 28 OMG!!!) and lack of use in the receiving game has many owners undervaluing him. In dynasty rankings some experts are starting to rank him outside of their top 10 or 12! Yet, since becoming a starter in '08, all he's done is produce at a top 5 (or better) level on a per game basis. Unless you can really shore up a glaring weakness elsewhere, or trade him and get top 5 RB value, then I wouldn't recommend trading him away.

OTOH if you are in the market for a top RB1, then I think you might be able to get a discount if the Turner owner is buying into the idea that Turner is falling in the rankings, is too old, doesn't catch enough passes, etc. I'ld certainly think he could be a top 3-5 RB anchoring your backfield for a minimum of two more years without having to pay the price that others are paying for CJ4.24, ADP, MJD, Rice, Charles, Stewart, Etc.

 

[az_prof]

He's a definite buy or hold IMO. He's a virtual lock for top 5 production for the next coople of years and perhaps beyond. Atlanta has a nice offensive core in place, but Turner's age (over 28 OMG!!!) and lack of use in the receiving game has many owners undervaluing him. In dynasty rankings some experts are starting to rank him outside of their top 10 or 12! Yet, since becoming a starter in '08, all he's done is produce at a top 5 (or better) level on a per game basis. Unless you can really shore up a glaring weakness elsewhere, or trade him and get top 5 RB value, then I wouldn't recommend trading him away.

OTOH if you are in the market for a top RB1, then I think you might be able to get a discount if the Turner owner is buying into the idea that Turner is falling in the rankings, is too old, doesn't catch enough passes, etc. I'ld certainly think he could be a top 3-5 RB anchoring your backfield for a minimum of two more years without having to pay the price that others are paying for CJ4.24, ADP, MJD, Rice, Charles, Stewart, Etc.

PPG stats can be useful but the reality is that in terms of full season production Turner has one year of top performance, 2008, which by 2010 is two years ago. He is 28 but isn't it troubling to anyone that a 28 year old RB missed five games this year? Big backs like Turner usually do not have a long shelf life.

 

[karmarooster]

he'll probably shut down on the exact day he turns 30.

 

[Dave Larkin]

You know, I am kind of on the fence as far as Turner's value goes. The injuries he suffered last season were unfortunate and I don't think they can be attributed to him wearing down. Matt Waldman's articles on RB workloads in the preseason last year were excellent and gave good evidence as to the correlation between the number of fantasy carries and decline in RB productivity. I encourage you to check it out. As someone said earlier in the thread, Turner's workload even at his age hasn't come close to some comparable backs.

So with that point in mind, I wouldn't be too down on him going into 2010 and beyond. In fact, his value is likely to take a bit of a hit and now might be a good time to buy if you're interested in him.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things.

1) How well has he taken care of his body?

2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?

3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)

4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

 

[identikit]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things. 1) How well has he taken care of his body?2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

Nice criteria...So where do you see Turner using these 4 ?

 

[Bob Magaw]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things. 1) How well has he taken care of his body?2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

it is a complex of things, and not one simple age criteria.not sure what to make of 2... it no doubt is true, but is a criteria that in most case would seemingly be used after the fact (when it no longer has any use)... if a RB lasts longer, we will than say he had good genes, if not, otherwise... when it comes to rookies, not RBs approaching their 30s, sometimes i liked to know if they have had a relative play in the NFL, and at a high level, but even this can be limited (the sharper brothers both very good defensive players... whereas carson and jordan palmer don't have a lot in common ability-wise... julius jones could age gracefully due to the longevity of his older brother thomas, but other than success in his rookie season, has generally been nowhere near as accomplished or had as distinguished a career)...

 

[Sweet Love]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things. 1) How well has he taken care of his body?2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

it is a complex of things, and not one simple age criteria.not sure what to make of 2... it no doubt is true, but is a criteria that in most case would seemingly be used after the fact (when it no longer has any use)... if a RB lasts longer, we will than say he had good genes, if not, otherwise... when it comes to rookies, not RBs approaching their 30s, sometimes i liked to know if they have had a relative play in the NFL, and at a high level, but even this can be limited (the sharper brothers both very good defensive players... whereas carson and jordan palmer don't have a lot in common ability-wise... julius jones could age gracefully due to the longevity of his older brother thomas, but other than success in his rookie season, has generally been nowhere near as accomplished or had as distinguished a career)...

