Turner vs Norwood (1 Viewer)

[tomarken]

How exactly was it decided that Michael Turner is going to be so much more valuable than Jerious Norwood this season? Why exactly is he slated to be the starter in Atlanta, and Norwood is once again relegated to a smallish supporting role?

Turner's ADP is around RB19 (38th overall), while Norwood's ADP is around RB40 (115th overall), so obviously the fantasy community agrees. Without giving away FBG subscriber content, Turner's ranking and projections are far higher than Norwood's.

Now, I've only seen Michael Turner a few times, and he looked really fast. I've also seen Norwood a few times, and he looked really fast as well.

Let's compare their career numbers:

Michael Turner (26 years old, 4 years experience, 58 games)

228 carries, 1257 yards (5.5 ypc)

11 receptions, 71 yards (6.5 ypr)

6 TD's

Jerious Norwood (25 years old, 2 years experience, 29 games)

201 carries, 1248 yards (6.2 ypc)

40 receptions, 379 yards (9.5 ypr)

3 TD's

So, in exactly half the playing time, Norwood has the same number of touches (241 to 239), 300 more yards from scrimmage, and significantly higher rushing and receiving averages. And he did that on Atlanta, while Turner racked up his stats in San Diego.

Norwood was drafted two rounds higher coming out of college, and had a faster time at the combine (4.33 to Turner's 4.49).

Like I said, I haven't seen either of them too much, and I haven't kept up with much during this offseason, so help me out. What am I missing?

Has the Falcons organization officially stated that Turner is the clear-cut starter and Norwood will have a much smaller role? If so, why? If not, why has the fantasy community assumed that Turner is so much better than Norwood?

 

[[icon]]

six year, $34.5 million contract ($15 million guaranteed)

 

[ClownDogs]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

 

[tomarken]

six year, $34.5 million contract ($15 million guaranteed)

Fair enough. That would indicate, fantasy-wise, that Turner will be given the bulk of the work.I suppose my question, then, is why did Atlanta do that? Fantasy football aside, why does Atlanta think Turner is so much more valuable than Norwood?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

six year, $34.5 million contract ($15 million guaranteed)

This is it right here. I understand what you're saying, but you don't pay a guy this kind of money without giving him first shot.True, if somehow Turner is a bust, Norwood would become more and more involved but it's going to take awhile for that to happen. Turner has first shot, period.

 

[Manster]

Turner is built to be an every down back. Norwood is more like a R.Bush/Ahmad Bradshaw. he's the lightning to Turner's thunder.

so far the consensus is Turner will get the lions share of the carries.

Norwood is fast, but he's got sticks for legs. he's not a 20 carry/game type guy.

oh yea, and the contract.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

six year, $34.5 million contract ($15 million guaranteed)

Fair enough. That would indicate, fantasy-wise, that Turner will be given the bulk of the work.I suppose my question, then, is why did Atlanta do that? Fantasy football aside, why does Atlanta think Turner is so much more valuable than Norwood?

That is a good question and sometimes the way I think. The answers could be many but you'd have to think that someone in charge of evaluating talent in Atlanta thinks Turner is a Stud. There are no gaurantees but we can say that about any rookie coming into the draft this year at RB too. Norwood also has proven that he doesn't look like he can carry the load alone so they will make him the change of pace guy.

 

[tomarken]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

 

[GregR_2]

And on top of the contract, I think most people picture a Steelers historical power running game when they picture Mike Mularkey as an offensive coordinator. And Turner seems to fit better the game the Steelers had when Mularkey was there.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

1. The contract that has been mentioned.

2. Size - Turner = 5'10 240 and fast. Norwood = 6'0 200. From those stats alone, Turner would logically be able to handle a larger load.

3. Norwood, for explosive as he's shown himself to be, has been dinged up quite frequently in limited work. The notion of depending on him to be the primary ball carrier has alot of drawbacks.

4. Mularkey (Falcons OC) has stated that rookies have a tendency to look to bounce plays outside. While this does not necessarily realte to Norwood who is underrated between the tackles runner, it's not his bread and butter. That said, the Falcons were looking for an RB who would have faith in the hole that would develop between the tackles. They feel Turner is that guy.

 

[PahtyTom]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

Turner has proven nothing more than Norwood thus far in his career. And, I too would agree that Norwood has actually proven more. I could be wrong, but Turner has never shown me to be the kind of back that can pick up yardage when nothings there 4 yards at a time or whatever. It's easy to look at his build and think that he is that type of runner, but I have not seen it yet.

