Update | Team denies interest in M. Turner

[superpunk]

How many of the first-round picks who have been drafted since the Raiders signed Jordan would have been better behind that offensive line?

Seriously...the Raiders o-line has been atrocious for 3 years now. I was shocked Jordan was able to put up a thousand yards in that offense.

To me the only thing the Lamont Jordan argument proves is that if you're going to go out and get a good RB, it's probably a good idea to put him behind at lease an average o-line. If your o-line sucks as bad as the Raiders has of late you probably ought to focus on that rather than on signing RB's and receivers in the offseason.

We go from precedent to "How bad does the Raiders line suck"?

Therefore.....I don't have the slightest idea what you're going on about.

precedent, homey.

 

[Thunderstruck]

We go from precedent to "How bad does the Raiders line suck"?

Therefore.....I don't have the slightest idea what you're going on about.

precedent, homey.

Priest Holmes was a backup and undrafted. Then he went to the Chiefs and became a superstar.

Unless you're trying to assert that giving up draft compensation somehow makes the player less likely to be successful, then that's precedent.

 

[JPostSam]

1st round pick for this guy? He's a nice player, but he's never been the lead dog and most of his running is after LT has loosened up the defense. Let's hold on to our draft picks, especially when we have a very good rb combo already in place.

he's a nice player, and i had hoped that we would get him in the draft, but come on! he had all of 80 carries last year. you don't dump your starting running back -- who ran for over 1,000 yards on the season -- based on 80 carries.

 

[superpunk]

Priest Holmes was a backup and undrafted. Then he went to the Chiefs and became a superstar.

Unless you're trying to assert that giving up draft compensation somehow makes the player less likely to be successful, then that's precedent.

What in the heck are you talking about?

I ask, because I am talking about what the precedent is for trade value of second-string RBs who back up the league's leading rusher. Lamont Jordan netted a third - in case you didn't know, his subsequent performance for his new team (as well as Holmes', amazingly enough) is completely irrelevent.

So why are people going to give the CHargers so much more for Turner?

You must be confident because of how masterfully AJ Smith handled the trading of Brees.

 

[dmoore]

LaMont Jordan wasn't a bad player at all. His 2005 season was pretty impressive actually, 1000+ rush yards and 500+ rec yards. Injuries really hurt him last year, and it didn't help that he was on the least talented offense I've seen in years. I'd give a 3rd round draft pick for production like he had in 2005. No doubt about it.

Plus Michael Turner isn't necessarily the same kind of back that LaMont is, so comparing the two isn't fair IMO.

 

[superpunk]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. :shootme:

 

[Thunderstruck]

So why are people going to give the CHargers so much more for Turner?

You must be confident because of how masterfully AJ Smith handled the trading of Brees.

Well, first of all AJ was totally handcuffed by the fact that Brees sustained a major shoulder-injury. No one was going to give up anything good for him under those circumstances. And it's not like we're worse-off without DB.

Secondly, *if* someone gives up more for Turner it will be based upon them actually, you know...looking at film and scouting the player rather than basing their opinion on a stat-sheet or a tiny sample of one precedent. I'll wager you've never actually watched Turner play and that you never really took note of Jordan when he was with the Jets. Turner is a better athlete, more explosive, faster, and runs much tougher. (That was always the knock on Jordan, he didn't always run tough, even as a backup.)

 

[superpunk]

Well, first of all AJ was totally handcuffed by the fact that Brees sustained a major shoulder-injury. No one was going to give up anything good for him under those circumstances. And it's not like we're worse-off without DB.

Debatable, at best. Completely wrong at worst. But think what you will - it's your team.

I'll wager you've never actually watched Turner play and that you never really took note of Jordan when he was with the Jets. Turner is a better athlete, more explosive, faster, and runs much tougher. (That was always the knock on Jordan, he didn't always run tough, even as a backup.)

You'd wager wrong. What do I win?

Find me a precedent for ANY RB - backup or otherwise, garnering what you imagine you're getting for Turner. I can only think of one, and he had shown MUCH more before the trade went down.

G'head - find me one example (besides the one I'm thinking of, because the team trading was again - surprise - ********) of any sort of precedent for the Chargers getting whta you think they'll be getting.

My money's on second rounder - AT MOST. Where's yours?

 

[Thunderstruck]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. :shootme:

It's because you're so hung up on the fact that Turner's a backup and on the broad sample of one Lamont Jordan precedent you're forgetting to actually look at the player and his upside.

 

[superpunk]

It's because you're so hung up on the fact that Turner's a backup and on the broad sample of one Lamont Jordan precedent you're forgetting to actually look at the player and his upside.

I hate getting "hung up" in the real world - with how things actually work.

It makes dealing with the people living in fairyland more difficult.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Debatable, at best. Completely wrong at worst. But think what you will - it's your team.



You'd wager wrong. What do I win?

Find me a precedent for ANY RB - backup or otherwise, garnering what you imagine you're getting for Turner. I can only think of one, and he had shown MUCH more before the trade went down.

G'head - find me one example (besides the one I'm thinking of, because the team trading was again - surprise - ********) of any sort of precedent for the Chargers getting whta you think they'll be getting.

My money's on second rounder - AT MOST. Where's yours?

Why do you need precedent when you then go on to provide a guess that doesn't really have a precedent? A second-rounder for a backup running back? You're crazy! Unless you acknowledge that MT isn't your run-of-the-mill backup.

If everything needed precedent, nothing would ever happen.

In answer to your question, my money's on some sort of first-round swap, trading our first plus Turner, like trading up with the Bills from #30 to #12, or trading up with the Titans plus a fourth-rounder in '08 or something like that.

 

[Thunderstruck]

It makes dealing with the people living in fairyland more difficult.

I don't live anywhere near San Francisco.

 

[superpunk]

Why do you need precedent when you then go on to provide a guess that doesn't really have a precedent? A second-rounder for a backup running back? You're crazy! Unless you acknowledge that MT isn't your run-of-the-mill backup.

If everything needed precedent, nothing would ever happen.

In answer to your question, my money's on some sort of first-round swap, trading our first plus Turner, like trading up with the Bills from #30 to #12, or trading up with the Titans plus a fourth-rounder in '08 or something like that.

Precedent is what keeps you in the real world. That is what contracts, trades, and business decisions are based on. There is no way in hell you will get that much of a swap for Turner. You can get backs like Turner in the mid-rounds. Jerrious Norwood is just another example. RBs are perhaps the LEAST valuable commodity in the NFL.

All this added together = 2nd rounder, at most. It may be more fun to live in a world where the rest of the league would sell their souls for your backups, but it is hardly based in reality. Have fun in the land of make-believe, and be sure to check back in when reality comes crashing down, and you end up with a late third rounder.

 

[big dog cowboy]

He'd be the most physically gifted back you've had since Herschel Walker.

It's been 2 hours and I'm still

 

[Thunderstruck]

Precedent is what keeps you in the real world. That is what contracts, trades, and business decisions are based on. There is no way in hell you will get that much of a swap for Turner. You can get backs like Turner in the mid-rounds. Jerrious Norwood is just another example. RBs are perhaps the LEAST valuable commodity in the NFL.

All this added together = 2nd rounder, at most. It may be more fun to live in a world where the rest of the league would sell their souls for your backups, but it is hardly based in reality. Have fun in the land of make-believe, and be sure to check back in when reality comes crashing down, and you end up with a late third rounder.

If running backs are so non-valuable, then why do teams ever spend a top-5 pick on one?

It's easy to get a run-of-the-mill everyday starter at RB.

MUCH harder to get a game-changer.

 

[iceberg]

We go from precedent to "How bad does the Raiders line suck"?

Therefore.....I don't have the slightest idea what you're going on about.

precedent, homey.

that's cause he's got an answer for everything. this is a case when answer = excuse.

it's why i bailed. if thundercracker isn't going to talk realistically no sense in humoring him. every example you bring up isn't a point, it's to be shot down.

very insecure.

 

[iceberg]

If running backs are so non-valuable, then why do teams ever spend a top-5 pick on one?

It's easy to get a run-of-the-mill everyday starter at RB.

MUCH harder to get a game-changer.

and just how many games as turner changed?

 

[superpunk]

If running backs are so non-valuable, then why do teams ever spend a top-5 pick on one?

Because they've had enormously productive college careers and look to translate well to the pros.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Are you even reading what I write before you think of your next irrelevent tangent, or is it all kind of just passing through? We're talking about trade value and you've gone everywhere from the Oakland Raiders offesnive line to why teams draft certain Rbs high. None of this supports any of your ideas.

Backs like Turner have come and gone as back-ups. They've even looked explosive, powerful, and ran hard. (Yeah - people do that outside of San Diego) But, NONE of them have ever fetched the handsome price you think young Mr. Turner will garner. Why is that? Are NFL teams just not as familiar as you are with the value of these backs enormous upside POTENTIAL? (I capitalized it because that word is important. Along with precedent, it's basically a two-word argument outlining why the Chargers aren't getting more than a second) You're suggesting that Turner is that otherworldly good - that he will make teams do things they have never done before.

Edgerrin James wasn't that good. Shaun Alexander wasn't that good. Thomas Jones wasn't that good.

Michael Turner is?

Gamechanger? Spare me.

 

[peplaw06]

It's easy to get a run-of-the-mill everyday starter at RB.

MUCH harder to get a game-changer.

Which one is Turner?

 

[big dog cowboy]

Which one is Turner?

I don't know. But I did hear that he's the most physically gifted back we have had since Herschel Walker.