Value of Betts long term (1 Viewer)

[redman]

I've stated pretty flatly my belief that Betts is going to be a Redskin this year. Gibbs has convinced me of his sincerity in that regard, and I note that Betts just signed a new contract that was consciously a bit below market specifically to stay with the team. Yes, all's fair in love, war and NFL contracts, but I just don't see them betraying him on that given how much he showed last year and the importance of having 2 RB's in the league nowadays.

But what about a year from now? There are some who suspect Gibbs will depart after this coming season, though Gibbs himself has maintained he'll serve out his five year contract (this is year four). In one year, the 'Skins will have kept their word to Betts by having kept him around as he wanted, and they'll have one more year to evaluate Portis' long term health prospects. Betts may in a year become either the Redskins #1 RB, or more likely be traded with his still-cap friendly contract to another team.

Most people I'd suspect believe that Michael Turner is a better runner, and that's probably true. Betts outclasses Turner and most RB's with his receiving skills, though, and they're comparable ages. Why wouldn't Betts have dynasty value similar to Turner, especially in PPR leagues?

 

[belljr]

I would say that they have similar value.

Portis has not stayed healthy for 2 seasons now and Betts should still contribute with a healthy Portis.

The question is what value is that. A late 2nd pick in a rookie draft? A second tier WR? That's the problem I'm having is currently trying to figure what Turner and/or Betts are worth.

 

[salmonstud]

Betts will be 28 before the start of the regular season. I would say his chances of being a valuable dynasty commodity are drying up. I fully expect Washington to retain him this year at his cheap salary. By the time they might look to move him he will be 29 or 30. He could be a valuable starter for 1-2 years if traded. I can see him being a 3rd down back at age 30/31 with his receiving skills. As long as he is in the backfield with a Portis type player.....he will have very nominal value. I would say his trade value is equivalent to WR 20 in dynasty formats in standard starting/scoring leagues.

 

[Zoomanji]

Betts probably isn't worth much unless Portis gets hurt. The structure of both his and Portis' contracts make them virtually untrade-able with Wash's cap problems.

Additionally Betts looks like he wants to be 2nd string. Why else would he have resigned in Wash.

That said, unless you own Portis, Betts isn't worth more than a 2nd tier WR. Turner will be a starter next year if not this year for some team and is worth much more but since he is still 2nd string, I wouldn't give much to get him.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

 

[billyjoe]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Billy Joe,I have no idea where your Turner hatred comes from. The predictions of Turner's success are not based on his YPC, they are based on the talent and ability he has consistently displayed while compiling that YPC. You will probably have a lot of opportunities to make this argument because the number of people that are convinced that Turner has special talent is large, and will continue to grow.

 

[Banger]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Turner is much more talented than Betts. Since when is 1/2 a dozen games proven?

 

[WhoDat]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

Where there is smoke there is fire and you are right. It does not make sense. Actually, it does not make cent$ is probably closer to the truth. Why would an agent of sound mind and body direct his client to sign a new contract prior to testing what was predicted to be a rich FA period? That is the question that I keep turning over in regards to Betts and I cannot come up with a viable answer.

Unless Betts' just really loves his situation with the Skins; his agent is passive; Portis is not as healthy as one was to believe; Gibbs wanted and needed a healthy back-up and promises of damn near equal playing time were made inking that deal before the FA period made no sense. I cannot see an agent of sound mind directing his client to take that contract before testing the market.

On the contrary since when are NFL players especially RB happy playing second fiddle; agents passive; Portis 100% healthy; and coaches 100% truthful about intentions when trying to keep a player on his team.

No agent would have his client take that deal unless something was exchanged in confidence between all parties involved. This just does not add up. From a strict football operations, dollars & cents standpoint 2+2 is not making 4 in regards to Betts' contract.

I think Betts carries the football more often than not this season with the Skins or with another franchise.

 

[billyjoe]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Turner is much more talented than Betts. Since when is 1/2 a dozen games proven?