I like JohnnyU's criteria and my thoughts on point #2 is that it just has not been studied enough. Sure, guys like Emmett and CMart had good genetics (and good luck). Part of that is due to running style (which I would make as a point #5), but in the end is that gentics or learned? There are guys who have muscles issues, ligament/tendon issues or no issues at all. Now it takes an injury or two to possibly determine this (and I am spitballing here), but I think it is interesting that a guy like Ronald Curry had tendon issues, whereas a guy like Jamal Lewis had ligament issues. I blew out my knee playing ice hockey before college back in '92 and even then they did a battery of tests (before and after the procedure ) on BOTH ACLs to get a baseline of how the repaired one was doing. My guess is that sometime soon (if not already being tinkered with) doctors will be able to determine which guys have the potential for getting more torn ACLs (for example) than others (possibly based on flexability etc.). Again, this is a thought, but we already know they test these guys at the combine for pre-existing injuries, at some point they may start to find a pattern. I am not saying they can predict injury, but they may be able to project it.

 

[JKL]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=71

That post and the series in front of it looks at the age vs. workload issue.

If we want to be more specific to Turner, there have been 24 running backs who had at least 326 rushes at age 26 (Turner had 376 in 2008). Nine of them, including Turner, had fewer than 600 career carries before that age 26 season. The other 8 were Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Herschel Walker, James Wilder, Joe Morris, Stephen Davis, Jamal Anderson and Chris Warren. Of those other eight, only Walker had a top 10 season again between ages 28 and 30, and he wouldn't qualify as a low carry guy before age 26 if we actually included his USFL numbers. Morris, Davis and Warren each had one more top 20 season between 28 and 30. Johnson, Parker, Wilder and Anderson did not have any.

Meanwhile, the "high career carry" guys on that list were Emmitt, Tomlinson, Martin, James and Sanders. They averaged 1.8 top 10 and 2.8 top 20 finishes.

If you are bumping Turner to have a bounce back because he had few carries early in his career, the evidence doesn't support that position. I would put the over/under on future top 20 finishes for Turner at RB at 1.0.

 

[editor47]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=71

That post and the series in front of it looks at the age vs. workload issue.

If we want to be more specific to Turner, there have been 24 running backs who had at least 326 rushes at age 26 (Turner had 376 in 2008). Nine of them, including Turner, had fewer than 600 career carries before that age 26 season. The other 8 were Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Herschel Walker, James Wilder, Joe Morris, Stephen Davis, Jamal Anderson and Chris Warren. Of those other eight, only Walker had a top 10 season again between ages 28 and 30, and he wouldn't qualify as a low carry guy before age 26 if we actually included his USFL numbers. Morris, Davis and Warren each had one more top 20 season between 28 and 30. Johnson, Parker, Wilder and Anderson did not have any.

Meanwhile, the "high career carry" guys on that list were Emmitt, Tomlinson, Martin, James and Sanders. They averaged 1.8 top 10 and 2.8 top 20 finishes.

If you are bumping Turner to have a bounce back because he had few carries early in his career, the evidence doesn't support that position. I would put the over/under on future top 20 finishes for Turner at RB at 1.0.

you're calling it a 'bounce back' and i'm going to call it a continuation of what he was doing pre-injury

 

[Raider Nation]

On SVP's show on ESPN Radio last week, Tony Gonzalez said that Turner "is the best running back in football."

So there ya go.

 

[Getinthemix]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things.

1) How well has he taken care of his body?

2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?

3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)

4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

How in the world do you quantify this?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=71

That post and the series in front of it looks at the age vs. workload issue.

If we want to be more specific to Turner, there have been 24 running backs who had at least 326 rushes at age 26 (Turner had 376 in 2008). Nine of them, including Turner, had fewer than 600 career carries before that age 26 season. The other 8 were Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Herschel Walker, James Wilder, Joe Morris, Stephen Davis, Jamal Anderson and Chris Warren. Of those other eight, only Walker had a top 10 season again between ages 28 and 30, and he wouldn't qualify as a low carry guy before age 26 if we actually included his USFL numbers. Morris, Davis and Warren each had one more top 20 season between 28 and 30. Johnson, Parker, Wilder and Anderson did not have any.

Meanwhile, the "high career carry" guys on that list were Emmitt, Tomlinson, Martin, James and Sanders. They averaged 1.8 top 10 and 2.8 top 20 finishes.

