DrDawkinstein Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 We had a lot less leverage. Everyone in the world knew we didn't want WM here, and others had passed up the opportunity to get here. Turner they've put a tag on, and have indicatated they like him as insurance if LT goes down. Part of the question in the negotiation is not so much how much we need him (pretty bad...about a 75 on a 100 scale.) and how willing they are to lose him (not very...abpit 30 on a 100 scale.) Hence the ante is considerably upped. Couple that with the fact that a couple of other teams are interested...if we get him for a switch of firsts and a third-take the deal. if the entire situation plays out as above and we have no other choice than swapping 1st and a 3rd, then we walk away.
generaLee83 Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 I would be appalled if the Bills offer anything more for this guy. It will work out similarly to the Rob Johnson deal. He is always playing against second stringers and is the product of a successful running system....he will be the next Lamont Jordan. Thank you for seeming to be the only other person here that sees Lamont Jordan similarities with Turner. I do not want him on this team, he will cost too much and is yes, UNPROVEN. Throw all the stats you want at me, he plays mop up duty (like Craig Nall and his great stats) and has never carried a full seasons load before. I'd rather draft a RB and develop that player into being a Buffalo Bill. Trading away picks and then having to pay a guy mucho dinero seems really stupid to me. If you draft a RB that ends up sucking then you are only out that particular pick. If we trade multiple picks for Turner (this year and next) and then sign him to a 35 million dollar contract and he sucks then it ends up being the bad move that just keeps on hurting (think of next years draft "we don't have a 2nd round pick because we picked up suck ass Turner") not to mention being out a chunk of money. I don't really care anyway, just blabbering.
Tcali Posted April 3, 2007 Posted April 3, 2007 I remember seeing Turner drop the hammer on London Fletcher for an extra 3 yards one game. Of course that happened to London at times. I saw that and said to myself, wow this guy is bigger, faster version of Travis Henry. I would love that kind of back. dont get carried away. Travis has no rival in toughness.
H2o Posted April 3, 2007 Posted April 3, 2007 Totally agree - I don't understand why you'd give up alot for RB who's not much different from the one we just traded away- now here's a trade I'd think about - Peerless Price and our 1st for Micheal Turner and Vincent Jackson Price would hit us for more against our cap if we got rid of him this year versus keeping him if I remember right. That would be over 2 million more in "dead money", plus the money it would cost to sign Turner to a new contract, and the cap # of Jackson. I don't think it could work out money wise for us because we would still have to sign our picks from the draft.
disco Posted April 3, 2007 Posted April 3, 2007 Thank you for seeming to be the only other person here that sees Lamont Jordan similarities with Turner. I do not want him on this team, he will cost too much and is yes, UNPROVEN. Throw all the stats you want at me, he plays mop up duty (like Craig Nall and his great stats) and has never carried a full seasons load before. I'd rather draft a RB and develop that player into being a Buffalo Bill. Trading away picks and then having to pay a guy mucho dinero seems really stupid to me. If you draft a RB that ends up sucking then you are only out that particular pick. If we trade multiple picks for Turner (this year and next) and then sign him to a 35 million dollar contract and he sucks then it ends up being the bad move that just keeps on hurting (think of next years draft "we don't have a 2nd round pick because we picked up suck ass Turner") not to mention being out a chunk of money. I don't really care anyway, just blabbering. This doesn't make any sense. 1. Lamont Jordan is terrible? Really? show me the stats. 2. Turner has played a mop up role? Really? show me when. 3. Turner is "suck ass"? Really? show me which plays. It's funny how nobody is arguing that they've seen Turner play and he's done poorly. That's because in no instances has he done poorly. Every time he's touched the ball - as a starting back, as a fill in, in preseason, etc...he's been highly successful. The knock on him is "wellllllll I dunnnno, he hasn't really shown me enough." of course given that you think he's done it in a mop up role, you've obviously not seen him play.
Recommended Posts