 

[wino1618]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

Turner has proven nothing more than Norwood thus far in his career. And, I too would agree that Norwood has actually proven more.

At this point in his career, would you say that Tatum Bell has proven more than Darren McFadden, Johnathon Stewart, Felix Jones and Mendenhall all combined together?He's got more TD's and yards than all those guys combined in the NFL......right?

You can see my point I hope. When Turner was stuck behind Tomlinson, if you saw his games you saw how talented he was. At times, it looks as if the offense didn't skip a beat, making people think he could be very good as a starter.

He could fall flat on his face, it is a possibility but I think saying what he's proven compared to Norwood so far in their careers really isn't relevant to how good he'll be this year in Atlanta, just like we know Tatum Bell probably isn't is good as anyone of those guys I mentioned above even though he's done more so far.

 

[PahtyTom]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

Turner has proven nothing more than Norwood thus far in his career. And, I too would agree that Norwood has actually proven more.

At this point in his career, would you say that Tatum Bell has proven more than Darren McFadden, Johnathon Stewart, Felix Jones and Mendenhall all combined together?He's got more TD's and yards than all those guys combined in the NFL......right?

You can see my point I hope. When Turner was stuck behind Tomlinson, if you saw his games you saw how talented he was. At times, it looks as if the offense didn't skip a beat, making people think he could be very good as a starter.

He could fall flat on his face, it is a possibility but I think saying what he's proven compared to Norwood so far in their careers really isn't relevant to how good he'll be this year in Atlanta, just like we know Tatum Bell probably isn't is good as anyone of those guys I mentioned above even though he's done more so far.

I think you are bending my words and that's obviously not what I meant. They both were backup RBs who had similar touches. Norwood did more in a much worse situation.

 

[Buffaloes]

I think Atl is looking to go with a power running game and wanted a bigger back. I'm sure Norwood will be used quite a bit as change of pace and 3rd down back.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I suppose my question, then, is why did Atlanta do that? Fantasy football aside, why does Atlanta think Turner is so much more valuable than Norwood?

It's not just Atlanta. According to reports, at least a few teams flirted with giving up a first round pick for Turner last year. He's a rare specimen who is built thick and low to the ground, but still has a fifth gear which means he can score from anywhere on the field (see: IND/SD 2005). Turner is tough to bring down on first contact and he can absorb the punishment to wear out a defense and then break their back in the 4th quarter. He also has little NFL mileage on his tires, so they know they are going to get his best years. The Falcons wanted to establish a power running game, and Turner fit the mold of the back they wanted. He also demonstrated class and a team first mentality when he was backing up LT, which can't hurt when it's time to tip the scales yes or no on pursuing a player in free agency.Norwood is a valuable change of pace guy, both as a receiver and running the ball, but there have been a few injuries and problems with his pass protection. I actually think he's underrated as an inside runner despite his thin lower legs, but he just doesn't seem built to carry the load even though he's not afraid to stick his nose in there.

 

[Banger]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

They had Norwood on the roster, if they were happy with what he brought to the table they wouldn't have signed Turner at the beginning of FA. If Norwood is so good why don't any of his coach's seem to know it? He's a good situational runner with a good ypc but running him as a full time RB he wouldn't be as effective. Think Tatum Bell. I'm not joking, some guys are better running fresh in certain situations and the more carries you give them the less effective they are.

To me, if a guy has had an opportunity to take the job for a couple years and doesn't do it it throws up all kinds of flags. That's why I avoided Norwood/D. Williams last year and why I'll avoid Maroney this year.

 

[PahtyTom]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

Turner was running against beaten down teams and defenses with nothing to play for some of the time. It can go either way. After what Norwood did last year, in that situation in that offense behind that O-line...Turner has had it tougher? Highly unlikely.

 

[Wildman]

I think it's mainly about the runner's fit within the coach's philosophy. Jerious Norwood is a quick-hitting, elusive back with plenty of speed and open field skill. Although he is capable of carrying the ball more than he has, he is not a physical runner. Michael Turner is a yards after contact runner and he will wear down a defense with his physical style of play.

