I think the trade for Turner could actually happen

[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