Since when is 0 games proven? Turner has more talent because? Where he was drafted?

Yeah Chris Perry has talent out the ###, big deal. Ron Dayne was a monster in college, and far more talent then Turner. Big deal. Betts started, and played at an elite level.

Turner has not started. Is not proven. And I'm still not sure where this "elite talent" comes from. Where he was drafted or college? Because if we go by NFL production, Betts has more "talent". Or do you get "talent" by spot duty and being a backup. Starting won't get you "elite talent"?

 

[kevinray]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Turner is much more talented than Betts. Since when is 1/2 a dozen games proven?

Since when is 0 games proven? Turner has more talent because? Where he was drafted?

Yeah Chris Perry has talent out the ###, big deal. Ron Dayne was a monster in college, and far more talent then Turner. Big deal. Betts started, and played at an elite level.

Turner has not started. Is not proven. And I'm still not sure where this "elite talent" comes from. Where he was drafted or college? Because if we go by NFL production, Betts has more "talent". Or do you get "talent" by spot duty and being a backup. Starting won't get you "elite talent"?

I welcome the pessimistic view of Turner because he's definitely hyped right now, but your comparisons are just bad. Betts may be skilled but he's locked up with the Redskins who have proven themselves willing to let players they've invested in sit and not produce (ex. T.J. Duckett). Betts has been with the Redskins for a while now and if we use your logic from the other Turner thread I ask "Why haven't the Redskins used him?" Betts

2002 Washington Redskins 11 0 65 307 4.7 27 1 4 13

2003 Washington Redskins 9 1 77 255 3.3 13 2 0 15

2004 Washington Redskins 16 1 90 371 4.1 27 1 2 19

2005 Washington Redskins 12 0 89 338 3.8 22 1 1 17

2006 Washington Redskins 16 9 245 1154 4.7 26 4 6 59

Turner

2004 San Diego Chargers 14 1 20 104 5.2 30 0 2 4

2005 San Diego Chargers 16 0 57 335 5.9 83 3 1 11

2006 San Diego Chargers 13 0 80 502 6.3 73 2 7 24

He was good when Portis was hurt but its by no means a given that he'll get significantly more carries then he did as a back up before, when his carries were very similar to Turners only Turners performance in a back up role was far superior. If Turner had signed a Betts type deal with the chargers this off-season then the buzz about him would pretty well stop, but he's going to have an opportunity to prove himself in 2008, unlike Betts whose now back where he started.

You can compare every unproven back to Perry and Dyane you want, there are lots of them, but if you wait till every guys proven before you like them then your not going to get good value in fantasy. Turners over-hyped, but he’s got a much better outlook then Betts.

 

[Banger]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Turner is much more talented than Betts. Since when is 1/2 a dozen games proven?

Since when is 0 games proven? Turner has more talent because? Where he was drafted?

Yeah Chris Perry has talent out the ###, big deal. Ron Dayne was a monster in college, and far more talent then Turner. Big deal. Betts started, and played at an elite level.

Turner has not started. Is not proven. And I'm still not sure where this "elite talent" comes from. Where he was drafted or college? Because if we go by NFL production, Betts has more "talent". Or do you get "talent" by spot duty and being a backup. Starting won't get you "elite talent"?

You have to watch him play, their ability isn't close IMO. LOL, Turner has not started and who's the starter there, oh some guy named Tomlinson. I never said he was elite but I know Betts is not. What did Betts do prior to this year? He's an average back that ran behind a good line last year.

 

[redman]

I welcome the pessimistic view of Turner because he's definitely hyped right now, but your comparisons are just bad. Betts may be skilled but he's locked up with the Redskins who have proven themselves willing to let players they've invested in sit and not produce (ex. T.J. Duckett). Betts has been with the Redskins for a while now and if we use your logic from the other Turner thread I ask "Why haven't the Redskins used him?"

