Michael Turner vs Marion Barber (1 Viewer)

[Jedimaster21]

For those making excuses about Turner's situation not be the best possible place for him, I have a couple responses:1. An aging Warrick Dunn has had some tremendous seasons there recently; I don't think it's as bad as people are assuming;2. Don't complain about the situation; a true talent will still produce. Frank Gore joined a pretty awful Niners team and put up a tremendous season two years ago (granted the offense and offensive line were much improved, but nobody would have at the time considered the Niners to be a great spot for a fantasy RB to produce). If Turner is as good as some people think he is, he will produce in ATL.

I think this is a decent situation for Turner, but I also think Houston and Cleveland would have been far better. Turner has flashed tremendous ability in limited time, and I am a believer in his talent. There are a two major questions that will affect his fantasy value:1. Jerious Norwood cannot handle a full load, but he has shown that he can be very successful with limited carries. He may get just enough carries to keep Turner from being an elite fantasy back.2. Turner is a total question mark in the passing game. He has not really been used as a receiver in the NFL, but he definitely has the build and strength to be a great blocker. Norwood doesn't look like he has the build to block effectively, but he is very athletic and explosive. I think third down duties will be extremely important to Turner's fantasy worth. I like Turner alot and have always thought he was very talented. However, I think Barber is just as talented. Arguing that one is more talented than the other at this point isn't a very convincing argument either way. IMO, there is a good shot at Barber scoring more points than Turner if he becomes the unquestioned feature back in Dallas. If that happens, he should get 325 carries, 50 catches, and all the work inside the five. I think he has shown more than enough to get that opportunity, and with the Cowboys aging at several positions (especially WR), I would be surprised if they burned a 1st round pick on a RB. The draft should sort out Marion's worth quite a bit. Turner should be a very good #2 running back (will be less valuable in PPR) option with the potential to be more if he develops into a 3 down back.

 

[switz]

Another hypothetical - which RB is likely to see more carries?

1. One on a team with an excellent set of WRs and a great QB?

2. One built on a power running game, with a game manager QB and pedestrian WRs?

I would wager #2.

With that in mind, wouldn't it seem that Turner will likely see MORE opportunity than Barber?

I would say the opposite. The back playing for the team that will create the most first downs, and play with the lead late in more games, will get more opportunities. Situation #2 would only be correct if that quarterback was efficient at picking up 3rd downs, even if they didn't throw for a ton of yards.

To your bolded part - problem is that in many cases now, it's the backup RB, or secondary component that gets the work when the team has the lead. If Barber is the #1, and just has a secondary component offsetting him, he may not be the beneficiary of big leads. I'm not saying that will be the case, but it's something to consider.As far as the efficient QB... I think Chris Redman fits the bill in ATL. In fact, I don't doubt that Turner WILL outperform Barber this year. However, I tihnk what most people are saying is that DAL is a better situation for an RB, hence Barber looks better than he really is and IF Turner were there, he'd be even better than Barber. If they finish close, it's because of opportunity, not equivalent talent. I think some people are mistaking that as an excuse.

 

[switz]

I like Turner alot and have always thought he was very talented. However, I think Barber is just as talented. Arguing that one is more talented than the other at this point isn't a very convincing argument either way. IMO, there is a good shot at Barber scoring more points than Turner if he becomes the unquestioned feature back in Dallas. If that happens, he should get 325 carries, 50 catches, and all the work inside the five. I think he has shown more than enough to get that opportunity, and with the Cowboys aging at several positions (especially WR), I would be surprised if they burned a 1st round pick on a RB. The draft should sort out Marion's worth quite a bit. Turner should be a very good #2 running back (will be less valuable in PPR) option with the potential to be more if he develops into a 3 down back.

And as a huge Turner fan, this is the key area where I think Barber from a fantasy perspective shows his worth. Dallas will have more scoring opportunities in general, and hence more opportunities for Barber - even if they draft McFadden or Jones.Turner IMO is clearly the more talented NFL RB... but may not be the best fantasy option. I still think Turner will outscore Barber, but it may be closer than their talent differential would suggest.

 

[Jason Wood]

I like Turner alot and have always thought he was very talented. However, I think Barber is just as talented. Arguing that one is more talented than the other at this point isn't a very convincing argument either way. IMO, there is a good shot at Barber scoring more points than Turner if he becomes the unquestioned feature back in Dallas. If that happens, he should get 325 carries, 50 catches, and all the work inside the five. I think he has shown more than enough to get that opportunity, and with the Cowboys aging at several positions (especially WR), I would be surprised if they burned a 1st round pick on a RB. The draft should sort out Marion's worth quite a bit. Turner should be a very good #2 running back (will be less valuable in PPR) option with the potential to be more if he develops into a 3 down back.

And as a huge Turner fan, this is the key area where I think Barber from a fantasy perspective shows his worth. Dallas will have more scoring opportunities in general, and hence more opportunities for Barber - even if they draft McFadden or Jones.Turner IMO is clearly the more talented NFL RB... but may not be the best fantasy option. I still think Turner will outscore Barber, but it may be closer than their talent differential would suggest.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I really don't know how one can say definitely one way or another at this point. But I have to ask, why do you think he's "clearly the more talented NFL RB?"Thus far in their NFL careers...

*** Barber has been given more chances

*** He's done more with each chance

*** Barber has shown himself to be a solid receiver [Turner hasn't gotten a chance to show it one way or another]

*** Barber has shown himself to be a solid goal line back [Turner hasn't gotten a chance to show it one way or another]

Then if we look back to college and the draft...