If you are bumping Turner to have a bounce back because he had few carries early in his career, the evidence doesn't support that position. I would put the over/under on future top 20 finishes for Turner at RB at 1.0.

you're calling it a 'bounce back' and i'm going to call it a continuation of what he was doing pre-injury

I tend to think more along the lines like this. The guy had a sprained ankle at the wrong time of the season for fantasy owners and prior to that he was really starting to get hot, like he was going to be a 100 yard and 1 td guy for the rest of the season. Being the backup in S.D., he really didn't take much of a pounding early in his career. He had a solid season his first year in Atlanta and was about to have another strong one last year until the sprained ankle.The one thing that doesn't attract Michael Turner to me is that he's taken out of the game a lot on 3rd and long. He's not a guy who's involved in that part of the passing game. He's very effective when Atlanta is either winning or in close games so he's getting the rock. In Non PPR leagues I have him ranked NO. 4 but upside as far as No. 2. In PPR leagues, he slips a bit, down to 6 with less upside.

 

[cstu]

He's a definite buy or hold IMO. He's a virtual lock for top 5 production for the next coople of years and perhaps beyond. Atlanta has a nice offensive core in place, but Turner's age (over 28 OMG!!!) and lack of use in the receiving game has many owners undervaluing him. In dynasty rankings some experts are starting to rank him outside of their top 10 or 12! Yet, since becoming a starter in '08, all he's done is produce at a top 5 (or better) level on a per game basis. Unless you can really shore up a glaring weakness elsewhere, or trade him and get top 5 RB value, then I wouldn't recommend trading him away.OTOH if you are in the market for a top RB1, then I think you might be able to get a discount if the Turner owner is buying into the idea that Turner is falling in the rankings, is too old, doesn't catch enough passes, etc. I'ld certainly think he could be a top 3-5 RB anchoring your backfield for a minimum of two more years without having to pay the price that others are paying for CJ4.24, ADP, MJD, Rice, Charles, Stewart, Etc.

Your post is a perfect example of why people should trade Turner now. He may or may not have a great season this year, but his value drop another 10 spots by this time next year and people can still get great value for him right now.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

He's a definite buy or hold IMO. He's a virtual lock for top 5 production for the next coople of years and perhaps beyond. Atlanta has a nice offensive core in place, but Turner's age (over 28 OMG!!!) and lack of use in the receiving game has many owners undervaluing him. In dynasty rankings some experts are starting to rank him outside of their top 10 or 12! Yet, since becoming a starter in '08, all he's done is produce at a top 5 (or better) level on a per game basis. Unless you can really shore up a glaring weakness elsewhere, or trade him and get top 5 RB value, then I wouldn't recommend trading him away.OTOH if you are in the market for a top RB1, then I think you might be able to get a discount if the Turner owner is buying into the idea that Turner is falling in the rankings, is too old, doesn't catch enough passes, etc. I'ld certainly think he could be a top 3-5 RB anchoring your backfield for a minimum of two more years without having to pay the price that others are paying for CJ4.24, ADP, MJD, Rice, Charles, Stewart, Etc.

Your post is a perfect example of why people should trade Turner now. He may or may not have a great season this year, but his value drop another 10 spots by this time next year and people can still get great value for him right now.

I don't think you can get great value for Turner right now. I don't think Turner's value is as high right now as it was heading into last season's draft due to the fact he didn't finish off the year and a few other RB's finished it off solidly.I think Turner is a hold and I'm not sure I follow why you think if Turner has a solid season this year, then he'll still drop in value 10 spots next year. Let me tell you this, if Michael Turner goes for 1500 and 14 td's on the ground, he's not falling 10 spots the following year from where he is now, which is around RB 5 to 7.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm almost 30 but have never carried a football. It doesn't matter how much wear and tear I don't have, age affects you no matter what.

Elite rb's can often last until they're 32...so I guess the question is whether you think he's elite or just pretty good and what you could get vs. how close your team is to winning the next couple of years.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'm almost 30 but have never carried a football. It doesn't matter how much wear and tear I don't have, age affects you no matter what. Elite rb's can often last until they're 32...so I guess the question is whether you think he's elite or just pretty good and what you could get vs. how close your team is to winning the next couple of years.

True, but if you're 30 and HAVE carried the ball 300 carries a year for the last 4 to 5 years it may be even closer than you'd think. If you're talking dynasty, I guess you need to always think about upgrading your RB's for youth.However, I find one of the biggest mistakes people make in dynasty leagues is that people pass up talent/production for the younger potential of a player. Show me the money, I want to win now.

