I think the trade for Turner could actually happen

[John from Riverside]

They want to see if somehow mysteriously AP falls into their laps.....

 

If not...could see them do a swap of 1st round picks with the chargers for Turner....then possibly use one of their 3rds to move up some spots to take Polz

[richNjoisy]

They want to see if somehow mysteriously AP falls into their laps.....

 

If not...could see them do a swap of 1st round picks with the chargers for Turner....then possibly use one of their 3rds to move up some spots to take Polz

 

 

No way

 

The value of a RB is not a 1st rounder.

 

Swapping with the chargers (pick 30) is more costly than trading them our 2nd round pick PLUS we will have to pay turner a ton more $$ than drafting, say, Lynch

 

No way.

 

The game of "chicken

will be won by levy. or like they say inthe movie Wargames, "the best way to win is to not play the game"

 

trading picks is a dubious practice at best and for a fiscally conscious team (like the Bills) it is even more unlikely. I still predict IF a trade takes place, it will be a third at the highest.

[Fan in San Diego]

No way, RB is the easiest position to Draft for. Marv will draft a RB in the 2nd round.

[Special K]

could see them do a swap of 1st round picks with the chargers for Turner....

 

 

this sounds very similar to the rumored Wash/Chi Lance Briggs trade.

 

I would be hesitant to make this trade for a proven playmaker like Briggs....so I can't see giving up that much for the unproven Turner when we can just draft a back with the 2nd round pick.

[Billsjunkie]

In the end Marv will give up Baltimores 3rd rounder this year and a conditional pick next year. To me that is fair.

[dave mcbride]

I am now beginning to develop a strong hunch that the Bills will trade for Turner if Peterson isn't there at 12. Given Lynch's reported back problems (and assuming for a second that this report is true), I suspect that the Bills will be shy about spending a high pick on him. Swapping firsts with SD would make sense -- it'd still give the Bills two picks in the top 50, four in the the top 95, and a bona fide starting running back. There's been a lot of talk about how the number of good prospects in this draft goes deep into the second round (at least), and I'm sure the Bills are aware of that.

 

Having said all of this, if Peterson is there at 12 (not likely, in my opinion) and the Bills haven't traded for Turner yet, I don't see how they can pass on him. They need help on offense, and with all other positions set except a pass receiving TE (a bit player in the Fairchild/Martz offense anyway) and possibly a guard, I can't see them going in another direction. The Bills could then spend the remainder of their first day picks on two linebackers, a guard/center, and a corner. Of course, Peterson -- who is going to be damn good -- will probably be gone by then.

[Billsjunkie]

I really like Lynch but for some reason I don't get the Marv feel about him. Just look at our roster. Does a person like Lynch fit in with this blu-collared well spoken group? I have been fighting it for a while because I really like Lynch but I just don't think he will fit in so to speak.

 

My gut is starting to tell me Michael Turner. With Marv keeping all his first day picks this year. He will find a way to get it done.

[apuszczalowski]

this sounds very similar to the rumored Wash/Chi Lance Briggs trade.

 

I would be hesitant to make this trade for a proven playmaker like Briggs....so I can't see giving up that much for the unproven Turner when we can just draft a back with the 2nd round pick.

Everyone says this like every RB taken out of the 1st round automatically becomes a success. Theres a big difference, that pick in the 2nd has no NFL experience, and is a complete unknown at the NFL level. Turner atleast has experience, and is more of a known commodity. He would be starting if he wasn't behind the best RB in the league, and in his limited game time behind that RB, he has put up decent numbers and shown he can play in the NFL

 

Swaping first for him would be just like drafting a RB in the first, and trading down, something alot of people would like Buffalo to do anyways. Because of Turners limited experience, they should be able to sign him to a reasonable contract (a nice one for him, but not unreasonable) and atleast Buffalo would know they have a RB with NFL experience

[OGTEleven]

I am now beginning to develop a strong hunch that the Bills will trade for Turner if Peterson isn't there at 12. Given Lynch's reported back problems (and assuming for a second that this report is true), I suspect that the Bills will be shy about spending a high pick on him. Swapping firsts with SD would make sense -- it'd still give the Bills two picks in the top 50, four in the the top 95, and a bona fide starting running back. There's been a lot of talk about how the number of good prospects in this draft goes deep into the second round (at least), and I'm sure the Bills are aware of that.