Duckett's a lousy analogy. How can you possibly compare a player acquired in mid-August in response to a surprise injury in a pre-season game to Clinton Portis to either Turner's or Betts' situation? As for why Betts has not gotten a chance before, unfortunately for him, the first two years of his career were under Spurrier, and nobody looked good in that offense. Second, Gibbs himself has admitted that he didn't know what Betts could do and regrets not having used him more.

What everyone should know about Betts, and it does sound corny, is that he's just a humble guy who doesn't need to be the best paid or most famous guy out there. He likes the comraderie of that team and what the coaches do to lead it, and he likes working with Portis. Everyone jumps all over the argument that he has no ambition or that it reflects poorly upon his character or intelligence to have settled for less, but the truth is he's still making a huge amount of money and likes where he lives and what he does.

All of that comes from his mouth - I wish the press conference was still up on Redskins.com of Betts from right after the extension because you'd get a great idea of Betts the individual from that. The team loves him and respects him for his hard work and humility, which is why I'm convinced they won't screw him by trading him and his cap friendly contract now. He did right by them, so they'll do right by him.

Finally, I note that nobody has attempted to compare Turner's receiving skills to Betts', which IMHO is the great equalizer in this discussion.

 

[pretender]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

Where there is smoke there is fire and you are right. It does not make sense. Actually, it does not make cent$ is probably closer to the truth. Why would an agent of sound mind and body direct his client to sign a new contract prior to testing what was predicted to be a rich FA period? That is the question that I keep turning over in regards to Betts and I cannot come up with a viable answer.

Unless Betts' just really loves his situation with the Skins; his agent is passive; Portis is not as healthy as one was to believe; Gibbs wanted and needed a healthy back-up and promises of damn near equal playing time were made inking that deal before the FA period made no sense. I cannot see an agent of sound mind directing his client to take that contract before testing the market.

On the contrary since when are NFL players especially RB happy playing second fiddle; agents passive; Portis 100% healthy; and coaches 100% truthful about intentions when trying to keep a player on his team.

No agent would have his client take that deal unless something was exchanged in confidence between all parties involved. This just does not add up. From a strict football operations, dollars & cents standpoint 2+2 is not making 4 in regards to Betts' contract.

I think Betts carries the football more often than not this season with the Skins or with another franchise.

I read a rumor (sorry no link - can't remember where I read it) that Betts might go to the Packers. Just throwing that out there. It's the only rumor I have heard that he goes anywhere other than staying in Washington. But WhoDat is right - it doesn't make sense for him not to check out free agency. Only time will tell. As a packer fan I would love to see Betts in our backfield!Found it Fantasy Football Mastermind Blog

Packers Eyeing Betts?

The Journal Times reports there are whispers the Packers have some interest in RB Ladell Betts of the Washington Redskins. Betts, 27, had a pretty non-descript pro career until last season when he stared the last seven games for RB Clinton Portis, who had a fractured hand.

 

[kevinray]

I welcome the pessimistic view of Turner because he's definitely hyped right now, but your comparisons are just bad. Betts may be skilled but he's locked up with the Redskins who have proven themselves willing to let players they've invested in sit and not produce (ex. T.J. Duckett). Betts has been with the Redskins for a while now and if we use your logic from the other Turner thread I ask "Why haven't the Redskins used him?"

Duckett's a lousy analogy. How can you possibly compare a player acquired in mid-August in response to a surprise injury in a pre-season game to Clinton Portis to either Turner's or Betts' situation? As for why Betts has not gotten a chance before, unfortunately for him, the first two years of his career were under Spurrier, and nobody looked good in that offense. Second, Gibbs himself has admitted that he didn't know what Betts could do and regrets not having used him more.

What everyone should know about Betts, and it does sound corny, is that he's just a humble guy who doesn't need to be the best paid or most famous guy out there. He likes the comraderie of that team and what the coaches do to lead it, and he likes working with Portis. Everyone jumps all over the argument that he has no ambition or that it reflects poorly upon his character or intelligence to have settled for less, but the truth is he's still making a huge amount of money and likes where he lives and what he does.

All of that comes from his mouth - I wish the press conference was still up on Redskins.com of Betts from right after the extension because you'd get a great idea of Betts the individual from that. The team loves him and respects him for his hard work and humility, which is why I'm convinced they won't screw him by trading him and his cap friendly contract now. He did right by them, so they'll do right by him.

Finally, I note that nobody has attempted to compare Turner's receiving skills to Betts', which IMHO is the great equalizer in this discussion.

The Duckett example displays the fact that even though the redskins invest in players heavily (Randle El Big contract, Lloyd big contract, Duckett 2007 third-round draft pick) that does not necessarily equate to increased production or opportunity. They bench Lavar and his big contract, they spend high picks on Ramsey and Campbell and don't give them the same kind of opportunities that other teams would given the investments. What I'm trying to say that resigning Betts is not an indication on increased playing time. This is just how they work, they play the people they think give them the best opportunity to win each week, despite whose paid what or what they gave for who, and that’s the teams most redeeming quality.

I hadn't heard Gibbs comments but whether Betts can take time away from Portis still has to be seen as Gibbs has preferred a one back system if my memory serves correct.

Also Betts is the superior receiver to Turner but I'm not sure if we can gauge Turners talent in that respect quite yet as he's probably a much better runner then pass receiver and if your going to throw to the flats the Chargers would probably much rather have LT or Gates do the job. Betts is the better receiver but I think Turners lack of production in that regard is probably due to opportunity.

 

[redman]

I welcome the pessimistic view of Turner because he's definitely hyped right now, but your comparisons are just bad. Betts may be skilled but he's locked up with the Redskins who have proven themselves willing to let players they've invested in sit and not produce (ex. T.J. Duckett). Betts has been with the Redskins for a while now and if we use your logic from the other Turner thread I ask "Why haven't the Redskins used him?"

Duckett's a lousy analogy. How can you possibly compare a player acquired in mid-August in response to a surprise injury in a pre-season game to Clinton Portis to either Turner's or Betts' situation? As for why Betts has not gotten a chance before, unfortunately for him, the first two years of his career were under Spurrier, and nobody looked good in that offense. Second, Gibbs himself has admitted that he didn't know what Betts could do and regrets not having used him more.

What everyone should know about Betts, and it does sound corny, is that he's just a humble guy who doesn't need to be the best paid or most famous guy out there. He likes the comraderie of that team and what the coaches do to lead it, and he likes working with Portis. Everyone jumps all over the argument that he has no ambition or that it reflects poorly upon his character or intelligence to have settled for less, but the truth is he's still making a huge amount of money and likes where he lives and what he does.

All of that comes from his mouth - I wish the press conference was still up on Redskins.com of Betts from right after the extension because you'd get a great idea of Betts the individual from that. The team loves him and respects him for his hard work and humility, which is why I'm convinced they won't screw him by trading him and his cap friendly contract now. He did right by them, so they'll do right by him.

Finally, I note that nobody has attempted to compare Turner's receiving skills to Betts', which IMHO is the great equalizer in this discussion.

The Duckett example displays the fact that even though the redskins invest in players heavily (Randle El Big contract, Lloyd big contract, Duckett 2007 third-round draft pick) that does not necessarily equate to increased production or opportunity. They bench Lavar and his big contract, they spend high picks on Ramsey and Campbell and don't give them the same kind of opportunities that other teams would given the investments. What I'm trying to say that resigning Betts is not an indication on increased playing time. This is just how they work, they play the people they think give them the best opportunity to win each week, despite whose paid what or what they gave for who, and that’s the teams most redeeming quality.

I hadn't heard Gibbs comments but whether Betts can take time away from Portis still has to be seen as Gibbs has preferred a one back system if my memory serves correct.

Also Betts is the superior receiver to Turner but I'm not sure if we can gauge Turners talent in that respect quite yet as he's probably a much better runner then pass receiver and if your going to throw to the flats the Chargers would probably much rather have LT or Gates do the job. Betts is the better receiver but I think Turners lack of production in that regard is probably due to opportunity.