*** Marion Barber -- Started for a Big 10 school (Minnesota).

5'11", 221 pounds, 4.49, 20 reps, 40" vertical, 10'07" broad jump

344 rushes

2007 yards

5.8 YPC

24 TDs

18 recs

163 rec yards

9.1 YPRec

*** Michael Turner -- Started for Northern Illinois (NIU).

5'10", 237 pounds, 4.49, 22 reps, 31" vertical, 9'06" broad jump

940 rushes

4941 yards

5.3 YPC

43 TDs

43 recs

451 rec yards

10.5 YPRec

Seems to me that, absent a longer history as a starter in college, not much points toward Turner being either a better athlete or more "talented runner." Frankly Turner's key measurables (vertical and broad jump in particular) are TERRIBLE and actually historically would've pointed toward someone NOT likely to success in the NFL.

 

[switz]

I like Turner alot and have always thought he was very talented. However, I think Barber is just as talented. Arguing that one is more talented than the other at this point isn't a very convincing argument either way. IMO, there is a good shot at Barber scoring more points than Turner if he becomes the unquestioned feature back in Dallas. If that happens, he should get 325 carries, 50 catches, and all the work inside the five. I think he has shown more than enough to get that opportunity, and with the Cowboys aging at several positions (especially WR), I would be surprised if they burned a 1st round pick on a RB. The draft should sort out Marion's worth quite a bit. Turner should be a very good #2 running back (will be less valuable in PPR) option with the potential to be more if he develops into a 3 down back.

And as a huge Turner fan, this is the key area where I think Barber from a fantasy perspective shows his worth. Dallas will have more scoring opportunities in general, and hence more opportunities for Barber - even if they draft McFadden or Jones.Turner IMO is clearly the more talented NFL RB... but may not be the best fantasy option. I still think Turner will outscore Barber, but it may be closer than their talent differential would suggest.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I really don't know how one can say definitely one way or another at this point. But I have to ask, why do you think he's "clearly the more talented NFL RB?"

If the answer were provable merely by looking at stats, then everyone would agree, which is why I prefaced the statement with "in my opinion."My reasoning? I've watched both of them play, I absolutely loved Turner in college, wasn't as impressed with Barber. In the NFL, Turner has a much higher YPC, and has shown big play ability that Barber lacks.

Barber has been relegated to backing up Julius Jones, not exactly stellar competition. If he's so talented, why couldn't he beat him out? And why are they now talking about drafting an RB in the first round if Barber is so good?

Turner was backing up LT, there isn't a single back in the NFL that could unseat LT as the starter. But a number of teams were vying for him to be their starter this season and last season.

But it really boils down to the 'eye' test... Watch film of the two of them back to back, and I think most people would agree with my point of view.

Turner - great vision, balance, field awareness, speed, quickness

MB3 - great balance, good vision, lacks top end speed and quickness

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

*** Barber has shown himself to be a solid receiver [Turner hasn't gotten a chance to show it one way or another]

I would say that Turner is not a natural receiver. He is fine catching swing passes behind the line of scrimmage. But he does not look good running a real route, making a cut, turning his head, and catching the ball down field. He is stiff in his upper body. I would give a substantial edge to Barber as a receiver.(Turner was never asked to run real patterns in games, but I watched the RBs go through drills in training camp practices. LT is an excellent receiver, but there was a big difference between LT and MT in that regard.)

 

[Brutis]

I'd take Barber over Turner everytime and its not even close

 

[jurb26]

This should be an easy vote. Not only is Barber in a better situation, he is most likely the better talent and far more proven. Oh as well as younger.

Statements like that are what make a mess in these debates. What in the heck are you basing that on??Your other statements make sense, other than the "younger" thing, which really has no bearing here since Turner has got near zero mileage on him.

Mostly likely meaning we don't really have a lot to evaluate Turner on. From what I've seen however, I would say that Barber is more talented. It is far from a certainty though.What is so difficult to understand about that. Sorry, but I'm not about to throw out the absolute statements many others seem to with such little information.

What's difficult to understand is that there are zero facts supporting your OPINION there that one back is more talented than the other. ("most likely the better talent"????????)

Otis, I never said that my opinion was a fact or that we have enough facts to strongly say one way or another. I think I explained that pretty clearly. What facts do you have to support yours?

 

[jurb26]

It really is amazing how blind you guys are being to the point. The point is that of all the RBs you are talking about loosing these potential opportunities, Barber is the one who is most likely to see the greatest increase in 2008.

Oh ok. So Barber clearly has more potential for increase than the guy who went from a total backup role to a featured role overnight. Obviously you guys are blind to the point here.Seriously, could you make less sense?

I think I get his point. He's saying that Barber finished as the 7th best running back last year in a part time role. Barring injury it appears as though he's in line for more touches this year, hence a very real possibility that he improves on last year's numbers. Sure, Turner now has a full-time gig and will have increased opportunity as well, but on a crappy Atlanta team is it realistic to think that he'll outperform Barber? Doubtful. That's the point. Talent = very similar

Situation = Barber >> Turner

Hypothetically... who is the greatest threat to steal time from an RB???1. McFadden

2. Felix Jones

3. Jerious Norwood

Barber is likely going to be splitting time with #1 or #2

Turner is likely going to be splitting time with #3

Another hypothetical - which RB is likely to see more carries?

