Kevbills Posted March 24, 2007 Posted March 24, 2007 How would you think about Buffalo trading our 1st to San Diego four Michael Turner and there 1st ?
daquix Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 You're pretty much talking about trading our first rounder for a early second. Once you get down in the 27-31st, that is pretty much the early second in my opinion as most of the high-profile impact players are gone by pick 20. But to answer your question, then yes I would like that deal.
1billsfan Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 How would you think about Buffalo trading our 1st to San Diego four Michael Turner and there 1st ? The value of runningbacks has reduced greatly over the last couple of years. San Diego was basically laughed at when they said they'd take nothing but a 1st and 3rd, when players like Thomas Jones and Willis McGahee (established starters) were garnering 3rd round picks. They have since come down out of the clouds and now appear willing to deal him for a second round pick. The deal you talk about (moving back to pick 30) makes Turner's worth 550 points on the draft value chart. That means that his supposed worth is the 36th pick which is the 4th pick in the second round. Given that Turner is a backup player, the Bills would be getting the short end of the stick given the current value of starting runningbacks. After getting the short end of the stick, Turner is in the last year of his contract so you suddenly have to pay him the BIG bucks if he ends up having a great year. This makes no sense what so ever unless the Chargers were to significantly drop their asking price. The Bills are the last team that's going to throw money at the runningback position to a player that is still not a proven commodity. The Bills are in a great position to get an impact player that will be with the Bills for many years (Willis, Okoye, Peterson, Lynch) and at a contract level that is favorable to the Bills cap situation. When you select in the back of the first round it starts getting to be table scraps in regards to potential in the NFL. So to answer your question...no way Jose.
CFLstyle Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 I would say go for it. Turner is a big question mark, but so is anyone we end up taking in the second round. He's actually succeeded at the NFL level, and he's broken off some pretty big runs as well, can't say the same for whoever we'll be taking in the second round. The only downfall is the contract issue, but the Bills should have the cap space and if he does well in Buffalo, Marv and Ralph will be more than willing to shovel over the money. He has the potential to be a top tier running back, something we can't get from Anthony Thomas or any of the free agents out there, something we more than likely won't get from a second round pick. Right now we have a pretty sad running attack, Anthony Thomas just doesn't scare defenses. Turner on the other hand has that homerun ability, and if the Bills want to be a competitor this year, that's what they need. All we have on the offensive side of the ball right now is Losman and Evans, and that won't win us games, it doesn't matter who's blocking up front.
Brandon Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 I would think that was a very, very bad idea. Such a trade down is worth at least the equivalent of a 2nd AND a 3rd. No thanks.
SACTOBILLSFAN Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 this thread is like deja vu all over again.
daquix Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 I would think that was a very, very bad idea. Such a trade down is worth at least the equivalent of a 2nd AND a 3rd. No thanks. If you want to use the NFL draft point value system then yes this is true. But in the real world of picks, I don't think that is accurate. The more picks you have to get quality players, the better. With this deal you get a RB, and still have a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks still in tact. In your scenario, we have a RB, and just a 1st round pick. As I said before: the more picks you have, the better.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 i think i would rather start out with a fresh rookie behind anthony thomas for now.i like the idea of the bills coaching staff molding our new runningback,as opposed to a back who has been in another system and who could fall back on "well when i was backing up lt we did it this way"if things are going bad for him.lets just use our pick on adrian peterson or marshawn lynch.go bills in"07
Saint Doug Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 i think i would rather start out with a fresh rookie behind anthony thomas for now.i like the idea of the bills coaching staff molding our new runningback,as opposed to a back who has been in another system and who could fall back on "well when i was backing up lt we did it this way"if things are going bad for him.lets just use our pick on adrian peterson or marshawn lynch.go bills in"07 As opposed to, say, a back that has been running behind and being taught by the best RB in the NFL? Or, we can just pick Lynch, who will be younger and not demanding big bucks. Either way is fine.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 How would you think about Buffalo trading our 1st to San Diego four Michael Turner and there 1st ? NO! He's unproven and dropping that many picks on a 50/50 player is not smart.
dave mcbride Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 this thread is like deja vu all over again. Really? If that's the case, then I missed it, because I can't check things everyday because of my job. It's actually an interesting topic, so I recommend not giving people a hard time if they didn't happen to read a thread a week or so ago. You're obviously a valuable poster, but these sorts of criticisms are needlessly critical and display a certain lack of awareness regarding the fact that not everyone is obsessed with keeping up with the latest posts on TBD.
Heard of Buffalo Bills Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 i think i would rather start out with a fresh rookie behind anthony thomas for now.i like the idea of the bills coaching staff molding our new runningback,as opposed to a back who has been in another system and who could fall back on "well when i was backing up lt we did it this way"if things are going bad for him.lets just use our pick on adrian peterson or marshawn lynch.go bills in"07 Agreed. Using a back fresh out of college is a good idea. Its the equivalent so to speak of teaching a new dog new tricks as opposed to teaching an old dog new tricks. I know bad analogy.