 

[loose circuits]

it's funny, on one hand you have people downgrading turner because of the amount of carries, but on the other hand you have people complaining that he doesn't get enough work (no 3rd Downs, etc.)

bottomline is it is up to Michael Turner how long he lasts. Having a complement in Snelling/Norwood(this year anyways) should help extend his career since they can take some pressure off. Michael will get the TD's while he is healthy. That's up to him, but he didn't have many catches during his big year which reduces the wear/tear. The real question should be how well does he take care of his body. Obviously he could lose a few pounds without losing much power. He's going to need to do that in order stay healthy long term.

I'm holding. If you sell now, you take a loss IMO. I doubt I could get top 5 dynasty value. Chris Johnson, MJD, Adrian, and Ray Rice are obviously the top 4. I think I'd rather have Stewart or Deangelo, and probably some of the younger guys in Charles, Beanie, & Mendy. Comparable vets include PT, Benson, SJax, Gore....

I don't see what the benefit would be to selling unless your team is in total rebuild mode

 

[Ministry of Pain]

On SVP's show on ESPN Radio last week, Tony Gonzalez said that Turner "is the best running back in football."So there ya go.

Bo Scaife said Chris Johnson is the best back in football. Visante Shiancoe said Adrian Peterson is the best back in footballTodd Heap said Ray Rice was the best back in football What do you expect these guys to say?

 

[geoff8695]

He's a definite buy or hold IMO. He's a virtual lock for top 5 production for the next coople of years and perhaps beyond. Atlanta has a nice offensive core in place, but Turner's age (over 28 OMG!!!) and lack of use in the receiving game has many owners undervaluing him. In dynasty rankings some experts are starting to rank him outside of their top 10 or 12! Yet, since becoming a starter in '08, all he's done is produce at a top 5 (or better) level on a per game basis. Unless you can really shore up a glaring weakness elsewhere, or trade him and get top 5 RB value, then I wouldn't recommend trading him away.OTOH if you are in the market for a top RB1, then I think you might be able to get a discount if the Turner owner is buying into the idea that Turner is falling in the rankings, is too old, doesn't catch enough passes, etc. I'ld certainly think he could be a top 3-5 RB anchoring your backfield for a minimum of two more years without having to pay the price that others are paying for CJ4.24, ADP, MJD, Rice, Charles, Stewart, Etc.

Your post is a perfect example of why people should trade Turner now. He may or may not have a great season this year, but his value drop another 10 spots by this time next year and people can still get great value for him right now.

I don't think you can get great value for Turner right now. I don't think Turner's value is as high right now as it was heading into last season's draft due to the fact he didn't finish off the year and a few other RB's finished it off solidly.I think Turner is a hold and I'm not sure I follow why you think if Turner has a solid season this year, then he'll still drop in value 10 spots next year. Let me tell you this, if Michael Turner goes for 1500 and 14 td's on the ground, he's not falling 10 spots the following year from where he is now, which is around RB 5 to 7.

The rankings I've seen and dynasty discussions here in the SP generally have Turner outside the top 10 (Fear&Loathing, Borbely, Pasquino, etc.) and often times closer to 15 (although Tefertiller and Bloom had him ranked 8th and 9th, respectively, the last time they updated their dynasty RB projections a couple months ago).People must be forgetting how great Turner was in 2008 and again in '09 prior to the high ankle sprain. His value is getting 'dinged' due to an injury that should have no bearing going forward and also having recently turned 28 (and let us not forget being under-used in the passing game).Prior to the injury he was averaging over 5 yds per carry and scoring > 1TD/game. He's displayed more than a year and a half of consistent ELITE production, no matter how you want to look at it, and nothing about his situation would lead me to believe that he will suffer a significant drop-off over the next 2-3 years. It's not like Turner has a history of major injury, and like the great ones, he plays through nagging injuries. He even tried to play through last year's injury, but unfortunately high ankle sprains can't be 'toughed out'.IMO he will still be an elite difference maker, but many currently value him as nothing more than a low end RB1 or a better than average RB2. OTOH, I believe his true value is closer to top 5-8 RBs in dynasty. He is capable of challenging for league leader in fantasy points scored by RBs and approaching 20TDs in any of the next 2-3 seasons. Those are the kind of players and stats that make championship runs possible and only a handful of RBs can do that for you. Turner is one of them.With all the buzz surrounding ADP, MJD, Rice, CJ4.24, and the other young guns, this may be the best possible time to acquire him significantly below his true value. If you can find an owner in your league who is nervous about Turner's long term value and is itching to move him while he can still recoup some value and you can acquire him as if he were nothing more than an aging, expiring asset, "a decent RB2", then RUN don't walk to go and acquire him!As SSOG brilliantly pointed out in another thread regarding dynasty value of RBs, the point of the hobby is still to outscore your opponents, rather than simply trading aging 'commodities' for younger ones. Even if you were looking to trade Turner at peak value, last season prior to the injury, or this season after he proves that he hasn't lost IT would be far better times to do that...

