The_Real Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 The only true 'franchise' back in this draft is Adrian Peterson. Not Lynch or trading for Turner. If you people believe that the RB makes the Offense you are crazy. The offensive line makes the running back, quarterback and essentially the offense. Every year the Broncos have a great offensive line and running back by committee. Every year they have a 1,000 yard back and the ability to be effective on offense. The old saying 'defense wins championships' is true. Peyton Manning didn't win the Superbowl this year. He managed a smart game plan, had two running backs share the load, and had a defense step up and play aggresive. People are making Lynch and Turner out to be Reggie Bush. Neither are. Ralph Wilson, for as hard as I've been on him, asked the best question that he could, "how are we going to stop the run". Patrick Willis is how. Just say no to a 1st round back. The Real
ROCCEO Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Put me on board, unless peterson falls to 12. Then you pick him and scramble, even though if AP were still there and WIllis were still there and we took willis, id still be happy.
The Big Cat Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 The only true 'franchise' back in this draft is Adrian Peterson. Not Lynch or trading for Turner. If you people believe that the RB makes the Offense you are crazy. The offensive line makes the running back, quarterback and essentially the offense. Every year the Broncos have a great offensive line and running back by committee. Every year they have a 1,000 yard back and the ability to be effective on offense. The old saying 'defense wins championships' is true. Peyton Manning didn't win the Superbowl this year. He managed a smart game plan, had two running backs share the load, and had a defense step up and play aggresive. People are making Lynch and Turner out to be Reggie Bush. Neither are. Ralph Wilson, for as hard as I've been on him, asked the best question that he could, "how are we going to stop the run". Patrick Willis is how. Just say no to a 1st round back. The Real preach on brother.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 The only true 'franchise' back in this draft is Adrian Peterson. Not Lynch or trading for Turner. If you people believe that the RB makes the Offense you are crazy. The offensive line makes the running back, quarterback and essentially the offense. Every year the Broncos have a great offensive line and running back by committee. Every year they have a 1,000 yard back and the ability to be effective on offense. The old saying 'defense wins championships' is true. Peyton Manning didn't win the Superbowl this year. He managed a smart game plan, had two running backs share the load, and had a defense step up and play aggresive. People are making Lynch and Turner out to be Reggie Bush. Neither are. Ralph Wilson, for as hard as I've been on him, asked the best question that he could, "how are we going to stop the run". Patrick Willis is how. Just say no to a 1st round back. The Real Actually, Denver and Elway always had problems until they got a good RB. As soon as Terrell Davis came they got better. He was great for three seasons and so were they, including the SB. Then he got hurt and Olandis Gary came in and they immediately sucked. They were pretty average for the next couple years overall even though guys like Mike Anderson managed to barely eclipse 1000 yards. Then they got Portis and they started to threaten again and were back in the playoffs. There has only been about 2 years in the last 10 that they didn't have a terrific RB and still had a great season, one of which was 2 years ago.
NewEra Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Actually, Denver and Elway always had problems until they got a good RB. As soon as Terrell Davis came they got better. He was great for three seasons and so were they, including the SB. Then he got hurt and Olandis Gary came in and they immediately sucked. They were pretty average for the next couple years overall even though guys like Mike Anderson managed to barely eclipse 1000 yards. Then they got Portis and they started to threaten again and were back in the playoffs. There has only been about 2 years in the last 10 that they didn't have a terrific RB and still had a great season, one of which was 2 years ago. LOL...you didnt notice that they sucked the second JOHN ELWAY left? You think the Terrell Davis was THAT good? HE was a product of the best OL. Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson put up great numbers....as did Portis. The only difference between Mike ANderson and terrell davis was Elway. Dont say elway couldnt win til he had TD, won all the time, just never won a super bowl...either did jim, so dont hate
Kelly the Dog Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 LOL...you didnt notice that they sucked the second JOHN ELWAY left? You think the Terrell Davis was THAT good? HE was a product of the best OL. Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson put up great numbers....as did Portis. The only difference between Mike ANderson and terrell davis was Elway. Dont say elway couldnt win til he had TD, won all the time, just never won a super bowl...either did jim, so dont hate People think 1000 yard seasons are great and they are not. They are average. 1200 yards are pretty good, which is all you can say about Gary. Davis was rushing for 1500-1700-2000 yards. You're nuts if you think that isn't a great back. They had three straight 500 or so seasons with Elway in his prime. Davis came out of nowhere and in his second year they were a great team. It wasn't all him obviously but the fans perception of just putting any guy into the Broncos backfield and they will be great is really out of whack. Gary had one good year out of five. Anderson had one great year out of six.
MDH Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 The only difference between Mike ANderson and terrell davis was Elway. Are you sure you don't want to recant this statement? It's a wee bit on the ridiculous side.
Dawgg Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 And one more point -- where was Terrell Davis drafted? It is generally not smart to draft a first round RB unless (a) Your "only" need is RB (b) It is a franchise back Otherwise, you find key starters at premium positions. Actually, Denver and Elway always had problems until they got a good RB. As soon as Terrell Davis came they got better. He was great for three seasons and so were they, including the SB. Then he got hurt and Olandis Gary came in and they immediately sucked. They were pretty average for the next couple years overall even though guys like Mike Anderson managed to barely eclipse 1000 yards. Then they got Portis and they started to threaten again and were back in the playoffs. There has only been about 2 years in the last 10 that they didn't have a terrific RB and still had a great season, one of which was 2 years ago.
krazykat Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Peyton Manning didn't win the Superbowl this year. He managed a smart game plan, had two running backs share the load, and had a defense step up and play aggresive. Agree with your points, but let's be real here, the Colts also got help in winning the Super Bowl by playing one of the weakest teams ever to make it there. The Bear D was overrated and nowhere near tops in spite of their statistical accolades against a schedule of teams with scrub offenses. Their offense under Grossman was only effective against teams with little or no D.
1billsfan Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 The only true 'franchise' back in this draft is Adrian Peterson. Not Lynch or trading for Turner. If you people believe that the RB makes the Offense you are crazy. The offensive line makes the running back, quarterback and essentially the offense. Every year the Broncos have a great offensive line and running back by committee. Every year they have a 1,000 yard back and the ability to be effective on offense. The old saying 'defense wins championships' is true. Peyton Manning didn't win the Superbowl this year. He managed a smart game plan, had two running backs share the load, and had a defense step up and play aggresive. People are making Lynch and Turner out to be Reggie Bush. Neither are. Ralph Wilson, for as hard as I've been on him, asked the best question that he could, "how are we going to stop the run". Patrick Willis is how. Just say no to a 1st round back. The Real The truth will come when out when these runningbacks start playing regular season games. So what you have stated here is more of an opinion. My opinion is that the Bills need to draft either Peterson or Lynch, not Willis. You can have your thoughts that Lynch is not a franchise back, but his college stats, his size, and the fact he's run a sub 4.5 forty tell a different story. He caught 4 TD passes in 2006 and had over 30 receptions. When rushing with the ball he has mad moves, which will translate very well to the pro game. What's crazy is thinking that JP and his receivers will have anythng but a poor season without a true running threat. But again, that's still just my opinion.
Poeticlaw Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Are you sure you don't want to recant this statement? It's a wee bit on the ridiculous side. They were also both 6 round picks and Bell and portis were 2 rd picks and gary was a 4th rd pick. Denver has had a succesful running game with out drafting in the First round.
The Dean Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 The only true 'franchise' back in this draft is Adrian Peterson. Not Lynch or trading for Turner. If you people believe that the RB makes the Offense you are crazy. The offensive line makes the running back, quarterback and essentially the offense. Every year the Broncos have a great offensive line and running back by committee. Every year they have a 1,000 yard back and the ability to be effective on offense. The old saying 'defense wins championships' is true. Peyton Manning didn't win the Superbowl this year. He managed a smart game plan, had two running backs share the load, and had a defense step up and play aggresive. People are making Lynch and Turner out to be Reggie Bush. Neither are. Ralph Wilson, for as hard as I've been on him, asked the best question that he could, "how are we going to stop the run". Patrick Willis is how. Just say no to a 1st round back. The Real OK...I agree the OL is essential and that Good, and even Very Good RBs are (here it comes) a dime a dozen. Great and Franchise backs are rare indeed. Nobody knows if and who the Very Good, Great and or Franchise back (or backs) will be from this draft. I would love to get Willis, too. (I don't think he'll be there at #12 and I can't be sure we can/should/want-to trade up to get him.) I'd also be happy with a number of players available. But, I'm starting to be convinced the best answer for the Bills in 2007 and 2008, is Michael Turner. Why Turner: Turner really is a BEAST of a runner. He runs HARD and STRONG and fast. Goes inside and outside. Is the guy who will get that 1 yard if you need it. We haven't seen that combination in Buffalo since (no, not OJ)...Cookie Gilchrist We know Turner can play in the NFL, it's already been established. He can handle the $ and the pressure and the speed and all the other bulls#it. We don't know how a draftee handles that. Is comfortable and productive coming off the bench (should Marv's Dick be committed to RBBC). Many many backs can't handle being rotated. All of the top backs coming out in the draft (except Brian Leonard) only know the star starting role. How do they respond to being a rotation? Can the deliver on limited reps? We already know the answer for Turner is, YES HE CAN! (And remember, Turner, just like Peterson and Lynch and most of the others, was a STAR in college. He was the #1 back for Northern Illinois and was #2 in the nation in rushing yardage per game in 2002 and 2003. So... Should he be a feature back, we know he can do that as well ...at least as well as we know it about any draft choice. The guy is hitting his prime as a running back. PLUS he has 3 years of experience: with low mileage in his body. learning behind LT (the best back of our generation), playing for Marty S ( a coach that demands good fundamentals). (I do my share of Marty bashing, but his teams are always well coached.) So, in a nutshell, if we want to win NOW, with Turner we get a back with almost no learning-curve to overcome, who can hit the ground running (so to speak). We get a you back with GREAT experience and low mileage on his body and...this is important...SOMETHING TO PROVE. PLUS, we can focus on our defensive needs for the draft...one less distraction when evaluating draft choices. Turner's our man, IMO.
H2o Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 LOL...you didnt notice that they sucked the second JOHN ELWAY left? You think the Terrell Davis was THAT good? HE was a product of the best OL. Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson put up great numbers....as did Portis. The only difference between Mike ANderson and terrell davis was Elway. Dont say elway couldnt win til he had TD, won all the time, just never won a super bowl...either did jim, so dont hate Not only was Davis the product of a good blocking line, but a disgusting one as well. Can you imagine being a defensive lineman and having to fight in the trenches against a guy who pisses himself right in front of you on the field (Schlereth)? that!!!
Booster4324 Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 One question...can Turner block? Can he pick up the blitz? I honestly haven't heard that mentioned so I want to know. I would love to have Turner if he can block and then we draft Willis. That would be the ideal for me, but I have a feeling Willis will go before 12.
The Dean Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 One question...can Turner block? Can he pick up the blitz? I honestly haven't heard that mentioned so I want to know. I would love to have Turner if he can block and then we draft Willis. That would be the ideal for me, but I have a feeling Willis will go before 12. I really would like to know that FOR SURE, as well. I'm guessing the answer is, "yes" as I don't think Marty S would have it any other way,
NewEra Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 And one more point -- where was Terrell Davis drafted? It is generally not smart to draft a first round RB unless (a) Your "only" need is RB (b) It is a franchise back Otherwise, you find key starters at premium positions. Well.....DUH!!! San Diego had tons of holes when they picked LT. Usually if someone is regarded a franchise back, they are 1st round picks. thanks for the info
Rubes Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 Turner's our man, IMO. Okay, so what do you think is the threshold of what you would be comfortable giving away for him, in terms of picks?
The Dean Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 Okay, so what do you think is the threshold of what you would be comfortable giving away for him, in terms of picks? Well, If AP is worth the #12, so is Turner, IMO. But, I'd rather cushion the blow by giving a 2nd or 3rd this year and a conditional (1st-3rd) next year, I'd also swap 1st rounders, give them a 3rd this year and a 3rd next year...maybe they have another player they could throw in that might help us a little (I haven't checked that out). There are other scenarios, I'm sure.
MDH Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 Well, If AP is worth the #12, so is Turner, IMO. But, I'd rather cushion the blow by giving a 2nd or 3rd this year and a conditional (1st-3rd) next year, I'd also swap 1st rounders, give them a 3rd this year and a 3rd next year...maybe they have another player they could throw in that might help us a little (I haven't checked that out). There are other scenarios, I'm sure. I want Turner but not at the price of the 12. A swap of first rounders is acceptable or your other scenario of a 2nd or 3rd this year and a conditional next year...though to make that conditional a 1st next year the stats better be HUGE, and I mean HUGE
The Dean Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 I want Turner but not at the price of the 12. A swap of first rounders is acceptable or your other scenario of a 2nd or 3rd this year and a conditional next year...though to make that conditional a 1st next year the stats better be HUGE, and I mean HUGE Agreed on all points. I'd go D at #12, even if it were Peterson. But, if you (and I don't mean specifically YOU, MDH) would pick Peterson or Lynch with the #12, then you should be fine with Turner for that pick, IMO.
Recommended Posts