Will Michael Turner be traded by the Chargers? (1 Viewer)

[JMJ]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't today the NFL trading deadline? Could the Chargers be at least "entertaining" offers and have held Turner out of most yesterday's game to avoid injury?

While I don't really see the sense in SD trading him now, I'm sure they are getting calls from all RB deprived teams around the NFL. While I doubt he is moved during the season, an injury yesterday would have taken away the outside possibility that they somehow get offered something today that is just too good to pass up.

Forgive me if discussed in other threads but I didn't see a thread dedicated to this thought only even after using the search function.

 

[I really DO care about your team]

You are actually thinking in fantasy terms. Fantasy as in no realistic possibility in the real world for this season.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Never happens. And I doubt they're even getting calls.

 

[Godsbrother]

In-season trades in the NFL are rare. I doubt we'll see more than one or two, if any.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

You are actually thinking in fantasy terms. Fantasy as in no realistic possibility in the real world for this season.

Good user name for this thread.

 

[JMJ]

Never happens. And I doubt they're even getting calls.

I highly doubt it happens also but I think you are way off-base to say they are probably not even receiving calls.HTH.

 

[Banger]

No way. He's too valuable to them. They are going for the SuperBowl this year and what good is a 1st rounder in next years draft if LT gets hurt. They can deal him in the offseason for the same thing and not risk anything. It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Never happens. And I doubt they're even getting calls.

I highly doubt it happens also but I think you are way off-base to say they are probably not even receiving calls.HTH.

First of all, there's not really a huge market for RB's. It's not like in baseball when a team needs a #4 starter or something. RB's generally are devalued as a position.Secondly, and this is really the main thing, the Chargers are not trading him - they have RFA rights on him next season, and if another team comes hard at him next year, they get a 1st & 3rd to let him walk. That means that a team would have to offer up MORE than that to get him NOW since Turner is a contributor to the offense for this season. So, knowing that the Chargers would not trade him, and knowing that if they would, it would cost at least a 1st and a 3rd, teams are not going to bother calling him about him. Plus, he's a RB.

 

[JMJ]

It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

I started the thread and said the same exact thing. However, if another potential "contending team" hurting at the RB position came to them today with an offer of say a 1st and a 3rd, do you think they would turn it down?

 

[perry147]

No way. He's too valuable to them. They are going for the SuperBowl this year and what good is a 1st rounder in next years draft if LT gets hurt. They can deal him in the offseason for the same thing and not risk anything. It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

Turner is insurance for SD for an injury to LT (which in recent years he has been missing games at the end of the season because of it).

 

[dawgtrails]

It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

I started the thread and said the same exact thing. However, if another potential "contending team" hurting at the RB position came to them today with an offer of say a 1st and a 3rd, do you think they would turn it down?

The Chargers have a huge glaring need at WR. Parker/Jackson/McCardell is one of the worst trios in the league.Not saying that a Turner trade is likely, but, id they could somehow get a good wr, they would have to consider it.

 

[PatsWillWin]

It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

I started the thread and said the same exact thing. However, if another potential "contending team" hurting at the RB position came to them today with an offer of say a 1st and a 3rd, do you think they would turn it down?

1. It's the trade deadline. What team do you speak of? We're close enough now to speak in non-hypothetical ways.2. I doubt they'd take it. They can get that in the off-season if a team really wants him - why lose the rest of this season when he's an important cog in that offense?3. No team would offer that anyway. Turner is hugely overbased on this board. When's the last time a RB was traded for a 1st & 3rd? RB's are just not considered important enough, and certainly not a career backup.

 

[PatsWillWin]

It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

I started the thread and said the same exact thing. However, if another potential "contending team" hurting at the RB position came to them today with an offer of say a 1st and a 3rd, do you think they would turn it down?

The Chargers have a huge glaring need at WR. Parker/Jackson/McCardell is one of the worst trios in the league.Not saying that a Turner trade is likely, but, id they could somehow get a good wr, they would have to consider it.

