It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:17 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:51 pm
Posts: 4875
Location: New York
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
Quote:
He's a shell of his former self, and don't let his 34 fantasy points or 214 rushing yards or 6.9 YPC fool you into thinking he's anything more than a below average starting NFL running back.


Emmitt, don't waste your time talking Turner with Pudge. He has been against the Turner signing since day one and continues to bash him year after year. Of course Turner isn't the player he once was and Pudge relishes that. Father time and 350+ carries a year will break down anyone's body. But to say he is a below average RB is a bit much, even for the Turner-hater Pudge. I kinda chuckle when he uses stats (over and over and over again) to make his points, but when the stats say something he doesn't like, well, I guess we should just ignore them. The facts are that Turner is 6th in the NFL in rushing yards and leads the NFL with an astonishing 6.9 yards per carry.
I don't know much, but I do know that the Falcons would not have three winning seasons in a row, a playoff appearance, and nationally televised games without the 888 carries he's had in the past 3 seasons as a Falcon.


I agree Johnny. After he goes 140 against Tampa and goes over 100 against Seattle, I look forward to good old Pudge's reaction. The fact he's breaking big runs with a mess of an offensive line pleases me. He even got a huge catch!!

_________________
Image

R.I.P 2013 season


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:25 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4499
Robert AP AND I AGREE AGAIN (: Man you got a punter kicking from our goal line, a 25 yard punt in a Dome is just freaking horrible
and this guy hits it 18 yards?? Plus his kicks are closer to line drives that go to the 5. I worry about some of our better players who are on that kickoff team getting hurt..... Receiving the kickoff you can afford to use more reserves because they can usually block too.

I can stick with his usual punts but I can only guess with us 5 yards closer the coaches expect those run out not to be as good....
I'd much prefer they just put it on the 20 after someone kicks it out of the end zone.

I was also glad to see in another post Robert point out you can't pick and choose a certain part of a close game; to take away
a play made, and I'm referring to Turner.....

Of course he's not what he was but put other backs behind the line he's had the last two weeks and I'd think you'd see he's
not below average......

Turner has 37 carries for 214 years at 6.9 point average a carry. He has 2 catches for about 70 yards....... I've not looked at the
other stats of other runners and can't project the future.... If he has lanes he can really pound folks and if there is absolutely no hole
he'll go nowhere. He's valuable to us.....

He also fumbled last week getting close to the red zone that really hurt us; My thoughts are if he stays healthy he'll keep breaking some
long ones like last week and Sunday night....

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:54 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3109
Anti-Turner wrote:
Is he still better than probably 50-60 RBs in the league today? Sure. But there are probably 20, 25, if not 30 RBs in the league today that are better than him, regardless of how many rushing yards he has.


You are entitled to your opinion of course, but there is no way there are 30 RB's in the league right now better than Turner. Starks would get crushed in this offense...what makes him go is Rodger's passing abilities. I like Snelling, but if he was as good or better than Turner as you suggest, he's be playing and Tuner would have been a cap casualty in camp. Nice try.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:09 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4221
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
Anti-Turner wrote:

:lol:

But seriously, Pudge is correct, he slammed the move to get Turner, but he did say, during that season, that he was wrong.

I think that most of us believe that Turner is in the twilight of his career. As I said earlier in this thread, he's performing considerably better than I expected. That he put up 100 yards against Chicago was a total shock to me, and I paid for it by not starting him in my fantasy league that game. But even with his great performances so far this year, how many people here really believe that he is going to keep carrying the ball 400 times a year and doing so with the authority that we saw a couple of years ago?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:24 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25849
Location: North Carolina
I'm not saying "take away Turner's long runs." He made those runs, earned those runs and they are excellent, and at least against the Eagles were critical to us winning that game. My point in saying that was that because people look at his numbers and see his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC, they think that is what he's doing on a consistent basis. No, his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC is largely because of 2 runs. 114 of those yards and 57.0 YPC came on 2 runs. People look at those superficial numbers and think that he is averaging nearly 7 yards a carry. No, he is not. He's averaging less than 4 yards a carry on 29 of his runs, but 57 yards on 2 of his runs, which skews the YPC heavily.

