FalcFans Forums

Here's Priso's Top 100: http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/ ... couts-film

Here's the link to this article: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-o ... ayers-list

10 questions for Pete Prisco on his Top 100 NFL Players list

By Will Brinson | Senior NFL Blogger

25 | Comments

Turner's a top 100 player? Really? (US Presswire)

Pete Prisco has his Top 100 NFL players list out now and that means it's time to kick back with a warm cup of Haterade and pick apart some of his choices.

It's worth noting that a) I love Pete regardless of how often he's wrong and b) his list is still better than the bizarre television special that the actual players roll out.

Anyway, in the interest of making sure that you, dear reader, know that everyone isn't on board with all of his choices, here are 10 questions I have for Pete about his Top 100. Leave yours in the comments.

1. Why is Michael Turner on this list?
I ask because Turner's final season stats might look OK, but take away Turner's Week 17 172-yard romp against the Buccaneers and his season was just "meh." 1,168 yards, 4.11 yards per carry and nine touchdowns? Turner is a back on the decline, and he's playing in an offense that is trying to become more explosive. Given his 297-carry average over the past four years, it's especially difficult to imagine him remaining effective through next year.

NFL Top 100 Players

Wilson: Top 100 trends -- QBs up, RBs down
Podcast: Breaking down the Top 100 players
Brinson: Biggest snubs, questions for Top 100
Katzowitz: Top 10 NFL Front Offices
Judge: Unitas No. 1 among all-time QBs
Prisco: Breaking down Top 10 NFL players
Eye on Football: Latest NFL news


2. Why'd you cave to Maurice Jones-Drew?
Last year, Pete and MoJo got into a tussle (via satellite) on the NFL Network regarding Jones-Drew's ranking and the result was hysterical. Pete had MJD at 30 and that was probably fair. Jones-Drew did lead the league in rushing but now he's 19? One spot ahead of Philip Rivers? That doesn't make sense to me, given that Rivers and an average running back help the Jaguars compete in that division last year. MJD and Blaine Gabbert don't. Er, didn't.

3. How is Matt Ryan ranked above Matthew Stafford?
Ryan had a very nice season (61.3 completion percentage, 4,177 yards, 29 TDs, 12 INTs), but Stafford had a monster year (63.5 completion percentage, 5,038 yards, 41 TDs, 16 INTs). Ryan should actually improve in 2012 with the addition of Dirk Koetter, and Stafford has Calvin Johnson (Pete's No. 4 player overall) but it's not like Ryan was/is working with no weapons, what with Roddy White (No. 61) and Julio Jones (just missed) on the Falcons roster. Stafford will end up with better numbers again next year too.

4. Are the Colts getting credit for 2007?
Because, you see, 2007 was the last time Indy was ranked in the top 10 in yards allowed per game. Yet both Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis made the top 100 list, checking in at 34 and 62, respectively. Both are great talents, for sure, but both are coming off of bad years and about to transition to a 3-4 defense despite playing in a Tampa-2 defense their entire time in the NFL. If I'm taking 3-4 outside linebackers, I'll go Cameron Wake (although he's switching) and Aldon Smith, but of whom are ranked lower than Freeney and Mathis.

5. But ... I thought it was a passing league now?
One of Pete's favorite things to say about the NFL is that it's a passing league now. I agree 100 percent, and there are very few running backs I'd take over an elite quarterback. That's why it's so confusing that 11 quarterbacks made the top 100 list while TEN (!) running backs made the list! The aforementioned Turner inclusion is baffling, but how is Chris Johnson on this list? Frank Gore is more important than Tony Romo? OK then.

6. Did Cam Newton get flipped?
That's the only likely answer, since the first rookie in NFL history to throw for more than 4,000 yards in a season is ranked 83rd on Pete's list. The highest-rated second-year player on the list is Tyron Smith ... at 38. So perhaps that explains the mistake. And that's not to knock Smith, because he's a beast, but he'll have his hands full moving to left tackle next year with a lack of help on the interior from the Cowboys. And Newton does need to cut down on his picks, but he's coming off the greatest rookie season in NFL history and 83 is too low.

7. So age before beauty huh?
Newton wasn't the only young guy who got hosed in Prisco's list: Champ Bailey's above Joe Haden and Lardarius Webb here and while there's totally logic behind rewarding Bailey for another strong year in Denver, Haden and Webb are emerging into some of the better cornerbacks in the NFL.

8. No bold rookie calls?
Maybe I'm harping too much on youth here, but you're telling me there won't be a single rookie from this class that ends up on the Top 100 list heading into 2013 simply based on a strong performance next year? Because I bet there will be a couple. Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III could make it, certainly, but here's the best bet for a guy Pete has to include next year: Trent Richardson. He'll become a game-changing, top-10 running back. It won't solve the Browns problems but it will be exciting to watch and plenty of teams will wish they had him on their roster.