1. This is not a FANTASY TEAM. The Chargers are #3 in yards per game and #2 in points per game. They're fine.2. This is not a FANTASY LEAGUE - player trades are extremely rare.

 

[zamboni]

Could the Chargers be at least "entertaining" offers and have held Turner out of most yesterday's game to avoid injury?

As others have said, I doubt the Chargers would be remotely interested in trading Turner. As an aside, it is a good question why LT was still in the game at the end when it was 41-19.

 

[hi1111]

that ******* turner put 0 but i'm still ahead thanks to owens and roy williams =)

 

[Raider Nation]

This is not a FANTASY LEAGUE - player trades are extremely rare.

In the past, that was accurate. Not so much anymore.And this thread title sucks, BTW.

"WILL Michael Turner Be Traded By San Diego?" = FF geek asking a harmless question

"Michael Turner Possibly Being Traded?" = Misleading, as if there's speculation out there.

 

[Banger]

It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

I started the thread and said the same exact thing. However, if another potential "contending team" hurting at the RB position came to them today with an offer of say a 1st and a 3rd, do you think they would turn it down?

The Chargers have a huge glaring need at WR. Parker/Jackson/McCardell is one of the worst trios in the league.Not saying that a Turner trade is likely, but, id they could somehow get a good wr, they would have to consider it.

They don't have top "name" wideouts but it certainly isn't hurting them at all. They've averaged 30 points a game and have one of the top defenses in the league. Also consider that they've played two of the top defenses in the league (Ravens/Steelers) in two of those 5 games which makes their pts/game that much more impressive.Ya, a good wr would be "nice to have" but they are still going to be behind Gates/LT on the target chart. A stud backup in the event of injury is MUCH more important than a Jerry Porter or similar type name WR that may be attainable. If they trade Turner and LT goes down their season is done, with Turner they take a hit but will still be competitive and have a shot. There is absolutely no reason to expose yourself to that risk without a glaring need which is why they would never trade Turner right now.

 

[GregR_2]

...As others have said, I doubt the Chargers would be remotely interested in trading Turner. As an aside, it is a good question why LT was still in the game at the end when it was 41-19.

There's a very simple and obvious answer to that question.Because I started Turner against the LT owner this week.Edit to add my own

 

[Keys Myaths]

So, this is purely speculation?

Ugh. Back to the FFA.

 

[dawgtrails]

It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

I started the thread and said the same exact thing. However, if another potential "contending team" hurting at the RB position came to them today with an offer of say a 1st and a 3rd, do you think they would turn it down?

The Chargers have a huge glaring need at WR. Parker/Jackson/McCardell is one of the worst trios in the league.Not saying that a Turner trade is likely, but, id they could somehow get a good wr, they would have to consider it.

They don't have top "name" wideouts but it certainly isn't hurting them at all. They've averaged 30 points a game and have one of the top defenses in the league. Also consider that they've played two of the top defenses in the league (Ravens/Steelers) in two of those 5 games which makes their pts/game that much more impressive.Ya, a good wr would be "nice to have" but they are still going to be behind Gates/LT on the target chart. A stud backup in the event of injury is MUCH more important than a Jerry Porter or similar type name WR that may be attainable. If they trade Turner and LT goes down their season is done, with Turner they take a hit but will still be competitive and have a shot. There is absolutely no reason to expose yourself to that risk without a glaring need which is why they would never trade Turner right now.

They also lost 1 of those games. and put up an average of 18 points in those 2 games.If you are going to cite the good defenses they have played against (in which they lost one of the games) how about you also cite the terible defenses they have played?? Oakland, Tennesee, and San francisco??

The team is number 2 in rushing the ball, and very mediocre in the passing game.

The reason they are 4-1 are

1. LT

2. Defense

3. Weak schedule

They could certainly use an upgrade at WR. I would even venture to say that they have no shot at winning the SuperBowl without such an upgrade. Unless McCardell starts playing like he did 4 years ago.