That's the difference between "stat people" and non-stat people, is that stat people get that you have to dig a little deeper. It's about asking the "why" question when you see a stat. Why does this QB have a 92 passer rating and this other one only a 78? A non-stat person would look at that and see 92 = good and 78 = not so good, and that be the end of it. But when you dig a little deeper, you may discover that the 78 rated passer might have a couple of more dropped passes, a couple more INTs on tipped passes, and a few less TDs, and the difference isn't as stark as they appear on the surface.

That's the point I was trying to stress with Turner. Is that 53% of his production has come on 6% of his runs.

Yes, it is a fact that Turner has 214 yards, and a 6.9 YPC. But it's also a fact that his DVOA is 18th ranked in the league, and his success rate is 27th in the league.

Now is the blocking a factor in why that is? Of course it is. It's a major factor. The Falcons have missed 12 blocks so far this year. All of last year they missed 83. The difference of 6.0 thru the first 2 games vs. 5.2 per game over the course of last year isn't as huge a difference as some might make it out to be. Key Blocks are down this year (7.6 last year to 5 per game this year), although I'd probably argue that is down because Ovie has been fairly quiet this year.

I expect Turner to continue to be productive for most of this year, but I also think that production is somewhat deceiving in making people think he's performing at a high level. I think he has become purely an extension of the blocking he receives up front. IMO, that was not the case in previous years, and when a RB reaches that point where he's bringing very little "extra" to the table besides what the 5-6 guys in front of him are bringing, then he's reached the point where he should no longer be a starting RB.

That's not to say we need to bench him now or cut him now. We should ride him for as long as we can. But given he's been on a steady decline the past 3 seasons, he's going to be below that benchmark next year, and by then it's only going to be too late. We're going to be an offense then that wants to run the ball, that can't run the ball.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3109
Burner-Buster wrote:
I'm not saying "take away Turner's long runs." He made those runs, earned those runs and they are excellent, and at least against the Eagles were critical to us winning that game. My point in saying that was that because people look at his numbers and see his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC, they think that is what he's doing on a consistent basis. No, his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC is largely because of 2 runs. 114 of those yards and 57.0 YPC came on 2 runs. People look at those superficial numbers and think that he is averaging nearly 7 yards a carry. No, he is not. He's averaging less than 4 yards a carry on 29 of his runs, but 57 yards on 2 of his runs, which skews the YPC heavily.


I call BS. An average is an average is an average. Too even bring it up is just another way you show your dislike for Turner. Every RB in the league has an "average" YPC. A 4.0 average is average, while a 4.5 is dreamy. Pudge would like you to believe that a stud RB can get 4.5 every carry. If that was the case, you could hand it off to this mystical creature every down and in theory not be stopped. But guess what? Defenses make good plays and stuff runs. Linemen miss blocks and get RB's crushed. The dreaded turf monster rears his ugly head and RB's trip for no gain for no apparent reason.

Turner has hit 100 yards in our first two games. You could even argue that we wouldn't have beat the Eagles without his performance. As of today, Turner owns the most "explosive" running play in the NFL with a 61 yard rumble. (oh wait, can we use that, because that increases his YPC????) I'm not saying he hasn't lost a step, because he has, but he certainly hasn't fallen to the bowels of the NFL as Pudge suggests.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:13 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Posts: 952
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
Burner-Buster wrote:
I'm not saying "take away Turner's long runs." He made those runs, earned those runs and they are excellent, and at least against the Eagles were critical to us winning that game. My point in saying that was that because people look at his numbers and see his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC, they think that is what he's doing on a consistent basis. No, his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC is largely because of 2 runs. 114 of those yards and 57.0 YPC came on 2 runs. People look at those superficial numbers and think that he is averaging nearly 7 yards a carry. No, he is not. He's averaging less than 4 yards a carry on 29 of his runs, but 57 yards on 2 of his runs, which skews the YPC heavily.


