Update | Team denies interest in M. Turner

[Thunderstruck]

Man you chargers really are delusional .....

I guess the more smileys you put in the reply the more insulted I'm supposed to be?

Emmitt wasn't a physical freak. He was a very well-balanced running-back with great quickness and he was more powerful than his size would indicate. He was also very smart and had great vision. Don't mistake physical skills for intangibles, they aren't the same thing. As a complete package Emmitt ranks top-5 all-time for RB's, but in terms of his pure physical tools he wouldn't place anywhere near that level.

He also didn't go 237 pounds and run a 4.42 forty like MT does.

Turner's a freak. Why do you think there teams who are even interested in him with the kind of price-tag the Chargers placed on him? The only reason he fell to Round 5 in the draft was because he played for a mid-Major in NIU against teams like the Akron Zips, and scouts weren't convinced that his ungodly numbers weren't just the result of inferior competition.

The only people who are delusional are the ones who think that because MT is "just a backup" that the Chargers are going to have to settle for a third-rounder or some pittance like that.

 

[zrinkill]

Ok Ok ......

M. Turner is better than Emmitt Smith

Eric Parker is better than Jerry Rice

Philip Rivers is better than Roger Staubach

You guys rock.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Ok Ok ......

M. Turner is better than Emmitt Smith

Eric Parker is better than Jerry Rice

Philip Rivers is better than Roger Staubach

You guys rock.

What part of the difference do you fail to understand? Should I get out a thesaurus for you or maybe a Strunk & Wagnalls guide to style and grammar to help you understand the connotative difference between saying a player has better physical tools and saying a player is better?

I never said Turner is or will be better than Emmitt Smith. You built a strawman argument so you can respond to something I never said. Now, if you want to debate whether or not MT's physical measureables are better than Emmitt's, then you'll be on-point. But since you can't debate that you instead make it sound like I said "OMG, OMG, Michael Turner is teh l337 running back, better than EMMITT!!" which I did not say.

 

[dmoore]

He's not saying MT is better than Emmitt, just that he's more physically gifted, and I tend to agree. The Chargers put a high tender on him, a 1st and a 3rd, so they can be sure that no one is going to sign him away from them. If they decide to trade him, it doesn't mean they are going to demand a 1st and 3rd. I'd be really excited to pick him up, though I'd rather move a 2nd and maybe a later pick for him. you can't blame MT being a back up on his lack of skills, he'd be a starter in a lot of places, including Dallas IMO. Of course I'd want to sign Turner to a deal before trading for him, and then we could move JJ for another pick.

 

[DallasEast]

Michael Turner is more physically gifted than Emmitt.

That's one of the silliest statements I've ever read. Turner is as close to becoming a Hall of Famer as Troy Hambrick.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Look who he's behind. He's playing behind the best RB in this era of the NFL. That doesn't change the fact that someone's going to make him a feature-back, and soon.

And yet you're stating that he's already a feature back. He's not and never has been one to this point. I'm not holding the fact that he's behind LT against him, but I don't think you can state something so absolute when he hasn't proved he can do it, yet. He's a proven backup, not a feature back.

Larry Johnson was a backup when Priest Holmes was still good. I watch LJ twice a year and more than that since the Chiefs are a divisional rival. LJ has nothing over MT physically.

But it took an injury to Holmes for LJ to get his shot to show he could be the lead dog. A team didn't have to trade him or offer him a big contract. KC just played him when Holmes couldn't go. So if he could've left after that year, he would've at least had some film to show he could be the lead dog.

I remember Hambrick from the "who's going to replace Emmitt" era of the Boys. Hambrick didn't have MT's top-end or his power. Hambrick was much more of an upright runner than MT is...Turner's a bull who has the ability to get leverage and break a ton of tackles, and then shift gears once he gets into the secondary.

Just to clarify, I'm not comparing Hambrick talent to Turner's. I'm comparing situations. You've got a backup who has excelled in that role. And now his current team who's expecting to lose him in a season, wants another team to come off TWO high picks or a single high draft pick for him. Not likely.

Michael Turner is more physically gifted than Emmitt. He's bigger, faster, and stronger. He won't be as elusive as Emmitt was, and of course the big question is will he be as durable. That's a question that can't be answered until he gets his shot.

More physically gifted than Emmitt?

Yeah, he's bigger, faster, and stronger as a backup. You said it yourself, he hasn't proven it as the lead dog, so you can't know how he'd do as the lead dog until he get his shot.