 

[zamboni]

that ******* turner put 0 but i'm still ahead thanks to owens and roy williams =)

Awesome

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is not a FANTASY LEAGUE - player trades are extremely rare.

In the past, that was accurate. Not so much anymore.And this thread title sucks, BTW.

"WILL Michael Turner Be Traded By San Diego?" = FF geek asking a harmless question

"Michael Turner Possibly Being Traded?" = Misleading, as if there's speculation out there.

True. Title fixed.

 

[Isotopes]

was he active yesterday?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The Chargers have a huge glaring need at WR.

I disagree with this. They are deep at WR. They'll draft OL and WR next year, but I don't think either need is glaring.They would have a glaring need at RB if Turner were traded. That's the only glaring need I can think of.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

was he active yesterday?

Of course. Why wouldn't he be?

 

[dawgtrails]

I don't know how anyone looking at this team can be comfortable with their wide receivers.

Yes, they have LT and Gates.

However, they have McCardell who is averaging 3 catches and a whopping 39 yards. Eric Parker 3.5 catches, 55 yards...and then a whole lot of nothing.

Gates is only averaging 3.5/50.

LT is a stud. He will carry them. However, they managed 13 points against the Ravens, and lost the game. They beat Pittsburgh, good win. They beat 3 of the worst teams in the league in Tenn, Oak and SF, who are a combined 3-14.

If I was a San Diego fan, I would not be overly ecstatic with the season to date.

 

[TitusIII]

Who would be willing to give up a first round pick for Turner at this point in the season?

 

[Banger]

It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

I started the thread and said the same exact thing. However, if another potential "contending team" hurting at the RB position came to them today with an offer of say a 1st and a 3rd, do you think they would turn it down?

The Chargers have a huge glaring need at WR. Parker/Jackson/McCardell is one of the worst trios in the league.Not saying that a Turner trade is likely, but, id they could somehow get a good wr, they would have to consider it.

They don't have top "name" wideouts but it certainly isn't hurting them at all. They've averaged 30 points a game and have one of the top defenses in the league. Also consider that they've played two of the top defenses in the league (Ravens/Steelers) in two of those 5 games which makes their pts/game that much more impressive.Ya, a good wr would be "nice to have" but they are still going to be behind Gates/LT on the target chart. A stud backup in the event of injury is MUCH more important than a Jerry Porter or similar type name WR that may be attainable. If they trade Turner and LT goes down their season is done, with Turner they take a hit but will still be competitive and have a shot. There is absolutely no reason to expose yourself to that risk without a glaring need which is why they would never trade Turner right now.

They also lost 1 of those games. and put up an average of 18 points in those 2 games.If you are going to cite the good defenses they have played against (in which they lost one of the games) how about you also cite the terible defenses they have played?? Oakland, Tennesee, and San francisco??

The team is number 2 in rushing the ball, and very mediocre in the passing game.

The reason they are 4-1 are

1. LT

2. Defense

3. Weak schedule

They could certainly use an upgrade at WR. I would even venture to say that they have no shot at winning the SuperBowl without such an upgrade. Unless McCardell starts playing like he did 4 years ago.

I wouldn't debate that they could improve at the WR position but it makes ZERO sense to weaken yourself at a much more important position to marginally improve at WR. They are mediocre at passing (stat wise) because they are so good at running. When they had to pass against the Steelers they did and they won the game in the 2nd half. Any team that can win with defense and running will do so. If they don't need to pass they won't, the key is when you are forced to pass, can you do it and the answer so far has been yes.

The Chargers are 4-1 and their one loss was on the road to the Ravens due to last minute heroics of McNair. The only tough defenses they face the rest of the year are the Bronco's twice. They are built for the playoffs and trading a good backup makes no sense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know how anyone looking at this team can be comfortable with their wide receivers.However, they have McCardell who is averaging 3 catches and a whopping 39 yards. Eric Parker 3.5 catches, 55 yards...and then a whole lot of nothing.