I call BS. An average is an average is an average. Too even bring it up is just another way you show your dislike for Turner. Every RB in the league has an "average" YPC. A 4.0 average is average, while a 4.5 is dreamy. Pudge would like you to believe that a stud RB can get 4.5 every carry. If that was the case, you could hand it off to this mystical creature every down and in theory not be stopped. But guess what? Defenses make good plays and stuff runs. Linemen miss blocks and get RB's crushed. The dreaded turf monster rears his ugly head and RB's trip for no gain for no apparent reason.

Turner has hit 100 yards in our first two games. You could even argue that we wouldn't have beat the Eagles without his performance. As of today, Turner owns the most "explosive" running play in the NFL with a 61 yard rumble. (oh wait, can we use that, because that increases his YPC????) I'm not saying he hasn't lost a step, because he has, but he certainly hasn't fallen to the bowels of the NFL as Pudge suggests.


An avg is an avg is an avg is just naive. There's mean, median, and mode in basic math just to show there's 3 different ways to think about avg. The median YPC is really what you care about on runners (to the first decimal place). You care how often they get above 4 ypc more than you do what their average is.

The reason for this is the run game is by nature the conservative aspect of the game. It is the stabilizing force. You run to set up 3rd and shorts, which are more easily converted. If you have a RB who gets 1 yard consistently, and breaks an 80 yarder each game...that's great. He has a nice YPC. However, he was a negative for your offense on EVERY OTHER drive of the day, and likely prevented points. He set up a ton of 3rd and 8's instead of 3rd and 2's.

This is also the reason YPC isn't a good metric for run defense. A penetrating defense that stops a team for a 1 yard gain, 0 yard gain, or loss 90% of the time, but allows 4 ten yard gains each game and a big run every other game will look bad on YPC. They'll look great on every other metric. Aside from 4 plays per game, they put each series in bad down and distance. They enabled the rest of the D to pin their ears back on 3rd down. They are, in reality, a great run D, but YPC doesn't capture it.

What matters is how often you keep the other team from doing well. How often you put them in negative down and distance situations. This can be measured by success rate, but also, if you want to go back to elementary math, you can use the median (again adjusted to 1 decimal place instead of a whole number) or say "how often does the D stop the RB from getting 4 yards?"

Turner runs for over 4ypc in about 5-6 games per year, while a back like AP runs for over 4ypc in double that amount. That consistency is what helps you. The run game is all about consistency. The passing game averages more yards per play, across the board. The reason you choose the run is not for the average yardage (or you'd pass), it's for the low variance, the consistency. Thus, looking at the consistency instead of the average yardage (as that's what the run game is used for) makes perfect sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:21 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3109
takeitdown wrote:
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
Burner-Buster wrote:
I'm not saying "take away Turner's long runs." He made those runs, earned those runs and they are excellent, and at least against the Eagles were critical to us winning that game. My point in saying that was that because people look at his numbers and see his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC, they think that is what he's doing on a consistent basis. No, his 214 yards and 6.9 YPC is largely because of 2 runs. 114 of those yards and 57.0 YPC came on 2 runs. People look at those superficial numbers and think that he is averaging nearly 7 yards a carry. No, he is not. He's averaging less than 4 yards a carry on 29 of his runs, but 57 yards on 2 of his runs, which skews the YPC heavily.


I call BS. An average is an average is an average. Too even bring it up is just another way you show your dislike for Turner. Every RB in the league has an "average" YPC. A 4.0 average is average, while a 4.5 is dreamy. Pudge would like you to believe that a stud RB can get 4.5 every carry. If that was the case, you could hand it off to this mystical creature every down and in theory not be stopped. But guess what? Defenses make good plays and stuff runs. Linemen miss blocks and get RB's crushed. The dreaded turf monster rears his ugly head and RB's trip for no gain for no apparent reason.

Turner has hit 100 yards in our first two games. You could even argue that we wouldn't have beat the Eagles without his performance. As of today, Turner owns the most "explosive" running play in the NFL with a 61 yard rumble. (oh wait, can we use that, because that increases his YPC????) I'm not saying he hasn't lost a step, because he has, but he certainly hasn't fallen to the bowels of the NFL as Pudge suggests.