 

[Sabertooth]

He's a definite buy or hold IMO. He's a virtual lock for top 5 production for the next coople of years and perhaps beyond. Atlanta has a nice offensive core in place, but Turner's age (over 28 OMG!!!) and lack of use in the receiving game has many owners undervaluing him. In dynasty rankings some experts are starting to rank him outside of their top 10 or 12! Yet, since becoming a starter in '08, all he's done is produce at a top 5 (or better) level on a per game basis. Unless you can really shore up a glaring weakness elsewhere, or trade him and get top 5 RB value, then I wouldn't recommend trading him away.

OTOH if you are in the market for a top RB1, then I think you might be able to get a discount if the Turner owner is buying into the idea that Turner is falling in the rankings, is too old, doesn't catch enough passes, etc. I'ld certainly think he could be a top 3-5 RB anchoring your backfield for a minimum of two more years without having to pay the price that others are paying for CJ4.24, ADP, MJD, Rice, Charles, Stewart, Etc.

PPG stats can be useful but the reality is that in terms of full season production Turner has one year of top performance, 2008, which by 2010 is two years ago. He is 28 but isn't it troubling to anyone that a 28 year old RB missed five games this year? Big backs like Turner usually do not have a long shelf life.

Why would it be troubling that he missed five games? He was injured.

 

[Raider Nation]

On SVP's show on ESPN Radio last week, Tony Gonzalez said that Turner "is the best running back in football."So there ya go.

Bo Scaife said Chris Johnson is the best back in football. Visante Shiancoe said Adrian Peterson is the best back in footballTodd Heap said Ray Rice was the best back in football What do you expect these guys to say?

My post had nothing to do with Peterson, Johnson and Rice.It's ridiculous at this point to suggest that Turner is anywhere near the best RB in football.If Gonzo had said "I love Mike... he's my guy and we all believe in him!" ... that would have sufficed.

 

[geoff8695]

On SVP's show on ESPN Radio last week, Tony Gonzalez said that Turner "is the best running back in football."So there ya go.

Bo Scaife said Chris Johnson is the best back in football. Visante Shiancoe said Adrian Peterson is the best back in footballTodd Heap said Ray Rice was the best back in football What do you expect these guys to say?

My post had nothing to do with Peterson, Johnson and Rice.It's ridiculous at this point to suggest that Turner is anywhere near the best RB in football.If Gonzo had said "I love Mike... he's my guy and we all believe in him!" ... that would have sufficed.

If you believe that Turner is capable of 1400+ combined yds and 15+ TDs, given what he has shown so far (>4.5yds/carry and averaging ~ 1TD/game), and the golden situation/opportunity/surrounding talent in Atlanta's offense, then I submit to you that considering Turner to be amongst the best RBs in football isn't so ridiculous. Please count me in the ridiculous crowd, and reserve a strait jacket as I might be bordering on certifiably insane.BTW, a quick check on the historical data dominator demonstrates that those stats reveal a list of the top 2-5 RBs in any of the previous 20+ yrs. and is probably a fond trip down memory lane for many a league champion over that time frame...

 

[Leroy's Aces]

I hope those referring to Turner as elite don't play PPR Dynasty. In his "dream season" in 2008, he was only RB9 in points per game PPR format and in 2009, he was RB17 in PPR. He has never been elite in PPR formats.

 

[geoff8695]

I hope those referring to Turner as elite don't play PPR Dynasty. In his "dream season" in 2008, he was only RB9 in points per game PPR format and in 2009, he was RB17 in PPR. He has never been elite in PPR formats.