The Falcons coach is looking for a back that will grind out the tough yards, gain yardage after contact, and wear down the defense with physical play. Turner has demonstrated he is this kind of back. This is why the questions you are asking involving the stats don't really give you the answer. Whether or not the perception is valid about Norwood's lack of ability to carry the load remains to be seen. People said that for years about Brian Westbrook before the Eagles ever really tried it. Turner does give the Falcons the luxury of continuing to find out what Norwood can do, but it's clear Turner's physical play fits with their new philosophy.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

comparing their stats is not fair especially when trying to figure out what it would mean if one of them was now going to be a primary back....

 

[PahtyTom]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

They had Norwood on the roster, if they were happy with what he brought to the table they wouldn't have signed Turner at the beginning of FA. If Norwood is so good why don't any of his coach's seem to know it? He's a good situational runner with a good ypc but running him as a full time RB he wouldn't be as effective. Think Tatum Bell. I'm not joking, some guys are better running fresh in certain situations and the more carries you give them the less effective they are.

To me, if a guy has had an opportunity to take the job for a couple years and doesn't do it it throws up all kinds of flags. That's why I avoided Norwood/D. Williams last year and why I'll avoid Maroney this year.

For the record I am not saying that Turner isn't going to get more carries than Norwood. I'm just saying I don't think that there is any basis to say that he is better than Norwood. It was an unnecessary signing by Atlanta IMO, especially where they are as a franchise right now. Not to mention the depth in this year's NFL draft. They could have taken a guy like Tashard Choice in the later rounds if they wanted, or someone even sooner than that. Just a bad move IMO.

 

[tomarken]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

Turner has proven nothing more than Norwood thus far in his career. And, I too would agree that Norwood has actually proven more.

At this point in his career, would you say that Tatum Bell has proven more than Darren McFadden, Johnathon Stewart, Felix Jones and Mendenhall all combined together?He's got more TD's and yards than all those guys combined in the NFL......right?

You can see my point I hope. When Turner was stuck behind Tomlinson, if you saw his games you saw how talented he was. At times, it looks as if the offense didn't skip a beat, making people think he could be very good as a starter.

He could fall flat on his face, it is a possibility but I think saying what he's proven compared to Norwood so far in their careers really isn't relevant to how good he'll be this year in Atlanta, just like we know Tatum Bell probably isn't is good as anyone of those guys I mentioned above even though he's done more so far.

Tatum Bell has 586 career touches. That analogy is pointless. Give those other guys 580 touches and then we can compare.My point is that Norwood has produced more with the same number of touches as Turner.

Re: the different running styles points that everyone is making, that's valid I suppose. But is Turner really going to touch the ball 180 more times than Norwood? Why isn't anyone seeing more of a 60/40 split where Turner gets maybe 210 touches and Norwood gets 150? I just don't see how Turner has "earned" 290 touches or so, as the FBG projections seem to have him at.

 

[the UFFRM]

Norwood has sticks for legs.

 

[zamboni]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

Turner was running against beaten down teams and defenses with nothing to play for some of the time. It can go either way. After what Norwood did last year, in that situation in that offense behind that O-line...Turner has had it tougher? Highly unlikely.

Incorrect. I think Maurile and/or David Yudkin pointed out on several occasions that, statistically,Turner was just as successful - if not more so - early in the games as in the 4th quarter. Far from just a mop-up guy.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

1. The contract that has been mentioned.2. Size - Turner = 5'10 240 and fast. Norwood = 6'0 200. From those stats alone, Turner would logically be able to handle a larger load.3. Norwood, for explosive as he's shown himself to be, has been dinged up quite frequently in limited work. The notion of depending on him to be the primary ball carrier has alot of drawbacks.4. Mularkey (Falcons OC) has stated that rookies have a tendency to look to bounce plays outside. While this does not necessarily realte to Norwood who is underrated between the tackles runner, it's not his bread and butter. That said, the Falcons were looking for an RB who would have faith in the hole that would develop between the tackles. They feel Turner is that guy.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Lots of players get things handed not because they have earned them on the playing field but because they've earned them through paydays.

The coaching staff and Falcons for whatever reason decided Turner could be a guy they could build a team around.

 

[wino1618]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

Turner was running against beaten down teams and defenses with nothing to play for some of the time. It can go either way. After what Norwood did last year, in that situation in that offense behind that O-line...Turner has had it tougher? Highly unlikely.

Incorrect. I think Maurile and/or David Yudkin pointed out on several occasions that, statistically,Turner was just as successful - if not more so - early in the games as in the 4th quarter. Far from just a mop-up guy.

