FalcFans Forums

http://falcfans.com/2012-key-player-michael-turner-5963

2012 Key Player: Michael Turner
May 27th, 2012 Aaron Freeman


It’s not a secret that I don’t think too highly of Michael Turner’s future with the Falcons. All off-season long, I’ve advocated that I think the team will be better off without him than with him. But it’s clear at this point that the Falcons brass disagree with me. And because of that, Turner’s production in 2012 will be a key to the team’s success.

Turner’s production has been on a fairly steady decline in recent years. Although last year he did see a jump in yards per carry, I attribute much of that to the season’s two bookend games against the Bears and Bucs where he averaged over 10 yards on a total of 27 carries. If you look at the other 14 games he played in where he totaled 274 carries for 1068 yards (3.9 avg), it mirrors almost exactly the season that Cedric Benson had last year (273 carries, 1067 yards, 3.9 avg). Benson is currently an unsigned free agent because most feel that he’s past his prime, coupled with his less than stellar production in the passing game, thus making him undeserving of a starting job. It’ll will be up to Turner this year to prove skeptics like myself wrong that he should not be in a similar boat.

Turner should get some help from what should be an upgraded offensive line. It’s no doubt that the drop-off in production up front played a part in Turner’s less than stellar production throughout the 2011 season. The question remains how much a part of it. If it was a huge part, then any improvements should be a huge positive for Turner.

Turner’s running skills have no doubt declined. He’s not as powerful or explosive a runner he once was. That decline is to be expected with age, as Father Time catches up with all running backs eventually. That lack of burst means that it takes him a bit longer to build speed and he needs to be able to get to the line, square his shoulders and run downhill, a skillset that he still possesses to a high degree. Thus, there needs to be more spacing and push that the offensive line must be able to create up front to make that possible. If this upgraded 2012 unit is able to do that then we can start to see a return of the old days where Turner could consistently gain yardage and be able to keep this offense on schedule. If not, then a lot more pressure will fall on the shoulders of Matt Ryan, who will be operating a brand new offense. Not to mention that pass protection still probably won’t be the strength of the new offensive line. And the Falcons are a team that have historically under Mike Smith operated best with a lead rather than playing catch-up. Turner’s ability to gain yards on early downs and early quarters will help allow that to happen.

The Falcons have publicly stated that they want to keep Turner on a “pitch count” i.e. limited how many reps he gets to keep him fresher down the stretch. Until his breakout performance against the Bucs in the season finale, Turner had averaged a mundane 56 yards and 3.3 yards per carry in the previous five games. Those are strong indicators of wear and tear catching up with him down the stretch. Fortunately for Turner, the Bucs managed to quit on Raheem Morris just in the nick of time. But that’s not a situation one can count on happening again. If the Falcons can keep him a lot fresher early in the season thanks to platooning him with Jacquizz Rodgers and Jason Snelling, they can hopefully eradicate that late season decline from repeating in 2012.

One of the key changes Falcon fans will be hoping to see is how new offensive coordinator Dirk Koetter utilizes backups Snelling and Rodgers. Under Mike Mularkey, both players were over-glorified third down backs. In all four years that Mularkey coordinated the offense, the team made statements about trying to limit Turner’s carries and keep him fresher, but did not always succeed because of Mularkey’s historically poor ability to juggle a two-headed backfield. Koetter has had more success than Mularkey, utilizing both Maurice Jones-Drew and Fred Taylor to great effect in 2007. But in the years since then, he has largely relied on the one-back approach with MJD getting the bulk of the work, especially since Taylor departed after 2008.

Last year, Rodgers and Snelling combined for only about a quarter of the team’s rushing attempts by the tailback. And only about 15% of their combined offensive snaps involved running the football, compared to about 50% of Turner’s snaps. It will be interesting to see what if any significant changes Koetter will make in those regards. If the Falcons are more successful with maintaining Turner’s “pitch count” then you might expect Rodgers and Snelling to get at least a third if not close to half of the Falcons rushing attempts and a more even split between running and pass duties. That difference could be made up by giving Rodgers and/or Snelling at least 3 or so more carries per game that normally would be given to Turner. That is going to take discipline by the coaching staff, something that Mularkey did not apparently possess. Because it means that there may be instances where the team’s gut instinct might be to feed Turner (e.g. short-yardage), but they will purposefully have to keep him out of the game to give Rodgers and Snelling opportunities for the sake of the long-term plan for Turner. That is something that is easier said than done, which is one of the reasons why it’s understandable that the previous coordinator failed there.