You are looking at this from a fantasy perspective. They don't have a ton of catches because the Chargers have spread the ball around a lot, not because they're failing to get open and make catches.McCardell has one drop this season; Parker has two. All of those drops have been uncharacteristic, as both WRs are very sure-handed.McCardell, Parker, V.Jackson, and M.Floyd can all get open and catch the ball. What specific plays do you have in mind that leads you to believe that any of them need to be replaced?Rivers is the highest-rated passer in the AFC. He wouldn't be able to say that if his WRs sucked.

 

[Banger]

I don't know how anyone looking at this team can be comfortable with their wide receivers.Yes, they have LT and Gates.However, they have McCardell who is averaging 3 catches and a whopping 39 yards. Eric Parker 3.5 catches, 55 yards...and then a whole lot of nothing.Gates is only averaging 3.5/50.LT is a stud. He will carry them. However, they managed 13 points against the Ravens, and lost the game. They beat Pittsburgh, good win. They beat 3 of the worst teams in the league in Tenn, Oak and SF, who are a combined 3-14.If I was a San Diego fan, I would not be overly ecstatic with the season to date.

Have you watched them play?

 

[PatsWillWin]

The Chargers have a top 5 NFL offense. You can give me Keenan McCardell's average catches per game, but it really doesn't mean much. They're not struggling offensively, they're not struggling in the passing game.

1. Not struggling in passing game

2. Top 5 offense

3. No reason to trade Turner for less than a 1st & 3rd

4. Turner is a valuable contributor in a playoff bound season

5. No team is going to give up NEARLY that much for Turner

6. Player trades are very rare.

If all you have to say to all that is "Well they've played Oakland and San Fransisco", you're missing a rather huge portion of the puzzle.

Bottm line, also, is that the trade deadline is UPON us. I haven't heard these MT predictors mention ONE realistic trade partner. You think there's going to be a player trade for a WR despite the mounting pile of evidence against it? Fine - come up with an available WR on a team that would move him.

 

[corpcow]

No way. He's too valuable to them. They are going for the SuperBowl this year and what good is a 1st rounder in next years draft if LT gets hurt. They can deal him in the offseason for the same thing and not risk anything. It makes no sense to deal him now especially when they have no glaring needs.

FWIW, he is a RFA at the end of the year.

 

[dawgtrails]

The Chargers have a top 5 NFL offense. You can give me Keenan McCardell's average catches per game, but it really doesn't mean much. They're not struggling offensively, they're not struggling in the passing game. 1. Not struggling in passing game2. Top 5 offense3. No reason to trade Turner for less than a 1st & 3rd4. Turner is a valuable contributor in a playoff bound season5. No team is going to give up NEARLY that much for Turner6. Player trades are very rare.If all you have to say to all that is "Well they've played Oakland and San Fransisco", you're missing a rather huge portion of the puzzle.Bottm line, also, is that the trade deadline is UPON us. I haven't heard these MT predictors mention ONE realistic trade partner. You think there's going to be a player trade for a WR despite the mounting pile of evidence against it? Fine - come up with an available WR on a team that would move him.

Listen, I have no doubt that they will not trade Turner. They won't get anything for him now, and whatever they could get is not nearly as important as Turner may be.I never said they would trade him.I was responding to somehow who said they don't have a glaring weakness.I think there WRs are a weakness. I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?They are a good team. But if you are gonna try and convince me that their wideouts are good because they put up decent numbers against the worst defenses in the league...well, color me unimpressed.

 

[corpcow]

I don't know how anyone looking at this team can be comfortable with their wide receivers.Yes, they have LT and Gates.However, they have McCardell who is averaging 3 catches and a whopping 39 yards. Eric Parker 3.5 catches, 55 yards...and then a whole lot of nothing.Gates is only averaging 3.5/50.LT is a stud. He will carry them. However, they managed 13 points against the Ravens, and lost the game. They beat Pittsburgh, good win. They beat 3 of the worst teams in the league in Tenn, Oak and SF, who are a combined 3-14.If I was a San Diego fan, I would not be overly ecstatic with the season to date.

