nemhoff Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I know that we desperately need a RB1, but I am really skeptical that Turner "The Burner" would end up being any different than the already mentioned Lamont Jordan when he moved into a starting role with the Raiders. Is it possible that this is fool's gold and we are reaching at straws in hopes that he can be a full time RB? All this within the context of his being in a very effective running offense in SD, and spelling LT (hence the bloated stats). Does anyone have a line on a game that he started and played 4 quarters? This has the scent of RJ at the RB position to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I know that we desperately need a RB1, but I am really skeptical that Turner "The Burner" would end up being any different than the already mentioned Lamont Jordan when he moved into a starting role with the Raiders. Is it possible that this is fool's gold and we are reaching at straws in hopes that he can be a full time RB? All this within the context of his being in a very effective running offense in SD, and spelling LT (hence the bloated stats). Does anyone have a line on a game that he started and played 4 quarters? This has the scent of RJ at the RB position to me. what's with the knock on Lamont Jordan? The year after he was traded: Games : 14 Rushing: 1,025 Receiving: 563 (70 receptions) 1,600 yards of offense in 14 games - that's a pretty damn good year. Factor in he's on the biggest possible mess of a franchise I've ever seen and it's an amazing year. Last year he only started 8 games on a disaster team that seriously never had any chance from the start. There is no way he's a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I know that we desperately need a RB1, but I am really skeptical that Turner "The Burner" would end up being any different than the already mentioned Lamont Jordan when he moved into a starting role with the Raiders. Is it possible that this is fool's gold and we are reaching at straws in hopes that he can be a full time RB? All this within the context of his being in a very effective running offense in SD, and spelling LT (hence the bloated stats). Does anyone have a line on a game that he started and played 4 quarters? This has the scent of RJ at the RB position to me. i agree turner is unproven. and the kind of compensation it would take to get him is too expensive for a back who you have no idea what you're really getting. many backs have looked good in minor subbing roles for stars like LT, and when they get on their own it's obvious they benefitted from defenses not keying on stopping the run when the #1 guy was out for a play. i'd rather a much less costly draft pick RB than turner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I know that we desperately need a RB1, but I am really skeptical that Turner "The Burner" would end up being any different than the already mentioned Lamont Jordan when he moved into a starting role with the Raiders. Is it possible that this is fool's gold and we are reaching at straws in hopes that he can be a full time RB? All this within the context of his being in a very effective running offense in SD, and spelling LT (hence the bloated stats). Does anyone have a line on a game that he started and played 4 quarters? This has the scent of RJ at the RB position to me. I've always shared this skepticism...(never publically so don't bother looking it up) He was at a huge advantage behind LT. Defenses get tired chasing the 2006 MVP, Turner takes the field, the defense is keeping one eye on the pass, and then San Diego executes a play in a rush system which shattered NFL records this year. Now (for optimism's sake) some folks (myself included) like to consider running back the NFL's no-brainer position; and all the evidence would indicate that being a RB for San Diego is a BIG no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 i agree turner is unproven. and the kind of compensation it would take to get him is too expensive for a back who you have no idea what you're really getting. many backs have looked good in minor subbing roles for stars like LT, and when they get on their own it's obvious they benefitted from defenses not keying on stopping the run when the #1 guy was out for a play. i'd rather a much less costly draft pick RB than turner. Exactly what I've been saying, except I seem to take all the criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Exactly what I've been saying, except I seem to take all the criticism. Hardly ever to one-liners convey one's full thoughts, Cadet. Try adding some depth and points of evidance to support your claims, then the criticism will cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I know that we desperately need a RB1, but I am really skeptical that Turner "The Burner" would end up being any different than the already mentioned Lamont Jordan when he moved into a starting role with the Raiders. Is it possible that this is fool's gold and we are reaching at straws in hopes that he can be a full time RB? All this within the context of his being in a very effective running offense in SD, and spelling LT (hence the bloated stats). Does anyone have a line on a game that he started and played 4 quarters? This has the scent of RJ at the RB position to me. No matter what anyone says, you probably are not going to change your mind. So why bother? I will only say that I sincerely hope that Turner does not go to another team and then become "that player we could have had" ... that one who may become a perennial pro-bowler. Exactly what I've been saying, except I seem to take all the criticism. Thats because you rarely know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Thats because you rarely know what you are talking about. Hardly ever to one-liners convey one's full thoughts, Cadet. Try adding some depth and points of evidance to support your claims, then the criticism will cease to exist. Most of you say what I am thinking or about to say. So instead of an essay you get a sentence or two (except when I post a new topic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 No matter what anyone says, you probably are not going to change your mind. So why bother? I will only say that I sincerely hope that Turner does not go to another