Michael Turner Vs Vernon Gholston

Is this a serious thread?

 

If we had gotten Turner, we would've had to give up a 1st and 3rd I believe. Which means in addition to Gholston, we wouldn't have Dustin Keller as well.

I don't know if you've also considered Thomas Jones rushing yards last season, as well as the cap hit we would've had to endure with Jones AND Turner on board while they split carries.

This is just all wrong.

 

Go play some Madden.

 

Okay...i'm done...

 

I think we did make a mistake not trying to make a play for Turner, although at the time I wasn't in favor of giving up so much to get him. I wasn't sold that he could do it on his own.

I was wrong about that, and if it were a question of whether I'd rather have TJ and Gholston or Turner and our current personnel minus TJ... gotta go with Turner. The guy is a dynamo.

The way he runs though... you have to wonder how long it will be before Turner starts racking up the injuries.

 

Well, you told me to speak my mind. Why don't I like it? ...because we drafted Vernon Gholston. He's a New York Jet, not Michael Turner.

The same people that are calling Gholston a bust, called Ferguson a bust, and now look at him. Let him play out his contract and then complain...

 

This is the worst of the "what we should have done" threads.

Michael Turner? You're saying we should have traded for Michael Turner, who desperately wanted to be a feature back, paid him feature back money and put him in a TJ-Leon-Turner rotation?

Couldn't you have just started a Jonathan Stewart thread?

Or how about a Roy Williams thread?

 

Gotta take the chance with Gholston. RBs are easily found. Top-notch pass rushers, not so much. Obviously, Gholston isn't that yet, but you have to take the chance.

 

I really don't understand the premise of this thread. It's water under the bridge, comparing Gholston vs Turner just is a waste of time.

MR E..........I'm not one of the "herd" that have called Brick a bust, but I have have clearly stated many times Gholston was a very poor selection for the Jets in Mangini's system. Gholston will never be a 3-4 OLB with coverage skills. Hopefully Rex will put Gholston in situations to create havoc and rush the passer, Gholston's only strenght.

The second issue I have with Gholston.........his desire to play football and his lack of hustle when he is not rushing the passer. Gholston has no fire, no heart and gives up after his initial rush. I've seen his entire career and if Rex can't light a fire under his ass...no one will.

 

...obviously Turner would have been better than Gholston. Turner was a risk that the Jets didn't take, but if they traded #6 for a RB who had never really started in the NFL, people would have lynched Tannenbaum on the spot.

 

I wasn't a fan of the Gholston selection either, but I believe he can be a good pass rusher if he's put in the right scheme. Terrell Suggs is awful in coverage, but Ryan's scheme allowed him to play to his strengths.

Let's just hope Gholston can have 1/2 the production of Terrell Suggs...

 

If it were just his coverage abilities, I think I would feel better about it. But the guy sucked ass as a pass rusher except for maybe 2 or 3 occasions when he applied pressure before failing to reach the QB. And that's supposed to be his strong suit.

 

Here are the faults I find in this thread:

1. Good running backs are a dime a dozen in this league. Unless you have a true game breaker(capable of scoring on everyplay) who can double as a 20 carry a game player(extremely rare) OR a good RB is the final piece to your team's SB puzzle...you dont give up multiple picks for an RB. Our team currently has 3 arguably 4 very capable RB's to carry the load. Would a guy like Michael Turner really make this team THAT much better?

2. Take a look at this team's overall roster. Aside from Wide reciever, and a proven commodity at QB...there ARE no glaring holes. We have a good combination of youth and veterans, decent depth, and pro bowlers everywhere.

When you have that type of situation, there is nothing wrong w/ having high profile "developmental" guys. That's exactly what Gholston is. Yeah he very well may be a complete bust...but he also may have that x factor that takes this team to the next level. Given the above written circumstances, that's not a bad card to have at your disposal. Do i wish he had a more cap friendly #? Absolutely...and that maybe an issue 2 years down the road. But currently, he's a high ceiling guy who plays an impact position where you try to stockpile as much talent as possible. Let's sit back and let he and the CS earn their dough.

 

Kurt, that 'developmental' argument falls on it's face with a 6th overall draft pick. I watched you make the argument for DRob for years. How did that work out for you?

 

I defended D rob's development b/c I hate when people pre-maturely label players busts. W/ that said, these are 2 completely different situations.

When D rob came on board, there was absolutely no depth on the DL to speak of...and frankly the overall roster was average at best. After Jason Ferguson there was no one at DT.D rob was drafted for NEED. He came in and started from day 1. The only thing I maintained throughout his time here...was that, yes aside from the 04' season, he never lived up to expectations. But he did start his entire time w/ the team, had a few stand-out performances and gave us some peace of mind at a longtime "trouble" position. He was NOT a bust. A dissapointment? Absolutely.

When Gholston got drafted, There were several more pieces in place to the overall roster, and he had/has 2 solid performers in front of him on the depth chart(Pace/BT).Gholston was drafted for VALUE and DEPTH. My point is not to argue in favor of Gholston..but rather to give people some perspective. He's here...he has a ton of upside..and given the team's circumstances that isn't exactly a bad thing. Player development is part of the game. Why people can't understand this, i'm not sure. Some guys pan out..others don't. But to peg a guy a bust after one year when he had 2 capable guys in front of him anyway..to me is premature and frankly immature.

You come from the school of thought that the current rookie contract situation sucks...and that you should draft accordingly...sighting immediate playing ability over potential upside. That's fine.

My point is...the jets as an organization for whatever reason, disagree. I'm simply looking at the bright side that Gholston is a risk worth taking given where we are at personell wise as a franchise.

 

I'm not pegging the guy a bust, but he showed NOTHING in his rookie year. You can only pin so much of Mangini confusing him by making him drop into coverage, you can only pin so much on 'development'. But the guy was touted as a fierce pass-rusher and he couldn't even do that - he was made to look like a fool almost every time he stepped on the field. Why can't you understand that?