Koufax Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I don't see anybody other than Lynch or Peterson who appears to be a better bet than Turner. So I would gladly give up the #43 pick for him. The issue is that you don't have to just give up the #43 pick (assuming AJ would take that in the end, and I think he would), but you have to pay for an extension. The price of that extension and how much more it is than the four or five year contract for the alternative backs taken at #43 is probably what matters most here. But I think #43 and 4/15 for Turner would be an outstanding deal. Turner is unproven as an NFL starter. So is EVERYBODY else we might get, including Peterson. What Turner has shown is that in some extensive backup duty he consistently gets well beyond the line of scrimmage before being tackled. Throw all the "just when games are blowouts" or "anybody could run behind that line" stuff you want, but when he has been given the ball against NFL defenses he has excelled. I would not take him over the top 10 backs in the league, I would not give up a 1st rounder for him, and I would not pay him top back money. But if we can end up getting him for a second and sign a fair extension, he is probably a better overall gamble than anybody except for Peterson. And considering Peterson probably will be off the board at #12, and drafting Willis at #12 to go with Turner is a better LB fit than drafting a LB in the 2nd to go with Peterson, I think a Turner trade if the details can be worked out would be a tremendous benefit to the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I thought that was a Domanick Williams reference... isn't that what Domanick Rhodes is going by these days ? No, it is Domanick Williams, the tail back formerly known as Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 If your definition of rumor is: Chargers GM AJ Smith admitting that there was a lot of activity at the recent owner meeting involving him, and teams, about Michael Turner. Then yes, its just a rumor. O RLY!?!? a gm, right before the draft, who is trying to get picks for his RB, said a lot of teams are interested in his guy?!?!? oh, then it must be true. there would be no reason for him to lie... you guys are too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 no, LT is primarily the reason for turner's success. as is gates, as is their OLine. heck, throw Rivers in there too. Can you prove this or are you just making random generalizations about something you can, in no way, prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 O RLY!?!? a gm, right before the draft, who is trying to get picks for his RB, said a lot of teams are interested in his guy?!?!? oh, then it must be true. there would be no reason for him to lie... you guys are too much. You realize that since this was at the owners meeting, and the clubs he was speaking about are publically known (Buffalo, Greenbay .. etc), that all a club would have to do to see if he was lying was to call the GM from the other club? Right? Oh yeah. Were too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I don't see anybody other than Lynch or Peterson who appears to be a better bet than Turner. So I would gladly give up the #43 pick for him. The issue is that you don't have to just give up the #43 pick (assuming AJ would take that in the end, and I think he would), but you have to pay for an extension. The price of that extension and how much more it is than the four or five year contract for the alternative backs taken at #43 is probably what matters most here. But I think #43 and 4/15 for Turner would be an outstanding deal. Turner is unproven as an NFL starter. So is EVERYBODY else we might get, including Peterson. What Turner has shown is that in some extensive backup duty he consistently gets well beyond the line of scrimmage before being tackled. Throw all the "just when games are blowouts" or "anybody could run behind that line" stuff you want, but when he has been given the ball against NFL defenses he has excelled. I would not take him over the top 10 backs in the league, I would not give up a 1st rounder for him, and I would not pay him top back money. But if we can end up getting him for a second and sign a fair extension, he is probably a better overall gamble than anybody except for Peterson. And considering Peterson probably will be off the board at #12, and drafting Willis at #12 to go with Turner is a better LB fit than drafting a LB in the 2nd to go with Peterson, I think a Turner trade if the details can be worked out would be a tremendous benefit to the Bills. Well said, that's exactly how I feel. Not that everyone has said this, but I am so sick of hearing that Turner is an unproven back and that we much better off going with Peterson or Lynch. It's like bizzaro world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Can you prove this or are you just making random generalizations about something you can, in no way, prove? dude your going to start nitpicking arguments, when ALL YOU ARE DOING is speculating that one player's success on a 14-2 team is going to COMPLETELY make the transition onto a 9-7 team that is rebuilding... CAN YOU PROVE HE'S GOING TO KEEP THOSE NUMBERS UP?!?!? or are you just carrying over a generalization from his past on a completely different team? you guys are hilarious because you want to argue to a definite end that he WILL be good and is worth trading for. when you cant. and you refused to listen to the idea that a new player will probably be just as good. ok man, you win, your crystal ball is better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 You realize that since this was at the owners meeting, and the clubs he was speaking about are publically known (Buffalo, Greenbay .. etc), that all a club would have to do to see if he was lying was to call the GM from the other club? Right? Oh yeah. Were too much. what makes you think that OTHER gm's who are in the middle of the same situation would be any more truthful? why would we want to show our hand? wow, im done in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I 90 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 but you have to pay for an extension. The price of that extension and how much more it is than the four or five year contract for the alternative backs taken at #43 is probably what matters most here. No, it is Domanick Williams, the tail back formerly known as Davis. Thanks, I thought I had that wrong. That extension is a huge point. If they were worried about a McGahee extension, an unknown like Turner isn't going to make them more willing to commit. The pick is cost delayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 dude your going to start nitpicking arguments, when ALL YOU ARE DOING is speculating that one player's success on a 14-2 team is going to COMPLETELY make the transition onto a 9-7 team that is rebuilding... CAN YOU PROVE HE'S GOING TO KEEP THOSE NUMBERS UP?!?!? or are you just carrying over a generalization from his past on a completely different team? you guys are hilarious because you want to argue to a definite end that he WILL be good and is worth trading for. when you cant. and you refused to listen to the idea that a new player will probably be just as good. ok man, you win, your crystal ball is better... No. All I have been doing all thread is pointing out that your posts are irrational and say many things that can not be proven. I never said Turner would definately be a good running back for our team. Go back through our posts. Now lets go through your posts (paraphrasing): "Turner was an "OK" running back for San Diego." Faustus and I responded that he is averaging 6 yars per carry. "Turner is a "good" backup running back, but if we traded for him I hope he would do even better than what he is doing in San Diego Now" So you want him to have better than 6 yards per carry year in Buffalo. Well atleast your not being irrational. Lets not forget your best post "my sister could run behind that offense" I could go on, but I think you get the point. I never said Turner would be awesome here. I was simply showing you that some of your points are generalizations and ridiculousness all rolled into one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 hahaha ill be sure to make note of the lesson thanks. what a chump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 what makes you think that OTHER gm's who are in the middle of the same situation would be any more truthful? why would we want to show our hand? wow, im done in this thread. How is saying "yes we are interested", showing other teams our hand? All we said is that we are interested. Oh my goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I don't see anybody other than Lynch or Peterson who appears to be a better bet than Turner. So I would gladly give up the #43 pick for him. The issue is that you don't have to just give up the #43 pick (assuming AJ would take that in the end, and I think he would), but you have to pay for an extension. The price of that extension and how much more it is than the four or five year contract for the alternative backs taken at #43 is probably what matters most here. But I think #43 and 4/15 for Turner would be an outstanding deal. Turner is unproven as an NFL starter. So is EVERYBODY else we might get, including Peterson. What Turner has shown is that in some extensive backup duty he consistently gets well beyond the line of scrimmage before being tackled. Throw all the "just when games are blowouts" or "anybody could run behind that line" stuff you want, but when he has been given the ball against NFL defenses he has excelled. I would not take him over the top 10 backs in the league, I would not give up a 1st rounder for him, and I would not pay him top back money. But if we can end up getting him for a second and sign a fair extension, he is probably a better overall gamble than anybody except for Peterson. And considering Peterson probably will be off the board at #12, and drafting Willis at #12 to go with Turner is a better LB fit than drafting a LB in the 2nd to go with Peterson, I think a Turner trade if the details can be worked out would be a tremendous benefit to the Bills. I think you make a great point there's only one problem. You're planning how the Bills are going to use their #1 pick. They may simply pick Lynch. If they do, you have to really wonder if it wasn't worth it to simply trade it for Turner. I dunno, I really think people get too hung up on draft picks. I always prefer to overpay for a guy if you think he's the RIGHT guy rather than underpay and settle. Perfect example is Donte Whitner last year. Everyone trashed the Bills for the pick - on this board and general media. It was too a high a spot for him, it was a reach, they should have traded back, etc, etc, etc. Bottom line is the Bills saw a guy they wanted in the system and they acquired him. Who cares if it was #8 - they got their guy. I think the same thing needs to happen here for Turner. If the Bills have him ranked above Lynch (Peterson?) I want them to acquire him. I don't want them to settle for say, Julius Jones, just because he might be cheaper. I'm tired of settling for guys. Draft picks are nice because they hold an unknown, but once that selection is used often times it's not what (we) thought it would be used for in the first place. My examples are Erik Flowers, Willis McGahee, and Mike Williams. I understand the argument that Turner is unproven or isn't as good as his stats tell...but I don't really understand the obsession with how much it would take to get him. I of course want the Bills to get him for the best possible price - but if they think he's counterfeit, I don't actually want him at ANY price. It's just like with Chris Brown. He was available for very little...but who cares, he wasn't the right guy. Send him home. I want a back the Bills fully believe in more than I want to worry about how they get him. Ok I am ready to get trashed for those comments. The second argument is obviously is he for real. In my opinion, he is. My best comparison is Larry Johnson behind Priest Holmes. Many people said he was counterfeit; he's not. Now, in SD - is the running game great because of the team, or is the running game great because of LT? I think most people would agree it's LT. Of course their line was built by Houck, the best in the business, for about 25 years. He was brought on in LT's second year and only recently left for the Dolphins. So if anything, LT's stats are probably inflated by a great line. As are Michael Turner's. But that doesn't mean he's not a great back. I for one think he is. We've all been talking about his 6ypc stat. You can also look at his preseason numbers. It's funny, usually preseason numbers don't mean anything - but in this case, those are at least instances when he started (LT plays maybe ONE DOWN in all of preseason) against the 1st string defenses. So the idea of LT wearing down the D before Turner comes in is thrown out. Preseason Stats: 2004: 49 carries, 194 yards, 1 TD (4.0ypc) 2005: 25 carries, 222 yards, 1 TD (8.9ypc) 2006: 23 carries, 151 yards, 3 TD (6.6ypc) Again, this is just another way to debate his ability to be a top NFL back. I know it's just preseason numbers. But other than the stats he's put up in the NFL, the only other argument I have is I've watched him play for years...I think he's legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Repeat after me, we are not trading for Turner the 'Draft pick burner' Marv wants to draft LB's DT, and CB in the early rounds. I see a pick on the RB position around the 3rd or 4th round at the earliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 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. The problem is when he does state anything in depth he makes himself look like an idiot. Kinda like the time when we were talking about drafting Mechem & LSI stated if we did draft him he would only be a special teams player. The less LSI says the better imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Repeat after me, we are not trading for Turner the 'Draft pick burner' Marv wants to draft LB's DT, and CB in the early rounds. I see a pick on the RB position around the 3rd or 4th round at the earliest. Would you like to make a bet on that? Im still waiting for my $40 that someone else lost to me on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Would you like to make a bet on that? Im still waiting for my $40 that someone else lost to me on this board. Good luck in collecting it from this group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts