jri111

Yeah you're exactly right about Clarett. His matter dealt directly with antitrust issue. here's a link to an article about the antiturst and clarett situation: http://www.allbusiness.com/government/empl.../1041671-1.html "Recently, in Clarett v. National Football League,6 the second Circuit greatly expanded the nonstatutory exemption, protecting a National Football League ("NFL") eligibility rule requiring that rookies be three seasons removed from their high school graduation, even though this provision was only incorporated by reference in the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players' Association ("NFLPA")."

One thing everyone is forgetting is the the NFL, along with every other major sports in America is the the NFL has special agreements with Congress concerning antitrust exemptions. The antitrust excemptions deal with leage/union issues and i'm sure the answer you're looking for comes from somewhere deep inside that legislation. The antitrust exemptions essentailly allow teams to "cut" players without the fear of litigation although they are under a valid contract. My guess is that the League has more relaxed rights when it comes to disicpline of its players then a normal business entity would because of these special exemptions. Just a guess though... would be interesting to reasearch if I had the time...

I gotta be honeset I've never heard of SB Nation or Buffalorambling until now. From first glance it looks interesting though, I'll definitiely have to check it out!

shaud williams

It's not about inside information it's about applying logic and analysis. Here, ready for another one? this one is from Scout's Inc.'s Todd McShay's new mock draft which was justed posted on ESPN Insider this afteroon: http://myespn.go.com/conversation/story?id...amp;section=nfl There are some significant changes to the top-10 picks of this updated mock draft. Although there was temptation to give the Raiders WR Calvin Johnson at the top spot, the only way I can justify such a move is if they sign a veteran quarterback. Elsewhere, DE Gaines Adams is a reach at No. 2, but I'm working under the assumption the Lions trade down at least two spots to get a better value on him. The one rumor I did give in to is the Browns taking RB Adrian Peterson instead of QB Brady Quinn with the No. 3 pick. As explained below, this is a worst-case scenario for Quinn, who could experience a Matt Leinart-like free fall to the Vikings at No. 7 or the Dolphins at No. 9 overall. In addition to the noticeable shuffling atop the board, I've added a second round to this version of the 2007 mock draft. Check back next week, when I project all 255 picks in the seven-round process. + -- Underclassman 1. Oakland Raiders (2-14) Projected pick: +JaMarcus Russell, QB, LSU Needs: QB, DT, OT/G, TE, WR, LB, CB, RB It seems owner Al Davis' captivation with WR Calvin Johnson grows with each passing day. If the Raiders can talk the Lions into a deal for veteran QB Josh McCown, it will free Davis to pull the trigger on Johnson with the No. 1 overall pick. Until then, Russell makes the most sense for a team loaded with talented wide receivers (Randy Moss, Jerry Porter and Ronald Curry) but nobody to get them the ball. 2. Detroit (3-13) Projected pick: Gaines Adams, DE, Clemson Needs: QB, ILB, CB, TE, S, WR, C, DT, DE The Lions hold the keys to the entire top of the draft. The aforementioned McCown trade could throw the entire top of the board into flux. Ironically, such a trade could rob the Lions of their trade value at No. 2. The Buccaneers are rumored to be interested, but only if Johnson is still on the board. Assuming, for these purposes, Russell goes No. 1 to the Raiders, the Lions should strike a deal to move down at least two spots and get a better value for Adams, who is the top pass-rushing talent in the 2007 BTW his draft looks almost identical to Draft Tek's mock draft from yesturday: 1. Oakland - Russell 2. Detroit - Adams (projected trade w/ TB more or less) 3. Cleveland - Peterson 4. TB - Johnson (projeected trade w/ Detroit more or less) 5. Arizona - Thomas 6. Washington - Okoye 7. Minnesota - Quinn 8. Falcons - Landry 9. Miami - Brown 10. Houston - Hall 11. SF - Branch