An avg is an avg is an avg is just naive. There's mean, median, and mode in basic math just to show there's 3 different ways to think about avg. The median YPC is really what you care about on runners (to the first decimal place). You care how often they get above 4 ypc more than you do what their average is.

The reason for this is the run game is by nature the conservative aspect of the game. It is the stabilizing force. You run to set up 3rd and shorts, which are more easily converted. If you have a RB who gets 1 yard consistently, and breaks an 80 yarder each game...that's great. He has a nice YPC. However, he was a negative for your offense on EVERY OTHER drive of the day, and likely prevented points. He set up a ton of 3rd and 8's instead of 3rd and 2's.

This is also the reason YPC isn't a good metric for run defense. A penetrating defense that stops a team for a 1 yard gain, 0 yard gain, or loss 90% of the time, but allows 4 ten yard gains each game and a big run every other game will look bad on YPC. They'll look great on every other metric. Aside from 4 plays per game, they put each series in bad down and distance. They enabled the rest of the D to pin their ears back on 3rd down. They are, in reality, a great run D, but YPC doesn't capture it.

What matters is how often you keep the other team from doing well. How often you put them in negative down and distance situations. This can be measured by success rate, but also, if you want to go back to elementary math, you can use the median (again adjusted to 1 decimal place instead of a whole number) or say "how often does the D stop the RB from getting 4 yards?"

Turner runs for over 4ypc in about 5-6 games per year, while a back like AP runs for over 4ypc in double that amount. That consistency is what helps you. The run game is all about consistency. The passing game averages more yards per play, across the board. The reason you choose the run is not for the average yardage (or you'd pass), it's for the low variance, the consistency. Thus, looking at the consistency instead of the average yardage (as that's what the run game is used for) makes perfect sense.


:clap: Excellent response.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:56 pm 
Offline
Playmaker
Playmaker
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:46 am
Posts: 483
Location: Vacaville, CA
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
takeitdown wrote:
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
Burner-Buster wrote:


:clap: Excellent response.


You do realize that you are now clapping for the exact same argument that you called BS on, right? If there's sarcasm there, it's too opaque.

TID just used the words median and mode and went on to explain why teams don't throw the ball every play; otherwise, it's the same argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:44 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25849
Location: North Carolina
I never said Turner was in the bowels of the league. I said he was a below average starting RB. Just like Kyle Orton is a below average starting QB. Doesn't mean he's in the bowels of the league, it just means that there are more starters in the league that are better than him, than are worse than him. It means, if you were to rank the 32 starters from 1-32, you would find them somewhere between 16-32.

When I said Turner was "god awful" that was hyperbole. Unfortunately, I should have clarified that point.

But Turner is not only on the decline (he has been for 3 years now), but he's at the end. Does that mean that he can't still be valuable or productive the rest of this year? No, and I have yet to say anything like that in this thread.

The one thing that Turner did exceptionally well in the past was get yards after contact. In 2009, he had 10 carries where he had at least 5 yards after contact. That amounted to about 5.6% of his total carries. That's roughly, once every 18 carries, which for that year worked out to be roughly once a game. Now in 2010, he had 11 such carries, but with 334 total carries, that percentage dropped to 3.3%, which is about once every 30 carries, or once every other game.

Now, this year the sample size is too small to really make huge conclusions since he only has 31 carries, and if his first carry against the Bucs he trucks Mason Foster to turn a 3-yard gain into an 8-yard gain, it'll be all good.

Snelling has one of those carries (although IINM it actually came on a pass rather than a rushing attempt), but he only has touched the ball 8 times on offense. And Rodgers on his 10-yard run vs. the Eagles, got 4 yards after contact, just 1 shy of what he needed to get it.

But the point I'm trying to make is that the thing that Turner was best at, I'm not sure that he's significantly better at this point in his career than either Snelling or Rodgers.