team and then become "that player we could have had" ... that one who may become a perennial pro-bowler. I'm not sure if he will ever be that guy who is a perennial pro bowler. He is in the same conference as LaDanian Tomlinson, Larry Johnson, Laurence Maroney, and lets not forget of course the best back in the league. I think it would be tough road for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Most of you say what I am thinking or about to say. So instead of an essay you get a sentence or two (except when I post a new topic). I'm willing to bet you end up working for the state of New York one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I'm not sure if he will ever be that guy who is a perennial pro bowler. He is in the same conference as LaDanian Tomlinson, Larry Johnson, Laurence Maroney, and lets not forget of course the best back in the league. I think it would be tough road for him. Situations change year from year. LT could break his leg, Larry Johnson could have a bad year ... etc. Or Turner could become just as good as LT or LJ. Or maybe he could bust. Everyone has their preconceived notions and they aren't going to change them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Most of you say what I am thinking or about to say. So instead of an essay you get a sentence or two (except when I post a new topic). Then dont complain when you get the responses you do. A typical post of yours would be: Topic Question: What do you guys thinking of trading for Schaub? (example) LSI's answer: Sure. One word for you my friend: depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Situations change year from year. LT could break his leg, Larry Johnson could have a bad year ... etc. Or Turner could become just as good as LT or LJ. Or maybe he could bust. Everyone has their preconceived notions and they aren't going to change them now. To tell you the truth, i am impartial on the entire situation right now. Draft or trade for Turner or Williams. I'll make up my mind when i see more on Turner, how i think he will fit into the Bills' system, and what the price tag is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I know that we desperately need a RB1, but I am really skeptical that Turner "The Burner" would end up being any different than the already mentioned Lamont Jordan when he moved into a starting role with the Raiders. Is it possible that this is fool's gold and we are reaching at straws in hopes that he can be a full time RB? All this within the context of his being in a very effective running offense in SD, and spelling LT (hence the bloated stats). Does anyone have a line on a game that he started and played 4 quarters? This has the scent of RJ at the RB position to me. i agree with this original post. and id much rather keep the picks and grab ANYONE in the 2nd or 3rd and see what they can do. i feel like that with Turner, we sorta know what we;re going to get, and its pretty limited(+ the contract he'll be looking for). we might as well take a chance on a hungry kid and see if theyll pound the rock upfield. at least if THEY bust we only lose the salary of a 2nd/3rd round pick and just grab another eager runner in a couple drafts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 and for the record, i dont mind short posts (or LSI's posts). and anyone giving lessons on posting needs to stop taking themselves/this message board so seriously. words on a screen guys... words on a screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 To tell you the truth, i am impartial on the entire situation right now. Draft or trade for Turner or Williams. I'll make up my mind when i see more on Turner, how i think he will fit into the Bills' system, and what the price tag is. Williams? i agree with this original post. and id much rather keep the picks and grab ANYONE in the 2nd or 3rd and see what they can do. i feel like that with Turner, we sorta know what we;re going to get, and its pretty limited(+ the contract he'll be looking for). we might as well take a chance on a hungry kid and see if theyll pound the rock upfield. at least if THEY bust we only lose the salary of a 2nd/3rd round pick and just grab another eager runner in a couple drafts... How is he limited? Maybe im missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 and for the record, i dont mind short posts (or LSI's posts). and anyone giving lessons on posting needs to stop taking themselves/this message board so seriously. words on a screen guys... words on a screen. The kid wanted to know why he gets sour feedback, just giving some advice. relax dank, there only words on a screen, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Williams? Ricky. There was a post about it earlier, it was a joke but the sarcasm never ceases to flush out those that truly think it is a good idea. I am against it for one, but i am not the GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 i agree with this original post. and id much rather keep the picks and grab ANYONE in the 2nd or 3rd and see what they can do. i feel like that with Turner, we sorta know what we;re going to get, and its pretty limited(+ the contract he'll be looking for). we might as well take a chance on a hungry kid and see if theyll pound the rock upfield. at least if THEY bust we only lose the salary of a 2nd/3rd round pick and just grab another eager runner in a couple drafts... That doesn't make any sense. What we have seen from Turner is that he excels every time he's in the game. He may or may not be able to do that in Buffalo as a full time back, but it doesn't change the fact that it is what we has shown in his time in the NFL. How is drafting ANYONE in the 2nd or 3rd an improvement on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 and for the record, i dont mind short posts (or LSI's posts). and anyone giving lessons on posting needs to stop taking themselves/this message board so seriously. words on a screen guys... words on a screen. He asked. We answered. As Boondck put it: just words right? Ricky. There was a post about it earlier, it was a joke but the sarcasm never ceases to flush out those that truly think it is a good idea. I am against it for one, but i am not the GM. Oh, OK! Was'nt sure what you were referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts