Falcons likely to release Michael Turner..
- Thread starter 57stratdawg
- Start date
Shirley you can't be serious. How about a 3.6 ypc average for starters. Then factor in that the ypc was declining the whole second half of the season, meaning his ypc for the second half was < 3.6, meaning he was wearing down. He's too fat and has lost his acceleration and top end speed. Plus he got a DUI during the season.
They will add another back either through the draft or through free agency to split time with Rogers. Turners release free's up money for Ryan's raise.
RB is the most easily replaceable position in football. for every adrian peterson that is transcendent, there are 100 alfred morris's who can be drafted late and plugged behind a good OL and give you good production. all things equal, i think pretty much any NFL caliber RB can give you 85-90% of AD's numbers. how much are you willing to pay for that last 10-15%?
No no no
RB is still the second most important position on the field, even for teams like the Saints.
RB is still the second most important position on the field, even for teams like the Saints.
Second most important position to fill, but when there's not much difference between the 5th best RB and 40th best RB, you don't have to spend money on it.
No, it's not. Look at the Patriots, Green Bay, Saints. I'd rather have a revolving door at RB and studs at QB and TE. I can find someone to run against 6 in the box.
Would Dixon be a good fit in Atlanta? Being a Falcon fan I would like to see him there. It made me cringe with him in San Francisco.
I would like to see MJD in ATL
Isn't he looking for an out of Jacksonville ? I am not sayin this is the long term solution, but it seems to make sense in the present. I think MJD still has some gas in the tank as well.
Isn't he looking for an out of Jacksonville ? I am not sayin this is the long term solution, but it seems to make sense in the present. I think MJD still has some gas in the tank as well.
I don't see Atlanta taking MJD or any other top money RB
They've got to pay Ryan, they'll have to pay Gonzalez if he chooses to stay, they have to decide to either pay their LT Baker or get a new one (Baker's only good year was this past year), they also have some huge holes at DE and LB that they will need to fill.
They've got to pay Ryan, they'll have to pay Gonzalez if he chooses to stay, they have to decide to either pay their LT Baker or get a new one (Baker's only good year was this past year), they also have some huge holes at DE and LB that they will need to fill.
Do you think Ridley is more important to the Patriots offense than Gronkowski? They can find a chump on any street corner to play RB in that offense. Vick Ballard would easily put those numbers up. But, there are not athletes walking around like Gronk, Hernandez, Vernon Davis, Jimmy Graham, etc.
Would you take Gronk over AP?
Or Jimmy Graham over Arian Foster? Please don't say yes.
But I sort of see what you are saying. I would much rather have the best TE and the 20th best RB than to have the 5th best running back and the 20th best TE. But it doesn't change the fact that RB is the second most important position on the field (because of touches).
Or Jimmy Graham over Arian Foster? Please don't say yes.
But I sort of see what you are saying. I would much rather have the best TE and the 20th best RB than to have the 5th best running back and the 20th best TE. But it doesn't change the fact that RB is the second most important position on the field (because of touches).
I am not taking anything away from Gronk. He's a special talent, no doubt. However, they barely missed a beat while he was hurt this year. Ridley also had a great year for them. Your post used the Patriots as an example where the TE was more important and they had a revolving door at RB. In his second year, Ridley played every game, accounted for more yards, and scored more TDs than Gronk did, so I am just saying that they are not a good example of a team who doesn't have a RB.
and he was a 3rd round pick and relatively unheralded. he's exactly what we are talking about. he's got NFL level RB talent, stick him behind a good OL, give him 250-300 touches and he'll put up numbers, just like about 40 other NFL level RBs.
guys, it's not that you don't need a good RB. you do. the point is that there are literally 40-50 guys that would put up 1200 yds and 10+ TDs behind the better OLs in the league and/or with a good passing game to open up the offense. ridley might have a little more yardage and explosiveness than BJGE, but he largely just replicated BJGE's per touch production for the pats the last couple years.
there are a very very few elite RB talents that stand out above all others, peterson is the only one in the NFL right now, you could put him behind the worst OL in the league and i think he'd still put up 1000 yds. he's just on a different level.
foster has been great the last few years and put up good numbers, but i think a lot of that has been the product of his surroundings and sheer number of touches. i think if you stuck a couple of other RBs in the league on the texans with his touches the last couple years, they'd put up similar numbers, hell just look at what ben tate did when he was healthy and got more touches in 2011 on the same texans team. and think about how many backup RBs get plugged in for an injured starter and the offense and RB production doesn't miss a beat.
do you see what we are saying now? we aren't saying you don't need good production from the RB spot, we are saying you can find good production cheap and you are better off using a young cheap RBs and spending the extra $$ on OL, DL, QB, WR/TE, and CB. and RBs generally have a very short shelf life on top of that. the AD's and LT's and faulk's and payton's and OJ's are very few and far between.
there are a very very few elite RB talents that stand out above all others, peterson is the only one in the NFL right now, you could put him behind the worst OL in the league and i think he'd still put up 1000 yds. he's just on a different level.
foster has been great the last few years and put up good numbers, but i think a lot of that has been the product of his surroundings and sheer number of touches. i think if you stuck a couple of other RBs in the league on the texans with his touches the last couple years, they'd put up similar numbers, hell just look at what ben tate did when he was healthy and got more touches in 2011 on the same texans team. and think about how many backup RBs get plugged in for an injured starter and the offense and RB production doesn't miss a beat.
do you see what we are saying now? we aren't saying you don't need good production from the RB spot, we are saying you can find good production cheap and you are better off using a young cheap RBs and spending the extra $$ on OL, DL, QB, WR/TE, and CB. and RBs generally have a very short shelf life on top of that. the AD's and LT's and faulk's and payton's and OJ's are very few and far between.
Last edited:
I have no arguments with that, but that wasn't what strat was saying. Well one argument, I would say your 40-50 is probably closer to 25-30.
see, i think most backups could go in and put up numbers close to or on par with the starter (vareen in NE, tate in HOU, rodgers in ATL, etc etc etc).
Do you still think MJD is a top money guy?
I see him like a Corey Dillon type who still has a few good years left, and is wanting to get off a bad team. After the injury last year, and him getting up in age (for a RB), I think he may come a little cheaper than some might imagine.
I see him like a Corey Dillon type who still has a few good years left, and is wanting to get off a bad team. After the injury last year, and him getting up in age (for a RB), I think he may come a little cheaper than some might imagine.
I've "seen what you are saying" the whole time. I just don't lump Ridley in with the Packers and Saints running backs. He's better than them. Could they find someone else to replace his production? Maybe, maybe not. I do know this though. The Pats were 4-1 this year with the irreplaceable Gronk out with injury.
So maybe there are backs who could have done what Ridley did behing the Pats line. I suspect that same line and that so-so quarterback they have helped Gronk out too. Play the game the other way. What would Gronk's numbers have been if he was the starting TE in Arizona, or Jacksonville, or Kansas City?
So maybe there are backs who could have done what Ridley did behing the Pats line. I suspect that same line and that so-so quarterback they have helped Gronk out too. Play the game the other way. What would Gronk's numbers have been if he was the starting TE in Arizona, or Jacksonville, or Kansas City?
this brings up a very valid point. and that point is if you don't have a great qb or a lights out d it doesn't matter. no and gb didn't win their superbowls because of stellar d or a great running game. new york and baltimore didn't win their superbowls because of a lights out qb. both teams had either a qb playing at a pro bowl level in the playoffs or a d that was going to dominate you. it's very rare that you get both but if you have one or the other you're chance is as good as anyones.