I can understand that. There's always risk involved. If you draft a top-10 RB you're getting a guy who's going to command big money with no track-record of success in the NFL. Yet teams do it anyway. Why does everyone think MT would be an ultra-risky investment while Adrian Peterson--a guy who not only gives up almost 30 pounds to MT and is only a little faster, and who has had durability issues in college--would be a fine pick? Isn't Adrian Peterson just as risky? Why is it that draft picks, the ultimate unproven commodities, have such an inordinately inflated value what the unproven players drafted high in round one deserve BOTH the draft pick and the big money? But a guy like MT, who has already proven he can take on NFL talent and win individual matchups and who has proven he knows how to run in an NFL system, that he's well-behaved and has a great work-ethic, that he's a team-player and great lockerroom guy, that he's made some HUGE plays for us in big games including in the playoffs...he's a huge risk?

See this is the problem. No one is saying the guy isn't talented and wouldn't be a good asset to a team. I don't question that, I do question if he could deliver as the lead dog. In my eyes, it means he's not worth two picks at a position that's not a need for this team. For the production level we got out of the two backs we had last year, they were cheaper than your 1 great back. So if one walks, I'm pretty sure the 'boys will be able to draft another one who will be able to immediately contribute.

Draft picks are overvalued. People love the potential of what might be over the guy they have right in front of them. Obviously you need to build through the draft, but I'll never understand why an unproven guy who was good in college is SO much more valuable than a somewhat proven guy who has been terrific in the NFL...and whose combine numbers would stack up well against any of them.

I swear reading this last post is like looking at Extremeskins. Draft picks are used to acquire young talent to replace aging talent on the roster. And if a young guy has been able to produce at a high level in the NFL, but he's on the trading block and his team wants draft compensation, then that seems a bit more plausible. But there's no argument in the world you could post that would convince me that the 'boys should give up two picks for a somewhat proven backup.

 

[zrinkill]

What part of the difference do you fail to understand? Should I get out a thesaurus for you or maybe a Strunk & Wagnalls guide to style and grammar to help you understand the connotative difference between saying a player has better physical tools and saying a player is better?

I never said Turner is or will be better than Emmitt Smith. You built a strawman argument so you can respond to something I never said. Now, if you want to debate whether or not MT's physical measureables are better than Emmitt's, then you'll be on-point. But since you can't debate that you instead make it sound like I said "OMG, OMG, Michael Turner is teh l337 running back, better than EMMITT!!" which I did not say.

What scientific facts are you basing this off of ? I could set here and say that Marion Barber is a better athlete than LT ...... would that make it true?

You are comparing your backup RB with the all time rushing leader on a Cowboys board ..... get a clue.

 

[HardHittingRoy31]

fyi dude...Turner is in the last yr of his contract

he'll be a UFA next season

David

Turner won't be able to command the MONEY that Julius can because JJ is a starter and Turner is a backup. I say make the move now.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Turner won't be able to command the MONEY that Julius can because JJ is a starter and Turner is a backup. I say make the move now.

You would be wrong with that assumption.
I think they would each command about the same in compensation.

 

[iceberg]

I guess the more smileys you put in the reply the more insulted I'm supposed to be?

Emmitt wasn't a physical freak. He was a very well-balanced running-back with great quickness and he was more powerful than his size would indicate. He was also very smart and had great vision. Don't mistake physical skills for intangibles, they aren't the same thing. As a complete package Emmitt ranks top-5 all-time for RB's, but in terms of his pure physical tools he wouldn't place anywhere near that level.

He also didn't go 237 pounds and run a 4.42 forty like MT does.

Turner's a freak. Why do you think there teams who are even interested in him with the kind of price-tag the Chargers placed on him? The only reason he fell to Round 5 in the draft was because he played for a mid-Major in NIU against teams like the Akron Zips, and scouts weren't convinced that his ungodly numbers weren't just the result of inferior competition.

The only people who are delusional are the ones who think that because MT is "just a backup" that the Chargers are going to have to settle for a third-rounder or some pittance like that.

you don't have to "settle" foir anything. keep the little spud and watch him do nothing but spell LT for awhile.

WHO CARES????

while you rant and rave about who doesn't understand what, you're doing some of your own "wiffing" when it comes to comprehension.

no one is saying turner isn't a good back - he's just NOT 1st and 3rd round worthy. to say otherwise is just shining up your stupidity.

moss - proven coimmidity. hard to even trade.
j walker - proven commidity moreso than turner - 2nd round pick
glenn - very nice for us - FREE
magahee - 2 3rds and a 7th and he's a PROVEN PLAYER

you're smoking the arse-crack of a thousand dying slumlords if you think just because he's YOUR player he's worth a 1st and 3rd as "fair" compensation. why don't you do something unusual and look around the league and examine fair market value before poppin off?

as for your 2nd drop of stupidity - how many years did emmitt NOT get hurt? how many times did he spend games on IR? not too many, huh? that alone is a physical gift most players would sacrafice not meaningful body parts to have.

let's let turner earn some time and credit before we order the bust for canton, ok?

 

[Thunderstruck]

I swear reading this last post is like looking at Extremeskins. Draft picks are used to acquire young talent to replace aging talent on the roster. And if a young guy has been able to produce at a high level in the NFL, but he's on the trading block and his team wants draft compensation, then that seems a bit more plausible. But there's no argument in the world you could post that would convince me that the 'boys should give up two picks for a somewhat proven backup.

I'm not trying to prove the Boys should give up two picks for MT. I'm mostly responding to those who believe MT is worth nothing more than a second-rounder and the people who think an offer of a third-rounder should suffice.

Regarding MT being physically better than Emmitt let me ask this;

Who was more physically gifted...Herschel Walker or Emmitt Smith?

Who was the better running back?

Again, I'm NOT saying MT will be a better RB than Emmitt Smith... but Emmitt didn't have MT's size, power, or speed. Now you can rightly question whether those measureables will translate to long-term NFL success--we know from past experience that not every back with excellent physical tools puts up the numbers.

But MT has those tools and he has demonstrated the ability to have great success in the NFL in a limited role. His role has been limited by who is in front of him. He has shown that those physical measureables DO translate to the field, which is why last year he broke 20+ yard runs at the same rate that LT did. It's why he has averaged 6 YPC on 157 carries...which is a pretty decent sample. No, he won't average 6 YPC as a starter, but 4.5 or better sure ain't out of the realm of possibility, especially when you factor in his ability to break big runs. It's why he didn't look at all out-of-place even when asked to do something he'd never done--return kicks. He has trained for three years under Clarence Shelmon, the same guy who coached-up Emmitt Smith, Eddie George, and LT.

In my mind there's one and only one question about MT--will he be durable enough to carry 300+ times. And that's a perfectly valid question and it's why MT won't rate a first-and-a-third round pick. But it doesn't kill off all discussion of the rest of the guy's merits.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I wouldnt sign Turner if he was unrestricted.

Not that he isnt a nice player, but I didnt see RB as a problem area last year.

Julius did run with his head down sometimes, but I think he will have bigger holes with Rivera not in the lineup.

Like someone mentioned eariler, if were going to start throwing around picks, lets make a play for Calvin Johnson. Mickey or somebody mentioned how that was a bad idea, but this guy is a freak.

 

[peplaw06]

Who was more physically gifted...Herschel Walker or Emmitt Smith?

Who was the better running back?

Herschel may have been bigger and faster, but I wouldn't be so fast to say he's more physically gifted. Balance and vision are physical measurables too, and Emmitt may have had the best vision of any RB ever.

 

[superpunk]

I say hell yes, let's trade for Troy Hambrick.

Wait...what was the question?

So sick of Chargers fans shining up their turds and declaring that the league would love to fork over their top draft picks for San Diego's backups. Idiot Aj Smith couldnt swing a trade for the league's top QB last year, now he's gonna rape people for a backup RB who isn't even Jerious Norwood?

Enjoy Norv Turner.

 

[iceberg]

I'm not trying to prove the Boys should give up two picks for MT. I'm mostly responding to those who believe MT is worth nothing more than a second-rounder and the people who think an offer of a third-rounder should suffice.

Regarding MT being physically better than Emmitt let me ask this;

Who was more physically gifted...Herschel Walker or Emmitt Smith?

Who was the better running back?

Again, I'm NOT saying MT will be a better RB than Emmitt Smith... but Emmitt didn't have MT's size, power, or speed. Now you can rightly question whether those measureables will translate to long-term NFL success--we know from past experience that not every back with excellent physical tools puts up the numbers.

But MT has those tools and he has demonstrated the ability to have great success in the NFL in a limited role. His role has been limited by who is in front of him. He has shown that those physical measureables DO translate to the field, which is why last year he broke 20+ yard runs at the same rate that LT did. It's why he has averaged 6 YPC on 157 carries...which is a pretty decent sample. No, he won't average 6 YPC as a starter, but 4.5 or better sure ain't out of the realm of possibility, especially when you factor in his ability to break big runs. It's why he didn't look at all out-of-place even when asked to do something he'd never done--return kicks. He has trained for three years under Clarence Shelmon, the same guy who coached-up Emmitt Smith, Eddie George, and LT.