Fair enough. Based upon Gibbs' quotes just in the past few weeks he's impressed with how much of the league relies heavily upon two RB's instead of one RB and directly applied that thought process to comments about Betts. That doesn't amount to any particular committment, of course, but then what coach is going to commit to an actual percentage breakdown of work between two RB's in March?

 

[coolnerd]

Betts as a starter reminds me of the Droughns, Jordan, C. Taylor good for a year or two, but eventually a team will look for someone more dynamic. he does a lot of things well, but nothing great. From the perspective of a team, he is perfect as a high in end back-up, but a little frustrating for fantasy owners.

 

[redman]

Betts as a starter reminds me of the Droughns, Jordan, C. Taylor good for a year or two, but eventually a team will look for someone more dynamic. he does a lot of things well, but nothing great. From the perspective of a team, he is perfect as a high in end back-up, but a little frustrating for fantasy owners.

He may be a little more explosive in the open field than those guys and he certainly is a better receiver than Droughns, but otherwise the comparison is fair. Another guy who he's like is Rhodes. You can win with guys like him if you have a solid lineup elsewhere but he'll never be considered a franchise caliber RB, and the team will always have an eye out to upgrade. He certainly can't be expected to carry a team on his back during critical times the way that, for example, Portis did during the last five games in 2005 to help the team reach the playoffs.

 

[WhoDat]

I welcome the pessimistic view of Turner because he's definitely hyped right now, but your comparisons are just bad. Betts may be skilled but he's locked up with the Redskins who have proven themselves willing to let players they've invested in sit and not produce (ex. T.J. Duckett). Betts has been with the Redskins for a while now and if we use your logic from the other Turner thread I ask "Why haven't the Redskins used him?"

Duckett's a lousy analogy. How can you possibly compare a player acquired in mid-August in response to a surprise injury in a pre-season game to Clinton Portis to either Turner's or Betts' situation? As for why Betts has not gotten a chance before, unfortunately for him, the first two years of his career were under Spurrier, and nobody looked good in that offense. Second, Gibbs himself has admitted that he didn't know what Betts could do and regrets not having used him more.

What everyone should know about Betts, and it does sound corny, is that he's just a humble guy who doesn't need to be the best paid or most famous guy out there. He likes the comraderie of that team and what the coaches do to lead it, and he likes working with Portis. Everyone jumps all over the argument that he has no ambition or that it reflects poorly upon his character or intelligence to have settled for less, but the truth is he's still making a huge amount of money and likes where he lives and what he does.

All of that comes from his mouth - I wish the press conference was still up on Redskins.com of Betts from right after the extension because you'd get a great idea of Betts the individual from that. The team loves him and respects him for his hard work and humility, which is why I'm convinced they won't screw him by trading him and his cap friendly contract now. He did right by them, so they'll do right by him.

Finally, I note that nobody has attempted to compare Turner's receiving skills to Betts', which IMHO is the great equalizer in this discussion.

I have read he is a high character guy and likes his situation. Conversely, when you only have so much earning potential over the course of an NFL career, why sign a contract before testing FA? That is the one aspect of his situation that just does not add up. When you consider Betts age, it really starts to get cloudy. I cannot see a career consulting agent and or attorney not reminding Betts of each. That is what continues to leave me scratching my head. Character aside this might have been his last chance at a LARGE pay day and he did not even wait to see what the market might produce. My feeling is that either Betts was encouraged to stay by management because of the amount of playing time they expect him to have this season or the Skins will not start the season with both Betts and Portis in their backfield.

Otherwise, if Betts elected to stay just to stay, he is saint in cleats and the antithesis of the modern athlete, while having part of the Holy Trinity as representation.

 

[redman]

I welcome the pessimistic view of Turner because he's definitely hyped right now, but your comparisons are just bad. Betts may be skilled but he's locked up with the Redskins who have proven themselves willing to let players they've invested in sit and not produce (ex. T.J. Duckett). Betts has been with the Redskins for a while now and if we use your logic from the other Turner thread I ask "Why haven't the Redskins used him?"

