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

[dawgtrails]

Huh?

Exactly.

Having now read the entire thread, I think this post sums it up well.

Why do people like you bother posting in this thread? seriouslySome here think the SD wideouts are a good bunch, some don't.The ones who don't have theorized that a trade of turner (no matter how unlikely) could upgrade the team at wr.Some think Turner is worth more than Tory Holt. Or maybe it is one who does.Nevertheless, the whole thread has merit...you coming in posting what you did does not.

People like me (and many others in this thread, but not you) realize that different teams have different philosophies on offense and don't put the same need/value on the same positions. The Chargers philosophy and personnel (i.e., Gates and LT) are such that WR is less important to them than to other teams. It has already been posted many, many times in this thread by many others who appear to unerstand the Chargers much better than you do that they do not need to upgrade WR.People like me and those others also understand that on such a team a group of WRs can be greater than the sum of its parts, without requiring a top #1 caliber WR.People like me and those others realize that San Diego is a Super Bowl contender, and that Turner is more valuable to them than a new WR acquired in a mid season trade.Now, could they upgrade? Would it be better to have Torry Holt than Keenan McCardell? Obviously. Duh. Why do we need to state and agree on the obvious?So people like me who wasted 5 minutes reading your constant rehashing of the same point in the face of superior knowledge and reasoning from several of the well respected posters on this board, including several of the well respected Chargers posters, are left to make posts that agree with cstu's post I quoted.Does that clear it up for you? Do you like this post better than my first one?

I feel the shame. He put me in my place, eh???No, not really.You can cite target/reception numbers all you want. You could put quite a few league average wide receivers on the Chargers, and they would put up similar numbers. That is what happens when you have the best running back in the game. McCardell and Parker are NFL caliber athletes. They are good at what they do. However, I find them to be fairly pedestrian.I can understand the whole not wanting to ruin the team chemistry. Not necessarily needing a big time wide receiver because that is not what their game plan is, etc. Similar to the Patriots a few years ago when they had Troy Brown and David Givens, and all those so-so wide receivers.Fitting into a team's gameplan, and making the catches when they are thrown your way does not make you an excellent wide receiver. However, i find it somewhat ridiculous that having a better wide receiver would not make the Chargers a better team. LT would not be averaging a somewhat mediocre 3.7 ypc if there was a wideout who could spread the defense.But, according to justwin, I guess have to just fall in line with the thinking of "respected posters". Apparently disagreeing with them means that I am plain wrong. Or maybe it is because I disagree with Charger posters. I always, always take analysis with a grain of salt from people talking about "their team". Too often they are blinded by their team's success and/or failure.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I feel the shame. He put me in my place, eh???No, not really.You can cite target/reception numbers all you want. You could put quite a few league average wide receivers on the Chargers, and they would put up similar numbers. That is what happens when you have the best running back in the game. McCardell and Parker are NFL caliber athletes. They are good at what they do. However, I find them to be fairly pedestrian.I can understand the whole not wanting to ruin the team chemistry. Not necessarily needing a big time wide receiver because that is not what their game plan is, etc. Similar to the Patriots a few years ago when they had Troy Brown and David Givens, and all those so-so wide receivers.Fitting into a team's gameplan, and making the catches when they are thrown your way does not make you an excellent wide receiver. However, i find it somewhat ridiculous that having a better wide receiver would not make the Chargers a better team. LT would not be averaging a somewhat mediocre 3.7 ypc if there was a wideout who could spread the defense.But, according to justwin, I guess have to just fall in line with the thinking of "respected posters". Apparently disagreeing with them means that I am plain wrong. Or maybe it is because I disagree with Charger posters. I always, always take analysis with a grain of salt from people talking about "their team". Too often they are blinded by their team's success and/or failure.

No one is saying you have to agree with Charger posters. But I know that several of the Charger posters in this thread have watched every Charger snap for the past 4-5 years, and who know the Charger philosophy and personnel. While we are biased, we also have a better handle on what's going on with the franchise than folks who look at the boxscore every week and say the Charger WRs suck.Are there are 10-15 WRs who would instantly upgrade the Charger receving corps? Yes.Are McCardell, Parker, and VJax going to keep the Bolts from winning the Super Bowl? No. They catch everything thrown their way and run excellent routes. When you have LT2 and Gates, and only need the WRs to catch the ball when thrown their way, it would be dumb to overpay a #1 WR to come to Diego and be the 3rd option.

 

[cstu]

Huh?

Exactly.

Having now read the entire thread, I think this post sums it up well.

Why do people like you bother posting in this thread? seriouslySome here think the SD wideouts are a good bunch, some don't.

The ones who don't have theorized that a trade of turner (no matter how unlikely) could upgrade the team at wr.

Some think Turner is worth more than Tory Holt. Or maybe it is one who does.