Band of Merriman Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 The value of runningbacks has reduced greatly over the last couple of years. San Diego was basically laughed at when they said they'd take nothing but a 1st and 3rd, when players like Thomas Jones and Willis McGahee (established starters) were garnering 3rd round picks. They have since come down out of the clouds and now appear willing to deal him for a second round pick. The deal you talk about (moving back to pick 30) makes Turner's worth 550 points on the draft value chart. That means that his supposed worth is the 36th pick which is the 4th pick in the second round. Given that Turner is a backup player, the Bills would be getting the short end of the stick given the current value of starting runningbacks. After getting the short end of the stick, Turner is in the last year of his contract so you suddenly have to pay him the BIG bucks if he ends up having a great year. This makes no sense what so ever unless the Chargers were to significantly drop their asking price. The Bills are the last team that's going to throw money at the runningback position to a player that is still not a proven commodity. The Bills are in a great position to get an impact player that will be with the Bills for many years (Willis, Okoye, Peterson, Lynch) and at a contract level that is favorable to the Bills cap situation. When you select in the back of the first round it starts getting to be table scraps in regards to potential in the NFL. So to answer your question...no way Jose. As you indicated, established starters have been trading for 3rd round picks. I like turner, but for RB's this is a buyer's market and I wouldn't give more than a 3rd for him. I'd also want to have a new contract negotiated and in place or no deal. No point in taking on this guy for just 1 season.
daquix Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 i think i would rather start out with a fresh rookie behind anthony thomas for now.i like the idea of the bills coaching staff molding our new runningback,as opposed to a back who has been in another system and who could fall back on "well when I was backing up the best running back in the NFL, and one of the top 3 offenses in the NFL, and rushed for over 500 yards as a backup, we did it this way, and we should probably do it the way they did it because there way worked and this is not" if things are going bad for him.lets just use our pick on adrian peterson or marshawn lynch.go bills in"07 I edited part of your post.
Mikie2times Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 1 (31) Via SD: Marcus McCauley-CB-Fresno State (Bills acquire Michael Turner and SD 3rd Round pick) 2 (43) David Harris-ILB-Michigan 3 (74) Justin Durant-OLB- Hampton 3 (92) Dameion Hughes-CB-California 3 (93) Jacoby Jones -WR-Lane
Bill from NYC Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 1 (31) Via SD: Marcus McCauley-CB-Fresno State (Bills acquire Michael Turner and SD 3rd Round pick) 2 (43) David Harris-ILB-Michigan 3 (74) Justin Durant-OLB- Hampton 3 (92) Dameion Hughes-CB-California 3 (93) Jacoby Jones -WR-Lane The problem with the above is that it only includes 2 1st day defensive backs (which would give us a total of 4 in two seasons, not to mention an early 4th and a couple of free agents). If we aren't going to throw a guard and a DT in there, why not simply draft corners and safeties in every round?
Brandon Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 If you want to use the NFL draft point value system then yes this is true. But in the real world of picks, I don't think that is accurate. The more picks you have to get quality players, the better. With this deal you get a RB, and still have a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks still in tact. In your scenario, we have a RB, and just a 1st round pick. As I said before: the more picks you have, the better. Not true. A move from 12 to 20 should presumably net a 2nd round draft pick. I'm using the real-world example of the Bills trade from 14 to 21 as an example. A second trade down from 20 to 30, which is where San Diego picks, would probably net at least a 3rd, if not another 2nd. You would end up with the 30th pick, plus an additional 2nd and 3rd by making the equivalent trades down. This is how swapping the 12 for Turner and the 30th costs the equivalent value of a 2nd and 3rd.
Brandon Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 The problem with the above is that it only includes 2 1st day defensive backs (which would give us a total of 4 in two seasons, not to mention an early 4th and a couple of free agents). If we aren't going to throw a guard and a DT in there, why not simply draft corners and safeties in every round? Don't give Marv any ideas
1billsfan Posted March 25, 2007 Posted March 25, 2007 1 (31) Via SD: Marcus McCauley-CB-Fresno State (Bills acquire Michael Turner and SD 3rd Round pick) 2 (43) David Harris-ILB-Michigan 3 (74) Justin Durant-OLB- Hampton 3 (92) Dameion Hughes-CB-California 3 (93) Jacoby Jones -WR-Lane Durant and Hughes are going to be picked in the second round. I don't see anyway they'd be available to the Bills anywhere in the third round. I think Jones will be there. If the Bills for whatever reason go offense with their 1st round pick, I'm hoping that they take Justin Durant with their second round pick. The guy supposedly hits like a truck and never lets up.
Recommended Posts