 

Having said all of this, if Peterson is there at 12 (not likely, in my opinion) and the Bills haven't traded for Turner yet, I don't see how they can pass on him. They need help on offense, and with all other positions set except a pass receiving TE (a bit player in the Fairchild/Martz offense anyway) and possibly a guard, I can't see them going in another direction. The Bills could then spend the remainder of their first day picks on two linebackers, a guard/center, and a corner. Of course, Peterson -- who is going to be damn good -- will probably be gone by then.

Why do you prefer AP over MT and a late firster? Do you feel there is that much of a gap between AP and MT?

 

If AP were still there at 12, we could likely get a king's ransom in draft picks, move down to say 18 and still swap that for Turner and their first. That I can see.

 

AP won't be there at 12 though.

[richNjoisy]

In the end Marv will give up Baltimores 3rd rounder this year and a conditional pick next year. To me that is fair.

 

 

This is reasonable - however, how high would YOU offer as the conditional? If as high as #1 - forget it - unless the condition is we win the super bowl.

 

I'd make it a 3 and maybe 3/4 with as high as 2 on something ridiculous like 1600 + yards.

 

But We have other posters going with John's offer of a 1st swap (McBride and apuszczalowski)

 

I'd be willing to bet you all this will not happen. I never bet unless I am really really certain. So, I gues you know how I feel, huh?

[Special K]

Everyone says this like every RB taken out of the 1st round automatically becomes a success. Theres a big difference, that pick in the 2nd has no NFL experience, and is a complete unknown at the NFL level. Turner atleast has experience, and is more of a known commodity. He would be starting if he wasn't behind the best RB in the league, and in his limited game time behind that RB, he has put up decent numbers and shown he can play in the NFL

 

Swaping first for him would be just like drafting a RB in the first, and trading down, something alot of people would like Buffalo to do anyways. Because of Turners limited experience, they should be able to sign him to a reasonable contract (a nice one for him, but not unreasonable) and atleast Buffalo would know they have a RB with NFL experience

 

 

He also usually would get into the game after LT had exhausted the other teams defense for three quarters.

 

Turner is not that proven, and the Bills would have to extend his contract within the year or risk losing him as a free agent.

 

My point wasn't that Turner is not a good option....just that it would not be wise to give up the number 12 pick for him.

 

I'm sure as draft day approaches, the price SD is asking for Turner will drop to a more reasonable level.

[dave mcbride]

No way, RB is the easiest position to Draft for. Marv will draft a RB in the 2nd round.

 

If it is, then how come the Bills haven't drafted either a legitimate pro bowl RB (Henry was a late alternate) or a starter that stuck for more than three seasons since they drafted Thomas in the second round of the '88 draft?

 

Here's the list of running backs drafted by the Bills since Thurman: Lionel Gates, Willis McGahee, Jonathan Smith, Jarrett Ferguson, Travis Henry, Sammy Morris, Shawn Bryson, Jonathan Linton, Antowain Smith, Leon Neal, Darick Holmes, Nate Turner, Amir Rasul, Carwell, Gardner, Eddie Fuller, and Bo Wright.

[ROCCEO]

They want to see if somehow mysteriously AP falls into their laps.....

 

If not...could see them do a swap of 1st round picks with the chargers for Turner....then possibly use one of their 3rds to move up some spots to take Polz

Unless Turner is as good as the guy hes backing up hes not worth a first round swap. Wouldnt that make him worth around the 20th pick overall accordgint o draft value charts(for whatever those are worth).

 

I like turner....a lot. There just arent many players in the league worth that kind of compensation, not in a game where injuries are as big a factor as they are.

[dave mcbride]

Why do you prefer AP over MT and a late firster? Do you feel there is that much of a gap between AP and MT?

 

If AP were still there at 12, we could likely get a king's ransom in draft picks, move down to say 18 and still swap that for Turner and their first. That I can see.