That's not me saying we should be starting Snelling or Rodgers over Turner, just saying that gap between Turner and his backups that used to be huge has shrunk to a point where I'm not sure if it really matters who is the Falcons starting RB. Turner is still better, but he's better like Kyle Orton is better than David Garrard. Nobody would be thumping their chest on how much more valuable and vital Orton would be to his team's success than Garrard would be.

To me, his 32-yard catch & run is a good illustration of how much he's fallen. Excellent play, and not trying to "take away" from that play. But IMO the Turner of 2-3 years ago, there's not a cold chance in hell that Casey Matthews makes the tackle at the end of that play. The old Turner would have trucked or juked him, and add another 10-20 yards to that play, to make it even more excellent.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/0 ... 32-yd-pass

But from reviewing the games, I see a lot of instances like that where the present Turner gets into 1 on 1 situations with LBs and safeties and doesn't win those battles. And that IMO is what I consider to happen to below average to average starting RBs.

And if the Falcons go into 2012 thinking that Turner is going to produce at his current level or the previous one, then that will be a biggest mistake that Dimitroff has made to date.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:42 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3109
samedi wrote:
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
takeitdown wrote:
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
Burner-Buster wrote:


:clap: Excellent response.


You do realize that you are now clapping for the exact same argument that you called BS on, right? If there's sarcasm there, it's too opaque.

TID just used the words median and mode and went on to explain why teams don't throw the ball every play; otherwise, it's the same argument.


No sarcasm there. It was a well written, thought out response, not the standard "I'm right and that's the way it is" drivel. Do I agree? No. But it did shine new light on an old argument. I will give credit were credit is due.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:17 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4938
Emmitt wrote:
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
Quote:
He's a shell of his former self, and don't let his 34 fantasy points or 214 rushing yards or 6.9 YPC fool you into thinking he's anything more than a below average starting NFL running back.


Emmitt, don't waste your time talking Turner with Pudge. He has been against the Turner signing since day one and continues to bash him year after year. Of course Turner isn't the player he once was and Pudge relishes that. Father time and 350+ carries a year will break down anyone's body. But to say he is a below average RB is a bit much, even for the Turner-hater Pudge. I kinda chuckle when he uses stats (over and over and over again) to make his points, but when the stats say something he doesn't like, well, I guess we should just ignore them. The facts are that Turner is 6th in the NFL in rushing yards and leads the NFL with an astonishing 6.9 yards per carry.
I don't know much, but I do know that the Falcons would not have three winning seasons in a row, a playoff appearance, and nationally televised games without the 888 carries he's had in the past 3 seasons as a Falcon.


I agree Johnny. After he goes 140 against Tampa and goes over 100 against Seattle, I look forward to good old Pudge's reaction. The fact he's breaking big runs with a mess of an offensive line pleases me. He even got a huge catch!!



to be fair alot of this is subjective...I recall saying I was concerned about Turner's fumbling last season ( was it or 2 seasons ago?) where he coughed up the rock in five consecutive games....Pudge agreed with me, and before long, I was labeled 'Anti-Turner' by Herr hosenfeffer! But the 'stats' were just that:stats. There was no 'dispute' that Turner did not fumble, only some conversation about whether it was 'his fault' or not. To my uneducated brain, I assumed if he coughed up the rock in the sixth game, it was time to address the situation. That is apparently enough to be labeled a 'Turner H8R', added with my praise for Snelling. :ninja:

I think the thing that distinguishes Turner as an average or slightly above average RB is his ability to adapt to the situation. Clearly, someone has been running short routes on the Jugs Machine in preseason and taking more tosses, because we have never admired Turner for his 'soft hands' and 'excellent peripheral vision', yet he is coming up with more clutch catches then he ever has. This speaks volumes to me as I dont see this as lucky dump offs but prior planning. With due credit to Ryan and Mularkey, they are using Turner sparingly in a role he previously did not excel at. This will pay divendends down the road as defenses make adjustments to cover Turner more, and it is a characterstic that your 'below average' smashmouth power RB cant pull off, IMHO.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:12 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25849
Location: North Carolina
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
No sarcasm there. It was a well written, thought out response, not the standard "I'm right and that's the way it is" drivel. Do I agree? No. But it did shine new light on an old argument. I will give credit were credit is due.