I didn't mean to imply that Turner was a mop-up guy in San Diego. Well, he had that tole because of Tomlinson, but his talent is more than that of a mop-up guy. I've had LT in a keeper league sincce 2003 and as a result, watched just about every Chargers games the last 5 years on the dish. Turner was effective early in games, but only got 1 or 2 touches. The bulk of his playing time was in vanilla clock-killing situations, but he was reliable when it mattered. Another thing about running in the 4th quarter with the lead is that you're often in there with backup blockers, fresh defenders, and the most basic of plays. This is the NFL, and defenders don't "quit" in the 4th quarter, or they're looking for work the next week.

 

[Banger]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

They had Norwood on the roster, if they were happy with what he brought to the table they wouldn't have signed Turner at the beginning of FA. If Norwood is so good why don't any of his coach's seem to know it? He's a good situational runner with a good ypc but running him as a full time RB he wouldn't be as effective. Think Tatum Bell. I'm not joking, some guys are better running fresh in certain situations and the more carries you give them the less effective they are.

To me, if a guy has had an opportunity to take the job for a couple years and doesn't do it it throws up all kinds of flags. That's why I avoided Norwood/D. Williams last year and why I'll avoid Maroney this year.

For the record I am not saying that Turner isn't going to get more carries than Norwood. I'm just saying I don't think that there is any basis to say that he is better than Norwood. It was an unnecessary signing by Atlanta IMO, especially where they are as a franchise right now. Not to mention the depth in this year's NFL draft. They could have taken a guy like Tashard Choice in the later rounds if they wanted, or someone even sooner than that. Just a bad move IMO.

We, at least I, only can scratch the surface on what makes a good RB. Yes, we can look at stats and use a calculator to multiply ypc X 250 and say wow, he'd be top 5 if they just gave him the ball more. There's much more to the game than you or I would ever know.. how are his work habits? how often is he dealing with nagging injuries? how many times do they need to correct the same error over and over? can he memorize the play book? is he in good shape? can he only excel in certain plays? can he pass block? etc... I trust what I hear/see from coachs and don't try to put my stamp on situations because what I think really doesn't matter, it's what the coach's think. So far, despite having what appears to be good talent and putting up a good ypc why can't he expand his role? It hasn't been just one coach, it's been 3. All have apparently seen the same issue. If there was a point and time for Norwood to put his stamp on a season and take over it was last year when Dunn was coming off a back injury, he had a terrible ypc and the team was in shambles. He still couldn't get a sniff and then early in FA they go and get Turner. That tells me all I need to know. If he works out great for him but I've seen this situation 100 times before and it usually results in a Tatum Bell type ending....

 

[Q-Bert]

The short answer is that people who are paid to evaluate the talent of various college and NFL players decided that Michael Turner was worth a lot more money than Jerrious Norwood. The people who decided that work for the franchise that employs both players. When the season ended and Warrick Dunn was no longer a member of the Atlanta Falcons the franchise had a decision to make. They could make Norwood their starter and sign/draft a cheap backup/change of pace guy to team him with, the could keep Norwood in his current role and spend a high draft pick on a starter, or they could keep Norwood in his current role and spend a load of cash on a free agent. They decided on the last option.

If I remember right Chase Stuart said something like:

Jerrious Norwood was a backup to Warrick Dunn last year so we know the Falcons don't think he is one of the top 20-30 or so running backs in the league.

Michael Turner was a backup to LaDanian Tomlinson last year so we know the Chargers don't think he is the best running back in the league.

 

[PahtyTom]

Some people who make personnel decisions in the NFL are bad at it. This could be the case in Atlanta. We will see.

 

[sholditch]

six year, $34.5 million contract ($15 million guaranteed)

Fair enough. That would indicate, fantasy-wise, that Turner will be given the bulk of the work.I suppose my question, then, is why did Atlanta do that? Fantasy football aside, why does Atlanta think Turner is so much more valuable than Norwood?

Mularkey, who's installing a power running game that will feature Michael Turner and Jerious Norwood, was impressed with the full contact.Answer your question?

 

[mdog1967]

Turner is built to be an every down back. Norwood is more like a R.Bush/Ahmad Bradshaw. he's the lightning to Turner's thunder. so far the consensus is Turner will get the lions share of the carries.Norwood is fast, but he's got sticks for legs. he's not a 20 carry/game type guy.oh yea, and the contract.