The 'elite' comments refer to his rushing ability as demonstrated by consistently high YPC and high TD rates, and the historical data dominator references are using FBGs standard scoring (non-PPR). In non-PPR leagues Turner has been consistently top 5 in PPG, and finished 2nd overall in pts. scored in 2008. PPR is a different story as the Falcons exclude him from the passing game.Obviously you need to take into consideration your league's scoring system. In full PPR leagues, valuing Turner as a RB2 is certainly justifiable.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things.

1) How well has he taken care of his body?

2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?

3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)

4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

How in the world do you quantify this?

You don't.

 

[Getinthemix]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things.

1) How well has he taken care of his body?

2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?

3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)

4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

How in the world do you quantify this?

You don't.

If you can't quantify it, then why list it. If you believe in the above 4 points, should you not be able to quantify them to properly determine RB value?

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things.

1) How well has he taken care of his body?

2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?

3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)

4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

How in the world do you quantify this?

You don't.

If you can't quantify it, then why list it. If you believe in the above 4 points, should you not be able to quantify them to properly determine RB value?

Good lord man. He bolded the 2nd point about Genetics and asked how do you quantify this. I said you can't. I wasn't referring to all 4 points.

 

[Getinthemix]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory. I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things.

1) How well has he taken care of his body?

2) Genetics - Does he have good genes?

3) Age - some break down after 30, some even break down before 30, but some defy the odds (see the other 3 reasons)

4) Injuries - Having good luck by not having devestating injuries (especially after age 27) is very important. Not to confuse this with wear and tear in the traditional sense (# of carries), which I don't believe in

How in the world do you quantify this?

You don't.

If you can't quantify it, then why list it. If you believe in the above 4 points, should you not be able to quantify them to properly determine RB value?

Good lord man. He bolded the 2nd point about Genetics and asked how do you quantify this. I said you can't. I wasn't referring to all 4 points.

You said "I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things." in the OP. I was asking how you quantify it. You can't. Then why list it. That would be like me saying that I value RB's based on how many unicorns fly out of their ### every 3rd Sunday in February.

 

[Cassius]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory.

It's not really a theory. If you beat the #### out of your body, it gets worn down.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't believe in the wear and tear theory.

It's not really a theory. If you beat the #### out of your body, it gets worn down.

I believe in age wearing a body down over wear and tear. If you take care of your body and stay in great shape, wear and tear won't have as much of an impact if injuries aren't part of the equation, but father time catches up with all of us.

 

[JohnnyU]

You said "I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things." in the OP. I was asking how you quantify it. You can't. Then why list it. That would be like me saying that I value RB's based on how many unicorns fly out of their ### every 3rd Sunday in February.

Just because you can't quantify genetics doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed in this conversation. I believe it is a factor in RB shelf life because we're all made differently, and since we're all made differently we all wear down differently.

 

[Getinthemix]

You said "I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things." in the OP. I was asking how you quantify it. You can't. Then why list it. That would be like me saying that I value RB's based on how many unicorns fly out of their ### every 3rd Sunday in February.

Just because you can't quantify genetics doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed in this conversation. I believe it is a factor in RB shelf life because we're all made differently, and since we're all made differently we all wear down differently.

Why should it be listed when you can't even say if someone has good or bad? I think you are just trying to sound smart with this genetics stuff. You can't prove anything good or bad. You can't quantify anything. The guy is not a racehorse.Name five RB's in the NFL with good genetics and how you know they have good genetics.

 

[CravenM]

I think Michael Turner will have excellent longevity along the lines of Emmit Smith:

- He curls up on the ball and rolls through the middle with very little to hit

- He's got outside speed that all defensive players must respect,

and most importantly

- He seems to know how not to get hard and directly by LBs

Unfortunately he plays on turf in Atlanta but it's excellent turf (if there's any such thing) with regards to body impacts.

I think he's got 5 good years at least. Couple that with an excellent coach and balanced offensive scheme and I think he should be a top 5 RB for many years to come.

 

[mozzy84]

You said "I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things." in the OP. I was asking how you quantify it. You can't. Then why list it. That would be like me saying that I value RB's based on how many unicorns fly out of their ### every 3rd Sunday in February.

Just because you can't quantify genetics doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed in this conversation. I believe it is a factor in RB shelf life because we're all made differently, and since we're all made differently we all wear down differently.

 

[Sabertooth]

On SVP's show on ESPN Radio last week, Tony Gonzalez said that Turner "is the best running back in football."So there ya go.

Bo Scaife said Chris Johnson is the best back in football. Visante Shiancoe said Adrian Peterson is the best back in footballTodd Heap said Ray Rice was the best back in football What do you expect these guys to say?