Nevertheless, the whole thread has merit...you coming in posting what you did does not.

People like me (and many others in this thread, but not you) realize that different teams have different philosophies on offense and don't put the same need/value on the same positions. The Chargers philosophy and personnel (i.e., Gates and LT) are such that WR is less important to them than to other teams. It has already been posted many, many times in this thread by many others who appear to unerstand the Chargers much better than you do that they do not need to upgrade WR.People like me and those others also understand that on such a team a group of WRs can be greater than the sum of its parts, without requiring a top #1 caliber WR.

People like me and those others realize that San Diego is a Super Bowl contender, and that Turner is more valuable to them than a new WR acquired in a mid season trade.

Now, could they upgrade? Would it be better to have Torry Holt than Keenan McCardell? Obviously. Duh. Why do we need to state and agree on the obvious?

So people like me who wasted 5 minutes reading your constant rehashing of the same point in the face of superior knowledge and reasoning from several of the well respected posters on this board, including several of the well respected Chargers posters, are left to make posts that agree with cstu's post I quoted.

Does that clear it up for you? Do you like this post better than my first one?

I feel the shame. He put me in my place, eh???No, not really.

You can cite target/reception numbers all you want. You could put quite a few league average wide receivers on the Chargers, and they would put up similar numbers. That is what happens when you have the best running back in the game. McCardell and Parker are NFL caliber athletes. They are good at what they do. However, I find them to be fairly pedestrian.

I can understand the whole not wanting to ruin the team chemistry. Not necessarily needing a big time wide receiver because that is not what their game plan is, etc. Similar to the Patriots a few years ago when they had Troy Brown and David Givens, and all those so-so wide receivers.

Fitting into a team's gameplan, and making the catches when they are thrown your way does not make you an excellent wide receiver. However, i find it somewhat ridiculous that having a better wide receiver would not make the Chargers a better team. LT would not be averaging a somewhat mediocre 3.7 ypc if there was a wideout who could spread the defense.

But, according to justwin, I guess have to just fall in line with the thinking of "respected posters". Apparently disagreeing with them means that I am plain wrong. Or maybe it is because I disagree with Charger posters. I always, always take analysis with a grain of salt from people talking about "their team". Too often they are blinded by their team's success and/or failure.

The problem is that you are making false claims about what other posters are writing - you've done so time and again in this thread. This time you are insinuating that someone is claiming the the Chargers' WR's are "excellent" and I've seen no one do so. What they do is get the job done without complaining or disrupting team chemistry - it's all about winning. Frankly, other than Holt there's not another WR who I would trade Turner for right now without thinking long and hard about it. As for your point about LT's 3.7 YPC, that alone shows that you have little understanding of the Chargers offense.

 

[Despyzer]

When you have LT2 and Gates, and only need the WRs to catch the ball when thrown their way, it would be dumb to overpay a #1 WR to come to Diego and be the 3rd option.

Especially when you throw in the added sacrifice of a valued member of the offense (which was the original point of this thread).

 

[Tau837]

Decided to highlight my favorite dawgtrails quotes from this thread.

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 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?

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.

All of the above is just ridiculous. Let's see your list of 50 WRs who would be better for the Chargers, given their other personnel and legit Super Bowl contender status.

But, according to justwin, I guess have to just fall in line with the thinking of "respected posters". Apparently disagreeing with them means that I am plain wrong. Or maybe it is because I disagree with Charger posters. I always, always take analysis with a grain of salt from people talking about "their team". Too often they are blinded by their team's success and/or failure.

You're putting words in my mouth. What makes you wrong is that you are ignoring reasonable arguments posted by knowledgeable posters. I didn't say you can't disagree, but you haven't presented anything close to a compelling argument, from a NFL standpoint. This is an NFL based discussion, not a fantasy based discussion.And maybe you haven't been around here very long, I'm not sure. But once you have been, if you are paying attention you'll find that Maurile is one of the best posters on this board, period. And when it comes to the Chargers, he and tommyG and cstu and a number of others are very knowledgeable. I wouldn't say they never show a Chargers bias, but generally speaking they are very objective about the Chargers.

Now, am i allowed to disagree, or does disagreeing with you make me automatically possess less knowledge about football than you?

No, it's not the disagreeing that makes you possess less knowledge about football.

 

[Gandalf]

I posted this in another thread, but it's news about the NFL network's speculation that the Giants might be interested in Turner this off season. From Rotoworld.

Michael Turner-RB-Chargers Oct. 18 - 7:25 pm et

NFL Network's Adam Schefter reports that with Tiki Barber set to retire, the Giants may show interest in Michael Turner during the '07 offseason.

He would reportedly be the "lightning" to Brandon Jacobs' "thunder." New York would need to sign Turner to an offer sheet, but with San Diego likely to place at least the first-round tender on their promising young back, he may be tough to pry away from the Bolts until 2008.