Bradshaw? What?Norwood has thinner legs than most WR's in the NFL.

 

[Hackers]

There is a hidden stat that isn't really tracked... INJURIES... I agree that Norwood could be the guy but being a Norwood owner he seems to be injured more than most backs... It could be that they are looking at RBBC which is thunder/lightening being seen in the thread but I think they may be looking at 2 good backs and they cant go into the season with a back that is prone to injury.

They do have complementary tools so when you have both you can "win" (laughingly) but if you are resorted to just 1 of the 2 atleast you have a quality back to walk on the field and ... get a "win"

 

[zed2283]

I thought of something while reading this thread... what sort of history is there for a #2 RB with supposed #1 credentials going to another team and becoming a #1? Has it been successful? Bust?

I can only think of two such instances off the top of my head: L.Jordan (NYJ to Oak) and A.Green (Sea to G.B.)

ETA: maybe this should be a separate topic.

 

[Fighting Noles]

I thought of something while reading this thread... what sort of history is there for a #2 RB with supposed #1 credentials going to another team and becoming a #1? Has it been successful? Bust?I can only think of two such instances off the top of my head: L.Jordan (NYJ to Oak) and A.Green (Sea to G.B.)ETA: maybe this should be a separate topic.

Priest Holmes from Balt. to the Chiefs. Chester Taylor put up good #'s in Minny, after leaving Balt., before AP arrived.Droughns had a decent year in Clev. after leaving Denver. Travis Henry was behind McGahee in Buff. & then was decent in Tenn. (& should have been good in Denv. if not for all the offfield issues)....

 

[H8fulHuck]

How exactly was it decided that Michael Turner is going to be so much more valuable than Jerious Norwood this season? Why exactly is he slated to be the starter in Atlanta, and Norwood is once again relegated to a smallish supporting role?

Turner's ADP is around RB19 (38th overall), while Norwood's ADP is around RB40 (115th overall), so obviously the fantasy community agrees. Without giving away FBG subscriber content, Turner's ranking and projections are far higher than Norwood's.

Now, I've only seen Michael Turner a few times, and he looked really fast. I've also seen Norwood a few times, and he looked really fast as well.

Let's compare their career numbers:

Michael Turner (26 years old, 4 years experience, 58 games)

228 carries, 1257 yards (5.5 ypc)

11 receptions, 71 yards (6.5 ypr)

6 TD's

Jerious Norwood (25 years old, 2 years experience, 29 games)

201 carries, 1248 yards (6.2 ypc)

40 receptions, 379 yards (9.5 ypr)

3 TD's

So, in exactly half the playing time, Norwood has the same number of touches (241 to 239), 300 more yards from scrimmage, and significantly higher rushing and receiving averages. And he did that on Atlanta, while Turner racked up his stats in San Diego.

Norwood was drafted two rounds higher coming out of college, and had a faster time at the combine (4.33 to Turner's 4.49).

Like I said, I haven't seen either of them too much, and I haven't kept up with much during this offseason, so help me out. What am I missing?

Has the Falcons organization officially stated that Turner is the clear-cut starter and Norwood will have a much smaller role? If so, why? If not, why has the fantasy community assumed that Turner is so much better than Norwood?

Pro Football Prospectus asked the same question and wonder why they paid so much for Turner. I guess we will find out this season.

 

[Sinrman]

If the Falcons can show any sort of passing game, and the O-line is so porous, the Turner/Norwood 1-2 punch could possibly be a very undervalued duo. I think they could possibly do extremely well this year...

 

[Enraged Nerfball]

Turner was stuck behind one of the best RB's ever.......

I don't see how that's relevant though. Turner and Norwood have, oddly enough, had almost the same exact NFL workload (241 touches to 239). Norwood has performed better both rushing and receiving, and he was on a an offense that was significantly worse. Whether or not Turner was "stuck" behind Tomlinson doesn't mean much to me. The fact is, when he did get on the field, he has not performed as well as Norwood has.

The number of those touches may be he same, but the nature of those touches is drastically different. Norwood was a backup/handcuff to Dunn, so he was in games in a variety of situations and formations to spell Dunn for a series or be a change-of-pace back the last 2 years. Turner has, almost exclusively, been in games in one situation: SD is up big and running out the clock. He has spelled LT on a drive or two now and then, but mostly he's been in the game when SD was being very vanilla, not running screens, draws or play action. He is also more of a between-the-tackles runner, and that fits OC Mularkey's system.