My post had nothing to do with Peterson, Johnson and Rice.It's ridiculous at this point to suggest that Turner is anywhere near the best RB in football.If Gonzo had said "I love Mike... he's my guy and we all believe in him!" ... that would have sufficed.

Unless he of course believe what he is saying. I don't recall Gonzo as speaking with a lot of hyperbole in the past. Maybe in his opinion, and he knows a thing or two about football, he thinks Turner is the best.

 

[JohnnyU]

You said "I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things." in the OP. I was asking how you quantify it. You can't. Then why list it. That would be like me saying that I value RB's based on how many unicorns fly out of their ### every 3rd Sunday in February.

Just because you can't quantify genetics doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed in this conversation. I believe it is a factor in RB shelf life because we're all made differently, and since we're all made differently we all wear down differently.

nice. So you don't believe genetics plays a role in RB shelf life? If so, then why do you think that way?

 

[Christo]

I hope those referring to Turner as elite don't play PPR Dynasty. In his "dream season" in 2008, he was only RB9 in points per game PPR format and in 2009, he was RB17 in PPR. He has never been elite in PPR formats.

I guess my PPR league has some funky scoring because in 2008 he was RB2 in both total and PPG.

 

[WVU Alum]

I think Michael Turner will have excellent longevity along the lines of Emmit Smith:

- He curls up on the ball and rolls through the middle with very little to hit

- He's got outside speed that all defensive players must respect,

and most importantly

- He seems to know how not to get hard and directly by LBs

Unfortunately he plays on turf in Atlanta but it's excellent turf (if there's any such thing) with regards to body impacts.

I think he's got 5 good years at least. Couple that with an excellent coach and balanced offensive scheme and I think he should be a top 5 RB for many years to come.

Uh...

 

[DoubleG]

I hope those referring to Turner as elite don't play PPR Dynasty. In his "dream season" in 2008, he was only RB9 in points per game PPR format and in 2009, he was RB17 in PPR. He has never been elite in PPR formats.

The 'elite' comments refer to his rushing ability as demonstrated by consistently high YPC and high TD rates, and the historical data dominator references are using FBGs standard scoring (non-PPR). In non-PPR leagues Turner has been consistently top 5 in PPG, and finished 2nd overall in pts. scored in 2008. PPR is a different story as the Falcons exclude him from the passing game.Obviously you need to take into consideration your league's scoring system. In full PPR leagues, valuing Turner as a RB2 is certainly justifiable.

Good points all. The thing that is a big plus in the conversation in regards to Turner is, for the most part, if he plays, he's top 5. My point being, at least at this point in time, I'd rather have someone like Turner than say a guy like Moreno, Forte, Ryan Grant or DWill. Mainly from the standpoint of the fact that if he's healthy, I'm getting top 5 production rather than top 15. I also think it's important to keep in mind the makeup of your current team in dynasty. Using some of the above names, if I had a team that was aging across the board (i.e. many of my "core" players were creeping up in age - My RBs were Ced Benson, Thomas Jones, and Moreno (or B. Wells) my WRs were guys like R. Moss, Steve Smith, and R. Wayne) that was good, I might make a play for Turner in a "win now" attempt. But if I had an aging roster, that wasn't as good (swap out Ced Benson for LT and Randy for Santana and R. Wayne for Ochocinco in the prvious example), I don't know that I'd trade a younger guy like Wells, Mendenhall, Pierre Thomas or even guys like Moreno or J. Stew to acquire Turner. My point being that while Turner is a "core" player - he may only be that for another 2-3 years (and all of that is predicated on him bouncing back with little/no lingering ankle issues.) Some of the 5 others (Wells, Mendy, Thomas, Moreno and Stewart) could potentially be core players for twice that long. But again, it depends on team needs and the situation you find yourself in regarding RB age, RB depth and "win now" ability. Turner is a great fit for a dynatsy team that plans on (and has the roster to) win in 2010 or 2011. For those teams "rebuilding", I'd sooner target the younger guys listed assuming similar trade values.I guess that means I should contact Geoff for Turner in my dynasty league...oh wait...we've been down this road before.

 

[KellysHeroes]

I hope those referring to Turner as elite don't play PPR Dynasty. In his "dream season" in 2008, he was only RB9 in points per game PPR format and in 2009, he was RB17 in PPR. He has never been elite in PPR formats.