 

AP won't be there at 12 though.

 

I do think Peterson is that good, and I think that draft picks can be overrated by fans. The chances of any draft pick succeeding even in they're drafted in the first three rounds is no better than 50/50. Barring injury, Peterson is a sure thing. Turner may be too, and if the Bills think so I'll trust them to make the decision.

[apuszczalowski]

He also usually would get into the game after LT had exhausted the other teams defense for three quarters.

 

Turner is not that proven, and the Bills would have to extend his contract within the year or risk losing him as a free agent.

 

My point wasn't that Turner is not a good option....just that it would not be wise to give up the number 12 pick for him.

 

I'm sure as draft day approaches, the price SD is asking for Turner will drop to a more reasonable level.

i wouldn't give up the #12 pick for him either, I would swap it for Turner and SD's 1st. So basically your trading down with SD with Turner as your compensation for making the move. Or its like drafting Turner at 12 and being awarded another late 1st for doing it, basically walking out of the draft with a RB, and the same amount of Draft picks as you went in with.

 

Of course all this hinges on the Bills being able to re-sign him before he becomes a FA, I wouldn't give up more then a 5th for a rental

 

Personnally I would feel more comfortable going into the season with a RB that has NFL experience over taking the chance on a 2nd tier Draft choice with no pro experience. The Bills are a young team, and it will take time for the new line to gel, so having some experience at RB would help them out alot, and help JP out even more.

[IDBillzFan]

I am now beginning to develop a strong hunch that the Bills will trade for Turner if Peterson isn't there at 12.

I'm no GM, but if you wait until Peterson is gone, you can bet your ass that Turner's price gets elevated.

 

You negotiate while you have options, not when you've run out of them because that's not negotiating. It's begging.

[Special K]

i wouldn't give up the #12 pick for him either, I would swap it for Turner and SD's 1st. So basically your trading down with SD with Turner as your compensation for making the move. Or its like drafting Turner at 12 and being awarded another late 1st for doing it, basically walking out of the draft with a RB, and the same amount of Draft picks as you went in with.

 

Of course all this hinges on the Bills being able to re-sign him before he becomes a FA, I wouldn't give up more then a 5th for a rental

 

Personnally I would feel more comfortable going into the season with a RB that has NFL experience over taking the chance on a 2nd tier Draft choice with no pro experience. The Bills are a young team, and it will take time for the new line to gel, so having some experience at RB would help them out alot, and help JP out even more.

 

 

I understand it would be a swap of first rounders, but it is still not worth it---SD's first rounder may as well be a second rounder.

 

The point I made earlier is that Wash is being second guessed for wanting to make a similar deal for Briggs, and I believe Briggs is a much more proven player than Turner.

 

SD is just posturing---there is no way a team will have to trade that much value to get him when SD will get nothing for him if they don't move him by the end of this year.

[sarmanuscg07]

In the end Marv will give up Baltimores 3rd rounder this year and a conditional pick next year. To me that is fair.

 

i really like that option

[OnTheRocks]

I would rate the three RB's:

1. Peterson

2. Turner

3. Lynch

 

I don't understand why some people want Lynch to be the pick at #12 but wouldn't give up a first round pick for Turner.

I know...I know...you may not think Turner is better than Lynch, but he is more proven in the NFL than Lynch.

 

And I am not suggesting trading the #12 pick straight up to get Turner, but I would not lose sleep if the Bills and Chargers exchanged 1st round picks.

 

ALTHOUGH.....I would say, by all means,...if they can get Turner for a cheaper price....go for it.

[Kelly the Dog]

Unless Turner is as good as the guy hes backing up hes not worth a first round swap. Wouldnt that make him worth around the 20th pick overall accordgint o draft value charts(for whatever those are worth).

 

I like turner....a lot. There just arent many players in the league worth that kind of compensation, not in a game where injuries are as big a factor as they are.

There have been reports I have read that said if Turner were to be in this draft, as is, he would be the second or third running back taken behind Peterson. A mid first rounder, maybe or maybe not ahead of Lynch. If that's true, he's worth a #1 pick. I don't see any way around that concept. The Bills may not think he is, or the Bills may not want a RB with their first rounder, and may choose to not make that trade, but that doesn't mean Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick. He also may not be traded for a #1 pick because the team has to give up the pick and pay him in an extension 20-25 million or so. But that, again, doesn't mean a player is not worth a #1 pick.

[Ozymandius]

I am now beginning to develop a strong hunch that the Bills will trade for Turner if Peterson isn't there at 12. Given Lynch's reported back problems (and assuming for a second that this report is true), I suspect that the Bills will be shy about spending a high pick on him.

 

The Bills would be wary of injury to Lynch but not to Peterson?

[dave mcbride]

The Bills would be wary of injury to Lynch but not to Peterson?

 

From what I read, Lynch's back problem appears to be chronic; Peterson's injuries are not. I'm a firm believer that injuries in football are mostly the result of bad luck and randomness (not a style of play or anything like that). The point is, Peterson may never be hurt again to any major extent.

[Gordio]

There have been reports I have read that said if Turner were to be in this draft, as is, he would be the second or third running back taken behind Peterson. A mid first rounder, maybe or maybe not ahead of Lynch. If that's true, he's worth a #1 pick. I don't see any way around that concept. The Bills may not think he is, or the Bills may not want a RB with their first rounder, and may choose to not make that trade, but that doesn't mean Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick. He also may not be traded for a #1 pick because the team has to give up the pick and pay him in an extension 20-25 million or so. But that, again, doesn't mean a player is not worth a #1 pick.

 

 

Over the last few years, the market has been set on Running Backs. Alexander couldnt get Seatle a #1, James couldnt get Indy a #1, Priest Holmes could not get Baltimore a #1 & Mcdipshit couldnt get us a #1. Noway does Marv send over the 12th pick in the draft for Turner. A # 3 with a conditional pick in 08 is more like it. If AJ Smith doesnt like that Marv should tell him to go !@#$ himself & that piece of sh*t organization he runs.

[Bill from NYC]

If it is, then how come the Bills haven't drafted either a legitimate pro bowl RB (Henry was a late alternate) or a starter that stuck for more than three seasons since they drafted Thomas in the second round of the '88 draft?

 

Is this a serious question? If so, the answer is because 1989 (the year after Thurman was drafted) the Bills used a total of 1 first round pick on a running back.

During this same span, they took no less than 7 defensive backs in the 1st round.

[Kelly the Dog]

Over the last few years, the market has been set on Running Backs. Alexander couldnt get Seatle a #1, James couldnt get Indy a #1, Priest Holmes could not get Baltimore a #1 & Mcdipshit couldnt get us a #1. Noway does Marv send over the 12th pick in the draft for Turner. A # 3 with a conditional pick in 08 is more like it. If AJ Smith doesnt like that Marv should tell him to go !@#$ himself & that piece of sh*t organization he runs.

It's a semantic argument. Alexander couldn't get a #1 because no one wanted to give up that AND pay him 40 million. You could say that means he's not worth a number one pick. But if you were offered Alexander for a #1 pick and got him at his old salary there would have been teams lining up. Because the talent is worth a #1 pick. Trades are difficult to do because of contracts and often have very little to do with actual worth. I don't think that were going to trade our #12 for him either, but if he's regarded as a better player by your scouts than a RB you're about to pick 15th in the first round, he's worth a first round pick.

[nodnarb]

If the Bills give them a 1st I'll gag on my own tongue. If they give up a 2nd I'll be pissed. If they give up a 3rd for him I'll be pretty fuggin happy. Especially if it's just next year's 3b. Wouldn't be surprised to see them willing to give up both 3rds acquired for Willis, though. And I think that's a bit steep. AJ's going to want to get something for him before he gets nothing for him next year, and if the Bills wait and wait until late in the first day, a 3rd and a 7th might just do it.

[dave mcbride]

Is this a serious question? If so, the answer is because 1989 (the year after Thurman was drafted) the Bills used a total of 1 first round pick on a running back.

During this same span, they took no less than 7 defensive backs in the 1st round.