They had Norwood on the roster, if they were happy with what he brought to the table they wouldn't have signed Turner at the beginning of FA. If Norwood is so good why don't any of his coach's seem to know it? He's a good situational runner with a good ypc but running him as a full time RB he wouldn't be as effective. Think Tatum Bell. I'm not joking, some guys are better running fresh in certain situations and the more carries you give them the less effective they are.

To me, if a guy has had an opportunity to take the job for a couple years and doesn't do it it throws up all kinds of flags. That's why I avoided Norwood/D. Williams last year and why I'll avoid Maroney this year.

For the record I am not saying that Turner isn't going to get more carries than Norwood. I'm just saying I don't think that there is any basis to say that he is better than Norwood. It was an unnecessary signing by Atlanta IMO, especially where they are as a franchise right now. Not to mention the depth in this year's NFL draft. They could have taken a guy like Tashard Choice in the later rounds if they wanted, or someone even sooner than that. Just a bad move IMO.

We, at least I, only can scratch the surface on what makes a good RB. Yes, we can look at stats and use a calculator to multiply ypc X 250 and say wow, he'd be top 5 if they just gave him the ball more. There's much more to the game than you or I would ever know.. how are his work habits? how often is he dealing with nagging injuries? how many times do they need to correct the same error over and over? can he memorize the play book? is he in good shape? can he only excel in certain plays? can he pass block? etc... I trust what I hear/see from coachs and don't try to put my stamp on situations because what I think really doesn't matter, it's what the coach's think. So far, despite having what appears to be good talent and putting up a good ypc why can't he expand his role? It hasn't been just one coach, it's been 3. All have apparently seen the same issue. If there was a point and time for Norwood to put his stamp on a season and take over it was last year when Dunn was coming off a back injury, he had a terrible ypc and the team was in shambles. He still couldn't get a sniff and then early in FA they go and get Turner. That tells me all I need to know. If he works out great for him but I've seen this situation 100 times before and it usually results in a Tatum Bell type ending....

So far, despite having what appears to be good talent and putting up a good ypc why can't he expand his role? It hasn't been just one coach, it's been 3. All have apparently seen the same issue.

This is the most compeling argument I believe. It negates the point that Norwood has been a victim of being in the wrong system and shows over three coaches and offensive philosophies Norwood was passed over all three times. Not very likely they all made the same mistake.

 

[tomarken]

So far, despite having what appears to be good talent and putting up a good ypc why can't he expand his role? It hasn't been just one coach, it's been 3. All have apparently seen the same issue.

This is the most compeling argument I believe. It negates the point that Norwood has been a victim of being in the wrong system and shows over three coaches and offensive philosophies Norwood was passed over all three times. Not very likely they all made the same mistake.

Actually I think this is a seriously flawed line of thinking. It's not like Norwood's been in the league for ten years, and under three different coaching tenures he has never produced. The guy's been in the league for two years.More interesting is the idea that he's been "passed over all three times". Take a look at it.Year 1: Coach Mora. Dunn rushes for 130+ yards in three of the first five games, as Atlanta jumps out to a 5-2 start. Because of the team's success and Dunn's production, there is no need to rush Norwood into a featured role. Norwood doesn't get more than 10 carries all but one game, although he produced relatively well in his limited action, including two games over 100 yards. There was no expectation for Norwood to come in and take over for Dunn right away, so his limited use is not evidence of him being "passed over" by Mora. He just had a small role. There are countless examples of rookie RB's who weren't used their rookie year - it had nothing to do with a lack of talent and it didn't preclude them from going on to be very successful. Year 2, part A: Coach Petrino. In the unmitigated disaster that was the 2007 Falcons, Petrino clearly misused Norwood. If you're a FBG subscriber, go back and read the '07 game summaries. Norwood was clearly the more productive back week in and week out and yet he was consistently underutilized. Year 2, part B: Coach Thomas. This is where the "three coaches" theory fails. When Thomas took over the club, Norwood and Dunn began splitting carries more evenly. Norwood gained more yards from scrimmage than Dunn in each of those final three games.When you really look at it, I think only one coach (Petrino) "passed over" Norwood. In any case, now the Falcons are under their fourth head coach in the past 18 months or so, so the way Norwood has been used in the past is not exactly important - other than to serve as a lesson to the new coaching staff. Presumably they have seen the way Norwood has performed the past two years in his limited time, and maybe they will find a bigger piece of the offense for him. I just think it's ridiculous for the Falcons (and fantasy owners) to assume that Turner will be their 280 carry back and Norwood will remain around 100 touches. With more and more teams going with a 1-2 punch at RB I really don't see that kind of drastic difference in their workloads. In a PPR league I'm in, Turner went in the 3rd round, and I just grabbed Norwood in the 11th. Am I the only one that thinks that's kind of crazy?