I guess my PPR league has some funky scoring because in 2008 he was RB2 in both total and PPG.

RB 6 in total ptshttp://football17.myfantasyleague.com/2009...=*&SORT=TOT

RB 9 in PPG

http://football17.myfantasyleague.com/2009...=*&SORT=AVG

Play week 1 - 16

1 pt every 10 yards - 1 PPR

 

[Raider Nation]

On SVP's show on ESPN Radio last week, Tony Gonzalez said that Turner "is the best running back in football."So there ya go.

Bo Scaife said Chris Johnson is the best back in football. Visante Shiancoe said Adrian Peterson is the best back in footballTodd Heap said Ray Rice was the best back in football What do you expect these guys to say?

My post had nothing to do with Peterson, Johnson and Rice.It's ridiculous at this point to suggest that Turner is anywhere near the best RB in football.If Gonzo had said "I love Mike... he's my guy and we all believe in him!" ... that would have sufficed.

Unless he of course believe what he is saying. I don't recall Gonzo as speaking with a lot of hyperbole in the past. Maybe in his opinion, and he knows a thing or two about football, he thinks Turner is the best.

Very well then. I'll look forward to Mr. Turner proving me wrong this fall.But I'll go on record as saying there are probably 25 other RBs I'd rather have were I starting a team.

 

[JamesTheScot]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=71

That post and the series in front of it looks at the age vs. workload issue.

If we want to be more specific to Turner, there have been 24 running backs who had at least 326 rushes at age 26 (Turner had 376 in 2008). Nine of them, including Turner, had fewer than 600 career carries before that age 26 season. The other 8 were Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Herschel Walker, James Wilder, Joe Morris, Stephen Davis, Jamal Anderson and Chris Warren. Of those other eight, only Walker had a top 10 season again between ages 28 and 30, and he wouldn't qualify as a low carry guy before age 26 if we actually included his USFL numbers. Morris, Davis and Warren each had one more top 20 season between 28 and 30. Johnson, Parker, Wilder and Anderson did not have any.

Meanwhile, the "high career carry" guys on that list were Emmitt, Tomlinson, Martin, James and Sanders. They averaged 1.8 top 10 and 2.8 top 20 finishes.

If you are bumping Turner to have a bounce back because he had few carries early in his career, the evidence doesn't support that position. I would put the over/under on future top 20 finishes for Turner at RB at 1.0.

Interesting study. But to me it seems the sample size is too small and thus skewed by the individual situations. With only 9 comparative cases, even something like the quality of the OL each RB runs behind is going to make a significant difference.To be at his age, Turner doesn't have a long bell-cow track record to go from. I don't see any signs of wear down that couldn't just as easily be described as simple bad luck injuries.

I'd feel safe rolling with Turner for 2010 and 2011 if your dynasty system gives you some avenue of unloading him in 2012 without crippling yourself. 2012 is where my own comfort level starts to drop just because we don't know which type of guy he is.

 

[Sabertooth]

On SVP's show on ESPN Radio last week, Tony Gonzalez said that Turner "is the best running back in football."So there ya go.

Bo Scaife said Chris Johnson is the best back in football. Visante Shiancoe said Adrian Peterson is the best back in footballTodd Heap said Ray Rice was the best back in football What do you expect these guys to say?

My post had nothing to do with Peterson, Johnson and Rice.It's ridiculous at this point to suggest that Turner is anywhere near the best RB in football.If Gonzo had said "I love Mike... he's my guy and we all believe in him!" ... that would have sufficed.

Unless he of course believe what he is saying. I don't recall Gonzo as speaking with a lot of hyperbole in the past. Maybe in his opinion, and he knows a thing or two about football, he thinks Turner is the best.

Very well then. I'll look forward to Mr. Turner proving me wrong this fall.But I'll go on record as saying there are probably 25 other RBs I'd rather have were I starting a team.

Ok.

 

[Getinthemix]

You said "I believe a RB shelf life depends on 4 things." in the OP. I was asking how you quantify it. You can't. Then why list it. That would be like me saying that I value RB's based on how many unicorns fly out of their ### every 3rd Sunday in February.

Just because you can't quantify genetics doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed in this conversation. I believe it is a factor in RB shelf life because we're all made differently, and since we're all made differently we all wear down differently.

nice. So you don't believe genetics plays a role in RB shelf life? If so, then why do you think that way?

Now you are just fishing.