Turner/Norwood (cont.)

by Jesse28 on Jun 15, 2009 6:50 PM EDT Comment 29 comments

I wanted to continue the discussion from Warlock's earlier post regarding the comparison between Turner and Norwood. In Warlock's post, he provided us a look into the numbers for both during the 08 season. I, however, would like to take a look at their numbers while being utilized in a similar role, that of a #2 RB option. So, without further ado...

Forgive me for not posting a nice pretty graph for you guys, but since I was compiling pure stats over the course of a few seasons worth of data, I felt like a simple side-by-side comparison table would suit us just fine. I went back and pulled basic stats for Turner while he played the role of a #2 RB, spanning the 05-07 seasons. I originally started off excluding his 04 rookie season because he was used so little, but as you will see in the table below, I ended up adding them in parentheses. I then compiled Norwood's numbers spanning the 06-08 seasons and basically just slapped them in side by side.

In this first table I have the numbers listed as totals across seasons. I also went back through Warlock's original post and tried to add in the same stats he listed.

Turner 05-07 (04-07)	Stat	Norwood 06-08
45 (59)	G	45
208 (228)	ATT	297
4.62 (3.86)	ATT/G	6.6
1153 (1257)	YDS	1735
5.54 (5.51)	YDS/ATT	5.8
25.62 (21.31)	YDS/G	38.6
6 (6)	TD	7
45 (49)	1st	74
21.6% (21.5%)	1st %	24.90%
1 (1)	FUM	1
12.32% (9.35%)	GAIN%	13%
192.17 (209.5)	YDS/TD	247.86
2.88% (2.63%)	TD/ATT %	2.36%

7 (11)	REC	76
63 (71)	YDS	717
9 (6.45)	AVG	9.4
1.4 (1.2)	YDS/G	15.9
0 (0)	TD	2
3 (3)	1st	28
0 (1)	FUM	0

In this next table, I've simply listed the numbers for each split by season.

Turner
Year	G	Att	Att/G	Yds	Avg	Yds/G	TD	1st	1st%	FUM	GAIN%	YDS/TD	TD/ATT %
2007	16	71	4.4	316	4.5	19.8	1	10	14.1	1	27.89%	316	1.41%
2006	13	80	6.2	502	6.3	38.6	2	24	30	0	48.25%	251	2.50%
2005	16	57	3.6	335	5.9	20.9	3	11	19.3	0	36.67%	111.67	5.26%
2004	14	20	1.4	104	5.2	7.4	0	4	20	0	37%	N/A	0%

Norwood
Year	G	Att	Att/G	Yds	Avg	Yds/G	TD	1st	1st%	FUM	GAIN%	YDS/TD	TD/ATT %
2008	16	95	5.9	489	5.1	30.6	4	22	23.2	1	32.21%	122.25	4.21%
2007	15	103	6.9	613	6	40.9	1	25	24.3	0	39.71%	613	0.97%
2006	14	99	7.1	633	6.4	45.2	2	27	27.3	0	45.66%	316.5	2.02%

Now, when comparing between the two across a similar time-span and in a similar role, these are the pure numbers that you get. Obviously it would be very difficult to equalize them to account for differing offensive schemes and the play of the OL for both, but knowing those things does allow one to look at these numbers and be able to derive a better opinion of them. If you just want side-by-side number, well, there ya have em.

Conclusion? They are both very good backs and we are lucky that we have them both on our team while they are both entering their prime. If this is a problem, then it's most definitely a good one to have. They both put up good averages in limited roles for their teams. Neither have had any significant injury that has limited or hindered their level of play. And, looking back on it now, it would be my assumption that both can handle the feature back role if given the opportunity. I think Turner's numbers (less carries, less overall use) have proven that they do not clearly indicate if a back can move up to the feature role, but that his 08 performance has proven that he can. Maybe the same is for Norwood, but I don't want to be on the receiving end of it if he can. Lock him up please!

Your complaints, comments, and thoughts?

This FanPost was written by one of The Falcoholic's talented readers. It does not necessarily reflect the views of The Falcoholic.

2 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

So essentially, were Norwood to be placed in a similar 1st back role

We would see similar if not better production out of him?

I’d be comfortable saying that.

You have opinions. Share them.

by tlozwarlock on Jun 15, 2009 7:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe...

How durable do we think he’d be banging it between the tackles 22-25 times a game?

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Jun 15, 2009 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably worse than Turner could.

But again, he’s never had the chance to really prove himself that amount of carries.

He’s also a part of the return game and receives. So he’s a multi-threat back. Norwood might not have the stamina to start carrying more without a hit to his other endeavors on the field.

You have opinions. Share them.

by tlozwarlock on Jun 15, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with NaGa

Running as a premiere back is different. I am glad we have both but I would not be comfortable with just Norwood. And no offense to the little man, I love him.

by utahfalcon on Jun 15, 2009 9:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

tloz, could you isolate thier runs between the tackles and post that...

I know that’s a tall order. I’d just like to see the mean yardage when running inside…

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Jun 15, 2009 9:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm actually already working on that, at least for Turner.

You have opinions. Share them.

by tlozwarlock on Jun 15, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to think he would do fine.

If you are looking at previous numbers to support the theory of if a back can handle the duties of a #1, then Norwoods numbers would have been a better indicator that Turners. Norwood was a bigger part of the teams plays than Turner just from a running perspective, but once you add in how many more receiving plays he was a part of plus the amount of returns he had, the numbers seem to drastically support Norwood being able to handle a heavier load. And this is just looking at usage rate. Now you take Turner limited usage and see the results of last years season, and I would draw a simplistic conclusion that Norwood should be able to handle the load. Nothing else has ever indicated to me that Norwood can’t handle the duties of a full-time #1 back.

However, even with all of these numbers, I don’t think there is any clear answer as to who the better back is other than they both are. To me, it’s a push. I’d rather have them both than just one and I do not want to see either of them on a different team for a long while.

I want to apologize for not having more analysis in my post, but I was dealing with a bad modem that kept dropping my connection. I have another table I want to add that projects Norwoods stats, using the above results, across a 376 and a 200 carry season as if he were a sole #1 back or getting even carries with another back. The yardage is quite impressive, while the TD’s are still rather low.

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on Jun 16, 2009 7:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Snelling is a beast!!!

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on Jun 17, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sooo....

If you had to choose between Turner and Norwood, you’re going with Snelling? Right….

by Jesse28 on Jun 17, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thomas Brown is a better RB...

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on Jun 17, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We should have just kept Corey McIntyre…

A man walks into a meat shoppe and goes to the counter. The cashier asks, "Thinking about buying some meat?". The man replied, "No, I'm going to buy meat, I was thinking about punanny."

by bwellnjonesco on Jun 17, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

insert joke about recent arrest here

Or, given the sense of humor of this site, please don’t.

by Dave the Falconer on Jun 17, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll just leave this here...

For no reason…

A man walks into a meat shoppe and goes to the counter. The cashier asks, "Thinking about buying some meat?". The man replied, "No, I'm going to buy meat, I was thinking about punanny."

by bwellnjonesco on Jun 17, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That has to be the most disturbing image I've ever seen.

You have opinions. Share them.

by tlozwarlock on Jun 17, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well done, sir.

Well done.

by TomQ on Jun 17, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell no

I never said that…

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on Jun 18, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't say I disagree with you there...

I like Snelling too…but I think Turner has this spot locked up.

by TomQ on Jun 17, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

I never said I would pick snelling over either of those guys. I was just making my standard random comment. thanks for jumpin on me. anyone with any sense knows turner and Norwood are 1 and 2.

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on Jun 18, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apologies...

I didn’t read who the poster was – I should have figured that it was a random comment – though not nearly as random as bwellnjonesco’s. Either way, I wasn’t jumping on you – more like a gentle tap on the shoulder.

Anyways, Snelling is a beast, as I’ve said in the past.

by TomQ on Jun 18, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

jokin man.

I have thick skin. I am an old fart after all

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on Jun 22, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha.

Good stuff – yeah it’s often hard to tell tone through posts.

by TomQ on Jun 24, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

better in second half

Don’t get me wrong, I like Norwood. I just think he is most effective as a change of pace. Turner is a bruising back, and he’s not slow. He starts the game and wears out the defense. The defense gets used to him. That’s when we put in Norwood. He’s usually the fastest guy on the field, so he just runs by everybody.

by xben420 on Jun 24, 2009 4:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and Norwood probably could handle being a #1, but then we wouldn’t have our not-so-secret weapon.

by xben420 on Jun 24, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think ...

that is an interesting observation. He’s done well in a limited, multi-faceted role, but there are no guarantees in this league. I personally question his durability, although there are plenty of people here that see no validity in that argument, which I respect. I think we may see some of the “Michael Turner” effect w/ Jerious though, and that’d be a good thing. In other words, his limited role is basically assuring him another 2-3 yrs in the league.

Reporter: How will you address all of the dropped passes?

Mike Smith: I don’t think that we were as sharp as we have been catching the football. It’s something that is very fixable. It’s VERY fixable.

by FrankyWren on Jun 25, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

'Turner' effect

In that statement are you implying that Norwood will land a nice contract after his current deal and go off for 1400+ yards with a new team? Because if so, that’s the same thought process I had (minus the numbers obviously) when I lamented the Turner signing. It wasn’t that I thought Turner wouldn’t be a good RB, but instead that I thought we didn’t need to drop 35mil on a new toy when our current one was basically the same thing except much much cheaper.

You can see from the numbers I posted above that they are/were very similar as backups with Norwood actually edging Turner out in most categories. They both have/had this “durability” question surrounding them though there has never been anything significant to substantiate it, so peole questioned whether either could carry a full load as a number one RB. And yet, we now see what Turner has done and I have no evidence so far that indicated Norwood could not have, or can’t in the future, do the same. Based on the above evidence comparing the two, if I had to choose which one would do better, I would have picked Norwood over Turner based on his numbers, more attempts, more yards, better avg, etc. But that’s my opinion.

Either way, I think the overall arching point isn’t if one should start over the other or choosing between them. I think now it’s all about making sure they are both involved fully in the offense. Turner’s contract now demands he start, but that doesn’t mean he needs to carry 400 times a year either. Our OL is only going to get better with experience and consitent PT together, so we should use both backs to the greatest potential. Norwood should push for about 40-45% of the carries and still stay involved in the passing game, while Turner should get his 55-60% and as long as Smith&Co play them both to their strengths I think they will both be very very productive for us.

What I think you don’t want is to continue loading Turner up to the pont that you break him early and possibly lose him altogether. Go ask JA what happens when a RB blows his knee. I’m sure he’ll tell you it isn’t very conducive to a long career. The more carries Turner sees, the greater the risk of something happening. I think we would be fine with Norwood, but I don’t want to see either of our weapons on the sideline in a suit.

by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

Based on the above evidence comparing the two, if I had to choose which one would do better, I would have picked Norwood over Turner based on his numbers, more attempts, more yards, better avg, etc. But that’s my opinion.

Agreed – You can’t look at just the numbers while they were both backups and say that Turner’s the sure thing and Norwood’s just a backup. Norwood had better numbers in their time as the #2 RB. It had to be 1) scouting and/or 2) coaching philosophy. I think the biggest thing was that Mularkey and/or Smith and/or Dimitroff wanted a “big, bruising back” (5’10" – 244 vs 5’11’ – 202).

by orang3b on Jun 25, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

physical dimensions

That was what I was thinking when mentioning playing them to their strengths. The NFL has moved to a 2-back league over the last five years and I’m all for it.

by Jesse28 on Jun 25, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've heard

Vague talk that Norwood would get more touches next year (seems like we hear that every year), but I’ve never seen a direct quote like this before:

Ira (New Jersey)
Hey Pat, love the blog. We’ve heard for years that the falcons will be using Norwood more often. What makes this the year they actually give him consistent touches?