1. One on a team with an excellent set of WRs and a great QB?

2. One built on a power running game, with a game manager QB and pedestrian WRs?

I would wager #2.

With that in mind, wouldn't it seem that Turner will likely see MORE opportunity than Barber?

Wow, could you reach a bit more? I've already said rather clearly that if Dal drafts a RB in round 1 that would greatly change things.

 

[jurb26]

I was going to say...you don't usually make proclamations that are that far off base

Thanks, I think...FYI, to illustrate how far off the chart the Barber hype is right now, in the thread which I was thinking of, someone said that Barber was a top-5 dynasty back, and better than Joseph Addai in a dynasty league.

I don't see Barber being much more valuable than he was this year. He runs so hard that he simply can't get the ball that much IMO. He also has almost no breakaway ability and he will only get into the top 10 if he stays healthy and others are injured. I see him finishing in that 7-12 range if he stays healthy.

He finished as #7 this year, in a RBBC with Julius Jones. So you're assuming that one or more of the following occur in order for him to stay at 7, or even drop a bit:1 - His role in the offense stays the same or decreases next year

2 - The Dallas offense won't be as productive

3 - Barber gets injured

Unless he gets injured or the Cowboys bring in a big-time back to compete with him, I just don't see how he doesn't better his stats from last season.

Barber's 198 FP last year would have ranked 10th in '06, 11th in '05, 13th in '04, 13th in '03 and 18th in '02. On average, 198 FP is a bit below RB12. But last year, lots of RBs got hurt or had odd down years. I'm not sure I'd bank on that happening again.

This agrument really holds no water considering the fact that of the top 10 RBs last year, despite injuries or missed games or whatever else you want to base stats on, Barber was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than all of them in total touches. Barber is the ONLY top 10 RB from last year that did so while amassing less than 250 touches. Barber recorded only 248 touches. The next lowest was Peterson at 257. After that, no other top 10 RB was under 300 total touches. Do you really expect that a healthy Barber will touch the ball LESS in 2008?

Jurb, you have said you think Turner is overrated. After watching his videos and the speed, power and vision combo he has I am not sure what overrated is? Now, he has yet to carry the ball so many times and getting dinged up and playing at the same high level is what separates the greats. Do I think turner is great, well no, that would be silly at this point so maybe people who putting him in Canton then maybe he is overrated... But I see no reason why he can't be a slightly rich mans version of Lamont Jordan. I don't see how anyone doesn't see that in Turner? When Lamont was healthy he was an effective RB and I don't see why Turner shouldn't be a little better than that?

I say Tuner is overrated because if you listened to the Turner supporters around here the only logical conclusion you can come up with is that he is the 2nd most gifted and talented RB in the NFL who just so happened to be behind the 1st. I like Turner just fine. I'm just not sold that he is anything other than an average starting RB in the NFL. He hasn't even shown he can be that yet. I agree with IWBAC, I'm just glad this will all be put to bed this season.

 

[switz]

Wow, could you reach a bit more?

How on earth was that reaching????

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I say Tuner is overrated because if you listened to the Turner supporters around here the only logical conclusion you can come up with is that he is the 2nd most gifted and talented RB in the NFL who just so happened to be behind the 1st.

Wow, could you reach a bit more?

LOL.I think Turner may be a top five talent in terms of rushing ability. Isn't that extreme enough? Why exaggerate?

 

[jurb26]

I say Tuner is overrated because if you listened to the Turner supporters around here the only logical conclusion you can come up with is that he is the 2nd most gifted and talented RB in the NFL who just so happened to be behind the 1st.

Wow, could you reach a bit more?

LOL.I think Turner may be a top five talent in terms of rushing ability. Isn't that extreme enough? Why exaggerate?

I thought exaggeration was what this whole thread was about....

 

[jurb26]

Wow, could you reach a bit more?

How on earth was that reaching????

I don't think anyone can say what Dal is going to do in the draft at this point, let alone call it "likely."Who is more likely to run the ball more? Well, maybe the better team who will be playing in the lead more often and who also rushed more times last year.

 

[switz]

Wow, could you reach a bit more?

How on earth was that reaching????

I don't think anyone can say what Dal is going to do in the draft at this point, let alone call it "likely."

That's still not reaching Anyway, it is projected, as far as I've read, by MOST scouts and draftniks that Dallas is 'likely' to draft one of the top RBs, and maybe even trade up for one of them. I guess they're all wrong and we shouldn't listen to anything they say, nor use it at all to begin setting expectations for players.

Who is more likely to run the ball more? Well, maybe the better team who will be playing in the lead more often and who also rushed more times last year.

While Dallas rushed more last year, it's hard to use that to predict how much Barber will rush this season without their runningback stable set yet. And looking at ANYTHING ATL did last year is not a good way to project what they'll do this year. The situation in ATL is totally different. I wonder how much ATL's choice in running had to do with the backs they had available, the coaching staff they had, the QB situation, etc. I would guess that since the team went out and signed the best FA big back available, and has verbally said a few times they want a run first offense, that their rushing attempts will increase dramatically this season. I would say those recent actions have a lot more to do with who will rush more this year than anything that happened last year.

 

[jurb26]

Wow, could you reach a bit more?

How on earth was that reaching????

I don't think anyone can say what Dal is going to do in the draft at this point, let alone call it "likely."

That's still not reaching Anyway, it is projected, as far as I've read, by MOST scouts and draftniks that Dallas is 'likely' to draft one of the top RBs, and maybe even trade up for one of them. I guess they're all wrong and we shouldn't listen to anything they say, nor use it at all to begin setting expectations for players.