 

[zed2283]

I thought of something while reading this thread... what sort of history is there for a #2 RB with supposed #1 credentials going to another team and becoming a #1? Has it been successful? Bust?I can only think of two such instances off the top of my head: L.Jordan (NYJ to Oak) and A.Green (Sea to G.B.)ETA: maybe this should be a separate topic.

Priest Holmes from Balt. to the Chiefs. Chester Taylor put up good #'s in Minny, after leaving Balt., before AP arrived.Droughns had a decent year in Clev. after leaving Denver. Travis Henry was behind McGahee in Buff. & then was decent in Tenn. (& should have been good in Denv. if not for all the offfield issues)....

That's not exactly what I meant. I'm talking about guys that the overall consensus was "that guy should be starting somewhere" but they were stuck behind another good back. I don't count T.Henry because he was already the starter before McGahee got there.Maybe A.Green doesn't fit either. Maybe I'm the only one who thought he should be starting.

 

[Enraged Nerfball]

So far, despite having what appears to be good talent and putting up a good ypc why can't he expand his role? It hasn't been just one coach, it's been 3. All have apparently seen the same issue.

This is the most compeling argument I believe. It negates the point that Norwood has been a victim of being in the wrong system and shows over three coaches and offensive philosophies Norwood was passed over all three times. Not very likely they all made the same mistake.

Actually I think this is a seriously flawed line of thinking. It's not like Norwood's been in the league for ten years, and under three different coaching tenures he has never produced. The guy's been in the league for two years.More interesting is the idea that he's been "passed over all three times". Take a look at it.Year 1: Coach Mora. Dunn rushes for 130+ yards in three of the first five games, as Atlanta jumps out to a 5-2 start. Because of the team's success and Dunn's production, there is no need to rush Norwood into a featured role. Norwood doesn't get more than 10 carries all but one game, although he produced relatively well in his limited action, including two games over 100 yards. There was no expectation for Norwood to come in and take over for Dunn right away, so his limited use is not evidence of him being "passed over" by Mora. He just had a small role. There are countless examples of rookie RB's who weren't used their rookie year - it had nothing to do with a lack of talent and it didn't preclude them from going on to be very successful. Year 2, part A: Coach Petrino. In the unmitigated disaster that was the 2007 Falcons, Petrino clearly misused Norwood. If you're a FBG subscriber, go back and read the '07 game summaries. Norwood was clearly the more productive back week in and week out and yet he was consistently underutilized. Year 2, part B: Coach Thomas. This is where the "three coaches" theory fails. When Thomas took over the club, Norwood and Dunn began splitting carries more evenly. Norwood gained more yards from scrimmage than Dunn in each of those final three games.When you really look at it, I think only one coach (Petrino) "passed over" Norwood. In any case, now the Falcons are under their fourth head coach in the past 18 months or so, so the way Norwood has been used in the past is not exactly important - other than to serve as a lesson to the new coaching staff. Presumably they have seen the way Norwood has performed the past two years in his limited time, and maybe they will find a bigger piece of the offense for him. I just think it's ridiculous for the Falcons (and fantasy owners) to assume that Turner will be their 280 carry back and Norwood will remain around 100 touches. With more and more teams going with a 1-2 punch at RB I really don't see that kind of drastic difference in their workloads. In a PPR league I'm in, Turner went in the 3rd round, and I just grabbed Norwood in the 11th. Am I the only one that thinks that's kind of crazy?

Oops. Four coaches then. Forgot about the interim. This makes it even worse. Coach Smith invested in bringing in the top free agent prize at RB. Not a very strong endorsement of Norwood. I would count that as a pass over. Listen, I understand your point but you really need to look at history here IMO. I don't think grabbing Turner in the 3rd is bad value for what seems to be pretty clear evidence of how he will be used. Most everything I've seen puts him in the position of being the bell cow for this team, and he is absolutely built for that use. That should include most if not all goal line touches. I also think taking Norwood in the 11th in a PPR format is good value and a smart pick in a 12 team league. Norwood was the 42 and 43 ranked RB at the end of last year in the two PPR leagues I played in. 2006 was almost identical. Coincidentally that's also right around his ADP for RB's. I think the absolute ceiling for him is mid 30's unless Turner gets hurt.