:roll:
Sorry didn't realize that I needed to explain why YPC and rushing yards are flawed measures of RBs. Thought most understood the difference between quantitative and qualitative stats.

Regardless of what Turner's final numbers are, good or bad, if the Falcons think that they can continue to use him as the No. 1 workhorse back beyond this year, they'll be making the exact same mistake that the Browns made in 2008 when they kept Jamal Lewis after a 1300-yard, 4.4 YPC season. The wheels always eventually fall off for all RBs sooner or later, and it seemingly comes out of nowhere because no one seems to read between the lines.

I'm glad Turner is still productive. I hope he maintains it for the rest of the season. But if you think it goes beyond this year...if you think he has more than 10-15 good games left in him...then you're fooling yourself.

I am right, you just haven't realized it yet. Resistance is futile. Compliance is inevitable.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:01 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3109
Pudge wrote:
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
No sarcasm there. It was a well written, thought out response, not the standard "I'm right and that's the way it is" drivel. Do I agree? No. But it did shine new light on an old argument. I will give credit were credit is due.

:roll:
Sorry didn't realize that I needed to explain why YPC and rushing yards are flawed measures of RBs. Thought most understood the difference between quantitative and qualitative stats.

Regardless of what Turner's final numbers are, good or bad, if the Falcons think that they can continue to use him as the No. 1 workhorse back beyond this year, they'll be making the exact same mistake that the Browns made in 2008 when they kept Jamal Lewis after a 1300-yard, 4.4 YPC season. The wheels always eventually fall off for all RBs sooner or later, and it seemingly comes out of nowhere because no one seems to read between the lines.

I'm glad Turner is still productive. I hope he maintains it for the rest of the season. But if you think it goes beyond this year...if you think he has more than 10-15 good games left in him...then you're fooling yourself.

I am right, you just haven't realized it yet. Resistance is futile. Compliance is inevitable.


You're changing your argument (again) to make yourself look smart. I don't believe anyone said Turner is the workhorse for years to come...I do think this will be his final year as lead back as a matter of fact. But you stated he is a below average back right now and that isn't he case. Turner is notgoing to the Hall of Fame, we can all agree on that, but he has made a career on pushing the pile and then occassionally busting a long one. He said as much just yesterday:

Quote:
RB Michael Turner said he’s at his best when he gets consistent carries throughout the game: “The more I touch it, the more I feel comfortable in the game, and eventually I’m going to break one.”


For the type of offense we run, other than obviously "Purple Jesus", who is head and shoulders above Turner? Not how the offense should be, not how you'd like to see the offense run, but for what we actually do. Three yards and a cloud of dust.


* Edit for having Turner's bust getting made for the Hall of Fame.


Last edited by AngryJohnny51 on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:31 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4221
Turner is going to the hall of fame?

No offense, but I don't think that he has a snowball's chance in hell of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3109
RobertAP wrote:
Turner is going to the hall of fame?

No offense, but I don't think that he has a snowball's chance in hell of that.


HAHAHA. I meant "not". Will edit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:03 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4221
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
Turner is going to the hall of fame?

No offense, but I don't think that he has a snowball's chance in hell of that.


HAHAHA. I meant "not". Will edit.

:lol: Ok good. I was hoping that you weren't becoming a delusional fanboy. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:16 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25849
Location: North Carolina
AngryJohnny51 wrote:
You're changing your argument (again) to make yourself look smart. I don't believe anyone said Turner is the workhorse for years to come...I do think this will be his final year as lead back as a matter of fact. But you stated he is a below average back right now and that isn't he case.

I haven't changed squadoosh, I maintain the same point I made several posts ago:
Wrongfully Accused Turner Hate wrote:
...the player he is today is a below average starting running back. Is he still better than probably 50-60 RBs in the league today? Sure. But there are probably 20, 25, if not 30 RBs in the league today that are better than him, regardless of how many rushing yards he has.


AngryJohnny51 wrote:
For the type of offense we run, other than obviously "Purple Jesus", who is head and shoulders above Turner? Not how the offense should be, not how you'd like to see the offense run, but for what we actually do. Three yards and a cloud of dust.