Who is more likely to run the ball more? Well, maybe the better team who will be playing in the lead more often and who also rushed more times last year.

While Dallas rushed more last year, it's hard to use that to predict how much Barber will rush this season without their runningback stable set yet. And looking at ANYTHING ATL did last year is not a good way to project what they'll do this year. The situation in ATL is totally different. I wonder how much ATL's choice in running had to do with the backs they had available, the coaching staff they had, the QB situation, etc. I would guess that since the team went out and signed the best FA big back available, and has verbally said a few times they want a run first offense, that their rushing attempts will increase dramatically this season. I would say those recent actions have a lot more to do with who will rush more this year than anything that happened last year.

There is nothing but speculation about who the Cowboys will draft. Simple as that. You can read into that speculation all you want. Mocks drafts, while entertaining to read, are not even slightly reliable. Especially when you get all the way down into the late 20s. I happen to think Dal will simply go BPA. They are in a great position to do so. All teams want to run the ball 1st and control the game that way. Very few are good enough to do it. Atl has not shown me anything to suggest they will be significantly better next year.

 

[Verbal Kint]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB.

So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

 

[switz]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB. So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

I think people choose too narrow a focus when using history to project future prospects. At the same time, I also find those same people rely too much on history in doing their projections. Bottom line is, next year's Falcons will not be last years Falcons. However, in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball. So IMO there is a good likelihood, given the right coaching, this team could return to being a very good running team.However, if that doesn't fit what someone wants to see, it is easily disregarded.Edited for typos

 

[jurb26]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB.

So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

I think people choose to marrow a focus when using history to project future prospects. At the same time, I also fine those same people rely too much on history in dong their projections. Bottom line is, next year's Falcons will not be last years Falcons. However, in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball. So IMO there is a good likelihood, given the right coaching, this team could return to being a very good running team.

However, if that doesn't fit what someone wants to see, it is easily disregarded.

Nice contradiction.

 

[brock]

turner is lamont jordan part 2.

a glorified backup moving into a feature role with a crappy team.

 

[switz]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB.

So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

I think people choose too narrow a focus when using history to project future prospects. At the same time, I also find those same people rely too much on history in doing their projections. Bottom line is, next year's Falcons will not be last years Falcons. However, in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball. So IMO there is a good likelihood, given the right coaching, this team could return to being a very good running team.

However, if that doesn't fit what someone wants to see, it is easily disregarded.

Nice contradiction.

How is that a contradiction? I neither used too narrow a focus (like a 1 year window), nor did I use history alone (relying too much on history) to project that the team _could_ return to being a very good running team. If you bothered to read the whole post, and not take things out of context (re: given good coaching <- obviously not a historical point at all), you would have seen that. A three year window shows that some personnel on the team have had success running the ball. That in itself does not mean they'll be good at running the ball. I never said it did, and I wouldn't say it does. They went out and added one component necessary to improve in that area in Michael Turner, IMO. They also still need good coaching as I said. So in no way did I rely too much on history nor use too small a window of history. Nice reading comprehension.

Edited for typos

 

[jurb26]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB.

So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

I think people choose too narrow a focus when using history to project future prospects. At the same time, I also find those same people rely too much on history in doing their projections. Bottom line is, next year's Falcons will not be last years Falcons. However, in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball. So IMO there is a good likelihood, given the right coaching, this team could return to being a very good running team.

However, if that doesn't fit what someone wants to see, it is easily disregarded.

Nice contradiction.

How is that a contradiction? I neither used too narrow a focus (like a 1 year window), nor did I use history alone (relying too much on history) to project that the team _could_ return to being a very good running team. If you bothered to read the whole post, and not take things out of context (re: given good coaching <- obviously not a historical point at all), you would have seen that. A three year window shows that some personnel on the team have had success running the ball. That in itself does not mean they'll be good at running the ball. I never said it did, and I wouldn't say it does. They went out and added one component necessary to improve in that area in Michael Turner, IMO. They also still need good coaching as I said. So in no way did I rely too much on history nor use too small a window of history. Nice reading comprehension.

Edited for typos

A one year window is pretty vital when looking at the Falcons, no? I mean in that one year they have lost their franchise player and the guy the entire team/offense was built around in Vick. The guy who pretty much lead to nearly all of the Falcons rushing success either with his numbers or the schematic effect he had on Ds. They lost their teams leading rusher each of the past 4 years at RB in Dunn (though I'm sure you think Turner is better, we still have no proof of that). They lost their best receiving option in Crumpler. They are going to loose Gandy their starting LT. They lost their coach. This isn't a matter of looking at 1 years stats. It's a matter of looking at the actual nuts and bolts of where this team is right now. What parts of this team are you looking at and saying "in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball."? This is a team in turmoil and they are still trying to put the pieces together. Of course anything "could" happen. Heck, they could lead the NFL in rushing and go to the Super Bowl. Looking at it right now, I highly doubt it though.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB.

So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

I think people choose too narrow a focus when using history to project future prospects. At the same time, I also find those same people rely too much on history in doing their projections. Bottom line is, next year's Falcons will not be last years Falcons. However, in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball. So IMO there is a good likelihood, given the right coaching, this team could return to being a very good running team.

However, if that doesn't fit what someone wants to see, it is easily disregarded.

Nice contradiction.