The point I was addressing was the claim that running backs need not be drafted in the first round because good ones can be found anywhere. Hence, I included all the Bills running back draft picks since Thomas, regardless of where they're selected. My larger point, of course, is that landing a great running back isn't as easy as it seems (at least in the case of the Bills).

[dave mcbride]

It's a semantic argument. Alexander couldn't get a #1 because no one wanted to give up that AND pay him 40 million. You could say that means he's not worth a number one pick. But if you were offered Alexander for a #1 pick and got him at his old salary there would have been teams lining up. Because the talent is worth a #1 pick. Trades are difficult to do because of contracts and often have very little to do with actual worth. I don't think that were going to trade our #12 for him either, but if he's regarded as a better player by your scouts than a RB you're about to pick 15th in the first round, he's worth a first round pick.

 

Age plays a factor in all of this as well. There was a widespread belief that James and Alexander had nowhere to go but down. As for Holmes, he never did much in Baltimore except for a couple of huge games against an inept Bengals team.

[ganesh]

They want to see if somehow mysteriously AP falls into their laps.....

 

If not...could see them do a swap of 1st round picks with the chargers for Turner....then possibly use one of their 3rds to move up some spots to take Polz

 

I think it is a two way street....

 

Pre-draft, the teams wanting the RB have the upper hand and could dictate the terms depending on the number of teams that are interested in getting him.

 

Post-draft, the chargers hold the cards and could get a better deal with a desparate team.

 

The best deal would be is to to consummate a deal with the chargers on a conditional basis and then depending on how the draft plays out, you could chose to do the trade or walk away.

[Koufax]

There have been reports I have read that said if Turner were to be in this draft, as is, he would be the second or third running back taken behind Peterson. A mid first rounder, maybe or maybe not ahead of Lynch. If that's true, he's worth a #1 pick. I don't see any way around that concept. The Bills may not think he is, or the Bills may not want a RB with their first rounder, and may choose to not make that trade, but that doesn't mean Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick. He also may not be traded for a #1 pick because the team has to give up the pick and pay him in an extension 20-25 million or so. But that, again, doesn't mean a player is not worth a #1 pick.

 

You said it yourself. He is not worth a #1 pick because he requires a contract extension, so he costs more and over the course of his contract that effects your team negatively in other areas in a way that a draft pick does not. That is also the reason that any deal we make will have to be made before the draft, not after. There are three different Michael Turners we can get, and which one it is determines what he is worth to us:

 

1) Michael Turner without an extension - certainly not worth a 1st or 2nd...we are building for the future not just blowing it all for 2008, and a rent a player for a top pick that would be under control and playing for us for five years? No chance. I don't think we would do this deal without an extension for anything that AJ wouldn't just laugh at, so this is not an option.

 

2) Michael Turner with a reasonably priced extension. This is the deal we are after. We don't want to pay him like a proven starter and we don't want to pay him like a free agent. He is not either of those things, and we would want a reasonable deal to make that happen. That means more than Josh Reed money, but less than London Fletcher money. 4/15 or something would be reasonable.

 

3) Michael Turner with an expensive extension. He wants to be paid like Gore or he wants to be paid like a proven starter to avoid waiting for free agency? No thanks, we are looking for bargains. So this isn't really an option. He could have a reasonable extension, and some incentives and escalators, but not just a big fat I'm a superstar contract. If this is what he wants, then no deal.

 

So really there is only one option that we will consider, and that is #2 above. Trade conditional on signing an extension that isn't overpriced. I think that is worth our second round pick, but probably not our first. A swap of 1sts is also an option or other picks elsewhere, but I think that what makes the most sense is the second. More and we aren't getting a good deal, less and AJ isn't interested.

 

Would AJ take our #43 pick? I think he definitely will if he doesn't get a better offer elsewhere, and I don't think he will get a better offer. Would Turner sign a reasonable extension (4/15 or something like that)? That is the big wild card right now. We don't know how much Nate Clements he has in him, what he thinks about getting to be the starter vs. losing another year behind LT, etc.

 

I do think Turner is likely to be better than any of the second round backs so if money isn't a big negative I'd be very happy to trade our second rounder as above, but do it before the draft. Waiting to see if Peterson fall unfortunately doesn't leave time for an extension, so isn't really an option.

