To those who dont want turner

[ROCCEO]

Its an idiotic argument. People sit around and clamour for Turner then the other faction comes in with the backlash, "oh hes gonna cost too much", maybe, but then you cant support us drafting peterson, even if he fell to 12 hed likely be asking for a lot more $$$ than Ngata got last year bc hes an offensive playmaker. I know that its structred but that doesnt stop peoples demands and to be honest if you were ADs agent, wouldnt you try to squeeze the most out of that lemon as possible before another bone snaps without contact.

 

THe 2nd argument against turner is: "lets get a rookie with no miles on his tires". This is the one that bothers me, TUrner has a total of 3 years in the league, very light workload, but enough to tell if talent is there. We dont know if he can play every down but as a poster stated the other day he will definatley be part of a 2 back system, so its not like all the weight would be on him. The biggest problem with the argument is that come september these are a lot of the same folks who willb e saying, "oh but we're going with a rookie RB, he could use time to work on blocking, routes etc". Turner has had this time, hes studied behind THE BEST DAMN GUY IN THE GAME for 3 years.

 

I support trading for turner very much, but not if it involves giving up more than a 2nd round pick(IMO a swap of firsts is too much because we would not then be able to select one of the last elite prospects on the board). The idea is that it would likely be hard to draft a back better than turner in the 2nd round and I cant help but agree with that thinking. A lot of people on here have been saying, "well this is a deep RB class and there are plenty of guys to choose from". I disagree. Last year was a very deep draft at RB. 2 years ago, the draft was deep at RB. This year there are 2 near-elite prospects and about 5-7 more guys who grade out as day 1 picks. Could I be wrong? definately. The one thing that bodes well if we draft a late first day RB to start is that our OL should resemble a steamroller.

 

I got way off topic on this one. Sorry. The point is I believe that if we can snag turner for a 2nd rounder (or even a swap of 2nds and a third next year) that it would allow us to field the best team because we would still have a chance to draft Patrick Willis or trade back and pick up Puz(Poz, pus, puss, whatever you wanna call him) or address other positions of need. Imagine if our draft looked something like this:

 

1(trade back): Robert Meachum

2: Michael Turner

2(acquired through trade down): David Harris or Jason Durant.

3a-Daymeion Hughes.

 

or

1: Patrick Willis

2: Turner

3a: Anthony Gonzales, Steve Smith, Craig Davis etc. or a CB.

 

I think that would address our needs most sufficiently. In either scenario we could choose an upper eschelon player with our first pick, fill needs with our top 3(one of them being Turner RB) and use our final 3rd rounder to either move around in the draft or sit on it and choose the absolute best player available for depth.

 

Jeez, I think i just turned into the type of poster whose been driving me nuts lately. Time for a TBD break.

[NewEra]

Its an idiotic argument. People sit around and clamour for Turner then the other faction comes in with the backlash, "oh hes gonna cost too much", maybe, but then you cant support us drafting peterson, even if he fell to 12 hed likely be asking for a lot more $$$ than Ngata got last year bc hes an offensive playmaker. I know that its structred but that doesnt stop peoples demands and to be honest if you were ADs agent, wouldnt you try to squeeze the most out of that lemon as possible before another bone snaps without contact.

 

THe 2nd argument against turner is: "lets get a rookie with no miles on his tires". This is the one that bothers me, TUrner has a total of 3 years in the league, very light workload, but enough to tell if talent is there. We dont know if he can play every down but as a poster stated the other day he will definatley be part of a 2 back system, so its not like all the weight would be on him. The biggest problem with the argument is that come september these are a lot of the same folks who willb e saying, "oh but we're going with a rookie RB, he could use time to work on blocking, routes etc". Turner has had this time, hes studied behind THE BEST DAMN GUY IN THE GAME for 3 years.

 

I support trading for turner very much, but not if it involves giving up more than a 2nd round pick(IMO a swap of firsts is too much because we would not then be able to select one of the last elite prospects on the board). The idea is that it would likely be hard to draft a back better than turner in the 2nd round and I cant help but agree with that thinking. A lot of people on here have been saying, "well this is a deep RB class and there are plenty of guys to choose from". I disagree. Last year was a very deep draft at RB. 2 years ago, the draft was deep at RB. This year there are 2 near-elite prospects and about 5-7 more guys who grade out as day 1 picks. Could I be wrong? definately. The one thing that bodes well if we draft a late first day RB to start is that our OL should resemble a steamroller.

 

I got way off topic on this one. Sorry. The point is I believe that if we can snag turner for a 2nd rounder (or even a swap of 2nds and a third next year) that it would allow us to field the best team because we would still have a chance to draft Patrick Willis or trade back and pick up Puz(Poz, pus, puss, whatever you wanna call him) or address other positions of need. Imagine if our draft looked something like this:

 

1(trade back): Robert Meachum

2: Michael Turner

2(acquired through trade down): David Harris or Jason Durant.

3a-Daymeion Hughes.

 

or

1: Patrick Willis

2: Turner

3a: Anthony Gonzales, Steve Smith, Craig Davis etc. or a CB.

 

I think that would address our needs most sufficiently. In either scenario we could choose an upper eschelon player with our first pick, fill needs with our top 3(one of them being Turner RB) and use our final 3rd rounder to either move around in the draft or sit on it and choose the absolute best player available for depth.

 

Jeez, I think i just turned into the type of poster whose been driving me nuts lately. Time for a TBD break.

 

I highly doubt Gonzales, smith or davis will be there in the 3rd. gl with that one.

[dollars 2 donuts]

Its an idiotic argument. People sit around and clamour for Turner then the other faction comes in with the backlash, "oh hes gonna cost too much", maybe, but then you cant support us drafting peterson, even if he fell to 12 hed likely be asking for a lot more $$$ than Ngata got last year bc hes an offensive playmaker. I know that its structred but that doesnt stop peoples demands and to be honest if you were ADs agent, wouldnt you try to squeeze the most out of that lemon as possible before another bone snaps without contact.

 

THe 2nd argument against turner is: "lets get a rookie with no miles on his tires". This is the one that bothers me, TUrner has a total of 3 years in the league, very light workload, but enough to tell if talent is there. We dont know if he can play every down but as a poster stated the other day he will definatley be part of a 2 back system, so its not like all the weight would be on him. The biggest problem with the argument is that come september these are a lot of the same folks who willb e saying, "oh but we're going with a rookie RB, he could use time to work on blocking, routes etc". Turner has had this time, hes studied behind THE BEST DAMN GUY IN THE GAME for 3 years.

 

I support trading for turner very much, but not if it involves giving up more than a 2nd round pick(IMO a swap of firsts is too much because we would not then be able to select one of the last elite prospects on the board). The idea is that it would likely be hard to draft a back better than turner in the 2nd round and I cant help but agree with that thinking. A lot of people on here have been saying, "well this is a deep RB class and there are plenty of guys to choose from". I disagree. Last year was a very deep draft at RB. 2 years ago, the draft was deep at RB. This year there are 2 near-elite prospects and about 5-7 more guys who grade out as day 1 picks. Could I be wrong? definately. The one thing that bodes well if we draft a late first day RB to start is that our OL should resemble a steamroller.

 

I got way off topic on this one. Sorry. The point is I believe that if we can snag turner for a 2nd rounder (or even a swap of 2nds and a third next year) that it would allow us to field the best team because we would still have a chance to draft Patrick Willis or trade back and pick up Puz(Poz, pus, puss, whatever you wanna call him) or address other positions of need. Imagine if our draft looked something like this:

 

1(trade back): Robert Meachum

2: Michael Turner

2(acquired through trade down): David Harris or Jason Durant.

3a-Daymeion Hughes.

 

or

1: Patrick Willis

2: Turner

3a: Anthony Gonzales, Steve Smith, Craig Davis etc. or a CB.

 

I think that would address our needs most sufficiently. In either scenario we could choose an upper eschelon player with our first pick, fill needs with our top 3(one of them being Turner RB) and use our final 3rd rounder to either move around in the draft or sit on it and choose the absolute best player available for depth.

 

Jeez, I think i just turned into the type of poster whose been driving me nuts lately. Time for a TBD break.

 

 

 

 

I'll agree with you, mainly b/c I don't want to appear idiotic.

[The Big Cat]

our OL should resemble a steamroller.

 

 

this being the reason I don't press the RB issue in ANY direction

[Lurker]

Its an idiotic argument.

I guess I'd better check myself into People Inc., then. Paging Nurse Ratched...

[THE GASH STATION]

Its an idiotic argument. People sit around and clamour for Turner then the other faction comes in with the backlash, "oh hes gonna cost too much", maybe, but then you cant support us drafting peterson, even if he fell to 12 hed likely be asking for a lot more $$$ than Ngata got last year bc hes an offensive playmaker. I know that its structred but that doesnt stop peoples demands and to be honest if you were ADs agent, wouldnt you try to squeeze the most out of that lemon as possible before another bone snaps without contact.