LeSean McCoy is not a better fit in our offense, but he is a better RB.

But if you want to list the players that I think are potentially better than Turner in our offense as of today:

Adrian Peterson, Beanie Wells, James Starks, Jonathan Stewart, Willis McGahee, Michael Bush, Rashard Mendenhall, Peyton Hillis, Brandon Jacobs, Shonn Greene, Mark Ingram, LeGarrette Blount are all better RBs at this point in their careers and also fit our offense. And while they aren't traditional "power" backs, I think MJD, Frank Gore, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ray Rice, Matt Forte, and Pierre Thomas are skilled enough to produce more than Turner in our offense. Which of course does not include the players like McCoy, CJ2K, Jamaal Charles, Felix Jones, Run DMC, Arian Foster, Fred Jackson, etc. that are better but just aren't good fits for our offense. BTW, that's 25 names I listed.

Now I know many of those names will be scoffed at because they only have X yards compared to Turner's Y, or that they are young/unproven, or have durability concerns, etc. But production is not the same as ability, and I think all are just as if not significant more able than Turner.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:19 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4499
Quote:
"Pudge Wrote" "An avg is an avg is an avg is just naive. There's mean, median, and mode in basic math just to show there's 3 different ways to think about avg. The median YPC is really what you care about on runners (to the first decimal place). You care how often they get above 4 ypc more than you do what their average is.


Pudge when the guy runs the same way almost every year you are the one perhaps being naive.... I 'm meaning hasn't Turner always run
for short yards then hit a bigger run...?? If the answer is yes then in Turner's case we know what we are judging him on " a 60 minute game with 20+ carries"

I won't be surprised if Turner is not here next year but for now I'll just stick with this year!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:36 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3109
Quote:
LeSean McCoy is not a better fit in our offense, but he is a better RB.


Again, I asked for better running backs for our style offense, you just couldn't resist to change it again. So, throw out McCoy.

Quote:
Adrian Peterson,


Purple Jesus was a given and I asked for RB's besides him, so throw him out.

Quote:
Beanie Wells, Jonathan Stewart, Willis McGahee, Brandon Jacobs, Shonn Greene,


What has Beanie done since his rookie year besides being listed on the injury report? The most carries he's had in a season is 176, half of what he'd need to tote the rock here in Atlanta.
McGahee? Please. He's been in the league for 9 years and has averaged over 4.0 twice in his career. Big name, below average career.
Stewart couldn't take the pounding.
Brandon Jacobs is so slow, Tom Coughlin times him with an hour glass to run the 40. If he wasn't 6-4 and 280 and falling in the end zone every now and again, he wouldn't even be in the NFL.
Shonn Greene should be better, but he's not as of yet. Read the papers of NY and see how disappointing/under achieving he really is. Sorry Pudge, all these guys are out of the equation as well.

Quote:
Mark Ingram, LeGarrette Blount, Jamaal Charles, Arian Foster,


Ingram? Really? He has played in 2 games in his career and he is better than Turner? Really?
Blount, Charles and Foster all have potential to be better at some point, but their body of work isn't there yet. We can go to the trainers room and ask Charles and Foster personally and I certainly hope Blount doesn't sucker punch me in the face for saying he isn't better than old man Turner.


Quote:
And while they aren't traditional "power" backs, I think MJD, Frank Gore, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ray Rice, Matt Forte, and Pierre Thomas are skilled enough to produce more than Turner in our offense. Which of course does not include the players like McCoy, CJ2K, Jamaal Charles, Felix Jones, Run DMC, Arian Foster, Fred Jackson, etc. that are better but just aren't good fits for our offense. BTW, that's 25 names I listed.


I like MJD, Bradshaw, Jones and DMC but they are better suited for a 2 headed monster type of running attack....not what we do here.
Thomas better than Turner...that's a tough sell.

Here's what I wrote:
Angry wrote:
For the type of offense we run, other than obviously "Purple Jesus", who is head and shoulders above Turner? Not how the offense should be, not how you'd like to see the offense run, but for what we actually do. Three yards and a cloud of dust.