How is that a contradiction? I neither used too narrow a focus (like a 1 year window), nor did I use history alone (relying too much on history) to project that the team _could_ return to being a very good running team. If you bothered to read the whole post, and not take things out of context (re: given good coaching <- obviously not a historical point at all), you would have seen that. A three year window shows that some personnel on the team have had success running the ball. That in itself does not mean they'll be good at running the ball. I never said it did, and I wouldn't say it does. They went out and added one component necessary to improve in that area in Michael Turner, IMO. They also still need good coaching as I said. So in no way did I rely too much on history nor use too small a window of history. Nice reading comprehension.

Edited for typos

A one year window is pretty vital when looking at the Falcons, no? I mean in that one year they have lost their franchise player and the guy the entire team/offense was built around in Vick. The guy who pretty much lead to nearly all of the Falcons rushing success either with his numbers or the schematic effect he had on Ds. They lost their teams leading rusher each of the past 4 years at RB in Dunn (though I'm sure you think Turner is better, we still have no proof of that). They lost their best receiving option in Crumpler. They are going to loose Gandy their starting LT. They lost their coach. This isn't a matter of looking at 1 years stats. It's a matter of looking at the actual nuts and bolts of where this team is right now. What parts of this team are you looking at and saying "in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball."? This is a team in turmoil and they are still trying to put the pieces together. Of course anything "could" happen. Heck, they could lead the NFL in rushing and go to the Super Bowl. Looking at it right now, I highly doubt it though.

I think people underestimate the power of coaching. Take for instance the Oakland Raiders from 1 year ago and how they could not move the ball on the ground at all and 1 year later with new coaches they make Justin Fargas look like a top RB. Coaching can't be overlooked and if you think the Falcons have brought in the right coaches who will in turn bring in the right schemes and players for their styles then you have to be intrigued by what the Falcons are doing to comit to the running game.

 

[Verbal Kint]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB.

So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

I think people choose too narrow a focus when using history to project future prospects. At the same time, I also find those same people rely too much on history in doing their projections. Bottom line is, next year's Falcons will not be last years Falcons. However, in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball. So IMO there is a good likelihood, given the right coaching, this team could return to being a very good running team.

However, if that doesn't fit what someone wants to see, it is easily disregarded.

Nice contradiction.

How is that a contradiction? I neither used too narrow a focus (like a 1 year window), nor did I use history alone (relying too much on history) to project that the team _could_ return to being a very good running team. If you bothered to read the whole post, and not take things out of context (re: given good coaching <- obviously not a historical point at all), you would have seen that. A three year window shows that some personnel on the team have had success running the ball. That in itself does not mean they'll be good at running the ball. I never said it did, and I wouldn't say it does. They went out and added one component necessary to improve in that area in Michael Turner, IMO. They also still need good coaching as I said. So in no way did I rely too much on history nor use too small a window of history. Nice reading comprehension.

Edited for typos

A one year window is pretty vital when looking at the Falcons, no? I mean in that one year they have lost their franchise player and the guy the entire team/offense was built around in Vick. The guy who pretty much lead to nearly all of the Falcons rushing success either with his numbers or the schematic effect he had on Ds. They lost their teams leading rusher each of the past 4 years at RB in Dunn (though I'm sure you think Turner is better, we still have no proof of that). They lost their best receiving option in Crumpler. They are going to loose Gandy their starting LT. They lost their coach. This isn't a matter of looking at 1 years stats. It's a matter of looking at the actual nuts and bolts of where this team is right now. What parts of this team are you looking at and saying "in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball."? This is a team in turmoil and they are still trying to put the pieces together. Of course anything "could" happen. Heck, they could lead the NFL in rushing and go to the Super Bowl. Looking at it right now, I highly doubt it though.

I think people underestimate the power of coaching. Take for instance the Oakland Raiders from 1 year ago and how they could not move the ball on the ground at all and 1 year later with new coaches they make Justin Fargas look like a top RB. Coaching can't be overlooked and if you think the Falcons have brought in the right coaches who will in turn bring in the right schemes and players for their styles then you have to be intrigued by what the Falcons are doing to comit to the running game.

 

[Jason Wood]

The crux of the issue to me is the state of Atlanta's ability to open holes for Turner. They went from the #1 rushing team in 2005 and 2006 to #26 in 2007. What are the drivers behind that? Clearly the loss of Vick stands at the forefront. Certainly having the threat that Vick would run created some additional holes for the offense. But I do believe that this drama occurred so close to the start of the season had some adverse effects on the team. It created significant distractions to his teammates, and an entire offense that was built around him had to be re-tooled in a limited time frame with no viable options at QB.

So, it basically boils down to Vick's on-field impact versus his off-field impact. Assuming they have a viable QB, the off-field impact has been mitigated and I can easily see Atlanta returning to at least middle of the pack in run offense.

I think people choose too narrow a focus when using history to project future prospects. At the same time, I also find those same people rely too much on history in doing their projections. Bottom line is, next year's Falcons will not be last years Falcons. However, in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball. So IMO there is a good likelihood, given the right coaching, this team could return to being a very good running team.

However, if that doesn't fit what someone wants to see, it is easily disregarded.

Nice contradiction.

How is that a contradiction? I neither used too narrow a focus (like a 1 year window), nor did I use history alone (relying too much on history) to project that the team _could_ return to being a very good running team. If you bothered to read the whole post, and not take things out of context (re: given good coaching <- obviously not a historical point at all), you would have seen that. A three year window shows that some personnel on the team have had success running the ball. That in itself does not mean they'll be good at running the ball. I never said it did, and I wouldn't say it does. They went out and added one component necessary to improve in that area in Michael Turner, IMO. They also still need good coaching as I said. So in no way did I rely too much on history nor use too small a window of history. Nice reading comprehension.