 

THe 2nd argument against turner is: "lets get a rookie with no miles on his tires". This is the one that bothers me, TUrner has a total of 3 years in the league, very light workload, but enough to tell if talent is there. We dont know if he can play every down but as a poster stated the other day he will definatley be part of a 2 back system, so its not like all the weight would be on him. The biggest problem with the argument is that come september these are a lot of the same folks who willb e saying, "oh but we're going with a rookie RB, he could use time to work on blocking, routes etc". Turner has had this time, hes studied behind THE BEST DAMN GUY IN THE GAME for 3 years.

 

I support trading for turner very much, but not if it involves giving up more than a 2nd round pick(IMO a swap of firsts is too much because we would not then be able to select one of the last elite prospects on the board). The idea is that it would likely be hard to draft a back better than turner in the 2nd round and I cant help but agree with that thinking. A lot of people on here have been saying, "well this is a deep RB class and there are plenty of guys to choose from". I disagree. Last year was a very deep draft at RB. 2 years ago, the draft was deep at RB. This year there are 2 near-elite prospects and about 5-7 more guys who grade out as day 1 picks. Could I be wrong? definately. The one thing that bodes well if we draft a late first day RB to start is that our OL should resemble a steamroller.

 

I really like your analysis, but it hinges on wheather or not SD lets go of Turner for a 2nd or the swap of 2nd's and a TBD pick in a later round.

If that deal can be had I really doubt anyone would not want to pull the trigger and do it.

It does sound win win for the Bills and SD I just wonder if AJ Smith lets his ego make the decision instead of what is best for his team ????

Questions Questions Quesions..

[Tipster19]

Its an idiotic argument. People sit around and clamour for Turner then the other faction comes in with the backlash, "oh hes gonna cost too much", maybe, but then you cant support us drafting peterson, even if he fell to 12 hed likely be asking for a lot more $$$ than Ngata got last year bc hes an offensive playmaker. I know that its structred but that doesnt stop peoples demands and to be honest if you were ADs agent, wouldnt you try to squeeze the most out of that lemon as possible before another bone snaps without contact.

 

THe 2nd argument against turner is: "lets get a rookie with no miles on his tires". This is the one that bothers me, TUrner has a total of 3 years in the league, very light workload, but enough to tell if talent is there. We dont know if he can play every down but as a poster stated the other day he will definatley be part of a 2 back system, so its not like all the weight would be on him. The biggest problem with the argument is that come september these are a lot of the same folks who willb e saying, "oh but we're going with a rookie RB, he could use time to work on blocking, routes etc". Turner has had this time, hes studied behind THE BEST DAMN GUY IN THE GAME for 3 years.

 

I support trading for turner very much, but not if it involves giving up more than a 2nd round pick(IMO a swap of firsts is too much because we would not then be able to select one of the last elite prospects on the board). The idea is that it would likely be hard to draft a back better than turner in the 2nd round and I cant help but agree with that thinking. A lot of people on here have been saying, "well this is a deep RB class and there are plenty of guys to choose from". I disagree. Last year was a very deep draft at RB. 2 years ago, the draft was deep at RB. This year there are 2 near-elite prospects and about 5-7 more guys who grade out as day 1 picks. Could I be wrong? definately. The one thing that bodes well if we draft a late first day RB to start is that our OL should resemble a steamroller.

 

I got way off topic on this one. Sorry. The point is I believe that if we can snag turner for a 2nd rounder (or even a swap of 2nds and a third next year) that it would allow us to field the best team because we would still have a chance to draft Patrick Willis or trade back and pick up Puz(Poz, pus, puss, whatever you wanna call him) or address other positions of need. Imagine if our draft looked something like this:

 

1(trade back): Robert Meachum

2: Michael Turner

2(acquired through trade down): David Harris or Jason Durant.

3a-Daymeion Hughes.

 

or

1: Patrick Willis

2: Turner

3a: Anthony Gonzales, Steve Smith, Craig Davis etc. or a CB.

 

I think that would address our needs most sufficiently. In either scenario we could choose an upper eschelon player with our first pick, fill needs with our top 3(one of them being Turner RB) and use our final 3rd rounder to either move around in the draft or sit on it and choose the absolute best player available for depth.

 

Jeez, I think i just turned into the type of poster whose been driving me nuts lately. Time for a TBD break.

 

I agree about Turner playing behind the best and already having experience. Why would anyone want to have an inexperienced rookie over Turner? If the cost is a 2nd rder or later then Turner is a no brainer! I wouldn't give a 1st rder but I'd be willing to swap it for SanDiego's. We still get to keep a 1st rd pick and fill our need at the RB position without using a draft pick. To me that would be the best solution.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I am one of those idiots who say that Turner will cost too much. Rookie contracts are pretty measly compared to those of free agents. For instance, Ngata, whom you mention, got a deal of 5 years for $14 million. Meanwhile, Turner will likely command 5-6 years at $30-40 million!!! That's a huge difference. Plus, on top of that, you would have to give up a draft pick or two to get Turner.

 

I am a proponent of using one of our 3rd round picks to draft a RB. You can get a serviceable if not great RB anywhere in the draft (or even undrafted--see Priest Holmes, Willie Parker)--they are a dime a dozen.

[obie_wan]

I agree about Turner playing behind the best and already having experience. Why would anyone want to have an inexperienced rookie over Turner? If the cost is a 2nd rder or later then Turner is a no brainer! I wouldn't give a 1st rder but I'd be willing to swap it for SanDiego's. We still get to keep a 1st rd pick and fill our need at the RB position without using a draft pick. To me that would be the best solution.

 

Experience or not-

 

does anyone here have a clue whether Turner can do anything other than run the football straight ahead.

 

Can he pick up blitzes?

 

Can he run pass patterns?

 

Can he block?

 

If he could do any of those things proficiently, I would think he would have on the field a lot more than what he played in SD.

 

The Bills spelled Thurman alot with Robb Riddick and Kenny DAvis and he's in teh Hall of Fame.

 

The red flag goes up when San Diego chose to not use Turner more and in the backfield at the same time as LT - if Turner was so good, how do keep him off the field?

 

For anything more than a 3rd, I take a RB in the 3rd round like Lorenzo Booker or Brandon Jackson and take my chances with a RBBC.

[ganesh]

I have a slightly different view of the Turner trade and it has nothing to do with the ability of Turner or the player selected in the draft.

 

I view it is better in the Bills interest to draft a RB from the draft rather than giving up the 1st round pick (this year or next year) to another team to get Turner. Both Turner and the draft pick (Peterson or Lynch) might be the same exciting player, however, we have given an extra 1st round pick to another AFC team and giving them a chance to draft a starter and improve their existing team.

 

Superbowl winners have historically built through the draft and it will be foolish for the bills to give a pick to the chargers to help them get better. By picking from the draft, you are on equal footing...Remember, Turner is not of much use to the chargers as long Tomlinson is injury free...Why give extra ammunition to an opponent when you can avoid it.

[ganesh]

I am one of those idiots who say that Turner will cost too much. Rookie contracts are pretty measly compared to those of free agents. For instance, Ngata, whom you mention, got a deal of 5 years for $14 million. Meanwhile, Turner will likely command 5-6 years at $30-40 million!!! That's a huge difference. Plus, on top of that, you would have to give up a draft pick or two to get Turner.

 

I am a proponent of using one of our 3rd round picks to draft a RB. You can get a serviceable if not great RB anywhere in the draft (or even undrafted--see Priest Holmes, Willie Parker)--they are a dime a dozen.

 

The last time I checked most of the starting RBs for teams were 1st day draft picks...You do not find UDFA dime a dozen starting in this league. The steelers were lucky to get willie parker and also were lucky to find out that they had a gem hidden beneath the depth chart when the guy from philly couldn't cut it at the starting position...

[Gordio]

Its an idiotic argument. People sit around and clamour for Turner then the other faction comes in with the backlash, "oh hes gonna cost too much", maybe, but then you cant support us drafting peterson, even if he fell to 12 hed likely be asking for a lot more $$$ than Ngata got last year bc hes an offensive playmaker. I know that its structred but that doesnt stop peoples demands and to be honest if you were ADs agent, wouldnt you try to squeeze the most out of that lemon as possible before another bone snaps without contact.

 

THe 2nd argument against turner is: "lets get a rookie with no miles on his tires". This is the one that bothers me, TUrner has a total of 3 years in the league, very light workload, but enough to tell if talent is there. We dont know if he can play every down but as a poster stated the other day he will definatley be part of a 2 back system, so its not like all the weight would be on him. The biggest problem with the argument is that come september these are a lot of the same folks who willb e saying, "oh but we're going with a rookie RB, he could use time to work on blocking, routes etc". Turner has had this time, hes studied behind THE BEST DAMN GUY IN THE GAME for 3 years.

