PDA

View Full Version : Kevin Jones vs Michael Turner



Kyben36
07-21-2008, 04:49 AM
Seeing as the Bears were in search of a running back at the end of last season, Who would you have rather had after the season ended. Are you happy with Kevin Jones or would you have rather had Michel Turner.

Bulldog76
07-21-2008, 08:25 AM
Turner...faster, bigger, healthier.

jafer
07-21-2008, 08:29 AM
Turner...faster, bigger, healthier.

NO comparison!!! ....even before Kevin Jones' injury, IMO.

IvyWentCrazy
07-21-2008, 09:28 AM
Turner also played behind a MUCH, MUCH better offensive line, so keep that in mind. But I still believe Turner is a better back.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-21-2008, 09:38 AM
Turner also played behind a MUCH, MUCH better offensive line, so keep that in mind. But I still believe Turner is a better back.

Turner also came into games later and a lot fresher (is that a word?) than the defenses he was against. Dont get me wrong I still believe he's good but do you think he'll still be as effective being the every down back week in and week out?

Chi-Town Finest
07-21-2008, 09:43 AM
I believe KJ can give us close to what TJ gave us if healthy.

Eightyfive Y'aw
07-21-2008, 11:11 AM
A. I would have rather had Turner but not for the money Atl paid.. KJ is a good risk and just might uh blosum (Kyben sig :eyebrow:). I wanted Faneca and that was to me a bigger disapointment than losing out on the Turner sweepsteaks.

dyceman
07-21-2008, 11:32 AM
Why bother to debate this one with the advent of TC this week?
We've got KJ which will hoepfully help. MT signed with Atlanta at
least 4 months ago--dead issue and only makes us regret the fact
that JA is an idiot. We gotta move on guys---unless you want to
beat that dead horse of why we didn't sign Romo 4 yrs ago.

hawkeyefootball
07-21-2008, 11:55 AM
Isn't the real question would you rather have Jones AND Forte or Turner? If we snag an established back then do we even use a 2nd rounder on another RB? I'll take the Jones/Forte combo.

cambovenzi
07-21-2008, 12:16 PM
turner was way too expensive.
but is easily the better back.
he runs over guys extremely frequently.

HOWE do i do it
07-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Is this a serious question. Who would you rather have, a big fast running back who is rather fresh, or an injury plagued back?

Soop
07-21-2008, 01:29 PM
A. I would have rather had Turner but not for the money Atl paid.. KJ is a good risk and just might uh blosum (Kyben sig :eyebrow:). I wanted Faneca and that was to me a bigger disapointment than losing out on the Turner sweepsteaks.
x2

Why bother to debate this one with the advent of TC this week?
We've got KJ which will hoepfully help. MT signed with Atlanta at
least 4 months ago--dead issue and only makes us regret the fact
that JA is an idiot. We gotta move on guys---unless you want to
beat that dead horse of why we didn't sign Romo 4 yrs ago.
I'm getting tired of these threads too. Let's move on Bears fans and stop wondering what would've been.

Isn't the real question would you rather have Jones AND Forte or Turner? If we snag an established back then do we even use a 2nd rounder on another RB? I'll take the Jones/Forte combo.

Forte/Jones without a doubt.

jaycruz92
07-21-2008, 03:03 PM
o turner hes a freak!

dabearsfan
07-21-2008, 04:56 PM
Not really a fair question, when Turner signed with Atlanta Cedric Benson was still on the roster.

Also for the money Turner signed for, I'd take Kevin Jones. He's on a one year deal, so if he sucks or gets hurt we aren't stuck with his contract like we would be with Turner. And as well as Turner ran in spot play he's not a lock to be as good when he's the starting RB, especially behind the line in ATL. Plus we're going to need the money we would have spent on him to lockup Hester, extend Urlacher and get a real QB in here next season. I'll take a one year rental on RB coupled with a 2nd rounder any day over a mega deal for a RB who was a backup. (especially when the average lifespan for a RB is 3-4 years)

chicagowhitesox
07-21-2008, 06:13 PM
Turner>Jones
But Jones was signed for something like $600,000. So they saved millions.

Bulldog76
07-22-2008, 09:27 AM
Turner>Jones
But Jones was signed for something like $600,000. So they saved millions.


How much of that savings are they going to re-invest into the team (Hester's deal?)...

Because until they either give me some of that money or re-invest it into the team, it seems to be a waste.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-22-2008, 09:34 AM
How much of that savings are they going to re-invest into the team (Hester's deal?)...

Because until they either give me some of that money or re-invest it into the team, it seems to be a waste.

you never know with the penny pinching McCaskys (sp?)

b1e9a8r5s
07-22-2008, 12:08 PM
Isn't the real question would you rather have Jones AND Forte or Turner? If we snag an established back then do we even use a 2nd rounder on another RB? I'll take the Jones/Forte combo.

If your going to play that game, then I'd rather have a Turner/Sweed, Turner/Kelly, Turner/Brohm or Turner/Henning combo.

The issue is the money that Turner got. Because of that, I'm not upset that we didn't land him.

b1e9a8r5s
07-22-2008, 12:12 PM
How much of that savings are they going to re-invest into the team (Hester's deal?)...

Because until they either give me some of that money or re-invest it into the team, it seems to be a waste.

Signing Briggs, Harris, Gould and Urlacher isn't re-investing in the team huh?

sevanseven
07-22-2008, 04:05 PM
i dont understand why the bears didn't go after turner. he from chicago, he defines the chicago bears game "running." turner over jones for sure

VJ18
07-22-2008, 04:57 PM
Signing Briggs, Harris, Gould and Urlacher isn't re-investing in the team huh?

all were good except Urlacher, its about time we cut ties and traded his behind!

northsider
07-22-2008, 05:27 PM
Turner is going to be a beast.

BEARS+BULLS=:)
07-22-2008, 05:39 PM
we should have signed Turner, picked Brohm, n get kevin smith or ray rice later. Also we could have gotten Sweed/Kelly. At the time we had Bensen so no point in wasting all that money on a vet when we can get just as talented alot cheaper rookie RB especially with such a deep draft. Besides Jones contract is no where near as big as Turners.

All but the Sox
07-22-2008, 08:16 PM
Ill tell you what id rather have. Matt Forte, Kevin Jones, Lance Briggs Tommie Harris and Urlacher. No way the front office finished off these deals and stayed under the salary cap to get Turner. So my choice is to take the majority!

Fuselage
07-23-2008, 10:53 AM
x2

I'm getting tired of these threads too. Let's move on Bears fans and stop wondering what would've been.

Forte/Jones without a doubt.

Why should we move on? This is super duper valuable discussion. We could also start a thread about whether we would prefer Forte/Payton or Forte/Sayers. I personally think that Angelo should have gone after Payton/Sayers & that would have given us the best chance to win in '08.

Shardik17
07-23-2008, 11:06 AM
all were good except Urlacher, its about time we cut ties and traded his behind!

:speechless: AHHH Blasphemy !

Soop
07-23-2008, 12:12 PM
all were good except Urlacher, its about time we cut ties and traded his behind!

Yeah, let's trade him right after both parties worked out a deal. Now that everybody's happy, let's trade our captain and the best MLB in the league. :rolleyes:

Bulldog76
07-23-2008, 12:29 PM
Signing Briggs, Harris, Gould and Urlacher isn't re-investing in the team huh?

When we signed Jones for 600k we had already re-signed Briggs, Harris and Gould...*******

We are still 9m under the cap... I personally would like to think that Chicago generates enough money from season tickets, television/radio contracts, psl's, sponsorship and every other revenue stream that we could have invested a little more of that money into the players and improve the roster.

Running Back was a priority before free agency according to Jerry Angelo's comments in January (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/01/03/jerry-angelo-competition-the-name-of-the-game-in-bears-backfiel/)...

If we would have signed Turner to compete with Benson, we would have had a second round pick to use on QB / WR

Since we ended up cutting Benson, we would also have a RB with experience and health on his side to step up as the feature back...

We had the money to sign Turner, we chose not to use it... We could have easily signed Turner, Briggs, Harris, Gould, Booker, Urlacher and others...but it would have meant that the McCaskey's would have spent more money. And that to me is the big problem here...

So yes, until the Bears extend Hester...acquire a dependable QB...bring in a true #1 wr...I'm going to say that the money hasn't been totally re-invested into the team.

Bulldog76
07-23-2008, 12:32 PM
all were good except Urlacher, its about time we cut ties and traded his behind!


Now that is the ***-clown comment of the week...why would you cut ties with the best linebacker in football ???

Seriously, does it bother you that much when players ask for more money??? Its not like he held out or missed more than a couple voluntary OTA's...did you expect him to learn something new those days???

You are an idiot if you think we should have cut ties with Urlacher...

Bulldog76
07-23-2008, 12:38 PM
Ill tell you what id rather have. Matt Forte, Kevin Jones, Lance Briggs Tommie Harris and Urlacher. No way the front office finished off these deals and stayed under the salary cap to get Turner. So my choice is to take the majority!

We have the cap room still to add Turner's contract this season...it comes down to whether or not Virginia and Ted want to spend the money.

Its disgusting to me that the McCaskey family would rather keep the money than use it on the team...their family was a foundation for the NFL and they represent the old greed of NFL owners...

Look at Jim Irsay in Indy...that dude spends money like its going to melt if he keeps it...Look at the Giants and see how they max out the cap every year... Hell look at Baltimore / Oakland / Dallas and New England...they all spend money to keep their own players and bring in a big name free agent every year....whereas the McCaskey's refuse to

We used to complain about the salaries of our baseball teams in Chicago, how about we look at our football team and get some answers...Because the only one(s) I ever hear are that we like our current group of players and we are comfortable with them...and then a week later we sign someone else on the cheap...meaning that either they didn't like our current guys, they weren't comfortable...or they weren't comfortable spending more money on other players.

BEARS+BULLS=:)
07-25-2008, 04:11 PM
^just to recap the whole page bulldog took up so u dont have to read it we could have afforded Turner along with the other signings n not have to raft a RB that high n get a QB instead. Oh yea and the McCaskeys are cheap.

Tankjeep
07-25-2008, 06:21 PM
^just to recap the whole page bulldog took up so u dont have to read it we could have afforded Turner along with the other signings n not have to raft a RB that high n get a QB instead. Oh yea and the McCaskeys are cheap.

bears+bulls,

that's effin hilarious! i'm not a bulldog hater by no means....the guy has legit reasoning and brings the stats like a "bulldog", but dang dude....let's paraphrase a bit and put down the underlying theme a little sooner, than later.

lol, good one b+b.

BEARS+BULLS=:)
07-26-2008, 03:46 PM
^lol i wasnt hating on him i was trying to save ppl time, me n bulldog seem to go back n forth on some things so i figured i mess with him a little