Edited for typos

A one year window is pretty vital when looking at the Falcons, no? I mean in that one year they have lost their franchise player and the guy the entire team/offense was built around in Vick. The guy who pretty much lead to nearly all of the Falcons rushing success either with his numbers or the schematic effect he had on Ds. They lost their teams leading rusher each of the past 4 years at RB in Dunn (though I'm sure you think Turner is better, we still have no proof of that). They lost their best receiving option in Crumpler. They are going to loose Gandy their starting LT. They lost their coach. This isn't a matter of looking at 1 years stats. It's a matter of looking at the actual nuts and bolts of where this team is right now. What parts of this team are you looking at and saying "in the past, much of their current personnel have proven to be good at running the ball."? This is a team in turmoil and they are still trying to put the pieces together. Of course anything "could" happen. Heck, they could lead the NFL in rushing and go to the Super Bowl. Looking at it right now, I highly doubt it though.

I think people underestimate the power of coaching. Take for instance the Oakland Raiders from 1 year ago and how they could not move the ball on the ground at all and 1 year later with new coaches they make Justin Fargas look like a top RB. Coaching can't be overlooked and if you think the Falcons have brought in the right coaches who will in turn bring in the right schemes and players for their styles then you have to be intrigued by what the Falcons are doing to comit to the running game.

I agree; and realistically are you going to say Mike Mularkey is a sure thing?

 

[switz]

I agree; and realistically are you going to say Mike Mularkey is a sure thing?

Hmmm... Not a huge fan of Mularkey to be honest... but a bad Buffalo team had a decent running game under him, and a horrible Miami team had a great running game under him, and wasn't he in PIT as OC before Buffalo HC, and PIT was great running the ball.

 

[C & C]

I agree; and realistically are you going to say Mike Mularkey is a sure thing?

Hmmm... Not a huge fan of Mularkey to be honest... but a bad Buffalo team had a decent running game under him, and a horrible Miami team had a great running game under him, and wasn't he in PIT as OC before Buffalo HC, and PIT was great running the ball.

It should be noted that as PGH's OC their rushing rank under his tenure was as such:2001: 1 rushing ranking2002: 92003: 31At Buffalo:2004: 132005: 29at Miami:2006: 29

 

[switz]

I agree; and realistically are you going to say Mike Mularkey is a sure thing?

Hmmm... Not a huge fan of Mularkey to be honest... but a bad Buffalo team had a decent running game under him, and a horrible Miami team had a great running game under him, and wasn't he in PIT as OC before Buffalo HC, and PIT was great running the ball.

It should be noted that as PGH's OC their rushing rank under his tenure was as such:2001: 1 rushing ranking

2002: 9

2003: 31

At Buffalo:

2004: 13

2005: 29

at Miami:

2006: 29

Wow... are you sure?Per NFL.com

Mia 2006: #22 rushing O NFL.com - Ronnie Brown finished #13 in yards per game (1,008 yards, 5 TDs)

Buffalo 2005: #20 - McGahee #13 in yards per game (1,247 yards, 5 TDs)

Buffalo 2004: #13 - McGahee #22 in yards per game (1,128 yards, 13 TDs)

I didn't bother looking up the rest. Again, I'm not a fan of Mularkey, but he's shown before that he can have a decent running game, even on a terrible team.

 

[Jason Wood]

I agree; and realistically are you going to say Mike Mularkey is a sure thing?

Hmmm... Not a huge fan of Mularkey to be honest... but a bad Buffalo team had a decent running game under him, and a horrible Miami team had a great running game under him, and wasn't he in PIT as OC before Buffalo HC, and PIT was great running the ball.

It should be noted that as PGH's OC their rushing rank under his tenure was as such:2001: 1 rushing ranking

2002: 9

2003: 31

At Buffalo:

2004: 13

2005: 29

at Miami:

2006: 29

Wow... are you sure?Per NFL.com

Mia 2006: #22 rushing O NFL.com - Ronnie Brown finished #13 in yards per game (1,008 yards, 5 TDs)

Buffalo 2005: #20 - McGahee #13 in yards per game (1,247 yards, 5 TDs)

Buffalo 2004: #13 - McGahee #22 in yards per game (1,128 yards, 13 TDs)

I didn't bother looking up the rest. Again, I'm not a fan of Mularkey, but he's shown before that he can have a decent running game, even on a terrible team.

Looks like C&C was quoting the rushing attempts ranking, which I agree doesn't necessarily tell the story.

 

[AnonymousBob]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

 

[switz]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

I'm not sure what "experts" have said the Falcons will be a terrible team. Do you have a quote??And I'm thinking it's a lot easier for insiders to know what positions a team is looking to draft, than it is to project how a team will perform.

 

[jurb26]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

I'm not sure what "experts" have said the Falcons will be a terrible team. Do you have a quote??And I'm thinking it's a lot easier for insiders to know what positions a team is looking to draft, than it is to project how a team will perform.

It's speculation on either account. How good or bad Atl will be and who Dal will draft. FWIW, I have seen a lot of people looking for Dal to upgrade the secondary in the first round, not RB. Personally, given this draft class and my opinion of the Cowboy's needs I think this is what will happen. I suspect all of the 3 "big" RBs will be gone by pick 20. Dal, despite internet rumors, is not looking that badly for a RB they are willing to trade up and the BPA will end up being one of the CBs that drop in the early 20s and Phillips at 28. We'll see in a month or so.