9. Just three tight ends?
It's odd, because for all the "evolution of the tight end" talk, it's not like there were that many seasons that make your eyes pop. Certainly Rob Gronkowski and Jimmy Graham, who who cancelled each other out in the record-breaking business. But if Jason Witten is the 43rd best player in the NFL going forward, then you've got find a way to get Vernon Davis and Aaron Hernandez (who will have better seasons with Dallas de-emphasizing Witten's role for protection purposes) next year.

10. Did you overlook Darren Sproles?
Literally I mean, since Sproles is pretty short and you could miss him. But he also went out and broke the single-season yards-from-scrimmage record and became the first person ever to rush for 600 yards, put up 600 receiving yards and 1,000 kick return yards in the same season. For all that Graham did to change New Orleans offensive attack, it's hard to imagine if they'd have been as dominant as they were without Sproles. I don't think they would've been -- he came in to replace Reggie Bush and did far more than that.

Well he was down in the 80's on nfl network's current countdown, roddy was down in the 60's. Both precipitous drops from 2011. I'm thinking at this point Ryan didn't make it as they're up to the 50's now. Actually I don't guess we'll have another player on there past Rowdy.

I heard on the same show the carry count for Turner the last several years (can't recall the # but it was HUGE), and I believe he's lead the league in carries by a country mile. He's still good with a head of steam, but the lateral quickness is shot. His only lateral move is to use his patented stiff arm / body slap (which is awesome by the way, no other back is strong enough to use that move).

If he can get in shape (this is critical, as he has fluctuated annually with his conditioning), the line improves (can't be much worse) and playcalling (meh?) and we give the ball to Quiz a LOT more (no brainer), then he'll be servicable this year. If we try to repeat the last 4, we're screwed.

Yep, he'll be serviceable. And I suspect will rush for around 1000-1100 yards this year. But teams with serviceable RBs don't win championships, not unless their passing game can carry them. The Falcons passing game has the capacity to do so, but only if it's unleashed, something that hasn't happened up to now because that has been so counter to the goals and philosophy of both the offensive coordinator and head coach. I hope Koetter has the ability to be able to drive that sort of bus, although if judging by his tenure in Jacksonville that doesn't seem like a strong possibility. But even if he does have the capability, for this offense to be as good as it is capable of being throwing the football, it will require a dramatic shift in Mike Smith's philosophy which is being fearful of turnovers. If he wants Matt Ryan to take the next step as a QB, he can't simply want him to manage football games. He has to be willing to get his hands a little dirty, and if that means Matt Ryan has a bunch of games where he throws 3 TDs and 2 INTs, then so be it, because it's the 3 TDs that matter more than the 2 INTs. But that's not going to be the case this year, but Michael Turner isn't the type of RB you want on that style of team. On that style of team, Turner would just be a 150-carry running back. And we all know that the only way Michael Turner doesn't get at least 250 carries this year is if he gets hurt.

It pains me to see Graham and Atkins in the top 25, when that was my 3rd and 4th round picks for 2 years ago (instead of Johnson, Peters, Hawley)

Doesn't matter now, and I'm not normally as adamant about a draft (that one was set up great for BPA in the 1st, WR/TE in the 3rd, DT in the 4th or 5th depending on how fast they were taken), just painful looking on it.

I agree with all the above. Turner needs to come in at 230. He needs to be a 200 carry back not a 350 carry back, and the team needs to focus on the passing game and get a more complete featureback.

I think Turner was important to Ryan in year 1 & 2. Unless the line just opens huge holes (which is hard to imagine )
I just can't see Turner carrying the ball like he has..... Everybody can see he's not was he was..... Serviceable is a decent
description; maybe a tiny bit better than that; but he really needs to come in lighter.....

Really I always say Mike Smith is not on the " hot seat" every time; but if Smith uses Turner like he did last year its just
not going to be a pretty season and if Turner is running for one or two yards; then Smith could be fired; unless Everybody
here is wrong about Turner.

I really believe Matt Ryan will carry more of the load even if its just those extra screens; and more passes to Rodgers or someone out of the backfield..... Its obvious Turner is not what he was...... So Ryan is either used differently or Smith
will be in big trouble this year....

I just can't see Thomas D. and Smith both realizing Turner is not going to break those 30 yarders; I can't imagine Turner rushing for over 1300 and I can't even see that!!

So either Turner surprises us all, or Ryan is used more effectively; or Coach Smith should be out!!

Look the fans can't even stand these two yard runs and Turner will be cursed out of the Dome. Its just to obvious to us all;
that Turner isn't what he was; no where close; so IMO Smith is boxed in to using Ryan more!!

Turner is a good blocker in the backfield......

Well, we seem to agree here Cyril.

It's why Ernie Accorsi's statement that you'd rather be accused of getting rid of a guy a year too early rather than a year too late is so apt when it comes to Michael Turner. And it's a big reason why I criticize this front office/coaching staff as much as I do because I just can't understand how they can think Turner is going to be a key part of their success. I think it sets up similarly to how the Giants were a year ago where their running game was largely ineffective for most of the year and they'll have to rely on their passing game.

Clearly, by their actions in the off-season they clearly think the O-line is at fault. And that's fine, but my response to that is: who's fault is that? They chose not to bring insurance last year in the event that Sam Baker continued to regress. They chose not to re-sign Harvey Dahl for less than half the amount of money they paid for Justin Blalock. But I guess I could stop beating that dead horse...

But for me, the Falcons success this year is entirely dependent on Dirk Koetter's ability to design/call/execute a good, hard to defend passing attack. That wasn't something in Mularkey's wheelhouse. And while I'm confident Koetter will be better at than Mularkey, I have no idea how much better. And by success, I mean is this going to be a team that has to scratch and claw to get 8 or 9 wins and a wildcard berth, or is this a team that can pretty much cruise it's way to 11 or 12 wins and show it's capable of going blow for blow with all/most of the top teams on their schedule.

We'll see, and that's the wonderful thing about pro football, is that you can never really tell what you're going to see when the regular season starts. But I think in order for that to happen and for this team to be the sort of championship contender that many think they are capable of being, Koetter is going to have to find a way to make Harry Douglas into one of the league's premier slot receivers, and also find a way to make Julio Jones in one of the more truly dynamic threats in the league.

And I don't have a lot of high hope for that when as you say, their offense is probably going to feature a lot of 2 and 3 yard runs by Michael Turner on 1st down. And every week their offense stagnates and gets off to slow starts early because they are trying to establish the run. And if that isn't going to be the offense, then why did you bring back Michael Turner at such a high price, and why did you invest so heavily into the O-line and blocking this off-season?

There was the lockout last year, so some of their perspectives are understandable.

We'll see what's up with the line, Turner, and more this year in camp.

samedi, I'm not sure I buy that.

I think the lockout had a lot to do with the Jones trade. I think had it been a normal off-season where FA proceeded the draft, they would have never made that trade because they would have instead invested their money in a player like Sidney Rice or Vincent Jackson, which would have been a smarter move in terms of value than giving up an entire draft for Julio Jones.

The Falcons paid Justin Blalock $38 million over 6 yrs. with $16M guaranteed. They paid Clabo $25M/5 yrs. with $11M guaranteed. And Dahl got $16M over 4 yrs. with about $7M guaranteed from the Rams. That has little to do with the lockout IMO, it has everything to do with this team just coming to the wrong conclusion that Blalock was worth that type of money, and a player like Dahl was expendable. Oh, and FYI the Seahawks gave Sidney Rice a 5-yr./$41M deal with $18M guaranteed.

And for the LT position, the lockout limited who was potentially available. But had they properly evaluated their team, they would have seen that Baker's play had declined each year since his rookie year. And then they would have seen that while Michael Jenkins was no superstar, but the team could live with him as their No. 2 if they had just added someone like a Denarius Moore, Leonard Hankerson, or Torrey Smith to be the No. 3 guy to develop, and then maybe pick up someone like Steve Breaston, James Jones, or Legedu Naanee in free agency. And thus if they had made that evaluation, then targeting a player like Gabe Carimi, who unlike Sam Baker actually fits the offense/scheme, at No. 27 would have been a better addition than trading away half your 2011 draft class and half your 2012 draft class for Julio Jones. Wide receivers are hood ornaments, while left tackles are core/premium players.

That has little to do with the lockout, and has everything to do with this team not doing a good job evaluating their own roster and potential talent. The lockout is just a convenient scapegoat for poor decision making.

I'm a Pete Prisco guy as well. He doesn't switch up his words and he says how he feels. He also has a heart on for Spoon which is nice and is a big Abraham fan.

But he couldn't know what Baker was going to do in year 3 as they had no OTAs prior to the draft. With everything as it was, Dahl was the most expendable: he was the oldest. Could TD have predicted Johnson's concussion or Baker's further backslide? With all of the time and interest that goes into the monitoring the players' physical health, my guess is no.

Torry Smith caught bombs, that's pretty much it last year. Will he develop? Sure, but not to the extent that Jones has/will. Hankerson did zip last year in WAS (yes, extenuating circumstances, but still) and you cannot call on Moore: He's a diamond in the rough and ATL has their fair share of those already. AND he was out a lot of last year.

As I posted the last time the ultimate line revision came up, Carimi has played 2 games and you really cannot guestimate how the picks would have gone differently had ATL not traded them: There's far too many what ifs.

Watching Flynn play in GB, I think we can argue that the system the player is in is important. All I'm saying is let's look at the system these guys play in this year. If TD et al think this is the best team for this system, let's take a look. This is the last year for a number of guys (Tony, Turner) so lets see if that plus a better understanding of the OL plus the new coaches (including an OC who is NOT interviewing for jobs during the playoffs) works well. I understand your reservations, but I think you head a little too far into speculative territory in calling TD out as much.

(opens umbrella in anticipation of the deluge of facts headed his way for daring to say "speculative" )

I agree on most of this, but I always get confused on the Dahl issue. If your issue was simply pick Dahl instead of Blalock, I think there's an argument.

If your argument is they should have kept the whole line intact, I don't think that's reasonable. They drafted a 3rd and 4th round guard in anticipation of this happening, which is where you find starting guards. At some point you have to be ok with letting guys go, especially when you have guys waiting in the wings. Imagine how annoyed you'd be if we kept Turner if we had a 2nd round back behind him?

I fully thought we'd have an upgrade at OL with Dahl leaving, but I expected much more of Johnson.

I agree that without the lockout, the Falcons likely would have seen a drafted WR, a FA WR, and Sproles...and that would have made for a better long term offense.

I disagree, he could have predicted Baker's further backslide. As has been the point I have been making for months with Turner, is that when you evaluate Baker in 2008, 2009, and 2010, you see a steady decline in production. So that when you project where Baker would be in 2011, the natural assumption is that the previous pattern will be maintained. It would have been unreasonable for him to think Baker was going to bounce back suddenly. You could have argued that injuries were a factor for his decline in 2009, because he was listed as questionable for pretty much every game in the latter half of the season. But then in 2010, where he was pretty healthy for all 16 weeks, his play did not improve. Not to mention that with 3 years under his belt, it was very clear that Sam Baker was a very poor fit for our blocking scheme. There is no reason a good talent would have instilled any trust in Sam Baker's performance in 2011.


And I imagine that was basically the reason why the Falcons chose Blalock over Dahl. Although when you consider that guards can be productive starters until their 34 or 35 years of age, the fact that Dahl was 2.5 years older than Blalock would not have been a huge deterrent.

And I think that sort of reason is not fitting with a strong talent evaluator. Had they been really looking at the tape over the years, they would have seen Blalock being a guy that continued to struggle. He only played at a high level over the last 4-5 games of the 2010 season, when prior to that for 2+ years he was an underachiever. On the other hand, you had Dahl who was playing at a higher level for most of the 2009 and all but the final month or so of 2010. As I've explained before, Dahl & Clabo worked well together. Baker & Blalock did not. The right side of the line was their strength. When you looked at the games where Michael Turner had top games, they almost always coincided with either Harvey Dahl and/or Ovie Mughelli having very strong blocking performances.

Even if you had come to the conclusion that both are relatively even, the fact that Dahl could have been had for 40 cents on the dollar compared to Blalock, means that in order to justify the latter's contract he would have to have been a significantly better football player. And that was not the case.


Moore wasn't a diamond in the rough. I graded him as a 3rd round value that for whatever reason, NFL teams overlooked. My initial impression of him was that he was a one-note speed guy. But the more I saw of him, the more I realized that he was simply a guy that could make plays. And while you are correct none of them are the caliber of receiver that Julio Jones is alone, the point is that if you were to add a player like a Gabe Carimi in conjunction with them (and other talent given up via the trade), it would have been a smarter move because you're potentially fixing/upgrading 2 spots instead of one. Had the Falcons followed through with that plan, they would have upgraded the LT position, and also gotten more explosive on offense.


I agree system is very important. And I have in the past and will continue to argue that some of the reasons why some of this team's more prominent additions have yet to reap huge benefits is because they aren't playing in a system/scheme that is suited for them to play at a high level. And I think that is part of the problem. Baker is the perfect example of this.


I agree, and as I said earlier, if this team had done a better job evaluating their own roster, they should have chosen Dahl over Blalock. There was universal agreement that Clabo was the top priority heading into the free agent period once the lockout ended. The debate simply was if these team had to make the choice between Dahl & Blalock, who should/would they choose. They obviously chose Blalock, which I'll continue to say was the wrong choice until a day comes where Justin Blalock becomes one of the premiere guards in the league, which is not the case today. And it really isn't meant to be a knock against Blalock, because when you factored in talent, youth, and what have you done for me lately, then he would have gotten the edge. But when you looked at consistency, impact, and the fact that the right side of your line was already a strength, while the left was consistently a weakness, there was really no benefit to maintaining continuity on the left side because as I said earlier, Sam Baker was on tenuous footing. And then when the numbers came in, and you could have signed Dahl for less than half what you paid to sign Blalock, that should have been the nail in the coffin that would have made the Falcons push harder for Dahl.

And before anybody suggests that maybe the Falcons did push for Dahl and he did not want to sign, once you read this that notion pretty much goes out the window. The following article heavily implies that the Falcons intention from the jump was to give Blalock a highly lucrative deal: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

And samedi is right, much of my thoughts are purely speculative about what could/should have happened last summer with the draft and free agency. And I'm speculating that for another two or so years, the left tackle position is going to continue to be a problem area for the Falcons. Does that mean that Gabe Carimi or whoever would have solved the problem? No. But I can for damn sure tell you that Sam Baker & Julio Jones won't. I don't need to speculate to know that is/was the case. So if Lamar Holmes doesn't solve the problem in the coming few years, then it opens the door to my "what if" scenarios.

Dahl's attitude seemed important, but thinking back was his play that good? From what I've read about Lamar Holmes
he could be a good in two years. (nothing to do with Dahl)

I've always been a Will Svitek fan; as a short term replacement for Baker, but one of our young kids like the guy from Bama
who has delt with injuries in his couple of years needs to step up!!

I really see our new coaches as a big part of our climb upward; and unlike many I just don't see Coach Smith shooting himself in the foot with Turner unless he's averaging 4+ yards per carry and I still think "Smith" is not a "I only have one way to do things" coach. We need to remember Ryan was given the chance to start his rookie year and now he should be developed enough to see where he needs to improve.... I think the Falcons Offensive Coordinator position was a very attractive one;
and I'm confident we'll see some changes.

I'm also glad we changed line coaches; weirder things have happened than Sam Baker coming into his own; but we just don't know what this 2012 team is going to look like; but I can see Turner staying in to block a lot, and us being a lot less predictable!! I think our new O- Coordinator won't have the memory of Ryan's learning his first couple of years and will hopefully push him to be the Qb that most here think he can become!!

As an individual, Dahl wasn't great. But often when Turner had his best games, it coincided with Dahl having a really strong performance (along with Ovie). That teams me that those guys are impact blockers. When they have their A games, then our offense runs very well. That was rarely the case with any other blocker on the line from what I've noticed over the past 3 years.

But the key with Dahl was that together with Clabo, they formed the strength of our right side. When Dahl missed those 5 or so games at the end of 2009, you saw a huge drop in the production of Clabo as a run blocker. While Ojinnaka was a better pass protector than Dahl was, his inability to run block made the entire right side unable to run block. That's an important note.

You also know that when it came to stunts and twists, Dahl and Clabo worked fairly well together.

The bottom line was that the strength of the Falcons O-line from 2009 to 2010 was the right side of their line. By removing Dahl from the equation, it no longer became a strength.

The left side of their line was never a strength. Baker was regressing, and while Blalock did play well down the stretch in 2010, he was a below average to average blocker for all of 2009 and the first half of 2010.

If the Falcons had done their evaluations properly, they should have been more willing to blow up the left side of the line (since it already was a weakness) rather than the right side.

What ended up happening then by their decision to retain Blalock over Dahl was both sides of their line became weaknesses.

I don't remember if we discussed this when it was occurring, but I wonder if they made a similar calculation, but came to a different conclusion. That is, I wonder if they saw that Dahl was a strong run blocker, but only 4 times per season, and his pass blocking was subpar, while thinking Blalock was more consistent.

More to the point of what I can't remember if we discussed...is if they rated Blalock and Dahl similarly, do you think they decided it was better to have a question mark at RG (where he would be between McClure and Clabo) figuring having two solid players around the new starter would likely make him better, and make that side still fine, whereas having a question mark at LG, when you have a question mark at LT would have been calamity?

That is, in general, if you have a strong right tackle, and a weak left tackle, and you have to lose one guard, which one do you choose? Do you figure the right side is strong enough it can bring a rookie (or 2nd year guy) along, or do you maintain the strength there, and put a new left guard in, knowing the LT is weak also, and can't provide any help?

The RG was such a disaster last year, it made it worse than it should have been, and makes this hard to answer well. Had we had just serviceable RG play last year, the whole thing would have made more sense, but we had horrible guard play. Though I generally like building on an area of strength, I feel like on OL, you want to stick a new guy in with solid guys...and it's very risky to put a new (unproven) guy on an already weak side. The bottom line is, we should have had better guard play to step in regardless.

I don't really agree with that. I think continuity is important and thus why it's more important to maintain the right side.

Baker was struggling, and even if TD was convinced (and ultimately vindicated) that 2011 would be the year that he would put it all together and make things work, Blalock is not the type of guard you need to play beside him to offset his weakness. ANd while everyone focuses on Baker's pass protection skills, IMHO, it has been his run-blocking that has consistently been the bane of the line's success. He just simply is a marginal run blocker. And if he was to improve in pass protection enough in 2011 where you were comfortable with him on the left side for another 3-5 years, then his run blocking would still remain a problem. And in order to offset that problem, you would need a much more physical pile-clearing LG than Blalock ever was. You'd want a Steve Hutchinson, Logan Mankins, Alan Faneca type there. And Blalock is not, nor will never be that player. Which is what prompted the team to draft Mike Johnson, because he was a top run blocker at Alabama.

Had Johnson stayed healthy last year and been the starting RG, would we have had the problems we had? Who knows. I'd probably wager no. Maybe he wouldn't have been great, but as you say, probably would have at least been serviceable.

I think the Falcons chose Blalock because he was younger, and that he was a 2nd round talent, while Dahl was an undrafted, self-made player that didn't possess a great skillset. But I think they made a mistake there. Because when those late round/undrafted OLs do manage to come in and beat the odds and produce, that doesn't make them dime a dozen guys. The undrafted guys like Kris Dielman, Clabo, Jason Peters, Jeff Saturday, Casey Wiegmann, Brandon Moore, Brian Waters, Donald Penn, etc. that make it essentially become special players. And rewarding a former 2nd round pick who underachieved for at least 60% of the time he was here was a bad move.

And again, I don't want to knock BLalock as if he's a bad player. But he's the type of player that should be at best your 3rd or 4th best starter, he's not a guy that is going to be your 2nd best guy. Not to suggest Dahl is a much better candidate for that, but because he's playing between your best (Clabo) and either your 2nd or 3rd best (McClure), then it makes him better and it makes them better, and I don't think it's smart to disrupt that continuity.

And I can't dismiss money from the equation because IMO it's the nail in the coffin. The fact that the team was so willing to hand out a $30 million contract to Blalock frankly in my eyes is ridiculous. Blalock's play IMHO was no more deserving of a deal that average $4-5 million/yr. But the fact that they they were willing to pay him over $6M/yr. That contract we gave him put him up there with Chris Snee, Alan Faneca, Davin Joseph, and Jahri Evans, etc. as one of the most lucrative contracts handed out to a OG over the past 3-4 years. And I'm just scratching my head, what did the Falcons see over the past 4 years that made them think he was worth that amount?

To me for both Blalock and Dahl, because of the presence of a guy like Johnson on the roster, you're not necessarily convinced that either would still be starters in 3 or so years. Thus it behooves the Falcons to keep the price down as much as possible in the event that you decide to move on in another year or two or three. So the minute you're up in the $30 million range with Blalock and in the teens with Dahl, that should have made the decision for them.

The Rise:

Michael Turner came out of Northern Illinois on the back of the high point of their program for the 2004 draft.

His measurables were good – a sub-4.5 40-yard dash in a 5-foot-10, 244-pound package and still only 21 at the time. He was a wrecking ball that could flat-out run basically.

The San Diego Chargers rolled the dice on him in the fifth round of 2004 with a mind to have a backup for LaDainian Tomlinson. Off the back of limited play time he flashed potential, including an 87-yard effort against Kansas City in his first full start as a rookie and midway through his sophomore year a 118-yard, one-touchdown game against Indianapolis.

In 2007, Chargers' general manager A.J.Smith was moved to offer him around the league for a mind-blowing first & third-round pick. Such was their evaluation of him at the time based of those cameo's.

Needless to say, there weren’t many offers and he signed a one-year, $2 million plus tender offer to remain a Charger.

In free agency with limited snaps and limited play time, but a growing portfolio of vignette performances, Turner entered the open market and quickly found himself a home with the Atlanta Falcons as one of Thomas Dimitroff’s first moves shortly after he turned 26.

Turner quickly repaid the favor by turning in a 22 carry, 220 yard, two touchdown performance on his debut, shattering the Falcons’ single game rushing record in the process.

Since then, Turner has gone on to flirt with league highs in carries and league rushing yardage:









Turner's career numbers.




The Decline:

Straight off the bat, i'm going to say that Turner is not dropping off a cliff or becoming fantasy redundant in 2012. Not yet. Only that his expectations need to be curbed as his role will be changing. The reasons? Two-fold; Dirk Koetter and Jacquizz Rodgers.

Let’s explore the context of the current situation in Atlanta.
•Quarterback Matt Ryan hasn’t taken the step forward that people were hoping for, for whatever reason.
•The fans weren’t happy with a perceived conservatism from former offensive coordinator Mike Mularkey.
•Turner has 300-plus carries in three of his past four seasons and has just turned 30.
•Falcons expectations this year compared to those of last year after a blockbuster trade for Julio Jones and expectations of Ryan's next step are probably rather different.

So, Mularkey’s out, Koetter’s in. Same stuff, different day, perhaps?

Not for me. It’s a perception problem of Koetter’s. You think of him and you think of the Jacksonville offense: Run heavy, run first. Which is true up to a point, but with all due respect to our Jacksonville fans I think they’d be the first to agree that the Jaguars’ offense hasn’t had very many playmakers on their roster. They'd likely also be the very first to point out that any success that they were ever going to have with their roster would've been through the running game first and the passing game second. Which they've certainly done.

Koetter has been blamed (rightly or wrongly) for a number of failures in Jacksonville: an inability to build off David Garrard’s best ever season in Koetter’s first year, or to help progress the career of Blaine Gabbert, as well as conservative playcalling.

That might sound a bit like an all-too-familiar song to those in Atlanta who count themselves amongst Mularkey’s detractors. I’d actually go to bat for Koetter here, though. It’s really not that difficult and I’m surprised he’s being viewed by some sections of the Atlanta fans and press as a bad hire.

For a start, he did get the best out of Garrard.

What’s often forgotten in the following year is that after that first season of Garrard's banner year under Koetter they lost both their starting guards to Injured Reserve and that they also had their starting tackle tragically gunned down (14 bullets and paralyzed from the waist down for life).

Here are a list of the “weapons” (and I use the term in it's loosest possible sense) he's had to utilize to build a legitimate vertical offense:

Ernest Wilford
Dennis Northcutt
Reggie Williams
Matt Jones
Troy Williamson
Mike Sims-Walker
Torry Holt (at 32 years old)
Mike Thomas
Jarrett Dillard
Jason Hill
Chastin West
Kasim Osgood


I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d be fairly certain that between mercurial talent (which is being diplomatic at best ... ), lack of pro-caliber players, injuries, age and drug-related issues, there’s really not a whole lot to have worked with. Even before you get to some of the truly bad decisions made with quarterback personnel.

An offensive coordinator can work with what he’s got, but as much as they'd like miracles really aren't in their remit - and that's precisely what it would've taken to have produced a viable passing alternative in north Florida for the past half a decade.

Koetter is a perfect fit for the personnel in Atlanta.

About the only thing he’s missing is the more mobile sort of quarterback he prefers to work with, but I’d imagine that’s more than compensated for by the caliber of passer he could have in Ryan.

Koetter uses the run-and-play action to set up a deep passing game. It is to him what a multiple wide receiver base set is to Mike Martz. If you’re in points per reception leagues you won’t love a Koetter wide receiver, but if you get rewarded by long plays you probably will.

As you’ll see from the table I’ve put together to follow Koetter’s career as an offensive coordinator, certain things jump out ...










Koetter's OC career numbers.



Koetter the O.C. loves to:

•Use his backs. Period. Whether it's closer to a 2:1 or 5:3 split in terms of rush:pass, he'll run first to set thing up.
•He’s not adverse to having a Thunder and Lightning approach, a specialist do-it-all back or a platoon with a power back and a quarterback when it comes to running the ball. Where you see a yellow box in both rushing and receiving, it's the same player - be it Tommy Stowers, Mike Jones and Ronnell Kayhill at Missouri or Maurice Jones-Drew in Jacksonville.
•Use his QB's to rush if he gets an opportunity. Those green boxes on the table? Those are not only the 3rd most prevalent rusher on his teams, they're also his QB's. He’s coached Akili Smith, Rudy Johnson, David Garrard, Tony Grazioli, Phil Johnson and Mike Hartsell. They all scrambled – some more than others – but over a 16-game season trending Koetter’s career it’s easily in excess of 50 rushing attempts per season so far.
•Involve his tight ends in the passing game, but doesn’t always feature them (third or fourth in targets)
•Use a vertical passing game, prefering to land the big punches rather than jab his way upfield when it comes to his receivers.


So what does all that mean for Turner?






Well, in a nutshell it’s both good and bad news. There are very strong similarities between the running back situation in Atlanta and that in Jacksonville when Koetter first arrived.

For one thing, there was an established featured – if aging – back already on the roster and a young guy envisioned as a relief/change of pace/third down back who had recently been added via the draft.

In Jacksonville, it was Fred Taylor and Jones-Drew. In Atlanta it’s Turner and Rodgers.

Taylor– Long-term featured running back, 31 years old
Turner – The featured running back in Atlanta, 30 years old

Jones-Drew – Second-round pick acquired the previous year (5-foot-7, 208 pounds)
Rodgers – Fifth-round pick acquired the previous year (5-foot-6, 196 pounds)


Koetter has a good offensive line, a good stable of backs to work with, a good quarterback who can and should improve – especially if given the keys to the no-huddle offense – and two wide receivers who are certainly legitimate NFL vertical threats. Something he was sorely lacking in Jacksonville.

He also has some pretty good blockers for screens and bubbles, a system Jones-Drew has excelled in as well as his under-rated ability to run North-South.









Potential Koetter/ATL play.



In the example above, youve got a 2WR:2RB:1TE personnel grouping: Roddy White is wide right at Split End, Julio Jones the flanker opposite him, Tony Gonzalez at Tight End and Michael Turner & Jacquizz rodgers in at Running Back (FB = Turner, TB = Jacquizz)

The first choice the defense has to make: Is the CB#2 on Julio Jones going to stay with him - and free the underneath up - or stay near the line of scrimmage in run support, hoping the Free Safety is going to cover Jones in his absence. Even if the OLB comes over to help him, they're still outnumbered 2:3 and the play should develop if the blocking players all execute. Gonzalez, Turner, LT versus OLB & CB).

The second choice has to be made by the Free Safety (FS). Does he go across to cover Jones (if the CB#2 stays in run support)? If he does, that leaves Roddy White in single coverage and thats a dangerous situation the Falcons have exploited time and time again. It's just the sort of vertical passing game Koetter loved setting up in college. Should the FS go across to double up on White, then Jones is home free - no CB & no FS cover.


No offensive play is fool proof - including this one - but it will give you an indication of what Koetter could be about and how he could utilise the potential in the Falcons offense; trying to set up single man coverage by using the run and screens to commit defenders. It's a system he's used for over 20yrs.

Now there is a point in fantasy football where past performances don't mean much and some indicators not a heckuva lot more, too. This year, the days of Turner being anywhere close to leading the league in carries have well and truly gone.

People can opine age or injury, but as you can see from his career he came into the league early and didn’t get any wear on his tires of any note until he was 26. If the average lifespan of a top 10 running back – all things, like injury being equal – is approximately 5-6 years, then as I’ve offered in previous forum threads it’s not a concern I share. My concern is Koetter and how he uses his back's.


He did it at Missouri … he did it at Boston College … he did it with Jacksonville. He'll certainly try to do it in Atlanta.

So what are we looking at in terms of carries?

Atlanta had 818 offensive plays with a split of 453-to-365 run-to-pass. I’d expect that to skew only slightly more in favor of the run. It’s not like Mularkey was a pass-centric guy anyway. With a pretty close 5-to-3 ratio anyway, we may as well call it 500-to-300 for the Falcons next year.

Perhaps, ultimately it’ll be head coach Mike Smith who will have the last word on any potential of a rally for Turner and his fantasy owners in 2012?

“We want to keep [Turner] as our feature back, but we need to make sure some of the other guys get carries as well … I think the thing we have to do as Michael gets a little older is to start putting him on a ‘pitch count’ in terms of the number of carries,” Smith said.

We can all prognosticate how those run plays will be carved up between Turner, Rodgers and Jason Snelling (and even Ryan I suspect will scramble more than he used to, though it certainly shouldn‘t ever be a feature) till the sun goes down in several different time zones. Feel free.

I wouldn't expect Rodgers to jump up to MJD's numbers next year. Jones-Drew had already had a year of 150 carries before Koetter landed in Jacksonville, which made his job alot easier. I'd expect that his near 60 touches and 20 recs will easily double and could even treble into the void left by Turner's role - If the projected amount of almost 500 carries for the Atlanta rushing game in 2012 is close to the mark.

Don't believe me though, here's the response to how Atlanta plan to resolve the scaling back of Turner's role:


“Jacquizz figures into that quite a bit. We drafted him to be a change-of-pace back and we found out very quickly that he’s a guy that is more than a change-of-pace back. Even though he’s short, he’s not little. He’s a guy we feel like we can integrate more into our offense.’’ said H.C. Mike Smith

In the right scheme I'm more than "bullish" about Rodger's prospects. Koetter's scheme is - at least on paper - a much, much better fit for his chances of production than Mularkey's ever could've been.




The Fall:

Whichever way you look at it, the writing for Turner is on the wall for 2013…

He’ll be 31 in 2013. Those snaps that started to decrease in 2012 will continue to fade away in 2013, and by now you can debate easily one way or the other what his snap count might be at, but you won’t be arguing for it increasing.

Losing snaps may actually increase his shelf life, but more likely than not it’s difficult to envision a scenario where either Atlanta would want to pay $5.5 million this year (as well as $5 million in 2013) for diminishing returns in both playing time, snaps and yardage or that FF owners will care much by then either way.

In the interim, he’s going to be fighting an uphill struggle against a talented back, an offensive coordinator that will be looking for new ways to integrate Rodgers, a head coach who wants to scale back his role and a general manager that won’t want to pay the contract he’s due (as it currently stands). It won't be easy.


Fred Taylor managed to still run for around 220 & 140 carries in the 2yrs following Koetter's arrival for a combined 1,750+ & 6 TD's. I think Turner has more left in the tank at this stage of their respective careers and a 850yd/ 7TD performance in 2012 based on his career YPC to-date and dependant on goal-line and redzone vultures, as a last "hurrah" of sorts for owners.


It's a changing of the guard in Atlanta.





James Elvins is a staff writer for fantasy sharks and a member of the Fantasy Sports Writers Association.


http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/pu ... htm?page=2

Yeah, I left the money out on purpose. I wanted to see if, in theory, you preferred to risk an entire side being wobbly over a position.

The money Blalock got was ridiculous. It was fully twice what I thought he would get (especially after the Clabo deal). I liked the concept of keeping Blalock over Dahl at similar prices, because you know your LT is weak, and you may be making a change. You want some consistency over there to aid Baker, or aid a rookie. But there is an argument on either side. Just curious. I actually wanted them to draft a tackle, and slide Clabo inside...so that there was a lot of versatility in case of injury. That way if you get a tackle and he can only be a RT, fine. If he can be a LT, and Baker starts failing, you have the ability to move your new tackle to LT and kick Clabo back out to RT. I'm a big fan of RGs who can play RT. It really aids the OL in times of transition.

There's more in there, but I certainly hope Koetter isn't going to rely on running 50+ percent, and then chucking the ball deep. That pretty much goes exactly against our personnel. Hopefully he adjusts to his personnel...if he does, there's a chance, but if he follows on with these same stats, there's a problem. You gotta craft your offense to fit your personnel.