[Brandon]

You guys talking about draft picks are getting way ahead of yourselves. The Bills have to sign him to a contract first. He's a (restricted) free agent. That's not a minor consideration in an offseason where Ralph Wilson has already paid out close to $30 million in signing bonuses. Turner would likely cost them another $8-10 million up front, plus another $2-5 million for draft pick signing bonuses, depending on what the Chargers require for compensation.

 

I'll be very, very suprised if it happens.

[Kelly the Dog]

You said it yourself. He is not worth a #1 pick because he requires a contract extension, so he costs more and over the course of his contract that effects your team negatively in other areas in a way that a draft pick does not. That is also the reason that any deal we make will have to be made before the draft, not after. There are three different Michael Turners we can get, and which one it is determines what he is worth to us:

 

1) Michael Turner without an extension - certainly not worth a 1st or 2nd...we are building for the future not just blowing it all for 2008, and a rent a player for a top pick that would be under control and playing for us for five years? No chance. I don't think we would do this deal without an extension for anything that AJ wouldn't just laugh at, so this is not an option.

 

2) Michael Turner with a reasonably priced extension. This is the deal we are after. We don't want to pay him like a proven starter and we don't want to pay him like a free agent. He is not either of those things, and we would want a reasonable deal to make that happen. That means more than Josh Reed money, but less than London Fletcher money. 4/15 or something would be reasonable.

 

3) Michael Turner with an expensive extension. He wants to be paid like Gore or he wants to be paid like a proven starter to avoid waiting for free agency? No thanks, we are looking for bargains. So this isn't really an option. He could have a reasonable extension, and some incentives and escalators, but not just a big fat I'm a superstar contract. If this is what he wants, then no deal.

 

So really there is only one option that we will consider, and that is #2 above. Trade conditional on signing an extension that isn't overpriced. I think that is worth our second round pick, but probably not our first. A swap of 1sts is also an option or other picks elsewhere, but I think that what makes the most sense is the second. More and we aren't getting a good deal, less and AJ isn't interested.

 

Would AJ take our #43 pick? I think he definitely will if he doesn't get a better offer elsewhere, and I don't think he will get a better offer. Would Turner sign a reasonable extension (4/15 or something like that)? That is the big wild card right now. We don't know how much Nate Clements he has in him, what he thinks about getting to be the starter vs. losing another year behind LT, etc.

 

I do think Turner is likely to be better than any of the second round backs so if money isn't a big negative I'd be very happy to trade our second rounder as above, but do it before the draft. Waiting to see if Peterson fall unfortunately doesn't leave time for an extension, so isn't really an option.

I agree with every bit of that, excluding that Turner may be had for 4/15. I think it's more like 4/20. I also posted earlier, from a point made by a friend of mine, that the Bills may really want him but can't afford to pay him and a #12 choice. Or at least they decided they couldn't afford because of company policy. So a swap of firsts makes a lot more sense. They may do it simply to not have to pay a #12 salary (because you're getting a #12 talent in Turner). So they swap picks, get a defensive player or WR at #31 and still have a #2 and maybe two #3's. I would strongly consider that scenario.

[dave mcbride]

You said it yourself. He is not worth a #1 pick because he requires a contract extension, so he costs more and over the course of his contract that effects your team negatively in other areas in a way that a draft pick does not. That is also the reason that any deal we make will have to be made before the draft, not after. There are three different Michael Turners we can get, and which one it is determines what he is worth to us:

 

1) Michael Turner without an extension - certainly not worth a 1st or 2nd...we are building for the future not just blowing it all for 2008, and a rent a player for a top pick that would be under control and playing for us for five years? No chance. I don't think we would do this deal without an extension for anything that AJ wouldn't just laugh at, so this is not an option.

 

2) Michael Turner with a reasonably priced extension. This is the deal we are after. We don't want to pay him like a proven starter and we don't want to pay him like a free agent. He is not either of those things, and we would want a reasonable deal to make that happen. That means more than Josh Reed money, but less than London Fletcher money. 4/15 or something would be reasonable.