Duckett's a lousy analogy. How can you possibly compare a player acquired in mid-August in response to a surprise injury in a pre-season game to Clinton Portis to either Turner's or Betts' situation? As for why Betts has not gotten a chance before, unfortunately for him, the first two years of his career were under Spurrier, and nobody looked good in that offense. Second, Gibbs himself has admitted that he didn't know what Betts could do and regrets not having used him more.

What everyone should know about Betts, and it does sound corny, is that he's just a humble guy who doesn't need to be the best paid or most famous guy out there. He likes the comraderie of that team and what the coaches do to lead it, and he likes working with Portis. Everyone jumps all over the argument that he has no ambition or that it reflects poorly upon his character or intelligence to have settled for less, but the truth is he's still making a huge amount of money and likes where he lives and what he does.

All of that comes from his mouth - I wish the press conference was still up on Redskins.com of Betts from right after the extension because you'd get a great idea of Betts the individual from that. The team loves him and respects him for his hard work and humility, which is why I'm convinced they won't screw him by trading him and his cap friendly contract now. He did right by them, so they'll do right by him.

Finally, I note that nobody has attempted to compare Turner's receiving skills to Betts', which IMHO is the great equalizer in this discussion.

I have read he is a high character guy and likes his situation. Conversely, when you only have so much earning potential over the course of an NFL career, why sign a contract before testing FA? That is the one aspect of his situation that just does not add up. When you consider Betts age, it really starts to get cloudy. I cannot see a career consulting agent and or attorney not reminding Betts of each. That is what continues to leave me scratching my head. Character aside this might have been his last chance at a LARGE pay day and he did not even wait to see what the market might produce. My feeling is that either Betts was encouraged to stay by management because of the amount of playing time they expect him to have this season or the Skins will not start the season with both Betts and Portis in their backfield.

Otherwise, if Betts elected to stay just to stay, he is saint in cleats and the antithesis of the modern athlete, while having part of the Holy Trinity as representation.

From what I understand about the man, prepare to genuflect.

 

[switz]

Turner is far better than Betts.... it's not even close.

 

[redman]

Turner is far better than Betts.... it's not even close.

To be clear here, I'm talking about fantasy value. What about in PPR leagues in 2008 and beyond?

 

[switz]

Turner is far better than Betts.... it's not even close.

To be clear here, I'm talking about fantasy value. What about in PPR leagues in 2008 and beyond?

Personal opinion from my take on information I have collected. Doesn't mean it's guaranteed, or that anyone else would agree.I don't see Betts landing enough of a role unless Portis misses an entire season, and the Redskins have ZERO other RBs for him to put up as many points as Turner in 2008 and later.Turner will be an every down starter for someone. Betts will always share the load for the majority of a season.

 

[kevinray]

Turner is far better than Betts.... it's not even close.

To be clear here, I'm talking about fantasy value. What about in PPR leagues in 2008 and beyond?

Betts is the better play this year definitely in PPR leagues. In redraft he'll hold some good value if he stays under the radar and Portis owners will have to grab him earlier then they'll want to. For dynasty purposes Turners still has far better upside until something changes, even in PPR leagues. His potential carries per year compared to Betts, in my opinion, beats him out even in PPR by a good margin.

 

[redman]

Turner is far better than Betts.... it's not even close.

To be clear here, I'm talking about fantasy value. What about in PPR leagues in 2008 and beyond?

Personal opinion from my take on information I have collected. Doesn't mean it's guaranteed, or that anyone else would agree.I don't see Betts landing enough of a role unless Portis misses an entire season, and the Redskins have ZERO other RBs for him to put up as many points as Turner in 2008 and later.Turner will be an every down starter for someone. Betts will always share the load for the majority of a season.

Fair enough. Now, if you assume that Betts is dealt in a trade of some kind (presumably with a contract extension from his new team) in 2008, what do you think of his value in PPR compared to Turner?