Have you watched them play?

I'm not a SD fan, but I would be VERY happy if I was. I think the Pitt game was Rivers' emergence day. Vincent Jackson and Malcolm Floyd are two big, talented young WRs and Rivers seems to be looking their way a lot. And yes maybe they haven't played any super offenses, but their defense certainly looks championship-caliber. Merriman is an animal, and Philips isn't getting the press but doing an excellent job himself. They are #1 against the run (and I believe they were last year as well), and you all remember what they did to Indy in the regular season game.There are a lot of reasons for SD fans to be excited.

 

[dawgtrails]

I don't know how anyone looking at this team can be comfortable with their wide receivers.Yes, they have LT and Gates.However, they have McCardell who is averaging 3 catches and a whopping 39 yards. Eric Parker 3.5 catches, 55 yards...and then a whole lot of nothing.Gates is only averaging 3.5/50.LT is a stud. He will carry them. However, they managed 13 points against the Ravens, and lost the game. They beat Pittsburgh, good win. They beat 3 of the worst teams in the league in Tenn, Oak and SF, who are a combined 3-14.If I was a San Diego fan, I would not be overly ecstatic with the season to date.

Have you watched them play?

I'm not a SD fan, but I would be VERY happy if I was. I think the Pitt game was Rivers' emergence day. Vincent Jackson and Malcolm Floyd are two big, talented young WRs and Rivers seems to be looking their way a lot. And yes maybe they haven't played any super offenses, but their defense certainly looks championship-caliber. Merriman is an animal, and Philips isn't getting the press but doing an excellent job himself. They are #1 against the run (and I believe they were last year as well), and you all remember what they did to Indy in the regular season game.There are a lot of reasons for SD fans to be excited.

Floyd and Jackson have a combined 9 catches in the first 5 games. I wouldn't get too excited.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

 

[Banger]

The Chargers have a top 5 NFL offense. You can give me Keenan McCardell's average catches per game, but it really doesn't mean much. They're not struggling offensively, they're not struggling in the passing game. 1. Not struggling in passing game2. Top 5 offense3. No reason to trade Turner for less than a 1st & 3rd4. Turner is a valuable contributor in a playoff bound season5. No team is going to give up NEARLY that much for Turner6. Player trades are very rare.If all you have to say to all that is "Well they've played Oakland and San Fransisco", you're missing a rather huge portion of the puzzle.Bottm line, also, is that the trade deadline is UPON us. I haven't heard these MT predictors mention ONE realistic trade partner. You think there's going to be a player trade for a WR despite the mounting pile of evidence against it? Fine - come up with an available WR on a team that would move him.

I think there WRs are a weakness. I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?They are a good team. But if you are gonna try and convince me that their wideouts are good because they put up decent numbers against the worst defenses in the league...well, color me unimpressed.

Look at the Steeler game. The Steelers were ahead at the half and in the 2nd half when they needed to pass the ball because the Steelers were loading up on the run, they passed the ball and won the game. Defenses don't get much better than the Steelers. Yes, the Chargers don't have a "#1 wr" but their top WR is their TE so they don't have a need like other teams would. Their offense is geared around LT and Gates not their WR's.

 

[Banger]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

it's the boxscores.....

 

[dawgtrails]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

this is not a FANTASY TEAM

 

[Banger]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

How many TE's in the league are better than Gates? You are too focused on one piece of the pie....

 

[dawgtrails]

I would say the following teams have a huge WR advanatge.

ARI, CIN, CAR, CHI, DAL, DEN, DET, HOU, GB, IND, NO, NYG, NYJ, STL, SEA.

I think the following teams, have a slight edge because of the advantage of having a #1.

BUF, SF, CLE, MIA, OAK, PIT, TB, WASH

The rest...who knows

 

[dawgtrails]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

this is not a FANTASY TEAM

Really??? I didn't know that!!!Thanks for adding to the discussion

 

[Two Deep]

I don't know how anyone looking at this team can be comfortable with their wide receivers.However, they have McCardell who is averaging 3 catches and a whopping 39 yards. Eric Parker 3.5 catches, 55 yards...and then a whole lot of nothing.

