PhinBlitz9955 Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 It will be a trade. No team will be dumb enough to sign him and give up two 1st round picks.
Brandon Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 I'm not so sure about that(bold).....there is a chance......very small but quite possible that Peterson drops to 12. There may well be a tentative deal already in place....i.e. "If Peterson is drafted before #12, we'll trade X & Y for Turner." My guess, either way, is that Turner will be part of a trade on day one of the draft. That could possibly explain why the Bills haven't traded for him, but again, placed in the larger context of the league-wide interest in RBs last month, you'd think someone would've already pulled the trigger.
ExWNYer Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 No team will be dumb enough to sign him and give up two 1st round picks. The picks would be a 1st & a 3rd rounder, not two 1st rounders...but your premise is still correct.
JimBob2232 Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 That could possibly explain why the Bills haven't traded for him, but again, placed in the larger context of the league-wide interest in RBs last month, you'd think someone would've already pulled the trigger. Nah, Buffalo - Waiting to see what happens with Peterson, or they can draft lynch, or RBBC with 2nd round back. Green Bay - Settling in on Lynch, who will likely be there when they pick. If not, Chris Brown, Cory Dillon or a 2nd round back would work. Tennessee - Has Chris Brown as a Backup Plan None of these 3 teams have the urgency right now. If you see Chris Brown or Cory Dillon sign with some other team, the urgency may increase...but for now, a wait and see approach is prudent. Also SD is in no hurry to move him either. I still say throw our 2nd rounder at them...and let it sit. No more, no less.
Brandon Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Nah,Buffalo - Waiting to see what happens with Peterson, or they can draft lynch, or RBBC with 2nd round back. Green Bay - Settling in on Lynch, who will likely be there when they pick. If not, Chris Brown, Cory Dillon or a 2nd round back would work. Tennessee - Has Chris Brown as a Backup Plan None of these 3 teams have the urgency right now. If you see Chris Brown or Cory Dillon sign with some other team, the urgency may increase...but for now, a wait and see approach is prudent. Also SD is in no hurry to move him either. I still say throw our 2nd rounder at them...and let it sit. No more, no less. Its not just those three. You also have to consider that Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Detroit, the Jets and the Giants were also active in the RB market this offseason, whether in trades or in FA. With the exception of the Giants, all of them made significant moves at the position. That's a lot of interest in RBs this offseason and according to this board, Turner is as good as any of them, if not better. So why is he still sitting in San Diego? The only reasonable answer seems to be the pricetag.
obie_wan Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Its not just those three. You also have to consider that Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Detroit, the Jets and the Giants were also active in the RB market this offseason, whether in trades or in FA. With the exception of the Giants, all of them made significant moves at the position. That's a lot of interest in RBs this offseason and according to this board, Turner is as good as any of them, if not better. So why is he still sitting in San Diego? The only reasonable answer seems to be the pricetag. OR he's not as good as the media is hyping him to be
Lurker Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 according to this board Therein lies the problem...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Let them take him. I certainly don't want a guy who played back up behind LT most of his career.
Brandon Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Therein lies the problem... You're not going to get any disagreement from me. I'm very skeptical of Turner and would rather the Bills steer clear of him.
Dibs Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 Its not just those three. You also have to consider that Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Detroit, the Jets and the Giants were also active in the RB market this offseason, whether in trades or in FA. With the exception of the Giants, all of them made significant moves at the position. That's a lot of interest in RBs this offseason and according to this board, Turner is as good as any of them, if not better. So why is he still sitting in San Diego? The only reasonable answer seems to be the pricetag. *you forgot Oakland*I agree(sort of)......but there are other factors. Denver & Houston obtained legit 1000 yard RBs via FA. They did not have to give up anything in compensation, therefore they are perhaps not very comparable to the Turner situation.....why give up picks when you can have a legit multi 1000+ RB for nothing? Oakland has not given up on Jordan....but for insurance added Griffith(whom can play RB) & Rhodes...both via FA so like above, not really comparable. Cleveland signed an 'old before his time' RB(Lewis) for 1 year. Why? I assume to give them extra freedom re: the draft. Again, I can't see it being comparable....another pure FA(no compensation) deal. Detroit already had RBs & added long-shot Duckett(who doesn't count IMO & was a FA) & helped themselves out with a player trade for Anderson. Again, not comparable. I agree with your assessment of the Giants moves not being significant. That leaves the Ravens & Jets. These two I find very comparable to us(& Ten & GB) trading for Turner. You are right in that if Turner is considered to be of the same caliber as McGahee & Jones(both multi 1000+ RBs) his pricetag was probably too high(at the time).....otherwise, why not get Turner instead of McGahee or Jones? I'm thinking it more likely that the Ravens & Jets however, viewed their new RBs as overall better prospects. Basically, why give up picks for a guy who has not shown he can be a legit #1 RB when you can give up picks for a guy who has? This is of course not saying Turner can't become a legit #1......just that the 'competition' had better resumes. Now that most teams have acquired their #1 RB.....with the draft looming I'd say it was a buyers market re:Turner. His pricetag(trade value, not salary) might well be quite low now.....but who would pay it when you have the opportunity to grab a younger/cheaper/better(?) RB in the draft?
PhinBlitz9955 Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 The picks would be a 1st & a 3rd rounder, not two 1st rounders...but your premise is still correct. Sorry my mistake. I was thinking the highest tender was two 1st rounders because I remember that's what was being talked about for Brees last year.
Recommended Posts