 

[C & C]

I agree; and realistically are you going to say Mike Mularkey is a sure thing?

Hmmm... Not a huge fan of Mularkey to be honest... but a bad Buffalo team had a decent running game under him, and a horrible Miami team had a great running game under him, and wasn't he in PIT as OC before Buffalo HC, and PIT was great running the ball.

It should be noted that as PGH's OC their rushing rank under his tenure was as such:2001: 1 rushing ranking

2002: 9

2003: 31

At Buffalo:

2004: 13

2005: 29

at Miami:

2006: 29

Wow... are you sure?Per NFL.com

Mia 2006: #22 rushing O NFL.com - Ronnie Brown finished #13 in yards per game (1,008 yards, 5 TDs)

Buffalo 2005: #20 - McGahee #13 in yards per game (1,247 yards, 5 TDs)

Buffalo 2004: #13 - McGahee #22 in yards per game (1,128 yards, 13 TDs)

I didn't bother looking up the rest. Again, I'm not a fan of Mularkey, but he's shown before that he can have a decent running game, even on a terrible team.

Looks like C&C was quoting the rushing attempts ranking, which I agree doesn't necessarily tell the story.

Whoops. Sorry about that. I mis-read what the ranking was for.(edit to add: It looks like I had the wrong ranking for 2005 & 2006 but the ranking for all others is correct -- pulled from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/.)

Anyways, Pittsburgh fans were happy to see him go to Buffalo and I'm not sure Cowher would have welcomed him back. During Mularkey's tenure in Pittsburgh the team transformed from a power rushing team to a passing team. From 13-3 to 6-10. While the OC was not fully to blame for that slide he was taking a large chunk of the blame.

I like Turner alot, but it's Mularkey's history when he has bad teams that concerns me.

 

[Otis]

What's difficult to understand is that there are zero facts supporting your OPINION there that one back is more talented than the other. ("most likely the better talent"????????)

to be fair aren't you the same guy who earlier in this thread implied that Turner was the more talented back.

Turner is the better back, but Barber is in a much better situation.

This is probably right. However, the rule in dynasty has always seemed to be pick the guy with the most talent because the cream will eventually rise to the top. I love both of these guys, but I'm a huge Turner believer.

and you were very vocal about your opinion in the difference in talent levels in August also.from the MB3 vs MTB thread from August

For the record, I think this is Turner pretty easily. I think MBIII is a talented back, but I think Turner is just a class above.

Righetti > hey GB

 

[Ghost Rider]

I wouldn't be thumping your chest about Turner just yet. Yes, he was awesome today, but in trying to have some perspective, it was against the Lions. Let's see how he does the next few weeks when he faces some good defenses before we annoint him, okay? Still, it is an awesome start to the season for him, and I am sure he helped a lot of owners win games.

 

[switz]

Wow, could you reach a bit more?

How on earth was that reaching????

I don't think anyone can say what Dal is going to do in the draft at this point, let alone call it "likely."

 

[Otis]

We did this poll last year in this thread with Burner Turner beating out MB3, I wonder what the votes are this time around.

Help settle this dispute with a certain famous wedding-wrecking FBG buddy of mine -- which running back would you rather have in dynasty, Marion Barber III or Michael "the Burner" Turner (and feel free to explain why)?

To me it's such an easy call it's silly, but this GB of mine thinks the results will be quite different.

TIA

So far, the results of this one are pretty interesting -- my GB and I have been debating what are the top 2 backs in fantasy right now. Looks like you couldn't have missed with either one -- the difference being that Turner could have been had at a fraction of the price.Props to Maurile all offseason for getting it right in the Turner threads. Lots of people didn't seem to want to believe. Kid is in for a big year.

 

[switz]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

I'm not sure what "experts" have said the Falcons will be a terrible team. Do you have a quote??And I'm thinking it's a lot easier for insiders to know what positions a team is looking to draft, than it is to project how a team will perform.

It's speculation on either account. How good or bad Atl will be and who Dal will draft. FWIW, I have seen a lot of people looking for Dal to upgrade the secondary in the first round, not RB. Personally, given this draft class and my opinion of the Cowboy's needs I think this is what will happen. I suspect all of the 3 "big" RBs will be gone by pick 20. Dal, despite internet rumors, is not looking that badly for a RB they are willing to trade up and the BPA will end up being one of the CBs that drop in the early 20s and Phillips at 28. We'll see in a month or so.

FYI - in my dynasty league

1 = Bush

2 = Barber

3 = Turner

Turner was much cheaper than Barber too

 

[jurb26]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

I'm not sure what "experts" have said the Falcons will be a terrible team. Do you have a quote??And I'm thinking it's a lot easier for insiders to know what positions a team is looking to draft, than it is to project how a team will perform.

It's speculation on either account. How good or bad Atl will be and who Dal will draft. FWIW, I have seen a lot of people looking for Dal to upgrade the secondary in the first round, not RB. Personally, given this draft class and my opinion of the Cowboy's needs I think this is what will happen. I suspect all of the 3 "big" RBs will be gone by pick 20. Dal, despite internet rumors, is not looking that badly for a RB they are willing to trade up and the BPA will end up being one of the CBs that drop in the early 20s and Phillips at 28. We'll see in a month or so.

FYI - in my dynasty league

1 = Bush

2 = Barber

3 = Turner

Turner was much cheaper than Barber too

Turner was much cheaper for a reason. He will get shut down by good defenses. Barber will not. Of course Turner put up good numbers vs. KC and Det. Have you seen how bad those teams are? Maybe give it more than 3 weeks before you jump for joy.....Weren't you the guy continually pimping how many touches Jones would steal from Barber this year? 24 touches per game thus far, nice call.

 

[crazyleggs]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

I'm not sure what "experts" have said the Falcons will be a terrible team. Do you have a quote??And I'm thinking it's a lot easier for insiders to know what positions a team is looking to draft, than it is to project how a team will perform.

It's speculation on either account. How good or bad Atl will be and who Dal will draft. FWIW, I have seen a lot of people looking for Dal to upgrade the secondary in the first round, not RB. Personally, given this draft class and my opinion of the Cowboy's needs I think this is what will happen. I suspect all of the 3 "big" RBs will be gone by pick 20. Dal, despite internet rumors, is not looking that badly for a RB they are willing to trade up and the BPA will end up being one of the CBs that drop in the early 20s and Phillips at 28. We'll see in a month or so.

FYI - in my dynasty league

1 = Bush

2 = Barber

3 = Turner

Turner was much cheaper than Barber too

Turner was much cheaper for a reason. He will get shut down by good defenses. Barber will not. Of course Turner put up good numbers vs. KC and Det. Have you seen how bad those teams are? Maybe give it more than 3 weeks before you jump for joy.....Weren't you the guy continually pimping how many touches Jones would steal from Barber this year? 24 touches per game thus far, nice call.

As good as Jones has looked in his opportunities he will gradually become more involved. This is a dynasty question and as ATL gets better Turner should also produce better while Barber gradually loses some touches.

 

[jurb26]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

I'm not sure what "experts" have said the Falcons will be a terrible team. Do you have a quote??And I'm thinking it's a lot easier for insiders to know what positions a team is looking to draft, than it is to project how a team will perform.

It's speculation on either account. How good or bad Atl will be and who Dal will draft. FWIW, I have seen a lot of people looking for Dal to upgrade the secondary in the first round, not RB. Personally, given this draft class and my opinion of the Cowboy's needs I think this is what will happen. I suspect all of the 3 "big" RBs will be gone by pick 20. Dal, despite internet rumors, is not looking that badly for a RB they are willing to trade up and the BPA will end up being one of the CBs that drop in the early 20s and Phillips at 28. We'll see in a month or so.

FYI - in my dynasty league

1 = Bush

2 = Barber

3 = Turner

Turner was much cheaper than Barber too

Turner was much cheaper for a reason. He will get shut down by good defenses. Barber will not. Of course Turner put up good numbers vs. KC and Det. Have you seen how bad those teams are? Maybe give it more than 3 weeks before you jump for joy.....Weren't you the guy continually pimping how many touches Jones would steal from Barber this year? 24 touches per game thus far, nice call.

As good as Jones has looked in his opportunities he will gradually become more involved. This is a dynasty question and as ATL gets better Turner should also produce better while Barber gradually loses some touches.

swtiz changed the topic to dynasty to try and make his point more valid. We were not talking dynasty originally.

 

[Otis]

Way to muck up the discussion, switz.

 

[switz]

So...we can trust the experts when they predict the Cowboys will draft a rb but we can't trust the experts when they say the Falcons will be a terrible team?

I'm not sure what "experts" have said the Falcons will be a terrible team. Do you have a quote??And I'm thinking it's a lot easier for insiders to know what positions a team is looking to draft, than it is to project how a team will perform.

It's speculation on either account. How good or bad Atl will be and who Dal will draft. FWIW, I have seen a lot of people looking for Dal to upgrade the secondary in the first round, not RB. Personally, given this draft class and my opinion of the Cowboy's needs I think this is what will happen. I suspect all of the 3 "big" RBs will be gone by pick 20. Dal, despite internet rumors, is not looking that badly for a RB they are willing to trade up and the BPA will end up being one of the CBs that drop in the early 20s and Phillips at 28. We'll see in a month or so.

FYI - in my dynasty league

1 = Bush

2 = Barber

3 = Turner

Turner was much cheaper than Barber too

Turner was much cheaper for a reason. He will get shut down by good defenses. Barber will not. Of course Turner put up good numbers vs. KC and Det. Have you seen how bad those teams are? Maybe give it more than 3 weeks before you jump for joy.....Weren't you the guy continually pimping how many touches Jones would steal from Barber this year? 24 touches per game thus far, nice call.

As good as Jones has looked in his opportunities he will gradually become more involved. This is a dynasty question and as ATL gets better Turner should also produce better while Barber gradually loses some touches.

swtiz changed the topic to dynasty to try and make his point more valid. We were not talking dynasty originally.

??? No I didn't. I just quoted the ranking from my dynasty league, my main league. Take dynasty out of the league description and the point is the same... and we're talking about THIS YEAR'S scoring regardless of league type.

 

[switz]

Way to muck up the discussion, switz.

You mean by pointing out how the players are performing so far? Or how wrong jurb was (which didn't even get a reply, so didn't "muck up" the discussion at all)

 

[Otis]

 

[Garts]

Turner's GOLD.

 

[Otis]

Righetti> Have you checked the SHFFL RB ranking today?

 

[Righetti]

Righetti> Have you checked the SHFFL RB ranking today?

no DCup for me this year