Let's discuss Michael Turner

You all the nails on the head. I don't think there is much of a reason NOT to bring him in. I do believe it will cost us a 2nd round pick too because SD will put the 1st round tender on him. I also believe that Lamont is getting a bad rap. His first season in Oakland was very successful. He battled injuries and a horrible OL in Oakland this year.

 

Regardless of how bad Jordan's line was, he hasn't been able to survive the NFL season, since he hadn't been a feature back in four years. Turner is coming up on four, and the reason his stats are so inflated is because teams are worn out by the time he gets into the game. You can argue all you want about him "learning," but it's not like quarterback. There's only so much you can learn from a runningback, then from there your instincts and physical assets have to take over. He's a physical runningback, but we're not giving up a first rounder for someone to split carries. The guy is three years into the league, if we're really going to give up that much for a runningback, draft someone fresh out of college with more potential because of the age difference.

He's not worth a first rounder. Build up the offensive line, and add a back thats used to taking a lot of carries to go along with Leon in the late second/third round, and go on from there. That makes my point Murrell. LaMont has had the injury bug, because he wasn't used to taking the beating. It's his legs and his shoulders that keep getting beat up, because after three years of not taking twenty carries a game, and thirty hits in that game at fullspeed, your endurance starts to digress.

 

To me its a no-brainer. We have two 2nd round picks. We can easily afford to give up one of them to get a franchise back. I dont want another old/washed up RB like Barlow. Heck we gave up a 4th round pick for him and a 2nd rounder would be too much for Turner? Are you kidding?

 

Find me a Rb with his potential that we could get with one of our 2nd round picks. Peterson & Lynch as of right now will be gone by our 1st round pick & Bush will most likely be gone by our high 2nd. Those are the only RBs that come close to Turners potential.

He will come in as fresh as a rookie and already knowing our O. I think the only question aT this point is if we could get him for a 2nd.

 

Just a couple of guys that sat for a few years before getting a chance and became very good backs.

Ahman Green
Rudi Johnson
Tiki Barber
Larry Johnson

 

You bring up a good point Vilma, look at Chester Taylor in Minnesota...After backing up Jamal Lewis for a few years in Baltimore, He kicked ass for most of his first year as a starter, then hit the wall towards the end of the season. I do however expect him to last longer next year once he is used to the rigors of a full season. Concurrently, I trust B-Schott's judgement, and would expect the same type of curve were to sign Turner. I would be happy with him or Portis next year, with Turner having more upside and Portis being more prove, we can't go wrong either way.

 

Problem is, that he's not as fresh as a rookie, and he won't be able to step right in, and take 300 carries right off the bat without getting hurt. He's just not used to it. Yes he's played football, and yes he conditions, but that's nothing like the beating you take week in and week out at a gametime speed, that same gametime speed that he's seen with approximatley less then four carries a game. My problem is not Michael Turner. I think he'd be an excellent acquisition, my problem is the price, for a product that is nowhere near proven to run efficiently and consistantly week in and week out.

He doesn't know our offense, because Brian Schottenheimer did not run our offense in San Diego. He was merely the quarterbacks coach, and while they may have been good friends, that shows me nothing on the field in terms of a relationship. All the relation between Schottenheimer and Turner can do, is tell us how good Turner practiced against the second teamers. When's the last time you saw San Diego run that much motion in their offense? Never, because Cam Cameron has run the entire offense four out of his five years in San Diego. There are successful runningbacks in the NFL, that aren't anything particularly special as far as physical skills go. Turner is appealing to everyone because he has the prototypical runningback size with above average speed. Problem is, that today the NFL is filled with runningbacks who rely on their offensive line to open multiple holes, and then let the back pick the hole they want to run through. As long as you have a runningback with a sudden burst, all you need is an offensive line that can blast open holes. We need those picks, because we simply have too many holes to be throwing them away for a runningback that's never been a starting in this league, and averages four friggain touches a game.

 

1. People act like Lamont's poor season is based on circumstance (backing up Curtis) instead of reality (he's just not as good as people thought). Just because Turner is in a similar situation doesn't mean things will end up the same way.

2. I agree we need to build up the offensive line--but whether we do or not, if we don't get a franchise RB, get ready for another season of being stacked at the line.

3. I think you make a good point about Turner not taking a beating in a few years, and in fact this is the only good argument I've heard against trading for him.

4. Most importantly: you said we should "add a back thats used to taking a lot of carries to go along with Leon in the late second/third round," as if franchise backs are a dime a dozen in the middle rounds of the draft. Who specifically are you talking about?

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about Turner; I think he's probably superior to any back in this draft (except for Peterson and Lynch), but his age and lack of experience bother me. My ideal scenario is Michael Bush falling to us at #38. But if Mangini likes Turner, then that works too.

 

you could add Priest Holmes to that list..

 

And what's the parallel to these backs? Other then Larry Johnson (who the Chiefs drafted), none of these guys were worth a second round pick, much less even a friggain fifth. They were all career backups who had their time to shine, but Larry Johnson, Priest Holmes, Rudi Johnson, and Ahman Green all had great lines. It wasn't until recently when Tiki Barber found major success when his line drastically improved as run blockers.

 

OK I'm not going to lie here... I don't know a whole lot about Michael Turner, and that's why I'm going to ask a few questions.

1. He seems pretty jacked... is he a power back or a speed back? I saw that he runs a 4.45 40-yard dash, but my gut tells me that his muscle makes him look like a bulldozing RB.

2. How are his cuts, jukes, spins, etc?

I still feel like I want Clinton Portis more than Michael Turner, only because I know that Portis has already established himself as being able to put together a Pro-Bowl season as the starting running back.

 

It is not one or the other bro, we need a top notch Rb and we need some more OLine help. RB is a high priority, a first day pick will be used to fill the hole.

Bottomline is if we could get Turner for a 2nd, you won't find a Rb in the 2nd with as much potential..

 

Assuming Michael Bush, Kenny Irons, and Gary Russell are all second-third rounders, you're correct. You'll find a back with more.

Can't forget that Portis might be on the market as well. Portis > Turner. You just don't give up that high of a draftpick for an unproven commodity. I doubt Mangini would pull the trigger anyway, since I doubt him and Tannenbaum want to throw that cap money around at a bunch of players that haven't found starting jobs yet.

 

Michael Bush is debateable( right now I don't think he'll be available in the second anyway) but Kenny Irons doesn't even sniff Turners potential & Russell:lol: no need to even comment on that one.

 

I wasn't just specifically responding to you, so don't act like I was. You surely saw other posts within this thread implying that he would know the offense, and that it would take a higher pick to get him. Unless it's a third rounder or lower, I don't want him.

I'd much rather a rookie runner, who coming out of college, has consistantly been able to show me durability for a year or two, then Turner who hasn't done it in three years. No rookie back has proven that he can take a sixteen schedule, but most rookie backs have proven that they can take a beating of two hundred fifty carries or more, regardless of the length of games. NFL scout's didn't like Turner coming out of college either, if you want to put him in the same place as these rookie runners are. His problem? He gets happy feet into the hole, and slows down. Sure he's great in the open field, but just because he's 230, doesn't mean he's great in between the tackles. I'm not saying that he's a whimp, but the term I'd use is "pussyfooting" into the holes. If nothings there, he'll back into it, instead of going head down and trying to create. There's a reason he shattered Northern Illinois rushing records, and came close to leading NCAAF in rushing, yet was a fifth round draft pick.

 

However there is no rebuttle for my last post?