 

[Futeki]

Most people I'd suspect believe that Michael Turner is a better runner, and that's probably true. Betts outclasses Turner and most RB's with his receiving skills, though, and they're comparable ages. Why wouldn't Betts have dynasty value similar to Turner, especially in PPR leagues?

Flawed. Turner (Feb'82) is 2 1/2 years younger than Betts (Aug'79). That is half a career for most RBs.

 

[Kub]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Turner is much more talented than Betts. Since when is 1/2 a dozen games proven?

Since when is 0 games proven? Turner has more talent because? Where he was drafted?

Yeah Chris Perry has talent out the ###, big deal. Ron Dayne was a monster in college, and far more talent then Turner. Big deal. Betts started, and played at an elite level.

Turner has not started. Is not proven. And I'm still not sure where this "elite talent" comes from. Where he was drafted or college? Because if we go by NFL production, Betts has more "talent". Or do you get "talent" by spot duty and being a backup. Starting won't get you "elite talent"?

Quick poll:A) billy joe owns Ladell Betts in dynasty

B) billy joe traded Michael Turner in dynasty

C) billy joe is a Redskin homer

D) billy joe is an Iowa alumus

In all seriousness, all you have to do is watch both of them play to realize that Michael Turner is more talented than Ladell Betts. Turner has the explosiveness that elite backs have. Is it possible that he wouldn't be able to carry the load if given the opportunity? Absolutely, but I like his chances.

 

[billyjoe]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Turner is much more talented than Betts. Since when is 1/2 a dozen games proven?

Since when is 0 games proven? Turner has more talent because? Where he was drafted?

Yeah Chris Perry has talent out the ###, big deal. Ron Dayne was a monster in college, and far more talent then Turner. Big deal. Betts started, and played at an elite level.

Turner has not started. Is not proven. And I'm still not sure where this "elite talent" comes from. Where he was drafted or college? Because if we go by NFL production, Betts has more "talent". Or do you get "talent" by spot duty and being a backup. Starting won't get you "elite talent"?

Quick poll:A) billy joe owns Ladell Betts in dynasty

B) billy joe traded Michael Turner in dynasty

C) billy joe is a Redskin homer

D) billy joe is an Iowa alumus

In all seriousness, all you have to do is watch both of them play to realize that Michael Turner is more talented than Ladell Betts. Turner has the explosiveness that elite backs have. Is it possible that he wouldn't be able to carry the load if given the opportunity? Absolutely, but I like his chances.

Watch both of them play? *lol* Seriously, you didn't just pull the "watch them play" card. That's rich.I saw Betts play, and I saw

24 104

28 155

33 171

22 119

29 129

20 92

6 games, 156 carries, 770 yards. ( 18 catches for 166 yards). Just IMAGINE if he had elite explosiveness like Turner! Man Betts would then be REALLY good! He ONLY had 5 100 yard games in 6 starts to end the year. Not bad for someone lacking the explosiveness of an elite RB like Turner.

All this "Turner has elite skills" is 100% BS. If he was really about to dominate the league with his "skillz", why did Lorenzo Neal get more touches then Turner in the biggest game of the year? Reggie Bush sucks at running the ball, but the Saints found a watch to get him touches.

But Turner? He was a cheerleader for most of the game. I have a hard time buying the fact the guy is an elite offensive weapon, when his own team would rather call plays for the starting FB instead of Turner. Two RB sets? Split Turner out? Split LT out? Be creative in getting Turner touches? Nah... Let him be a cheerleader while we lose in the playoffs.

So either the Chargers are morons, or Turner isn't all that elite.

 

[Banger]

I like Betts because he's shown he can carry the load for an extended stint, but he's no Turner. Turner has the potential to be the kind of RB that will allow a team to feel like they have the position settled for the long haul. Betts is a good one or two year guy, but he's a Thomas Jones/Travis Henry type at best, a competent primary back, but not necessarily a true feature or franchise back. Turner might be.

All that aside, I think Betts is slightly undervalued in dynasty leagues.

I still can't figure out why Betts signed that deal. The amount and the timing both baffle me.

You're right, he's no Turner, he's actually PROVEN.And I disagree with Henry/Jones comparison. Betts dominated the 2nd half of 2006. Only LT/S-JAX/LJ were matching the numbers he was putting up.

1154 yards and 53 catches, and he only started 9 games. Turner hasn't even sniffed the kind of production/work load Betts has shown he can handle. Potential based on spot duty? How about potential based on NFL STARTS.

Turner is the classic, lets take his spot duty carries, and average it over a full work load. Holy #### HE'D GET 2400 YARDS! Like in fantasy NBA, you take those bench guys, 10 mins, 6.5 points, 3 rebounds, .7 blocks. Next year, they get a shot at starting. Man 40 mins, thats 26 points 12 rebounds and 3 blocks! He's the next Shaq! Let the hype machine roll.

Betts has proven he can be a top 10 RB given the chance. Turner has proven he can win over FF geeks without actually having to start a game. Not to mention his impressive 3 carries in the playoffs.

And since you toss out Henry/Jones for Betts, how about Chester Taylor/Jordan for Turner. If both were starting RBs week 1 in 2007, I'd draft Betts WAY before Turner, and its not even close. Give me the proven NFL commodity.

You take Turner who had LESS touches then the Charger FB in the biggest game of the year. Yeah Turner is a huge game breaker, just behind Neal it seems.

Turner is much more talented than Betts. Since when is 1/2 a dozen games proven?

Since when is 0 games proven? Turner has more talent because? Where he was drafted?

Yeah Chris Perry has talent out the ###, big deal. Ron Dayne was a monster in college, and far more talent then Turner. Big deal. Betts started, and played at an elite level.

Turner has not started. Is not proven. And I'm still not sure where this "elite talent" comes from. Where he was drafted or college? Because if we go by NFL production, Betts has more "talent". Or do you get "talent" by spot duty and being a backup. Starting won't get you "elite talent"?

Quick poll:A) billy joe owns Ladell Betts in dynasty

B) billy joe traded Michael Turner in dynasty

C) billy joe is a Redskin homer

D) billy joe is an Iowa alumus

In all seriousness, all you have to do is watch both of them play to realize that Michael Turner is more talented than Ladell Betts. Turner has the explosiveness that elite backs have. Is it possible that he wouldn't be able to carry the load if given the opportunity? Absolutely, but I like his chances.

Watch both of them play? *lol* Seriously, you didn't just pull the "watch them play" card. That's rich.I saw Betts play, and I saw

24 104

28 155

33 171

22 119

29 129

20 92

6 games, 156 carries, 770 yards. ( 18 catches for 166 yards). Just IMAGINE if he had elite explosiveness like Turner! Man Betts would then be REALLY good! He ONLY had 5 100 yard games in 6 starts to end the year. Not bad for someone lacking the explosiveness of an elite RB like Turner.

All this "Turner has elite skills" is 100% BS. If he was really about to dominate the league with his "skillz", why did Lorenzo Neal get more touches then Turner in the biggest game of the year? Reggie Bush sucks at running the ball, but the Saints found a watch to get him touches.

But Turner? He was a cheerleader for most of the game. I have a hard time buying the fact the guy is an elite offensive weapon, when his own team would rather call plays for the starting FB instead of Turner. Two RB sets? Split Turner out? Split LT out? Be creative in getting Turner touches? Nah... Let him be a cheerleader while we lose in the playoffs.

So either the Chargers are morons, or Turner isn't all that elite.

Take a look at these elite stats over a 7 game period...30-193

38-176-1

24-110

15-49

29-120

28-166-1

28-102-1

That's 916 yards over a 7 game period which extrapolates to 2093 yards, he must've been an elite back. Oh, it was Droughns. Betts is more analagous to Droughns than he is Turner.