RB - Jesse Chatman, Bring him in it couldnt hurt.

[CardinalChris]

Michael Turner played in 14 games and only had 20 rushing attempts and is 23 years old.
Chatman played in 15 games and had 65 attempts, a better YPC and is 25 years old. Hardly past his prime.
What does Sproles have to do with anything. He's a KR/PR. Chatman weighs 247 pounds and is a power runner. Two very different animals.

I think abomb is right.

They will only keep 3 RB. They have Tomlinson to play short yardage (see TD total last year) Their third RB is sproles. Third down type/special teamer. That means it was up between Turner and Chatman for the main backup role. This has been a rumor for a couple of months now. San Diego just feels Turner has more flexibility and upside.

But Arizona needs neither upside or flexibility. They need a short yardage back. Bring the kid in. He either makes the club or doesn't. What do we have to lose? Let he and Hambrick duke it out and best man win. He's overweight? Well, here is your shot at redemption!!!

Chatman was just lost in the numbers.

 

[CardinalChris]

Thinking we should waste a roster spot on this clown is a mistake. He was released by Marty and Co. for skipping OTA's all summer. The Chargers wanted him to showup to rehab an injury and apparently his weight has ballooned. If we want a fat, disruptive me-player, I am sure we still have Troy Hambrick's name in the Rolodex.

A-Bomb

I am not trying to disagree with you, but don't you think there is no better motivator for a fat, disruptive me-player than another fat, disruptive me-player trying to take your roster spot?

He definately has more potential than Hambrick. At the very worst he lights a fire under Troy's butt. No loss. Let 'em duke it out. May the fattest guy win!!!

 

[joeshmo]

They will only keep 3 RB. They have Tomlinson to play short yardage (see TD total last year) Their third RB is sproles. Third down type/special teamer. That means it was up between Turner and Chatman for the main backup role. This has been a rumor for a couple of months now. San Diego just feels Turner has more flexibility and upside.

Plus you need to be able to catch the ball in their offensive scheme. No matter what type of RB you are. Thats just the way Marty likes to do things.

They also like the 260 lb RB Andrew Pinnock as a short yardage back as well.

Chatman also recieved the high tender offer of 1.43 mill as a RFA this year. Got in Marty's dog house and with the fact that they can have just as much potential with Sproles, Turner, and Pinnock for a cheaper price then one Chatman alone and still save about 400k. Plus they needed cut someone before they inked Castillo to a contract and be at the roster limit.

 

[JasonKGME]

But what is their winning % with Vick and what is it without him. Dont know the exact #'s but it is a pretty big difference.

Well if we are just looking at winning percentages in the game with the player as opposed to without the player then we need to dump Anquan Boldin (31% winning percentage) right now and go out and sign Freddie Mitchell (88% winning percentage in games he started for Philladelphia)

So you go Joe!

 

[Duckjake]

On the other hand, how many games has relying on Marcel Shipp to get yards and not fumble in the red zone cost the Cards in the last three seasons?

None.

Shipp didn't even play last year. And the offense stunk. 27th in total yds.

Shipp did not score in 2003 playing for probably the 2nd worst NFL team in the last 25 years. The offense stunk. 26th

He scored NINE TD's in 2002 (6Rush 3Rec) playing for probably the worst NFL coach in the last 25 years. The offense stunk. 27th

Shipp didn't play in 2001 and the offense stunk. 20th

He was in college in 2000 and the offense stunk. 23rd And the Cards finished with their worst record in 42 years at 3-13.

The Cards have done just fine finding ways to lose games without having to just rely on Marcel.

 

[ajcardfan]

Well if we are just looking at winning percentages in the game with the player as opposed to without the player then we need to dump Anquan Boldin (31% winning percentage) right now and go out and sign Freddie Mitchell (88% winning percentage in games he started for Philladelphia)

So you go Joe!

If Philadelphia was 3-11 without Mitchell in the lineup then you might have a good point.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Well if we are just looking at winning percentages in the game with the player as opposed to without the player then we need to dump Anquan Boldin (31% winning percentage) right now and go out and sign Freddie Mitchell (88% winning percentage in games he started for Philladelphia)

So you go Joe!

this post is a joke right?

 

[Redsz]

But what is their winning % with Vick and what is it without him. Dont know the exact #'s but it is a pretty big difference.

I think soley judging a player by his winning percentage in a team sport is a very long bow to draw. And in the case of Atlanta, I think it's absurd to ignore what Keith Brooking, Alge Crumpler, Patrick Kerney, Rod Coleman, Warrick Dunn, TJ Duckett and even Allen Rossum did to contribute to Atlanta's record.

Under the same way of thinking... LaDainian Tomlinson is no good because he was playing for the Chargers when they went 4-12 and 5-11. His pro bowl seasons are disregarded as nothing more than stats for fantasy leagues because he doesn't have a 64% winnning record in a team sport.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I think soley judging a player by his winning percentage in a team sport is a very long bow to draw. And in the case of Atlanta, I think it's absurd to ignore what Keith Brooking, Alge Crumpler, Patrick Kerney, Rod Coleman, Warrick Dunn, TJ Duckett and even Allen Rossum did to contribute to Atlanta's record.

meanwhile - with all of those guys - the season previous - without ONE single player (I think his name is Vick) - that was one of the two worst teams in all of football. Normally, the winning percentage argument doesn't holdmuch water but in Vick's case we've seen what has happened when he's played and what's happened when he hasn't. The difference is SOOOOO drastic that you have to give credence to the idea that he is an incredible difference maker ont he football field. To think otherwise is rather foolish IMO.

 

[joeshmo]

I think soley judging a player by his winning percentage in a team sport is a very long bow to draw. And in the case of Atlanta, I think it's absurd to ignore what Keith Brooking, Alge Crumpler, Patrick Kerney, Rod Coleman, Warrick Dunn, TJ Duckett and even Allen Rossum did to contribute to Atlanta's record.

Why is it absurd. What did those players contribute to the team when Vick was injured and the team sucked. Take any of one those players and put them on the injured list and the team is still playoff caliber, take Vick away and the team isnt playoff caliber, and that is a proven fact, becuase it happened.

Saying that any one of those players makes an impact on their teams as much or even half as much as Vick does is absurd.

 

[40yearfan]

Why is it absurd. What did those players contribute to the team when Vick was injured and the team sucked. Take any of one those players and put them on the injured list and the team is still playoff caliber, take Vick away and the team isnt playoff caliber, and that is a proven fact, becuase it happened.

Saying that any one of those players makes an impact on their teams as much or even half as much as Vick does is absurd.

Just a thought, but maybe does it have something to do with the way the offense was built around Vick. With him missing and his back up not able to do the things Vick can, the offense crumbles. Not only does that reflect on Vick, it also reflects on the OC who wouldn't or couldn't make the adjustments necessary to fit a different caliber QB and keep the offense at least at an NFL level.

 

[CardinalChris]

I think QB is the ONE position where the loss of a star greatly diminishes the ability of a team to win.

 

[CardinalChris]

Just a thought, but maybe does it have something to do with the way the offense was built around Vick. With him missing and his back up not able to do the things Vick can, the offense crumbles. Not only does that reflect on Vick, it also reflects on the OC who wouldn't or couldn't make the adjustments necessary to fit a different caliber QB and keep the offense at least at an NFL level.

Agreed, but if you have aplayer like that, you build an offense to him. It is tough to build an offense around Doug Johnson.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I think QB is the ONE position where the loss of a star greatly diminishes the ability of a team to win.

totally agree. Do you guys really think that the Packers would be anything for the last couple years without Favre? And Favre ain't even close to being what he used to be. Or would the Eagles be anything without Donovan? There are very few players - even QBs - who have this type of impact on their clubs, but Vick is definitely one of them.

 

[Redsz]

You're right, running an undersized 3-4, Doug Johnson as the starting QB, Peerles Price as the #1 reciever among other things couldn't have possibly been some of the reasons for Atlanta's 2003 season.

 

[joeshmo]

Doug Johnson as the starting QB,

Exactly. Johnson isnt even in the same atmosphere as Vick as a difference maker.

Plus not to mention Vick took the same team in 2003 to a 3-1 record at the end of the year when he came back to start. 2 - 10 record without Vick.

 

[Redsz]

That's the same for every team in the NFL. If you take out an starter, it's going to have a impact on the team. If their offensive scheme is built around Vicks ability to scramble and create mismatches... Then his injury would have had the same affect as any other team who builds their team around one player and then loses that player. It doesn't mean that Vick is the on and off button to make the Falcons play ball.

There where many issues that contributed to the Falcons poor season. They had defensive scheme that didn't suit their players, they had a #2 as a #1 reciever, they have no one at WR, Warrick Dunn had a season ending injury and the most obvious was that they gave up on Dan Reeves, which REALLY showed up on the field. How can those issues not come into consideration?

But anyway, this is getting WAY off topic. Does anyone actually believe in judging a player just on their winning percentage (i.e LT) in a team sport? That was the issue I had in the first place.

 

[Yuma]

Chatman is gone because of a secret weapon called Darren Sproles. This kid has the veterans taking notice in mini camps. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone, he's our secret weapon!

 

[Cheesebeef]

They had defensive scheme that didn't suit their players, they had a #2 as a #1 reciever, they have no one at WR, Warrick Dunn had a season ending injury and the most obvious was that they gave up on Dan Reeves, which REALLY showed up on the field. How can those issues not come into consideration?

Those issues tend to get overshadowed by the fact that the team was 2-10 with all those problems and when Vick got back - even WITH all those problems they went 3-1. One SINGLE PLAYER overcame all of the above which produced a 2-10 record with a plethora of blowouts. They weren't just bad - they were freaking awful. In stepped Vick and immediately the team was not only competitive again - but they were winning again - that ain't coincidence.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

 

[joeshmo]

There where many issues that contributed to the Falcons poor season. They had defensive scheme that didn't suit their players, they had a #2 as a #1 reciever, they have no one at WR, Warrick Dunn had a season ending injury and the most obvious was that they gave up on Dan Reeves, which REALLY showed up on the field. How can those issues not come into consideration?

You may have a point with you first paragraph(small issue talked at the end) but this one only proves my point more.

As for the second paragraph yes it does go into consideration, which makes Vicks 3-1 win percantage at the end of the year when he came back that more impressive. Vick and team pulled together a 3 to 1 at the end of the year without Dunn and the team giving up on Reeves. What changed, Vick came back. Just makes the difference in winning percentage that year even more impressive.

As for the first paragraph. Is it really the scheme or the threat of the scheme with Vicks talents in it that makes it hard for Defenses to scheme against it. The only scheme difference with Vick is that Vick is allowed to run more often, other then that the scheme was exactly the same for Johnson.

Vick is a Difference maker period, and yes his winning % with and without him in the game is part of the evidence. Not all of it but it does tell a telling story.

 

[joeshmo]

Those issues tend to get overshadowed by the fact that the team was 2-10 with all those problems and when Vick got back - even WITH all those problems they went 3-1. One SINGLE PLAYER overcame all of the above which produced a 2-10 record with a plethora of blowouts. They weren't just bad - they were freaking awful. In stepped Vick and immediately the team was not only competitive again - but they were winning again - that ain't coincidence.

Crap you keep taking my thunder a few minutes before I post in this thread.

Dang you to H-E-Double Hockey Sticks.

 

[joeshmo]

Anyways, Jesse Chatman.

 

[Redsz]

Those issues tend to get overshadowed by the fact that the team was 2-10 with all those problems and when Vick got back - even WITH all those problems they went 3-1. One SINGLE PLAYER overcame all of the above which produced a 2-10 record with a plethora of blowouts. They weren't just bad - they were freaking awful. In stepped Vick and immediately the team was not only competitive again - but they were winning again - that ain't coincidence.

As I said, Johnson couldn't run that offense. He isn't that type of QB (maybe if they had a QB similar to Vick, they would have had more sucess). And with the Falcons defense being utterly awful due to the wrong scheme - the Falcons gave up on the season.

When Vick returned from injury, the offensive came on because Vick could run the offense as it was intended. Because of it, the team got a bit of self belief and put a few games together. It's really not that big of a deal.

It wouldn't be any different than if the Colts lost Manning. They don't have a defense and the offense wouldn't run without Manning's passing ability. So they would suck. But if Manning came back from injury, the offense would work and maybe they could win a few.

It's no different from any other team in the NFL that builds around a player. And it's not a big shock when the scheme suddenly works when that player returns. Which is the case with Vick and the Falcons.

 

[Redsz]

You may have a point with you first paragraph(small issue talked at the end) but this one only proves my point more.

As for the second paragraph yes it does go into consideration, which makes Vicks 3-1 win percantage at the end of the year when he came back that more impressive. Vick and team pulled together a 3 to 1 at the end of the year without Dunn and the team giving up on Reeves. What changed, Vick came back. Just makes the difference in winning percentage that year even more impressive.

As for the first paragraph. Is it really the scheme or the threat of the scheme with Vicks talents in it that makes it hard for Defenses to scheme against it. The only scheme difference with Vick is that Vick is allowed to run more often, other then that the scheme was exactly the same for Johnson.

Thats was what I was saying in my last post:

That's the same for every team in the NFL. If you take out an starter, it's going to have a impact on the team. If their offensive scheme is built around Vicks ability to scramble and create mismatches... Then his injury would have had the same affect as any other team who builds their team around one player and then loses that player. It doesn't mean that Vick is the on and off button to make the Falcons play ball.

And as I said to Cheese, maybe the Falcons 2003 season would of been alot different if they had a QB on their roster similar to Vick, so that the scheme could actually work. Instead of trying to get that poor SOB Doug Johnson to run a offense he flat out isn't capable of running.

It was like one of those kid's toys with the different shaped holes to stick colored blocks in. Johnson was a triangle block and the scheme was hexagon shaped hole.