 

[Banger]

So far, despite having what appears to be good talent and putting up a good ypc why can't he expand his role? It hasn't been just one coach, it's been 3. All have apparently seen the same issue.

This is the most compeling argument I believe. It negates the point that Norwood has been a victim of being in the wrong system and shows over three coaches and offensive philosophies Norwood was passed over all three times. Not very likely they all made the same mistake.

Actually I think this is a seriously flawed line of thinking. It's not like Norwood's been in the league for ten years, and under three different coaching tenures he has never produced. The guy's been in the league for two years.More interesting is the idea that he's been "passed over all three times". Take a look at it.Year 1: Coach Mora. Dunn rushes for 130+ yards in three of the first five games, as Atlanta jumps out to a 5-2 start. Because of the team's success and Dunn's production, there is no need to rush Norwood into a featured role. Norwood doesn't get more than 10 carries all but one game, although he produced relatively well in his limited action, including two games over 100 yards. There was no expectation for Norwood to come in and take over for Dunn right away, so his limited use is not evidence of him being "passed over" by Mora. He just had a small role. There are countless examples of rookie RB's who weren't used their rookie year - it had nothing to do with a lack of talent and it didn't preclude them from going on to be very successful. Year 2, part A: Coach Petrino. In the unmitigated disaster that was the 2007 Falcons, Petrino clearly misused Norwood. If you're a FBG subscriber, go back and read the '07 game summaries. Norwood was clearly the more productive back week in and week out and yet he was consistently underutilized. Year 2, part B: Coach Thomas. This is where the "three coaches" theory fails. When Thomas took over the club, Norwood and Dunn began splitting carries more evenly. Norwood gained more yards from scrimmage than Dunn in each of those final three games.When you really look at it, I think only one coach (Petrino) "passed over" Norwood. In any case, now the Falcons are under their fourth head coach in the past 18 months or so, so the way Norwood has been used in the past is not exactly important - other than to serve as a lesson to the new coaching staff. Presumably they have seen the way Norwood has performed the past two years in his limited time, and maybe they will find a bigger piece of the offense for him. I just think it's ridiculous for the Falcons (and fantasy owners) to assume that Turner will be their 280 carry back and Norwood will remain around 100 touches. With more and more teams going with a 1-2 punch at RB I really don't see that kind of drastic difference in their workloads. In a PPR league I'm in, Turner went in the 3rd round, and I just grabbed Norwood in the 11th. Am I the only one that thinks that's kind of crazy?

I don't think it's flawed. Guys either have it or they don't and coach's are going to put the players on the field that they think will give them the best chance to win. There aren't many late bloomers when it comes to the RB position. Teams will always look within before going out and spending big money on FA's. If they think they may have a good player on their hands they may keep the guy they like and supplement him with a cheaper FA as insurance or draft a mid round player. That certainly wasn't the case this offseason. All that stuff about the different staffs that you wrote about is interesting but it's the past and this is the present. The new present coach's which are really the only one that matters with regard to Norwood, had what seems to be a fast, talented guy with a gaudy YPC under contract yet on the 1st few days of FA go out and grab a workhorse RB and pay him a boatload. You can try to paint it however you want and not read the writing on wall but IMO Turner will be the workhorse and Norwood will play the same role he's played effectively for the last few years. I can't think of an example where a team signed a RB as FA and gave them a boat load only to have them split carries. Let me ask you this, if Norwood is so good why won't any of his 4 coach's increase his role? Is it a conspiracy? Like I said, it doesn't matter what you think of his talent or I think of his talent, it matters what the coach's think of him. You're rarely going to hear a coach come out and say "player A is only good in this role so that's strictly how we're going to use him" so you have to look for the anecdotal evidence (quotes, plays they're running in TC, who's running with 1st/2nd team, game logs, etc.). The evidence points to an obvious conclusion IMO and those that don't see it don't want to see it.

 

[T Bell]

Like I said, I haven't seen either of them too much, and I haven't kept up with much during this offseason, so help me out. What am I missing?

Skinny legs.