You are looking at this from a fantasy perspective. They don't have a ton of catches because the Chargers have spread the ball around a lot, not because they're failing to get open and make catches.McCardell has one drop this season; Parker has two. All of those drops have been uncharacteristic, as both WRs are very sure-handed.McCardell, Parker, V.Jackson, and M.Floyd can all get open and catch the ball. What specific plays do you have in mind that leads you to believe that any of them need to be replaced?Rivers is the highest-rated passer in the AFC. He wouldn't be able to say that if his WRs sucked.

Nobody is going to understand this it makes too much sense.......

 

[dawgtrails]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

How many TE's in the league are better than Gates? You are too focused on one piece of the pie....

Unfortunately we are talking about the wide receiver position.I understand the Gates love...what i don't understand is the McCardell/Parker/Floyd/Jackson love

 

[BoltzNBrew]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

this is not a FANTASY TEAM

I think it's funny. If the SD WRs were so horrible would Rivers have a 100+ passer rating? Seems to me this aweful group of WRs are doing a good job of getting open and catching the ball.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

this is not a FANTASY TEAM

Really??? I didn't know that!!!Thanks for adding to the discussion

This is not a discussion. This is you ignoring the fact that the Chargers have a very potent offense, on the ground and in the air, and you think they need help because they don't have a marquis name at "WR1". The Chargers have a good receiving group with good depth that COMPLEMENTS LT and GATES, the latter of which you seem to completely ignore in the discussion of the Charger passing attack (most likely because you think the NFL has to start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, and 1 TE).

 

[Banger]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

How many TE's in the league are better than Gates? You are too focused on one piece of the pie....

Unfortunately we are talking about the wide receiver position.I understand the Gates love...what i don't understand is the McCardell/Parker/Floyd/Jackson love

but Gates is a receiver, just not a wide receiver. The guy caught what 100 balls last year? He put up far better #'s than Evans, Ward, etc. No one is saying that they are awesome talents but SD is not being hampered by them in the least. They are picking up 1st downs when necessary and moving the chains. I really doubt you've watched the Chargers offense much otherwise we wouldn't be having these posts.

 

[dawgtrails]

I can't think of, in my opinion, a worse starting WR trio in the league. Can you?

Buffalo, Atlanta, Tennessee, San Francisco, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh are the obvious ones. There are about ten more teams that I'd say are worse as well, but I'll just stick with the obvious ones.What is it about McCardell, Parker, Jackson, and Floyd that you think is bad? Do they drop too many balls? Run the wrong patterns? Fail to get separation? Have selfish attitudes?

I have no idea if they are selfish. And I am sure they run great patterns. Doesn't make them good though.I would go with Tenn, KC, and Atl.Lee Evans is far superior to any of the SD wideouts. Same goes for Antonio Bryant and Hines Ward. Having a legit number 1 (which SD does not have) would go a long way for them.Listen, SD could very well be the Super Bowl champ. They have a great defense, the best RB in football, and an exciting young QB. However, they have one of the worst collection of wideouts in the league. Even if I give you the 6 teams above, what is that saying?? That they are not in the bottom 5th? Just bottom third or something?If you don't think that they could use an upgrade, fine. There are probably 50 receivers I would prefer to McCardell. Same goes for Parker.

this is not a FANTASY TEAM

I think it's funny. If the SD WRs were so horrible would Rivers have a 100+ passer rating? Seems to me this aweful group of WRs are doing a good job of getting open and catching the ball.

This awful group of wide receivers are averaging about 9 catches a game, combined!Rivers has a great passer rating. But he does not have such a great rating because of his wrs. He does because 1. he is a good QB, and 2. he has LT who he has thrown the ball to 26 times.

 

[Isotopes]

was he active yesterday?

Of course. Why wouldn't he be?

The goosegg that is next to his name on my bench made me ask.