Very good for you for naming 25 running backs Pudge. You get a gold star for the day. Unfortunately, you veered off the "path" again and many of who you named are not better than Turner and many could never play in this offense. Period.

I do like Starks, Bush, Gore, Hillis and Rice. But that's a long, long way from a list of 25 better than Turner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:12 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Posts: 952
There's also the possibility that if the RB had a more diverse skill set (like MJD) we'd throw it to the primary back more, and have a few more bounce out plays.

Since the offense is very catered to exactly what Turner can do (i.e, can't catch--usually--, can't bounce outside, etc.) it's hard to provide a ton of names that would do that EXACT thing better. However, there are easily 15 that could do 90% of what Turner does on his strengths, plus add other dimensions to the offense (like pass catching while moving, and bouncing it outside if there isn't a hole, running better from a single back formation.)

So, I think there are 15-20 who would be as good/better in this offense when you take into account that they'd catch a bit more, bounce outside a bit more (thereby keeping DEs and OLBs honest) etc., and enable us to run single back formations without tipping our hand.

If all of a sudden we had Felix Jones as our RB, I don't think that would work well for Mularkey's offense. But if we had Ray Rice, MJD, Hillis, etc., they could plug in the same things Turner does, but it would be easy to also add in some wheel routes, drags, and cutbacks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We won, we knocked Vick out... Why do I feel used?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:26 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25849
Location: North Carolina
Sorry AJ51, but you've made the classic mistake that so many make. In your "vetos" on the RBs I named, for most of them, you are comparing Turner's career vs. their careers. That is not what I'm talking about, and it's a point I've stressed. I don't care that Beanie Wells has yet to carry the load for a team for 16 games. if the question is who is the better RB today, then IMO that player is Wells. Why? Has nothing to do with his production, it has everything to do with the fact that Wells is younger, faster, more explosive.

But if I was to use stats to support my argument, I would use the fact that Wells has had a higher success rate each of the past three years over Turner, as why his younger fresher legs would be better for this team today. And the thing that you may not be understanding is that success rate is extremely important in our offense because of our offense's reliance on prolonged drives, which means that the RB needs to have successful runs on 1st & 2nd down to set up 3rd & manageable situations. Here's a good read on success rate: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/10 ... -rate.html

Turner is 29 years old, and IMO his play today is reflective of your typical 29-year old NFL running back, who's play is often an iota of what it was 2-5 years before when said player was in their prime.

Turner is on pace to have 248 carries this year. Would Wells give us more production for the same amount? I don't know. That would be pure speculation that involves a lot of factors that would not be worthwhile exploring in the case of this argument. But if Wells was only going to give us 176 carries (as you note his career high), then I'd bet his 176 carries vs. Turner's 176 would be better.

Cyril wrote:
Pudge when the guy runs the same way almost every year you are the one perhaps being naive.... I 'm meaning hasn't Turner always run for short yards then hit a bigger run...?? If the answer is yes then in Turner's case we know what we are judging him on " a 60 minute game with 20+ carries"

Yes, I think he will continue to do so. But again, IMO that's not the critical issue here. It's the 19 carries he has before that I'm wary of before he breaks that 20th run for a big game. Those runs are becoming less, and less effective each year. Before Turner's burst and ability to get yards after contact could turn a 3-yard gain into a 5-yard gain, or a 2-yard gain into a 4-yard gain. Or the fact that before when he would have been stuffed he still would have gained a yard or two, and now he's held to no gain.

The problem here is that everybody sees that big 61-yard run vs. the Eagles, and in their eyes it glosses over the previous 9 runs where Turner was unsuccessful on 8 of them. Is that me saying that the 61-yard run doesn't matter or wasn't important? No. But a younger, better back IMO could have been successful on maybe 4 or 5 of those 9 runs as well as break that long 61-yard run, or maybe that younger back turns that 61-yard run into a 75-yard run, or more. Speculation on my part? Absolutely. But IMO that's not a huge stretch to think an above average to good starting RB could produce.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: