"Worth" is a semantic argument

[Kelly the Dog]

1] Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick because Thomas Jones was only worth a swap of #2's, Willis McGahee was only worth two #3's and a #7, no one would trade a #2 for Stephen Alexander, etc.

 

2] If Michael Turner was in this draft he would be picked in the middle of the first round, probably ahead of Lynch, so he is worth a first rounder. If you were to trade a #1 pick for him and he was worth more to your scouts and GM than the RB you were going to take with that 12th pick, he is worth a #1 pick.

 

3] Willis McGahee was traded for marginal draft picks but was signed to a contract worth 40 million dollars which is worth a top 5-6 pick in the draft. Thomas Jones was traded for a swap of #2's but signed to a contract worth 20 mil and 12 mil guaranteed which is worth what the 10th pick in the draft might get. So the teams signing them think they are worth what those picks would get.

 

4] A trade down from #12 to #30 is worth about 600 points on the trade chart, which is worth a 2nd round pick. And a #1 pick next year on the trade chart is worth a #2 pick in this years draft so Michael Turner either is or isn't worth a #1 pick.

 

The fact remains, regardless of what we give up for him, if we trade for him, if he's great, it's a great trade, if he's rather good it's a rather good trade, and if he's crappy it's a rather crappy trade. With a small consideration for who was available in retrospect as an alternative. But every trade and every draft pick is a gamble.

[stuckincincy]

1] Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick because Thomas Jones was only worth a swap of #2's, Willis McGahee was only worth two #3's and a #7, no one would trade a #2 for Stephen Alexander, etc.

 

2] If Michael Turner was in this draft he would be picked in the middle of the first round, probably ahead of Lynch, so he is worth a first rounder. If you were to trade a #1 pick for him and he was worth more to your scouts and GM than the RB you were going to take with that 12th pick, he is worth a #1 pick.

 

3] Willis McGahee was traded for marginal draft picks but was signed to a contract worth 40 million dollars which is worth a top 5-6 pick in the draft. Thomas Jones was traded for a swap of #2's but signed to a contract worth 20 mil and 12 mil guaranteed which is worth what the 10th pick in the draft might get. So the teams signing them think they are worth what those picks would get.

 

4] A trade down from #12 to #30 is worth about 600 points on the trade chart, which is worth a 2nd round pick. And a #1 pick next year on the trade chart is worth a #2 pick in this years draft so Michael Turner either is or isn't worth a #1 pick.

 

The fact remains, regardless of what we give up for him, if we trade for him, if he's great, it's a great trade, if he's rather good it's a rather good trade, and if he's crappy it's a rather crappy trade. With a small consideration for who was available in retrospect as an alternative. But every trade and every draft pick is a gamble.

[stuckincincy]

But every trade and every draft pick is a gamble.

 

I'll bet George Halas knew that...

 

Awaiting your chronic straw man posts during the regular season...

[The Dean]

"Worth" is a semantic argument

 

 

"MacGyver" is a verb

 

I'm just sayin.

 

I have nothing to add to the Dog's great post. So consider this a worthless post...

 

sorry...

[Beerball]

1] Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick because Thomas Jones was only worth a swap of #2's, Willis McGahee was only worth two #3's and a #7, no one would trade a #2 for Stephen Alexander, etc.

 

2] If Michael Turner was in this draft he would be picked in the middle of the first round, probably ahead of Lynch, so he is worth a first rounder. If you were to trade a #1 pick for him and he was worth more to your scouts and GM than the RB you were going to take with that 12th pick, he is worth a #1 pick.

 

3] Willis McGahee was traded for marginal draft picks but was signed to a contract worth 40 million dollars which is worth a top 5-6 pick in the draft. Thomas Jones was traded for a swap of #2's but signed to a contract worth 20 mil and 12 mil guaranteed which is worth what the 10th pick in the draft might get. So the teams signing them think they are worth what those picks would get.

 

4] A trade down from #12 to #30 is worth about 600 points on the trade chart, which is worth a 2nd round pick. And a #1 pick next year on the trade chart is worth a #2 pick in this years draft so Michael Turner either is or isn't worth a #1 pick.

 

The fact remains, regardless of what we give up for him, if we trade for him, if he's great, it's a great trade, if he's rather good it's a rather good trade, and if he's crappy it's a rather crappy trade. With a small consideration for who was available in retrospect as an alternative. But every trade and every draft pick is a gamble.

So yer sayin that we should not trade #1 picks with SD? Finally something I can agree with.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

So yer sayin that we should not trade #1 picks with SD? Finally something I can agree with.

 

No, I am saying we definitely should or shouldn't trade #1 picks, because he definitely is or isn't worth it.

[Beerball]

No, I am saying we definitely should or shouldn't trade #1 picks, because he definitely is or isn't worth it.

Please leave me and my reality alone.

 

 

Seriously, good post above. It's all a crap shoot. Walt Patulski could have been a great pick, but he wasn't. Bruce was. Johnson wasn't. Bennett was. It really does come down to how well the freakin player does for this team.

[ieatcrayonz]

1] Michael Turner is not worth a #1 pick because Thomas Jones was only worth a swap of #2's, Willis McGahee was only worth two #3's and a #7, no one would trade a #2 for Stephen Alexander, etc.

 

2] If Michael Turner was in this draft he would be picked in the middle of the first round, probably ahead of Lynch, so he is worth a first rounder. If you were to trade a #1 pick for him and he was worth more to your scouts and GM than the RB you were going to take with that 12th pick, he is worth a #1 pick.

 

3] Willis McGahee was traded for marginal draft picks but was signed to a contract worth 40 million dollars which is worth a top 5-6 pick in the draft. Thomas Jones was traded for a swap of #2's but signed to a contract worth 20 mil and 12 mil guaranteed which is worth what the 10th pick in the draft might get. So the teams signing them think they are worth what those picks would get.

 

4] A trade down from #12 to #30 is worth about 600 points on the trade chart, which is worth a 2nd round pick. And a #1 pick next year on the trade chart is worth a #2 pick in this years draft so Michael Turner either is or isn't worth a #1 pick.

 

The fact remains, regardless of what we give up for him, if we trade for him, if he's great, it's a great trade, if he's rather good it's a rather good trade, and if he's crappy it's a rather crappy trade. With a small consideration for who was available in retrospect as an alternative. But every trade and every draft pick is a gamble.

This is a good post but I take offense to the title of the thread. Semantic? Do you hate Jewish people or something? You can make your point without that epitath. I'm sure you're bent out of shape because it is Good Friday and in your mind that is when the Jews killed Jesus, but I think you should take that crap somewhere else.

 

Good stuff on the football though. Keep it up.

[Sketch Soland]

No, I am saying we definitely should or shouldn't trade #1 picks, because he definitely is or isn't worth it.

 

It does depend on what your definition of "is" is.

[BillsVet]

This is a good post but I take offense to the title of the thread. Semantic? Do you hate Jewish people or something? You can make your point without that epitath. I'm sure you're bent out of shape because it is Good Friday and in your mind that is when the Jews killed Jesus, but I think you should take that crap somewhere else.

 

Good stuff on the football though. Keep it up.

 

You're kidding, right?

[Kelly the Dog]

You're kidding, right?

Nope. Everything "ieatcrayonz" says is on the level.

[The Dean]

You're kidding, right?

 

 

I didn't expect YOU to get caught by the crayon eater. Tsk tsk

[I 90]

This is a good post but I take offense to the title of the thread. Semantic?

 

They are a series of declarative statements.

[CosmicBills]

Nope. Everything "ieatcrayonz" says is on the level.

That's all I'll say about crayonz. I'm sorry, I find the guy funny.

 

As for your original post, I know I'm being a bastard, but I have to take you to task with point two. It's impossible to argue that if Turner were in this draft he would be the 2nd back taken in this year's draft for a number of reasons.

 

First, when he was in the draft he was a second day pick (fifth round if I recall correctly) because teams weren't sure about his speed or ability to be an every down back. This was after a season in which he was a preseason Heisman hopeful. After 4 years in the NFL, he still doesn't have a large enough body of work to know the answer to these questions, plus is now approaching 26 years old, making his window that much smaller to succeed in the league. Of course he is more "proven" than the other 2nd/3rd round players (and more so than Lynch or Peterson) -- but on paper Lynch, Peterson and even some of the 2nd rounders top him coming out of college. That being the case, it makes more sense to use one pick on one of them than it does to use multiple picks on Turner.

 

I know I'm nitpicking -- but I just am not sure it's a fair arguement to make when discussing Turner's value in this year's draft.

 

However, the rest of you're post is excellent. It is all a crapshoot. Still, there are ways to mitigate the risk from the Bills' perspective. Part of that entails using other premier backs as benchmarks for a player's worth. I would conceed that it's not fair to compair last year's trade market to this year's (there are too many variables to make an accurate comparison), however I think it's totally legit to compare the trades for Thomas Jones and Willis in relation to Turner. Both of those players, like it or not, have better resumes and on-field merits than Turner who is 100% potential at this point in his career. So, from a pure risk management standpoint, giving up more picks (or higher picks) than what Baltimore or the Jets gave up would be an unwise investment.

 

Of course, if you roll the dice and win, the Bills will look fine and no one will care. But if you miss -- then not only does the organization look like fools, it sets your team back a year, if not more.

 

It's all about risk management, and for me, giving up a first round pick this year (or next) would be assuming too much risk on Turner.

[Beerball]

This is a good post but I take offense to the title of the thread. Semantic? Do you hate Jewish people or something? You can make your point without that epitath. I'm sure you're bent out of shape because it is Good Friday and in your mind that is when the Jews killed Jesus, but I think you should take that crap somewhere else.

 

Good stuff on the football though. Keep it up.

Now you've stooped to an all time low. I made this very same argument last week (though in a lot less words). Stealing my ideas is not the way to get ahead.

 

Stealer linky

[Kelly the Dog]

That's all I'll say about crayonz. I'm sorry, I find the guy funny.

 

As for your original post, I know I'm being a bastard, but I have to take you to task with point two. It's impossible to argue that if Turner were in this draft he would be the 2nd back taken in this year's draft for a number of reasons.

 

First, when he was in the draft he was a second day pick (fifth round if I recall correctly) because teams weren't sure about his speed or ability to be an every down back. This was after a season in which he was a preseason Heisman hopeful. After 4 years in the NFL, he still doesn't have a large enough body of work to know the answer to these questions, plus is now approaching 26 years old, making his window that much smaller to succeed in the league. Of course he is more "proven" than the other 2nd/3rd round players (and more so than Lynch or Peterson) -- but on paper Lynch, Peterson and even some of the 2nd rounders top him coming out of college. That being the case, it makes more sense to use one pick on one of them than it does to use multiple picks on Turner.

 

I know I'm nitpicking -- but I just am not sure it's a fair arguement to make when discussing Turner's value in this year's draft.

 

However, the rest of you're post is excellent. It is all a crapshoot. Still, there are ways to mitigate the risk from the Bills' perspective. Part of that entails using other premier backs as benchmarks for a player's worth. I would conceed that it's not fair to compair last year's trade market to this year's (there are too many variables to make an accurate comparison), however I think it's totally legit to compare the trades for Thomas Jones and Willis in relation to Turner. Both of those players, like it or not, have better resumes and on-field merits than Turner who is 100% potential at this point in his career. So, from a pure risk management standpoint, giving up more picks (or higher picks) than what Baltimore or the Jets gave up would be an unwise investment.

 

Of course, if you roll the dice and win, the Bills will look fine and no one will care. But if you miss -- then not only does the organization look like fools, it sets your team back a year, if not more.

 

It's all about risk management, and for me, giving up a first round pick this year (or next) would be assuming too much risk on Turner.

I didn't just make that up. I read it or heard it from draft guys. They were the ones that said if he were in the draft he would be the 2nd or 3rd back taken either just above or below Lynch. I will try to look it up or remember who said it. I think a couple other people here heard or read the same thing, and it totally makes sense. He was an unknown three years ago because he came from the MAC conference and scouts weren't sure he could produce against top level competition. The way a lot of guys in tiny conferences aren't given the benefit of the doubt. In three years, he has pretty much proven that is no longer a worry, in both pre-season and regular season. He has excelled.

 

I somewhat disagree with the window idea, too. He's ready to go day one. Yes, running backs are easier to plug in anyway but like someone else said, there is no worry about him not handling all the stuff that makes you a good pro like the responsibility off the field, on the practice field, in the locker room, in the weight room and film room. From all accounts he's a great guy and teammate. Played in big games. Plus, a RB lasts less than almost all other positions simply because of the beating these guys take in relationship to their size. He played three years but it was only one year of wear and tear. Barring injury you can easily expect him to be in his prime for the next 4-5 years and that's all you can expect out of any RB or any age in the era of free agency.

[The Dean]

I didn't just make that up. I read it or heard it from draft guys. They were the ones that said if he were in the draft he would be the 2nd or 3rd back taken either just above or below Lynch. I will try to look it up or remember who said it. I think a couple other people here heard or read the same thing, and it totally makes sense. He was an unknown three years ago because he came from the MAC conference and scouts weren't sure he could produce against top level competition. The way a lot of guys in tiny conferences aren't given the benefit of the doubt. In three years, he has pretty much proven that is no longer a worry, in both pre-season and regular season. He has excelled.

 

I somewhat disagree with the window idea, too. He's ready to go day one. Yes, running backs are easier to plug in anyway but like someone else said, there is no worry about him not handling all the stuff that makes you a good pro like the responsibility off the field, on the practice field, in the locker room, in the weight room and film room. From all accounts he's a great guy and teammate. Played in big games. Plus, a RB lasts less than almost all other positions simply because of the beating these guys take in relationship to their size. He played three years but it was only one year of wear and tear. Barring injury you can easily expect him to be in his prime for the next 4-5 years and that's all you can expect out of any RB or any age in the era of free agency.

 

 

You don't remember who said that. I am SO freakin insulted!

[CosmicBills]

I didn't just make that up. I read it or heard it from draft guys. They were the ones that said if he were in the draft he would be the 2nd or 3rd back taken either just above or below Lynch. I will try to look it up or remember who said it. I think a couple other people here heard or read the same thing, and it totally makes sense. He was an unknown three years ago because he came from the MAC conference and scouts weren't sure he could produce against top level competition. The way a lot of guys in tiny conferences aren't given the benefit of the doubt. In three years, he has pretty much proven that is no longer a worry, in both pre-season and regular season. He has excelled.

 

No, I understand that you didn't make it up. In fact I remember reading that when you originally posted it. I just don't agree with it. Using that logic, if you put Thomas Jones and Willis into the draft, I would argue they would be taken higher than anyone but Peterson -- even above Turner. Willis and Jones would be clear first rounders using the same rationale that article used to describe Turner which brings us back to the discussion of worth. Despite the fact that Jones and Willis would be first rounders this year, they were only worth a second and 2 thirds. So why is Turner, who would be selected after them worth more? It's really a circular argument.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Turner on the Bills, but only at a certain cost.

 

My other problem with that argument is more due to the fact that I don't buy that Turner has really proven himself. He is still an unknown to me. When you're running behind a back like LT, it makes everything so much easier. Just ask Kenny Davis. Kenny was a good RB and a perfect fit for what the Bills needed him to do -- but he wasn't a No 1 RB even though at times he looked the part. In fact, the past two years Turner has almost mirrored Davis's numbers in '90 and '91 (arguably Thomas's AND LT's best years). Turner has gotten his yards after LT has beaten up on the defense, and they are back on their heels. He has never steped out on the field as the number one back (as far as I know) and delivered that 100 yard game.

 

He has scored a lot of touchdowns and returns kicks. He has filled in great for LT when he needs a blow -- but he hasn't proven he can do it on his own. Of course he never will prove this until someone gives him that opportunity which I guess is my point. I'm not against the Bills being the team to give him that opportunity, but they owe it to themselves to hope for the best but expect the worst. They have to approach the trade with that mentality.

 

Just as an aside, here are the numbers for Davis/Thomas in 90'/91 and Turner/LT in 2005/06:

 

1990: Thurman (1,297 yds Rushing, 11 TDs), Davis (302 yds Rushing, 4 TDs + 1 rec TD)

2005: LT (1,462 yds Rushing, 18 TDs), Turner (335 yds Rushing, 3 TDs)

 

1991: Thurman (1,407 yds Rushing, 7 TDs), Davis (624 yds Rushing, 4 TDs + 1 rec TD)

2006: LT (1,815 yds Rushing, 28 TDs), Turner (502 yds Rushing ,2 TDs)

[Kelly the Dog]

You don't remember who said that. I am SO freakin insulted!

Wait a minute, lemme guess... Ummmmm... ieatcrayonz?

[Kelly the Dog]

No, I understand that you didn't make it up. In fact I remember reading that when you originally posted it. I just don't agree with it. Using that logic, if you put Thomas Jones and Willis into the draft, I would argue they would be taken higher than anyone but Peterson -- even above Turner. Willis and Jones would be clear first rounders using the same rationale that article used to describe Turner which brings us back to the discussion of worth. Despite the fact that Jones and Willis would be first rounders this year, they were only worth a second and 2 thirds. So why is Turner, who would be selected after them worth more? It's really a circular argument.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Turner on the Bills, but only at a certain cost.

 

My other problem with that argument is more due to the fact that I don't buy that Turner has really proven himself. He is still an unknown to me. When you're running behind a back like LT, it makes everything so much easier. Just ask Kenny Davis. Kenny was a good RB and a perfect fit for what the Bills needed him to do -- but he wasn't a No 1 RB even though at times he looked the part. In fact, the past two years Turner has almost mirrored Davis's numbers in '90 and '91 (arguably Thomas's AND LT's best years). Turner has gotten his yards after LT has beaten up on the defense, and they are back on their heels. He has never steped out on the field as the number one back (as far as I know) and delivered that 100 yard game.

 

He has scored a lot of touchdowns and returns kicks. He has filled in great for LT when he needs a blow -- but he hasn't proven he can do it on his own. Of course he never will prove this until someone gives him that opportunity which I guess is my point. I'm not against the Bills being the team to give him that opportunity, but they owe it to themselves to hope for the best but expect the worst. They have to approach the trade with that mentality.

I think it's kind of foolish using certain players from ages ago that were in similar situations. For most every Kenny Davis, there is a Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson or at least who made a solid starter. And the difference between Kenny Davis and Michael Turner is that Kenny Davis was given the chance to be the starter for 3-4 years in Green Bay before the Bills and couldn't beat out a litany of nobody's including a few total flops.

 

My argument about the fact of Turner would be taken in the middle of the first round in only in reference to people saying he's not worth trading a first round pick for. If Marv and Modrak and John Guy and Jauron and Fairchild are considering taking Marshawn Lynch at #12 but instead are strongly considering and maybe pulling the trigger on trading or swapping a #1 for Michael Turner instead of choosing Lynch, Michael Turner is worth a #1 pick. It's inarguable. I'm not saying they are going to do it but it looks like they are. So they must believe (if they're going through with this and seriously negotiating), without question, that Michael Turner is a much better prospect than Marshawn Lynch, who is sure to go in the middle of the first round of the draft.