Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

LT no longer a Charger


pstall

Recommended Posts

During LT's heyday, Michael Turner was the every-down guy. LT just got all the glory because he was the goal-line man.

Dumbass Norv Turner sent Michael to ATL, and LT's production immediately declined. Just another stupid decision by Norv Turner.

Had Phillip Rivers not proven he's the real deal, SD wouldn't have made it to the playoffs the past couple years. In fact, if they were in any other division in the AFC (Raiders and Chiefs = 4 wins a season), they would be lucky to be wild-card contenders.

Had they managed to keep Turner, then I bet they would have made it to the Superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During LT's heyday, Michael Turner was the every-down guy. LT just got all the glory because he was the goal-line man.

Dumbass Norv Turner sent Michael to ATL, and LT's production immediately declined. Just another stupid decision by Norv Turner.

Had Phillip Rivers not proven he's the real deal, SD wouldn't have made it to the playoffs the past couple years. In fact, if they were in any other division in the AFC (Raiders and Chiefs = 4 wins a season), they would be lucky to be wild-card contenders.

Had they managed to keep Turner, then I bet they would have made it to the Superbowl.

MT was not the every down guy in SD ever in his career there. LT was by far and away the best back on that team, until 2008 season. Please don't spout that kind of crap. Go and look up his attempts per season.

Secondly, Norv does not make roster moves on the team, that is GM AJ Smiths job....and to add to that, AJ and Norv wanted to keep MT, ownership made them retain LT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I never said Turner was the "better" back. He was a workhorse that spelled LT in 2nd, 3rd down (and often 1st down) situations, which kept LT fresh and able to pull off the big plays. So please don't accuse me of claiming crap I haven't claimed.

Secondly... in 2006, LT's best year, Turner had these stats (in just 13 starts):

Attempts = 80 Yards = 502 Avg. Per carry = 6.3 TD = 2

LT's stats were:

Attempts = 348 Yards = 1,815 Avg. per carry = 5.2 TD = 28

So, roughly, 1 out of every three attempts were Turner... and only 2 TDs to show for it... now... does that sound like an every-down runner or a premier back to you?

And if you think Norv Turner or AJ Smith didn't have a hand in MT leaving, I'll be glad to point you to this article:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20070330-1744-fbn-chargers-turner.html

In that article, Smith is actually dictating the terms in which he would like to have Turner traded... and this was a year before he was actually traded. They didn't want to keep MT...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yeah, I am not giving up on him yet but I do think we need to see a pretty big step up this season to be convinced he is a long term solution. It is a shame that his development seemed to be stunted in 2023. 
    • To put the question simply: Would you be happy with a Steelers trade that doesn't bring back their first-round pick next year? A potential trade between us and Pittsburgh is interesting because depending on which draft value chart you use, Pittsburgh has two totally natural trades available to them, but they're very different. The Jimmy Johnson chart says the difference between us at 8 and them at 21 is 600 points, or almost exactly the value of the last pick in the 1st round. That falls in line with how teams tend to discount future picks. 8 for 21 and next year's Pitt 1st is almost exactly equal. More modern charts (Chase Stuart, Fitz) are much flatter, and 8 for 21 and 83, Pittsburgh's next pick this year, are basically equal.  Now, the second one obviously won't actually happen--the Lions had to include pick 73 just to move from 29 to 24 last year, and Pittsburgh would clearly be making a much bigger jump. But given the flatness of this draft and the lack of blue-chip players at the top, would you accept some mix of 21, 83, and next year's non-first-rounders from Pittsburgh, or would you want Dan Morgan barred from every touching the draft again for accepting anything less than next year's first?
    • just ask XL, to date he is has never been wrong about what we are doing w/ our first pick
×
×
  • Create New...