Kelly the Dog Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 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 The point, I think, is that all of these guys are a crapshoot. What Turner has actually accomplished and more importantly shown, is that he play at a high level in the NFL. None of the rookies have done that. There is a lot of film on him, 175 plus touches worth. There is none on the rookies. He also was an amazing workhorse in college so he has shown he can last the season as a starter. No one were looking at has proven they can be a starting RB in the NFL and play the whole season and produce. But what he has shown is a helluva lot more than any rookie.
Gordio Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 The point, I think, is that all of these guys are a crapshoot. What Turner has actually accomplished and more importantly shown, is that he play at a high level in the NFL. None of the rookies have done that. There is a lot of film on him, 175 plus touches worth. There is none on the rookies. He also was an amazing workhorse in college so he has shown he can last the season as a starter. No one were looking at has proven they can be a starting RB in the NFL and play the whole season and produce. But what he has shown is a helluva lot more than any rookie. Im not arguing if he is going to be good or not. What Im saying is the market over the last 3-4 yrs has been set on rbs & it is not a 1st round pick, & quite frankly it is not even a 2nd round pick in alot of cases. A 3rd this year & a mid round next year is all I would be willing to give sd.
IDBillzFan Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 The point, I think, is that all of these guys are a crapshoot. What Turner has actually accomplished and more importantly shown, is that he play at a high level in the NFL. None of the rookies have done that. There is a lot of film on him, 175 plus touches worth. There is none on the rookies. He also was an amazing workhorse in college so he has shown he can last the season as a starter. No one were looking at has proven they can be a starting RB in the NFL and play the whole season and produce. But what he has shown is a helluva lot more than any rookie. One of the other things to like about Turner is something that isn't talked about very much: he's ready for a full season. This crossed my mind while reading the article at BB.com about Preston and Everett, where Everett comments: "As a young player I learned last year how tough it is coming to this level and being put in there to play and having all the game-to-game adjustments and changes for different opponents each week. It can get difficult, but I've got to put more effort into it." Bringing in Turner means you're not waiting for the player to learn their way around the professional football league. He knows how to train. He knows how to prepare for a game. And by week 12 he won't be gasping for breath. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it, but it'd be nice to bring in a back of his potential without having to watch him learn a playbook AND his way around the NFL.
obie_wan Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 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 Hopefully, the Bills do not consider Pos an option. He is too slow to make an impact in this defense. He may justify his draft slot as an inside backer in a 3-4.
dave mcbride Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 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 No I didn't - there was no reference to Holmes in your post.
Bob in STL Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 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. Swapping firsts with SD would make sense -- it'd still give the Bills two picks in the top 50, four in the the top 95, and a bona fide starting running back. There's been a lot of talk about how the number of good prospects in this draft goes deep into the second round (at least), and I'm sure the Bills are aware of that. Having said all of this, if Peterson is there at 12 (not likely, in my opinion) and the Bills haven't traded for Turner yet, I don't see how they can pass on him. They need help on offense, and with all other positions set except a pass receiving TE (a bit player in the Fairchild/Martz offense anyway) and possibly a guard, I can't see them going in another direction. The Bills could then spend the remainder of their first day picks on two linebackers, a guard/center, and a corner. Of course, Peterson -- who is going to be damn good -- will probably be gone by then. Just to set the record straight. There is no such thing as a Fairchild/Martz offense. Fairchild was a "run first" guy when he coached in college and that is what he wanted to do his entire time in St. Louis. Martz, as we all know, is a pass happy coach. He passes to set up the run. Thank goodness for him he had Marshall Faulk ... a back who could run and catch. Martz thought very highly of Fairchild, which is why he hired him to be the OC in STL. Fairchild and Martz always seemed to struggled on the offensive philosophy. Martz took playcalling duties away from Fairchild at one point, then, when Martz got sick, Fairchild took over the play calling again and the Rams started to feature Jackson and they started to win. Believe me, there is a mutual respect between the two coaches but they do not share the same fundamental philosophy on offense.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 this is from san diego's web site........says that it was only speculation that green bay was interested in turner.it also says giants could be in the mix,but that buffalo is the only team to ask about turner...they say bills the front runner for turner................... http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/charg...31chargers.html
Ball'n Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 this is from san diego's web site........says that it was only speculation that green bay was interested in turner.it also says giants could be in the mix,but that buffalo is the only team to ask about turner...they say bills the front runner for turner................... http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/charg...31chargers.html Price seems steep..I want Turner but for cheaper than what San Diego wants.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Price seems steep..I want Turner but for cheaper than what San Diego wants. well yeah.that is why later in the article aj smith acknowledged that no team would give him a 1st and 3rd for turner.he is is quoted that he is willing to work on a trade.i agree .i think we should try for turner only if it is a fair deal and we still get to draft in the first round.go bills in"07
BuffaloRebound Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 That 12th pick should be off limits. I think this year's 2nd rounder should be able to get it done. I doubt anyone is giving up a 1st rounder for Turner, and our 2nd rounder is in the top half of the round. Willis and Turner would be a nice score and fill the team's 2 greatest needs. If Peterson doesn't fall to 12, we'd most likely take a RB in the 2nd round anyway and Turner is probably better than anyone who'd be available there.
a player to be named later Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 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!!!!!!!!!!! I like the idea here. Do you guys think ANY deal with Turner will be made before draft day? Why not wait until you see what happens on draft day and when the #8 pick comes around you give AJ a call?
timmyk12 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 I think the Bills will try to make a draft day deal basically to see if Peterson actually falls (which he probably won't). Once Peterson is taken, I think the Bills start talking. I don't think there is anyway the Bills move out of the #12 spot to switch first rounders with San Diego. A fair compensation would be this years 2nd rounder and Baltimore's 3rd rounder next season. An offseason adding Patrick Willis and Michael Turner would be damn good in my book.
Ball'n Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 An offseason adding Patrick Willis and Michael Turner would be damn good in my book. Turner and Willis would be a good draft day. Agreed.
IDBillzFan Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Why not wait until you see what happens on draft day and when the #8 pick comes around you give AJ a call? Because then you are negotiating from a position of weakness. At that point, AJ knows you have no other real options since you've been inquiring about Turner a month prior and, at the risk of repeating myself, he will have us by the short-n-curlies.
ivybills Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Like some on this line of posts have said (to many to quote) - switching first round picks would allow us to take some bite out of rookie salaries. Plus, Jauron seems to be set on having Crowell man the middle of the defense. If we do switch we should still be able to get Lawrence Timmons or Jon Beason - two players that are a really good fit for the Tampa-2 defense. I believe a really fair deal would be switching first rd picks, switching the bills 74th (first third) for the Chargers 62nd (second rd) and turner to the bills - this would leave the bills with the following on the first draft day. Michael Turner (deal: 6 mill sb & 2 mill rb after 2 yrs - 5 yr 10 mill w/ incentives up to 8 mill - for a possible total of 5 yr 26 mill) 30th pick overall (Timmons, Beason) 43rd pick overall (Anthony Gonzalez, Sidney Rice) 62nd pick overall (LB or CB depth) 92nd pick overall (LB or CB depth) This is only speculation - but with a draft like this, the bills would fill their need for RB, LB, a no 2 WR, and defensive depth. What do you guys think?
timmyk12 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Like some on this line of posts have said (to many to quote) - switching first round picks would allow us to take some bite out of rookie salaries. Plus, Jauron seems to be set on having Crowell man the middle of the defense. If we do switch we should still be able to get Lawrence Timmons or Jon Beason - two players that are a really good fit for the Tampa-2 defense. I believe a really fair deal would be switching first rd picks, switching the bills 74th (first third) for the Chargers 62nd (second rd) and turner to the bills - this would leave the bills with the following on the first draft day. Michael Turner (deal: 6 mill sb & 2 mill rb after 2 yrs - 5 yr 10 mill w/ incentives up to 8 mill - for a possible total of 5 yr 26 mill) 30th pick overall (Timmons, Beason) 43rd pick overall (Anthony Gonzalez, Sidney Rice) 62nd pick overall (LB or CB depth) 92nd pick overall (LB or CB depth) This is only speculation - but with a draft like this, the bills would fill their need for RB, LB, a no 2 WR, and defensive depth. What do you guys think? i like it, but I would rather trade away the 2nd rounder, give a 3rd next year and draft Patrick Willis at #12
Recommended Posts