 

3) Michael Turner with an expensive extension. He wants to be paid like Gore or he wants to be paid like a proven starter to avoid waiting for free agency? No thanks, we are looking for bargains. So this isn't really an option. He could have a reasonable extension, and some incentives and escalators, but not just a big fat I'm a superstar contract. If this is what he wants, then no deal.

 

So really there is only one option that we will consider, and that is #2 above. Trade conditional on signing an extension that isn't overpriced. I think that is worth our second round pick, but probably not our first. A swap of 1sts is also an option or other picks elsewhere, but I think that what makes the most sense is the second. More and we aren't getting a good deal, less and AJ isn't interested.

 

Would AJ take our #43 pick? I think he definitely will if he doesn't get a better offer elsewhere, and I don't think he will get a better offer. Would Turner sign a reasonable extension (4/15 or something like that)? That is the big wild card right now. We don't know how much Nate Clements he has in him, what he thinks about getting to be the starter vs. losing another year behind LT, etc.

 

I do think Turner is likely to be better than any of the second round backs so if money isn't a big negative I'd be very happy to trade our second rounder as above, but do it before the draft. Waiting to see if Peterson fall unfortunately doesn't leave time for an extension, so isn't really an option.

 

For all intents and purposes, there is no difference between a contract extension for Turner and a new five year contract for a rookie draft pick, particularly a first rounder. Either way, the Bills have to pay a sizeable bonus.

[Brandon]

For all intents and purposes, there is no difference between a contract extension for Turner and a new five year contract for a rookie draft pick, particularly a first rounder. Either way, the Bills have to pay a sizeable bonus.

 

I disagree. Last year's #12 pick, Haloti Ngata, signed a 5 year contract worth a total of between $11.9 and $14 million depending upon certain conditions.

 

I'm going to guess that Turner will want, at the very least 5 years, $25 million, with probably $8-10 million up front.

[Gordio]

Age plays a factor in all of this as well. There was a widespread belief that James and Alexander had nowhere to go but down. As for Holmes, he never did much in Baltimore except for a couple of huge games against an inept Bengals team.

 

 

What exactly has Turner done? As far as not wanting to pay guys like Alexander & James, Turner is not going to be cheap either. That logic makes no sense.

[MDH]

Is this a serious question? If so, the answer is because 1989 (the year after Thurman was drafted) the Bills used a total of 1 first round pick on a running back.

 

Actually, they've used two 1st round picks on RBs in that time span. Both Antowain Smith and McGahee were 1st round picks.

[dave mcbride]

What exactly has Turner done? As far as not wanting to pay guys like Alexander & James, Turner is not going to be cheap either. That logic makes no sense.

 

He's fast, young, has good size, and has averaged six yards/a carry in somewhat meaningful play over two consecutive seasons. Smart teams sign players -- especially running backs -- on the way up, not the way down.

[Buffalo Wing]

By swapping slots with San Diego in the 1st round, that move equates to 550 points in the draft value chart. That is equivalent to a high 2nd round choice. Given the current market of trading STARTING running backs, there is no way Marv should do this. Michael Turner is BACK-UP running back...and in the final year of his contract. In all fareness to AJ Smith, I offer him the 3rd round pick we acquired from Baltimore for Willis McAssClown and say "take it or leave it".

[DB-94]

Look at it this way. What makes buffalo better

 

(With Trade of first rd picks and Turner)

 

Micheal Turner RB

 

30) Ted Ginn WR

or

Robert Meecham WR

 

43) Brandon Siler LB

or

Buster Davis LB

 

 

(Without Trade)

 

12) Patrick Willis LB

 

43) Kenny Irons RB

 

I'll Take the Trade!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gordio]

He's fast, young, has good size, and has averaged six yards/a carry in somewhat meaningful play over two consecutive seasons. Smart teams sign players -- especially running backs -- on the way up, not the way down.

 

Your saying Priest Holmes was on the way down when KC aquired him. That is the only point im trying to make. You mentioned Holmes as not accomplishing nothing in Baltimore. That is a fine assumption. All Im saying is Turner has accomplished even less then holmes did in Baltimore