 

I support trading for turner very much, but not if it involves giving up more than a 2nd round pick(IMO a swap of firsts is too much because we would not then be able to select one of the last elite prospects on the board). The idea is that it would likely be hard to draft a back better than turner in the 2nd round and I cant help but agree with that thinking. A lot of people on here have been saying, "well this is a deep RB class and there are plenty of guys to choose from". I disagree. Last year was a very deep draft at RB. 2 years ago, the draft was deep at RB. This year there are 2 near-elite prospects and about 5-7 more guys who grade out as day 1 picks. Could I be wrong? definately. The one thing that bodes well if we draft a late first day RB to start is that our OL should resemble a steamroller.

 

I got way off topic on this one. Sorry. The point is I believe that if we can snag turner for a 2nd rounder (or even a swap of 2nds and a third next year) that it would allow us to field the best team because we would still have a chance to draft Patrick Willis or trade back and pick up Puz(Poz, pus, puss, whatever you wanna call him) or address other positions of need. Imagine if our draft looked something like this:

 

1(trade back): Robert Meachum

2: Michael Turner

2(acquired through trade down): David Harris or Jason Durant.

3a-Daymeion Hughes.

 

or

1: Patrick Willis

2: Turner

3a: Anthony Gonzales, Steve Smith, Craig Davis etc. or a CB.

 

I think that would address our needs most sufficiently. In either scenario we could choose an upper eschelon player with our first pick, fill needs with our top 3(one of them being Turner RB) and use our final 3rd rounder to either move around in the draft or sit on it and choose the absolute best player available for depth.

 

Jeez, I think i just turned into the type of poster whose been driving me nuts lately. Time for a TBD break.

 

 

I stopped reading after the 1st paragraph. My guess is M Turner will command a contract of 5yrs 35 million with 18-20 mill guaranteed. If we were lucky enough that AD fell into our laps my guess is he would get a slotted contract of 5yrs 16-18 mill, 10 of it guaranteed. Big difference in contracts pal. At least if your going to make a 5 paragraph rant, try to pretend like you know what your talking about.

[Lurker]

The last time I checked most of the starting RBs for teams were 1st day draft picks...

Turner was a 5th round pick, so I guess that shoots your argument all to hell.

[Lurker]

Meanwhile, Turner will likely command 5-6 years at $30-40 million!!!

Agree. Hence the appeal of drafting RBs rather than overpaying for them, both in $$$ and picks.

[Dr. Fong]

I support trading for turner very much, but not if it involves giving up more than a 2nd round pick(IMO a swap of firsts is too much because we would not then be able to select one of the last elite prospects on the board).

 

 

To me I'd rather swap first round picks than surrender a second. Think about it you end up with a late first and an early second vs. an early first and no second. If you walk in to the draft still having 4 picks on the first day PLUS having your starter at RB then that's huge.

[The Big Cat]

Turner was a 5th round pick, so I guess that shoots your argument all to hell.

 

Turner's never been an NFL starter...

[NewEra]

I am one of those idiots who say that Turner will cost too much. Rookie contracts are pretty measly compared to those of free agents. For instance, Ngata, whom you mention, got a deal of 5 years for $14 million. Meanwhile, Turner will likely command 5-6 years at $30-40 million!!! That's a huge difference. Plus, on top of that, you would have to give up a draft pick or two to get Turner.

 

I am a proponent of using one of our 3rd round picks to draft a RB. You can get a serviceable if not great RB anywhere in the draft (or even undrafted--see Priest Holmes, Willie Parker)--they are a dime a dozen.

 

Ummm....for every priest or willie parker, there are 50 darick holmes and jonathan lintons. You act like we can just draft johnny runningback and have him lead us to the promised land. goodluck with that line of thinking. we need a stud

[ganesh]

Turner was a 5th round pick, so I guess that shoots your argument all to hell.

 

 

Aah....nice to take a sentence out of context.....The original message listed as UDFA/late Rd STARTING RBs are dime a dozen in the NFL......Turner is not a starting RB for any team as yet.

[The Big Cat]

Ummm....for every priest or willie parker, there are 50 darick holmes and jonathan lintons. You act like we can just draft johnny runningback and have him lead us to the promised land. goodluck with that line of thinking. we need a stud

 

I've posted this before and it is the source of my faith:

 

a quote from Bill Polian, "Everything I learned about scouting, I learned from Marv Levy." So yes, I think Marv finds johnny runninback turned Priest Holmes. And if you want my honest opinion, the Kool-Aid tastes nothing like grape.

[daquix]

I've posted this before and it is the source of my faith:

 

a quote from Bill Polian, "Everything I learned about scouting, I learned from Marv Levy." So yes, I think Marv finds johnny runninback turned Priest Holmes. And if you want my honest opinion, the Kool-Aid tastes nothing like grape.

 

Do you have a link for that quote?