Overall, even with my skepticism over how effective Turner will be on a game-to-game basis this year, I do expect him to rush for over 1000 yards. Improvements up front should help offset his reduced workload and hopefully keep his production consistent each week. Instead of having a handful of hot games surrounded by a sea of cold ones, we need to see a large body of warm in 2012. That is possible, and certainly will be a key to the Falcons success in 2012.

IMO Turner has now lost 25-30% of the ability he once had..... If the Falcon success really depends on Turner then we are
screwed; and Mike Smith deserves what would be coming to him..... Lets not pretend our offense will now wake up and
blow blockers off the line!!

I believe Matt Ryan is the one who SHOULD BE READY to have a breakout year.... If the Falcons go backwards it should be because Ryan doesn't move forward; not because Turner gets the ball 25 times a game; because that would be coaching suicide.

I don't really understand all the angst towards Turner; we know he's going downhill and we know Matt Ryan should be moving much more forward.... So unless Ryan is used much more effectively; and Turner used much less; then it will be the coaches;
and it would be so stupid to play the season counting on Turner I just can't see it happening!!

It's been a poorly kept secret that my perspective on the issue is this: If your identity is to be a running football team, then you NEED a better lead back than Michael Turner. And if your identity is to be more of a pass-first team, then you DON"T NEED a running back like Turner at all.

And so for me, I don't see really any value in Turner, at least not enough that makes me think he deserves to eat over $7M of our cap space. If he was getting paid $3M or $4M to serve as a complementary player, that would be acceptable and fine.

But when I try to break it down logically, if you're bringing Turner back for a significantly reduced role, then you're overpaying him which is a mistake. Otherwise, you're bringing him back for the same role as before which is the guy to carry our ground attack, that is also a mistake because it's not doing a good job evaluating.

And this is why you and I rarely see eye to eye on these issues. Because I think you see it as do I that they are on the verge of making a mistake. But you seem to be clinging to this notion, that the powers that be in Atlanta don't make these types of mistakes. And in your mind you can't possibly fathom that they could be blissfully ignorant to the idea that Michael Turner's skills are declining. It's not that big a stretch. After all, it's the same front office that was blissfully ignorant to the declining skills of Sam Baker.

And IMO, the only logical conclusion to draw is that maybe the powers that be that run this team and front office just aren't as good at evaluating football players as their reputation tends to lead people to believe.

Or that ultimately they will be vindicated if/when Turner has a successful season. And if he does, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

I think it might just boil down to my belief that last year was Turner's last hurrah, in terms of being the final year where he could be counted on to be an effective starter. I think TD & Co. must think that this year is going to be that year. And maybe they are right. But i think this year is going to be the year where it's clear Turner is done similar how Warrick Dunn was in 2007.

They should have used Turner's money on OL. Barring that, they should have used it on a 2nd TE, 4th WR, and vet min back (like Benson.). That would have made them a far more dangerous offense.

I have trouble seeing how Turner is going to compare with what those additions would have meant, and thus see it as a poor decision to keep him around. Hope I'm wrong. He'll need to be a dominant back who isn't a liability in the passing game to be close to worth the set of players mentioned above. It would be awesome if he is. I'd bet big money against it, unfortunately.

Pudge I think your mistaken..... The Falcons owe Turner 5 million guaranteed this year and next year......So you talking about
perhaps bringing him back at 2 million that can't happen in reality. They could cut him and just pay the 5-million this year and then again next year; so we're really paying him 2 million.(the 5 million is locked in)

I don't where you come up with I don't think the Falcons can make any mistakes?? but on this current subject you either need
to set me straight that Turner is not getting 5 million guaranteed; or if he is then; its the 2 million in Question....and I'm not
emotionally involved; he can't be a big part of the success Of this team unless he takes Ovie's role.

I wouldn't miss Turner one bit!! I have said several times he's just out of gas; but their is a difference between not thinking the Falcons can't make a mistake; vs. them being stupid; and I don't think that..... If Turner is used like he was last year then
I gotta say their stupid!!

Bottom line is is Turner guaranteed 5 million next year?? I wouldn't care either if they still cut him but he's not good enough to carry the load..... But if he's getting 5 million anyway, then I'm just not as concerned. If he's used like last year and the Falcons don't win a playoff game, Smith should be fired!!

You just sound like you know how the Falcons will play ball this year; and given the Coach Smith is now financially set for life; I doubt he's worried about letting things change; its the only way he keeps his job....

Base Salary S. Bonus Misc. Bonus Cap Hit
2008 1,000,000 2,500,000 - 3,500,000
2009 1,000,000 2,500,000 - 3,500,000
2010 2,000,000 2,500,000 - 4,500,000
2011 5,000,000 2,500,000 - 7,500,000
2012 5,000,000 2,500,000 - 7,500,000
2013 5,500,000 2,500,000 -


Ok, I'm wrong, Turner is only guaranteed 2.5 million dollars; so that makes paying him and keeping him stupid!! I thought it
was 5 million. We will always be off if someone has the facts wrong; in this case its me. Its just double dumb to bring back a washed up back at 7.5 million cap hit....Sorry my mistake; again I say if Turner has the lead role Smith gets fired!!

You were right in the sense that Turner is due $5 million regardless of whether he is a Falcon this year or not. Because if we were to cut him under his current contract, the $2.5 million in bonus money he is due over the next two years would accelerate to this year's cap, making us eat $5 million in dead money if he was off the team.

AS far as I know though, that bonus money due on his contract is not technically guaranteed. It's all about his current contract. My bone of contention has been about that. When it was signed, it was a deal that I thought would be restructured and tweaked after Year 3 based on how Turner played during those years. Well now its Year 5, and the deal hasn't been touched.

I said back in February that I thought this team could cut Turner and replace him with a relatively equal (if not better player) for about half the price. That proved to be accurate in terms of assessing the market values of players like Peyton Hillis, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, and Michael Bush. IMHO, the Falcons should have approached Turner with a "restructure or else" ultimatum back in February, deciding someway to figure a way to cut his deal in half. If he had balked at the deal, we would have cut him and replaced him for a player that was more in line with the value of the position, and preferably with considerably more upside to play/produce over the next 2-3 years. If he had accepted it, then we would have Turner at a much more amenable price, and thus most of my complaining about him would have evaporated.

That's what the Falcons should have done. But as was the case with how they managed their money this off-season, they did a poor job. Instead, of sitting on their thumbs throughout the month of February, considering the high number of FAs they had, and their needs across the roster, and not having a strong draft class to bolster it, they should have spent the entire month of February working on restructuring/extending deals. That could have saved them money as far as Turner goes, meant they could have kept Ovie Mughelli, they could have paid Sam Baker & Peria Jerry prices according to their station. They could have knocked some dollars off Babineaux's deal as they did with Robinson, and they could have gotten a long-term done with Ryan that could have saved them a huge amount of money, and not worried about the future deals of Flacco, Brees, among others setting a higher market than they wished there. They could have started negotiations with William Moore on extending his deal as well. And hopefully the extra time could have been used to make Grimes happy and save money there as well.

And then let's not forget that it could have meant the team could have better positioned themselves to sign Mario Williams. But then again, I'm that crazy dude that for some reason thinks this defense would be better over the next 5-6 years with Williams anchoring the front four than they would be with the current crop of players.

I don't know how the Falcons offense will play and how Turner will be used. I'm only making an educated guess based off logical conclusions and the bevy of context clues I have to judge by.

Snelling & Quizz combine to make about $1.5 million this year ($1 million for Snelling, about $500K for Quizz) in terms of how much they count against the cap. If I was to consider them to be one entity, and they would get close to or equal share of the workload on offense. Then why does it make sense for Michael Turner to be making 5x as much as they are this year ($7.5 million against our cap)? It really doesn't. If the ratio of workload is going to be 1:1 or 3:2, then the price tag should reflect that, correct?

So the only logical conclusion is that Turner is getting paid 5x as much is because he is going to get significantly more work than they are. It probably won't be 5x as much, but it certainly is probably going to be 2 or 3x as much.

If they were to significantly cut down Turner's workload, one would think that they would at least try to make it up via the pass. Yet, this team has virtually ignored the WR and TE positions. Having a veteran player at either one of those spots to fill in at #4 WR or #2 TE would have made a lot more sense if you were going to compensate for Turner's decreased role with an increased role of the passing game. The Falcons have largely ignored those positions. Sure, they added some undrafted FAs, but we all know that WRs, particularly undrafted FAs rarely contribute as rookies. Even the ones like Wes WElker, Rod Smith, and Victor Cruz who go on to be stars, usually do virtually nothing as rookies. The overwhelming abundance of the team's TEs behind Gonzalez are blockers first, receivers second.

There are any number of factors that could occur between now and September that can change those outlooks. Maybe the Flacons will sign a WR or TE. In fact, I expect the team to sign at least one before the season starts. Although TD's M.O. is to wait until the last minute just before the season starts rather than taking advantage of OTAs, mini-camps, and training camp tog et that player integrated into the offense/defense as early as possible. I'm just basing things off what looks to be the case today.

While Koetter has in the past effectively juggled a 2-headed backfield, in '07, using Taylor on 1st & 2nd down, and then MJD on passing downs, that was really the only year he made it work. They tried it again in '08, and Taylor's production took a sharp decline. And they cut him, and ever since MJD has been the workhorse with only sporadic reps for players like Rashad Jennings and Deji Karim.

So based off his own history, I don't suspect Koetter is going to be Greg Knapp with his ability to utilize the 2 or 3-headed backfield (something that Knapp has historically done well every place he's been). And thus I expect Turner to be similarly a workhorse RB. He may not get the 18-20 carries per game he got under Mularkey, but it still will likely be a high number (say 16-18?) based off Mike Smith's affinity to running the football, Koetter's own affinity, and Turner's price tag.

Koetter comes from J-ville, where he coached under Jack Del Rio, who has a very similar conservative philosophy as Mike Smith. In fact, it was likely Del Rio that instilled that philosophy into Smith. Look at Smith historically, and you'll see the two years where the teams he coached were most successful (2000 Ravens & 2007 Jaguars), they were teams structured around running the football (Jamal Lewis, Fred Taylor/MJD), playing good/great defense (Ravens one of the best ever, Jags Top 10 that year), and having QBs that managed football games (Dilfer & Garrard) because of a lack of playmakers on the outside (Qadry Ismail/Travis Taylor & Ernest Wilford/Reggie Williams were starters at WR).

And until Smith hires coordinators/coaching staff that are markedly different and don't fit that historical trend, I think the Falcons are going to continue to be a conservative offense. And I think it raises the question that going forward, is Mike Smith "too conservative" for his own good...

Very interesting stat (given we will actually scheme this way), I think we have to hope for the bolded part this year.

Although the sample size was much smaller obviously, I do think Quizz ran with more power and toughness on a higher percentage of his carries than Turner did for his.

I don't think Quizz is ever going to be the type of lead back we would prefer unless we really commit to a zone-blocking scheme similar to the one we ran under Mora/Knapp/Gibbs. He's not a guy you want getting a bunch of carries between the tackles. But his quickness to the hole, I think he was largely underutilized last year.

There were too many times where I saw Mularkey call run plays for Turner that should have been used for Quizz, and some vice versa. Counters, stretches, sweeps, draws, plays that require speed, burst, and the ability to find/hit the hole quickly shoudl be given to Quizz.

Pound for pound, I have no problems saying Quizz is the best RB on the team. I probably wouldn't have said that 2-3 years ago, but at this point in his career, if Turner was 25 pounds lighter, I'm not sure he would even make an NFL roster.

You should complain all you want..... I was almost sure (that's why I looked forever ) then to find Turner was NOT guaranteed
5 million this year!! Again I say it would be stupid to use Turner as he has been used; but if Mike Smith is tired of coaching;
then he can stick to the plans of the previous years!!

If Matt Ryan is not used and given significantly more chances to become a first rate Qb, then I just don't see how this next season works, or can be successful.

Obviously we'll just have to wait and see...I just can't see Mike Smith thinking playing like last year could be a winning formula?

I don't see how anybody thinks that!!

My point in posting that was also to show we can scheme Quiz like NO does Sproles. And look in contrast how much better Quiz ratio was, although it would almost certainly drop some with more wear and tear. Also helps us go to a more passing oriented direction on O. I thought 26% was an awesome stat from a rookie who was supposed to be undersized. I also agree on the run schemes vs who runs that play. I'm sure they're tendency breaking a bit, but if were still a power run team then they're gonna have to get those plays better.