Even more proof via ESPN insider: http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/features/rumors Tuesday, April 10 WHO WHAT THE SKINNY Oakland No. 1 pick Russell or Johnson? <Apr. 10> Calvin Johnson is moving to the top of the Raiders' draft board, but there's one caveat, writes ESPN.com's John Clayton. Al Davis, who loves LSU QB JaMarcus Russell's arm, wants an alternative to Russell in order to justify taking Johnson, one of the most talented receivers to come along in years. The Raiders are looking at Lions backup QB Josh McCown in a trade. They would consider Daunte Culpepper if the Dolphins let him go. The problem is putting something together before the draft. Trent Edwards of Stanford and some of the second-round quarterbacks could be options as well. If Davis isn't satisfied with the options, he'll take Russell. WHO WHAT THE SKINNY Detroit No. 2 pick Intriguing thought <Apr. 10> Should JaMarcus Russell fall out of the No. 1 spot, he will cause considerable thinking with the Lions, writes John Clayton. Although the Lions don't want to draft a quarterback, Russell has the type of strong arm that will make them pause for a second. Not having Calvin Johnson available at No. 2 could kill some of the Lions' trade options. That leaves the Lions with the options of taking halfback Adrian Peterson, tackle Joe Thomas and Russell. For the Lions, Russell will be a thought. Monday, April 9 WHO WHAT THE SKINNY Tampa Bay Trade Bucs trading up? <Apr. 9> The Bucs appear to be leaning toward trading up to the No. 2 pick to get Georgia Tech wide receiver Calvin Johnson, according to John Clayton. That is why they are trying to do everything possible to make sure the Raiders draft JaMarcus Russell at No. 1. If the Raiders trade for the Lions' Josh McCown, which has been rumored, they might not feel a sense of urgency to draft a quarterback. The Bucs are keeping in touch with the Lions, who hold the No. 2 pick, about keeping the trade door open. With an extra second-round pick thanks to the Anthony McFarland trade last season, the Bucs have the ammunition to get the player they want.

1. If you believe andrew walter is anything near a potential starter in this league then you should have a good chance of getting a job with Art Shell, the ex Raiders coach whereever he is now (warning: without looking it up, i think its a good chance he's still unemployed - so sorry you're out of luck). Also Lane Kifiln has no connection or loyalty to Walter. Kiflin is a QB guy, he's going to want a guy he can teach his way as soon as he gets into the NFL. NOT a long term project who has already had other NFL coaches "hands on him" and is most likely a career backup. Also there are indications that the Raiders could be high on Trent Edwards from Standfard in the Second round (he had a good visit there last week where they worked him out pretty hard and came away impressed - sorry i don't have link and can't find where i read this, so take it for what its worth). The idea would to be trade for McNown, let him start a year or two while Edwards develops and you're still able to take Johnson in round one. So if you're detroit and you think this is a possibility you're not going to want this to happen so you wont ship McNown to the Raiders. 2. You're right that Detroit may want Russell and releaseing/trading McNown may be an indication of that. But I don't put too much stock in that being a good indicator. McNown only singed a two-year contract with Detriot and he was given a chance to comptete for the starting job w/ Kitna. He lost that job in training camp last year. He only has one year with $2 million left on his contract, so moving him now may make sense. it doesn't necessarily mean they're positioning themselves for a round 1 QB.

Well my original post was suppose to be an analysis two likley senarios, one where the Raiders take Russell and one where they take Johnson. When I started doing it though, the post got REALLY long and i just realized that if the raiders take johnson there are just ENTIRERLY too many possibilities to rationally attempt to predict anything. And because i know my posts generally run too long as is, I decided just to scrap it! However, I don't think its a foregone conclusion that the Raiders take Johnson. IMO if I had to put a number on it I would so 60/40 they'd take Russell and here why: 1. If they take Johnson they'll most likly take a second round (or later) QB to develop. They're already toying with the idea of bringing in a vetern even if they draft Russell so Russell could sit for a year and "redshirt." So if they go with Johnson, I think they'll almost definititely want to bring a younger QB along slowly and allow him to sit a few years while a veteran takes the reigns. 2. The veteran QB they're looking at is Josh McNown. What makes this interesting is that McNown is a Lion. Now i'm not going to overthink the intelligence of the lion's front office but they HAVE to see the implications of dealing McNown to Oakland. EVen if McNown goes to Oakland and Oakland has all the intention in the world of still drafting Russell, Detroit has all the incentive not to make the trade. here's why: say Oakland gets McNown and then drafts johnson in round 1 and a QB in round 2. We all know Detroit wants out of the second pick and by far and away the best chance for that to happen is if Calvin Johnson is there. there are FAR more teams ready to give up picks for johnson, who is far more unique and valuable then Russell. Talent aside there just aren't that many teams in need of a QB in the Top ten to justify giving up multiple picks to move up (Cleveland (3)?, Minnestoa (7), Miami (9)) I'm not saying it can't happen just that it's more likely that Detroit is going to find a trading partner if Johnson rather than Russell. For that reason they hold all the cards with McNown. If they think it's even a REMOTE possibility that McNown would entice Oakland to take Johnson, they do not, and should not make the trade.

**note: I just checked Draft tek's website again and they changed it. They're doing some kind of simulation with a seattle seahawks fan board where they had actual people simulate a live draft for the first 24 picks and then computer automated the rest, so it's a bit diifferent. I guess you'll have to take my word for it what it was before they did this crazy new simulation! I really think detroit trading with TB makes the most sense. Detroit doesn't want the number two spot and TB wants to ensure they are the ones that are going to trade up to get Johnson. It works out for both teams. Detroit will probably even try to trade down from 4 again, but I don't see that happening with Russell, Johnson and Peterson off the board in the first three picks. MAYBE Miami would to try to jump ahead of the vikings for Quinn, but Washington would then be a better trading partner becuase they would have to give up less so even that doesn't make much sense. the new one isn't bad either...but the other one is better. The new one has us using our third rounder to trade up to 10 to get Willis and then taking Beason in round two and Irons in Round 3. Rounds 4-7 are pretty much the same. I'd rather stay put at 12 and take either Willis or Poz then give up a third to move up two spots though...but that's just me

True, but he played big enough to hold his own. That's the type of player I see Okoye being (or could be). That's of course if he even gets in a cover 2 defense. I think it would be beneficial for him if he does because he can use his speed and adequate size to dominate in that system. I would love for the Bills to get him, but he's most likely not going to be there when the Bills pick at 12 and even if he is, with our needs and the addition of walker, I don't see us picking a DT at 12 anymore. As for Jenkins, yea i don't know if he'd fit or not. And the injury are a major concern, but they could also be the reason some team gets him for a steal. Carolina wont give him a way for free, but they may eventually settle for a high third rounder or a combination of mid-lower round picks if they feel like that's the best they can get. Frankly, I'm taking an interest in Jenkins and this thread more out of sheer bordum and exhaustion from participating in the same threads over and over again about Turner, Willis and the media . I don't fault anybody on the boards for this because that's all that's out there right now, but I saw something new and different and decided to run with it!

So I was preparing to write this thread about how the first 12 picks would look if Detrot and TB swtich picks in round 1. I started looking at a bunch of mock drafts (and other sources) to refresh my memory on team needs when I came across Draft Tek's new 7-round mock that had the exact senario I was planning on creating. When i went through it, they actually had almost an identicle top 12 as I had in my mind. http://www.drafttek.com/firstround.html Here's their top 12: 1. Oakland - Russell 2. Tampa - Johnson 3. Cleveland - Peterson 4. Detriot - Adams 5. Arizona - Thomas 6. Washington - Carriker 7. Minnesota - Quinn 8. Atlanta - Landry 9. Miami - Brown 10. Houston - Hall 11. SF - Okoye 12. Buffalo - Willis This senario involves detroit trading tampa the second overall pick for tampa's second and third rounders. I think if Russell goes to Oakland this is the most likely senario. Tampa gets Johnson who they want. Detroit can get adams who they want and pick up two picks in the process. Cleveland goes Peterson which is their best pick. Arizona gets thomas the guy they really want. Really the top 5 would play out to everyones advantage. I could see washington going with Okoye instead of carriker or trade down. I think if Quinn falls to Minnisota they will definitiely take him. Landry makes sense for Atlanta and so does Brown for Miami. IDK about Hall for Houston, but with what's available it may make sense. SF I see going willis, but they do need d-line help too so okoye makes sense. If washington takes okoye SF really like Carriker too so he could be their pick. If SF takes Willis I see the Bills taking Poz. I don't see them trying to get fancy and trade down with Willis off the board and temas like St. louis (13), Carolina (14), Pittsburgh (15), cincy (18) and the Giants (20) all who could possibily go LB. All in all though I think this is the best top 12 prediction i've seen. I also think it's the best 7-round draft for Buffalo I've seen. 1. Willis (LB - Mississippi) 2. Pittman (RB - Ohio State) 3. Alexander (OLB - Oklahoma) 3. Hughes (CB - Cal) 4. Wrotto (G - Georgia Tech) 6. Snelling (FB - Virginia) 7. Filani (WR - Texas Tech) 7. Cohen (DT - Florida) Even if Willis is gone at 12 and the Bills take Poz and or we trade our 2nd for Turner I would be happy with this draft. After day one we have a starting RB to go with A-train, Two linebackers and a corner to compete with Youbotye and Thomas for the starting job. This would be an EXCELLENT draft for us!

Because cover 2 defensiive tackles don't mean smaller, they mean faster tackles that can penetrate. That usually results in smaller tackles because they can move quicker, but that doesn't automatically exculde bigger tackles who can penetrate well also. These big guys who can move are obviously rare commodities and don't come along very often which is why Buffalo has smaller DT's. Its also why Indy, Chicago and Tampa have smaller DT's. Not surprisingly though, all these teams also have trouble stopping the run. Every Cover-2 team is looking for the next Warren Sapp, a guy big enough to stop the run but quick enoug to penetrate and get upfield. ( I think okoye has that kind of potential BTW) Now, I don't know if Jenkins fits that description or not, but just because he weighs 335 pounds does not mean he's a bad fit for the cover-2, it whether he's a good penetrator or not. Actually some things I read about him indicate that he may be. Again, I'm not saying I'm an expert on him, all I know about him is what i have read. But from this, I would infer that there is a chance that he could fit in a cover-2 defense as a 1-technique DT. Here's ESPN's scouting report on him again: 2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc. Grade: 92 | Key Alert: D Comment: Jenkins is huge, very powerful and had been very mobile before suffering a string of injuries. He has a very thick, wide body and he can eat up space with the best of them. He has a massive, very strong lower body and exceptional upper-body strength. He gets off the ball low and with power. He has very powerful hands and is quick to shed. He had outstanding movement skills for his size when healthy. He was equally adept at shooting gaps or tying up multiple blockers. He ran well and wasn't confined to a phone booth. He could close on the ball with burst and was an explosive tackler. His lateral quickness and change-of-direction ability were well above-average for the position. He has a variety of pass-rush moves, including a quick swim and a powerful rip. He can knock back almost any interior offensive lineman with his bull rush. But Jenkins' durability is an enormous concern. He missed most of the last two seasons because of serious knee and shoulder injuries. He might be more prone to stamina issues and carrying extra weight after the injuries. He occasionally took a play off and would get upright, even when healthy.

would you trade our first third round pick to get Jenkins, a pro bowler in 2006? That looks like the market price right now, per rotoworld: http://rotoworld.com/Content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL Kris Jenkins-DL- Panthers Apr. 9 - 7:54 pm et The Rams are reportedly at the top of the list of teams interested in Panthers Pro Bowl defensive tackle Kris Jenkins. However, the Rock Hill Herald hears teams aren't offering higher than a third-round pick, and Carolina may want more. The Panthers will probably have to lower their asking price because of Jenkins' work-ethic issues. Source: Rock Hill Herald (http://community.heraldonline.com/?q=word_around_the_campfire) Related: Rams _________________- Carolina will probably hold out for more and someother team will probably offer more, but why not put our third in the mix. Because we're tied record wise with the 49ers and falcons, we get the 10th pick in the third round. St. Louis is in the same boat with the 8-8 teams so they don't pick until 18th in the third round. so our third would be 8 spots higher then their's. We'd be offering the highest pick at the moment. If the bidding gets too high we just pull out.

There seems to be a lot of Willis supporters on this board and although a share your concerns about him as a MLB as a rookie, i just don't see us trading down. The fact is we need a starting running back and a starting Linebacker. As you alluded to we can get RB's in rounds 2-4. I agree we'll probably add more then one (but not three). Most likely we'll add either one RB and a FB (say like a pitmann in round two and a FB later in the draft) or two rb's (like a pittman or irons in Round two and a RB that can block well also, maybe like a tony hunt in the 4th??). That said, I think LB becomes our number 1 pick. However, although I share my concerns with you about Willis, I think he is the odds on favorite. Now if he's not there, that's where opinions differ vastly. Count me as one of those who don't think we're going to trade down. The fact is we need a guy that can come in and start right away at LB. There are only three guys that can do that without the probablility going down significantly. That's Willis, Poz, and Timmons. If Willis is gone come the 12th pick I don't think we play russian roulette and gamble on trying to trade down and hope someone doesn't take one of the remaining two before our pick comes up. Linebacker is a need position for ALOT of teams. I think you can make an argument that as many as 2/3 of the teams out there would be justified in taking a round 1 linebacker. Just looking at the teams between picks 13-20 that could take a linebacker in round one: st. louis at 13, Carolina at 14, Pittsburgh at 15, the Bengals at 18 and the Giants at 20. and those are the only ones I know of at the top of my head! Now granted they all have other needs too, but i have seen many, many, mock drafts with Poz going to each one of these teams. This is why I don't see us trading down. If Willis is gone do we reallly risk losing out on one of the 1st-tier LB's by attempting to trade down? It obviously all depends on how marv and co. have the LB's rated. I would assume they have POZ rated higher then Timmons just becuase he seems like a better fit both character wise and system wise. Although if they rate them both realtively the same, then the chances of trading down and picking whoever is left greatly increase. I just don't see that, however. I think they definitely have Poz rated higher then Timmons (IMO). In fact I'll go on a limb and say they MAY even have him rated higher then Willis. Either way, that's why I don't see trading down in round 1 a viable option. As far as the other LB's go, it's true that this is a deep class, but unfortunatley we don't have the luxury of time and development for whoever we pick up. One of the linebackers we pick up on draft day is going to be a starter in the fall and as i alluded to earlier the probablility of suceess decreases the farther down the draft board you get. I like many of these guys and think they're worth drafting, but not to be that player that has to be thrown into the fire on day one. In fact, I think your analysis of RB's is how I look at LB's. I think we draft two wih the first four picks, maybe even our first two picks (Willis, Beason?/ Poz, Beason?). More likely though I think we'll take one in the first round and then another in round 3 or 4 (alla tim shaw). The second guy we take would be a back-up who pushes either Ellison or the new guy for the starting spot. He would also provide valuable depth. Anyways, just my two cents.

well here's the contract answer: "Signed a $31 million, five-year contract extension through 2009 in Septmeber 2003. Signing bonus: $9.175 million." per rotoworld: http://www.rotowire.com/football/player.htm?id=2914 more details: http://www.charlotte.com/141/story/77146.html "Jenkins, who has a salary-cap figure of about $4.5 million for this season and is under contract through 2009, was named to his third Pro Bowl last season. It capped a triumphant comeback after he missed most of 2004 and 2005 with shoulder and knee injuries. Jenkins could be expendable because the Panthers have depth at defensive tackle." $4.5 million wouldn't kill the cap-to-cash policy with about $12 million to work with. That would put us around $7.5 million for draft picks and what now. I gotta admit the more I find out about this guy the more I like about him. Still many quesitons though...

oh I agree 100%...actually as my new post just pointed out, I don't know too much about Jenkins and would have many questions/concerns. My reply here was merely to point out to those who were talking in "absolutes" that we could have more than 4 DT's if we wanted to. We don't need to keep only 4. I totally agree we have bigger needs and cocerns and adding Jenkins would be a "luxury" (one that may be worth it, but whose knows), but what if Okoye is still availbe at 12 and Willis and Peteson are gone. Do we just pass on him though becuause we already have "4" DT's? I still think we go LB in round one no matter what (wither Willis or Puz) regardless of whose there. But I think that's more of an outcome of our LB situation then anything else. My sole point was that we could add another DT if we wanted to. Anways, i got off track! I agree with you though, Jenkins would be a luxury that would have to be weighed with our current situation.

I gotta admit I don't know much about Jenkins besides that he's a "named" player but here's insider's scouting report on him: 77 Kris Jenkins | DT Full Name: Kristopher Rudy Jenkins Born: August 3, 1979 Ypsilanti, MI Height: 6-4 Weight: 335 lbs. Age: 27 Pos: DT Experience: 6 years College: Maryland Drafted: Year:2001 Round:2 Pick:13, Panthers FANTASY Percent Owned: (Week +/-): NFL: 4.8% (0.0%) Avg. Draft Position: NFL: Undrafted TACK 41.0 | FF 0 | INT 0 Profile Stats Splits Game Log News Scouting 2006 Scouting Report - Scouts Inc. Grade: 92 | Key Alert: D Comment: Jenkins is huge, very powerful and had been very mobile before suffering a string of injuries. He has a very thick, wide body and he can eat up space with the best of them. He has a massive, very strong lower body and exceptional upper-body strength. He gets off the ball low and with power. He has very powerful hands and is quick to shed. He had outstanding movement skills for his size when healthy. He was equally adept at shooting gaps or tying up multiple blockers. He ran well and wasn't confined to a phone booth. He could close on the ball with burst and was an explosive tackler. His lateral quickness and change-of-direction ability were well above-average for the position. He has a variety of pass-rush moves, including a quick swim and a powerful rip. He can knock back almost any interior offensive lineman with his bull rush. But Jenkins' durability is an enormous concern. He missed most of the last two seasons because of serious knee and shoulder injuries. He might be more prone to stamina issues and carrying extra weight after the injuries. He occasionally took a play off and would get upright, even when healthy ____ well i had a decent analysis laid out and then my computer went AWOL and i lost it so here's the quick and dirty... 1. Because of his injury/durability/stamina concerns carolina may not be asking so much for him. 2. These "negative" about him actually may be benefical to buffalo. It appears we want to substitute our DT's in "waves" to keep them fresh throughout the game and adding Jenkins in the 1-technique with McCargo and Williams would ensure that he's more fresh. This would lessen his chances of getting "fatigued" as well as lowering the opportuntities for him to be injured. In addition, he'd be less likley to be taking plays off if he's only in the game when he's fresh and ready to go. There are still many questions and concerns however that I would have: 1. Would he be a good 1 technique player in a cover 2 defense? 2. What's his contract sitaution? he's 27 so that means he's either at the end of his rookie contract or at the beginning of a new one. If he's at the end of a rookie contract that may be advantageous. He's not in a very good position of asking for a lot of money since he's had shoulder and knee injuries the last two years. Whoever signs him may be able to sign him for a decent price and get a steal if he returns to form. Anybody know his contract situation? 3. What's carolina's asking price? We're in no position to give up a first or second rounder right now. Not with bigger needs at LB and RB. And especially for a guy he would be a rotational player. But if we'd have to give up a third or less and everthing esle would work out, i'd consider it. I'm just speculating, I have no clue what carolina would want in return. anyways, he's definitily an interesting development and something to keep an eye on. I think he would solidfy the D-line and be that run-stuffer that we still may be missing. I wouldn't mind seeing our D-line look like this: 3 technique DT: Tripplett Walker 1 technique DT: McCargo Jenkins Willaims DE: Shobel Kelsey Denny Hargrove

Wow total brain fart! boy do I feel embarrased! thanks for the correction though!!

There is no rule that says you have to keep only 4 DT's. Actually I beleive two years ago we kept 5. The number of players on a roster is 53, that doesn't change. What is flexible however, is how you get to 53. There are generally guidlines to the number of players you keep at each position (i.e. QB -3, O-line - 9, DT -4), but they are just that, guidelines. Last year we kept 6 receivers, but you can keep as low as 5 or has high as 7 (as we did a few years back). It's a give and take at each position. So saying that we would have to get rid of a DT if we brought in another one makes aboslutely no sense. some teams have a few roster spots solely for long snappers and return specialist. We don't have a return specialist. If you want an example of how its done maybe we keep 5 DT's instead of 4 and 5 receivers instead of 6. That's just an example and the substraction is more likely to come from Defense instead of offense but the point is that It's flexible.

I agree. The only way I see the Bills trading down is if there's NO ONE left who the Bills covert at 12. And that's not going to happen. Willis, Peterson, Okoye may be gone, maybe even Hall, but then the bills would just go with Poz or another CB they like. Maybe even Mechem(spelling?) or Olson. They'll stay put. The only other way I can see is if a big name player falls and some other team is offering the house to try to move up and get him.

Personally I'd take Okoye then if he wasn't there i'd take Poz The Bills would take Poz IMO(and no they wouldn't trade down to get him, they'd take him at 12)

Yeah, wow just shredded them. All they talked about was how we lost Clements, Fletcher, spikes and Mcgahee... Kiper even said that we could have the first round pick in next year's draft... well so much for anyhting educated coming out of ESPN Kiper did say he thinks Willis in round one and Pittman in round two which i think is the most realistic senario to date

First I'd like to say that you seem smart and educated and your thoughts seem well thought out. That said, I just DO NOT see how AJ expects to get a first rounder for Turner. It's like milking a cat, it's just not going to happen. The market is just not there. Now I respect what Smith is trying to do and I understand it (he's playing harball) but in the end, a first round pick is just a pipe dream. Here's a list of reasons why when the dust settles Turner will be dealt, if he's dealt at all as you correctly pointed out, for less then a first rounder (in order of significance): 1. No market. Right now it's been reported that Buffalo, Tennessee, the Cowboys and the Jets are interested in Turner. That said, taking a larger look at the NFL as a whole and you'll see that there are only three-four teams that still need a starting runningback (Buffalo and Greenbay for sure and Cleveland and Tennessee to a lesser extent). First, lets just eliminate the cowboys and jets from the discussion right away. They may be interested in Turner, but they're not going to be willing to give up what it takes to get him (and that's in my mind, which is a lot less then the first rounder in your mind). So there are four teams that need a starting running back and two blue chip runningbacks in the draft (we could argue about lynch, i don't think he is, but some team is going to take him in round 1, so the point is moot for this discussion). That leaves two teams and Turner and a number of second-tier backs. Green bay doesn't appear to be interested in Turner at all and all signs point to them taking lynch. Cleveland will most likely take Peterson or a 2nd/3rd round running back to go with Lewis if they pass on Peterson. So you have the Bills and the Titans again. The Titans just gave up a 2nd round pick last year for White, do you really think they'll give up a first rounder this year for a 25 year old running back who has never started in the NFL? Not to mention it's already coming out of Tennessee that they're not willing to give up their first rounder for Turner. Therefore, with the Titan not willing to give up a number 1 and the Bills having a higher draft position then Tennessee, then how do we locially get from bufflo offering the 43rd pick in the draft to the 12th? the answer? you don't. First and foremost Turner won't be dealt for a first rounder because the market of teams intersted and willing to give up picks for him just isn't there. Buffalo might like Turner. Buffalo might LOVE turner. But why give up more then you have to? It would be like bidding agaisnt oneself. Like you said, A.J. holds the gun. He can pull the trigger if he wants, and if he's holding out for a first then you can expect Turner to remain a Charger. But, I don't think under any circumstance will you see the Bills surrender their first rounder... 2. past RB market. for the sake of length i wont go into detail but if mcgahee a proven started in this league could only muster two thrids and seventh, how is a back of the same age who has never started going to demand a first? Other examples: Thomas Jones, Shaun Alexander (not being traded), Edgrin James. etc... 3. unproven. you say that you think Turner has more talent then any back in this years draft. That's your opinion and i respect that. But the fact is he's just about as unproven as any draft prospect. Yes, he has shown that he could run in the NFL, but agaisnt what kind of competition? on third down passing situations? in mop-up duty at the end of the game? After LT has worn down the defenses? Granted I think he has shown enough to warrent the attention that he's getting, but the fact is no one knows whether he's an everydown back in the NFL. He's never done it. Same as Peterson, Lynch, Pittman, Irons, Hunt, Jackson, etc... You don't trade a first round pick for a player who hasn't proven he can handle the full load (not at RB at least, only at QB really) 4. Age. He's 25. most RB's are 21-22 when they come out of the draft. And although it's true that turner hasn't taken a beating the lasts three years, Runningbacks bodies tned to break down pretty darn early. A few case studies. a. Jamaal Lewis - former 2000 yard rusher. many now consider him washed up and the best he could get was a 1 year deal with a team likely to draft a blue chilp running back. oh and by the way, he's only 27 years old. b. James - Arizona is ONE year removed from getting James from Indy and they spend BIG money to do so. Now all of a sudden people in Arizon are talking about taking Peterson at the fifth pick if he's still there. James is only 28 years old. overall I admire your spirit and your throughness, but I think SD fans have blinders on. A few days ago I went on a SD message board to see what Bolts fans were saying about a potential Turner trade and what I discovered was frieghtening. Alomst EVERYONE was talking getting a first for Turner (and in some cases more!) and what they wanted to do with it. It's blind faith without much thinking. Most likely if the Bills give up picks for Turner it will be along the lines if a second this year and another pick (either this year or next year), and frankly if I were a bolts fan I'd be pretty happy about that. That defies the market and you're getting excellent value for a back who's going to be gone next year anyways. In the end I think the immediate winner of the trade will be deterimined by the second of the potential picks given up. I think Bolts fans will feel like they get the better end of the deal if they get a 2nd and a thrid this year, while bills fans will be more happy if its a second this year and a third next year. It's going to be something along those lines IF a deal happens, and if it does both sides will be better for it. But PLEASE understand, there is NO Way the Bills give up the first pick, either straight up or via swap, its just not going to happen for all of the above reasons.

How about the fact that he's never had a full load to carry at Cal? Or his injury (back) concerns? Or even his "character" issues (which i agree aren't a big concern, but are still there nonetheless)? Lynch is projected as a 1st round RB as opposed to Pittman, Irons, etc.. becuase he's versitle. He doesn't have any glaring weaknesses (i.e. he's not small like Pittman and Irons, and not slow like Hunt). That said, although he doesn't have any glaring weaknesses, is he really "exceptional" at anything? I think his draft position is for a product of the RB crop in this year's draft rather than his potential ability. IMO you can't even compare Peterson to Lynch. Peterson is a consenus top 5 player in this draft. He's that good. Lynch is in the first, because he's versitle and because he represents the best "package" then any other back. If both players were in a draft year (like next year?) where runningbacks were a surplus I think you'd still see Peterson still being a top 5 player whereas Lynch would be more of a "second tier" back. My opinion, but i think you're "overplaying" Lynch's potential. He definitily could be good, if not great, but I have too many questions about him to be sure enough to take him with the 12th pick in the draft.

This chance of getting Peterson, along with other teams filling their runningback needs in the remainder of free agency and the draft, is why I would wait to make the deal for Turner (as much as it would pain me for the next month!). I like Turner, but if we got Turner and traded a few picks away for him and then Peterson does slip through the cracks...well that would just not be nice! Granted we could probably look to trade down then to a potential suiter (Like Tennessee) and get some good picks out of the deal, but I would hate to have known that we would have had a chance at Peterson and have passed on him becuase we already made a move at the RB position. It also makes sense to wait even if Peterson is not there. Lynch and Peterson will fill two RB needs for two teams in round 1. Corey Dillion or Chris Brown may still be the answr for White's running mate in Tennessee. There are also a number a good backs in the later rounds too (Irons, Pittman, etc...). All this put together means potential suiters for Turner would diminish greatly and his stock would start falling early in the draft. HOWEVER, if the Bills are going to do this they have to tread carefully... if they wait too long then they will be the only one at the dance without a date and then A.J. Smith will start to gain the upperhand and be able to ask for more. I just think waiting makes too much sense. Just see how the first 12 picks play out. If you get Peterson at 12, great! If you get Willis or Poz at 12 then great too! In senario two, then you can go to SD and offer our second. They can't ask for our first, because, well we already used it. Also as the 43rd pick gets closer, SD may see a player they really want that would be available if they had that pick. That also may be incentive to make the deal. This obviously doesn't HAVE to be a 2nd. We could start by offering them a third too or some other kind of package, either way though the analysis is still the same. Although it would pain me to wait now, I think it would be better and smarter for the Bills in the long run. Not to mention, make draft day that much more exciting!