In my mind there's one and only one question about MT--will he be durable enough to carry 300+ times. And that's a perfectly valid question and it's why MT won't rate a first-and-a-third round pick. But it doesn't kill off all discussion of the rest of the guy's merits.

let's pretend for a whacked out second that turner was say, larry johnson before holmes went down and we coulda had him for what - not much of i remember - bryant maybe?

man we'd be set at back.

you're kinda in that situation and w/o proof and skins on the wall, he just won't command that much despite how "cute" you must think he is to have this man love for him.

now let's say turner was a seahawk behind alexander - would you think turner is still as good or is it only cause he's on YOUR team he's *all that*?

 

[Thunderstruck]

you don't have to "settle" foir anything. keep the little spud and watch him do nothing but spell LT for awhile.

WHO CARES????

Obviously there are several Cowboys fans who care, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

while you rant and rave about who doesn't understand what, you're doing some of your own "wiffing" when it comes to comprehension.

no one is saying turner isn't a good back - he's just NOT 1st and 3rd round worthy. to say otherwise is just shining up your stupidity.

I said in my initial post on this thread we weren't going to get a first-and-a-third for MT.

moss - proven coimmidity. hard to even trade.

Lockerroom cancer. Always has been. Despite that he rated a first-rounder in his prime--despite the fact that people knew how corrosive his attitude was.

j walker - proven commidity moreso than turner - 2nd round pick

Coming off a major injury.

glenn - very nice for us - FREE

Great. That totally proves your point. Game, set, match.

magahee - 2 3rds and a 7th and he's a PROVEN PLAYER

Major decrease in his production, history of major injury, and he screwed his teams' negotiating position by making it known he wanted out.

you're smoking the arse-crack of a thousand dying slumlords if you think just because he's YOUR player he's worth a 1st and 3rd as "fair" compensation. why don't you do something unusual and look around the league and examine fair market value before poppin off?

Show me where I said I thought we would or should get a first-and-third. Why don't you actually, you know, read what I said before responding?

as for your 2nd drop of stupidity - how many years did emmitt NOT get hurt? how many times did he spend games on IR? not too many, huh? that alone is a physical gift most players would sacrafice not meaningful body parts to have.

Do you suppose Emmitt's durability had something to do with his work-ethic and offseason conditioning regimen? And do you suppose that work-ethic might fall under the category of "intangible" rather than "physical gift?"

let's let turner earn some time and credit before we order the bust for canton, ok?

Have I not said about five times that Turner needs to prove he can do it on an everyday basis?

 

[superpunk]

Hey, LaMont Jordan gained 500 yards at 5.2 ypc AND scored two TDs while backing up the league's leading rusher in 2004, too. And the league's most notable morons gave up a whpoping THIRD round draft choice for him.

Clearly the market dicates that Turner's extra 100 yards are worth far more from organizations that aren't stupid.

 

[iceberg]

Hey, LaMont Jordan gained 500 yards at 5.2 ypc AND scored two TDs while backing up the league's leading rusher in 2004, too. And the league's most notable morons gave up a whpoping THIRD round draft choice for him.

Clearly the market dicates that Turner's extra 100 yards are worth far more from organizations that aren't stupid.

there you go - being all logical and even comparisons again...one day that will come back to haunt you!

 

[dmoore]

If I have to take one back, between JJ, MB3, and MT, I'd take Michael Turner. JJ's been inconsistant as a starter, where as Michael Turner has shown flashes of brilliance behind LT and IMO would be more productive than JJ as a lead back. Depending on what MT's contract demands are, we could possible be able to have our RB position set for years. I like MB3, but I don't think he can really carry the load and is more valuable as a change of pace back. JJ is going to want more money then I'd be comfortable giving him, since I'm never sure which JJ will show up, from year to year and game to game. The combo of JJ and MB3 has been pretty good for us, but what happens next year? If we can trade for MT and sign him to an extension then we'd be better of for next year and the future.

Get over the whole 1st and 3rd idea. That's just to protect the Chargers, that doesn't mean that's what they'll be asking for him. However it would take something of value to get Turner, especially because there's nothing better than him out there. I'd say Turner would demand more in return than if we were going to move JJ.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Hey, LaMont Jordan gained 500 yards at 5.2 ypc AND scored two TDs while backing up the league's leading rusher in 2004, too. And the league's most notable morons gave up a whpoping THIRD round draft choice for him.

Clearly the market dicates that Turner's extra 100 yards are worth far more from organizations that aren't stupid.

How many of the first-round picks who have been drafted since the Raiders signed Jordan would have been better behind that offensive line?

Seriously...the Raiders o-line has been atrocious for 3 years now. I was shocked Jordan was able to put up a thousand yards in that offense.

To me the only thing the Lamont Jordan argument proves is that if you're going to go out and get a good RB, it's probably a good idea to put him behind at lease an average o-line. If your o-line sucks as bad as the Raiders has of late you probably ought to focus on that rather than on signing RB's and receivers in the offseason.