Turner Officially OFF The Block

[michael]

I don't get why everyone acts like the Chargers still can't trade Turner. The trade deadline is still a ways off and who is to say that a starting back wont get hurt and be out for the year. Like I said before I don't think the Chargers were straight up offered a first round pick for Turner, but i bet anything that if Smith gets a call halfway throught the season to deal Turner for a first round pick he will take it in a heartbeat.

[kc5950]

Originally Posted by Saint33 id like to comment on the mewelde moore comments. Saying that he isn't that good is retarded. Im pretty sure if ask any Vikings fan who were the most underused players on the team last year, Jermaine Wiggins will be #1, and then Mewelde Moore would be second. Moore was a playmaker everytime he touched the ball. Just watch the first Chicago game and the Jets game and tell me he's not a playmaker. I think if Moore was giving the chance at a starting back behind a solid line, he could be a solid running back in the league, or atleast make a solid duo wiht a bigger power back. You can show me his stats from 2005 all you want, but you have to look at the line he ran behind, over the year it consisted of Bryant McKinnie (the only solid player), Adam Goldberg, Anthony Herrera, Marcus Johnson, Melvin Fowler, Chris Liwienski, and Toniu Fonoti. Only 2 of those players is starting today, one of them is very marginal and on a crappy line. Marcus Johnson looked great on that line as a rookie, only because he wasn't quite as bad as the rest of the line, and he struggled when put on a much more talented line this year.

Hold on a second champ. I spent about 100 words explaining why I think he is better than Michael Turner, don't pick a single statement out to criticize. I would love to have Moore on the Seahawks, don't get me wrong. However, considering the Vikings have been going out of their way to keep him off the field (Signing Chester Taylor, drafting Adrian Peterson) I think it is suffice to say that Minnesota's opinion of him is far less than your own opinion. I have a very low opinion of most runningbacks, so don't feel that I hate Moore, I only think that there are a handful of backs in the NFL who are, or have the capability to be dominating forces. I think that a vast majority of the rest rely on scheme, and offensive system's for success. Mewelde is a far more versatile back than Turner, and if San Diego were to trade Turner, Moore would be an upgrade at backup.

[black19]

Originally Posted by michael I don't get why everyone acts like the Chargers still can't trade Turner. The trade deadline is still a ways off and who is to say that a starting back wont get hurt and be out for the year. Like I said before I don't think the Chargers were straight up offered a first round pick for Turner, but i bet anything that if Smith gets a call halfway throught the season to deal Turner for a first round pick he will take it in a heartbeat.

The point is that the Chargers have less ammo now that the draft has passed. Yes they can still get rid of him, but why would any team do it knowing they can just wait and get him as an FA. This would be a similar situation to Nate Clements and the 9ers. The Niners wanted him last year but Buffalo was asking too much. The Niners waited and got him anyway.

[NYJets30]

^^^ but still for too much lol

[black19]

Originally Posted by NYJets30 ^^^ but still for too much lol

True, but they won't have to part with picks.

[michael]

If a team really wants Turner, and thinks he has the tallent to be a top 5 back in this league, I'm not sure they would want to take the risk of losing him in FA and I bet if they waited untill FA to get him he will probably cost a lot more. Some people think he is first round tallent so it would just be like the team got to draft their player earlier than everyone else. And I don't really like the Clements example... The Niners didn't want him because the Bills were asking too much and then they make him the richest defensive player in NFL history? Sounds to me like they gave up a lot for him anyways.

[kc5950]

Originally Posted by michael If a team really wants Turner, and thinks he has the tallent to be a top 5 back in this league, I'm not sure they would want to take the risk of losing him in FA and I bet if they waited untill FA to get him he will probably cost a lot more. Some people think he is first round tallent so it would just be like the team got to draft their player earlier than everyone else. And I don't really like the Clements example... The Niners didn't want him because the Bills were asking too much and then they make him the richest defensive player in NFL history? Sounds to me like they gave up a lot for him anyways.

The only exception I take to this is the fact that Michael Turner will be 25 when next season starts, and is barely anymore proven than he was coming out of NIU. He has not proven that he can carry the load over an entire game, let alone remain productive carrying the load for an entire season. I don't think that I have any information, or an abstract thought that every potentially interested GM in the NFL hasn't had. I just simply do not think that he has proven enough for an NFL GM to justify his failure, both in regard to his contract, and expected 1st rounder it would take to acquire him.
.

[onetwo]

No RB drafted in the first round has proven that he could carry a full load in the NFL but people don't criticize teams for drafting them. Turner has proven he can hang with the boys in the NFL, but has not proven he can carry a full load. So drafting a a RB is still riskier than trading a first round pick for Turner

[kc5950]

Originally Posted by onetwo No RB drafted in the first round has proven that he could carry a full load in the NFL but people don't criticize teams for drafting them. Turner has proven he can hang with the boys in the NFL, but has not proven he can carry a full load. So drafting a a RB is still riskier than trading a first round pick for Turner

No, but most of them are 4 years younger, and have played against better perceived competition. Considering the fact that the median best possible scenario is that Turner gives you 5 more years. Also, he will likely sign a contract upwards of 1st overall pick money, thus increasing his risk. Trading for a guy like Michael Turner has a high probability to be General Manager suicide. No team who I believe has enough interest in Turner to even consider giving up a high round pick was picking in the middle of the 1st round also. That means that due to the normal contract a player taken in that slot would receive, trading for Turner (who would no doubt get an extension) is actually realistically about three times the risk financially, and four years older.

[black19]

Originally Posted by michael If a team really wants Turner, and thinks he has the tallent to be a top 5 back in this league, I'm not sure they would want to take the risk of losing him in FA and I bet if they waited untill FA to get him he will probably cost a lot more. Some people think he is first round tallent so it would just be like the team got to draft their player earlier than everyone else. And I don't really like the Clements example... The Niners didn't want him because the Bills were asking too much and then they make him the richest defensive player in NFL history? Sounds to me like they gave up a lot for him anyways.

I'm not sure any NFL team considers Turner to be a top 5 back in this league. As far as Clements contract goes, we've already gone over the logistics of the contract he received in other threads. It's more than just years and dollars. To make a long story short, Clements will never see $80 Million. The Niners made a pretty good move in waiting on him as they were able to get the player they wanted and retain draft picks which turned out to be a smart move based on the guys they were able to snag in the draft this year.