Bills to move up for AP or trade for Turner

[X-Era]

Buffalo Bills Updated:04/26/2007
While there is some thought that the Titans are the team most interested in running back Michael Turner, according to the Houston Chronicle, the Bills will be the ones who end up with Turner if they are unable to make a move on Adrian Peterson by trading up. Buffalo might send at least their second rounder this year (#43) along with an additional pick to the Chargers for Turner.

Source is NFL.com

I think the Bills realize what a fine RB can do for this team.

[don137]

I prefer Turner over AP just because I am a little concerned about injuries and I worry about giving up too much to move up.

[X-Era]

I prefer Turner over AP just because I am a little concerned about injuries and I worry about giving up too much to move up.

Turner, Lynch, AP, even Michael Bush. I just hope its one of those guys.

I have my favorites in that bunch, but I cant complain.

The one thing that could make this sweet is a move for Turner that allows us to still get Patrick Willis. Thats a nice combo.

If there was a way to get AP and trade for Briggs thats even better. Two 3rd rounders? maybe one this year and one next year? It probably would take even more.

That would mean moving up by sending our 1st and 2nd to Wash for AP, then sending our top 3rd and next years extra 3rd plus another pick for Briggs, and STILL leaves us with another 3rd rounder.

A day one that nets us:

Adrian Peterson
Lance Briggs
Quincy Black, or Earl Everrett

Thats a very nice way to make your team better

[Don't Panic]

Turner seems the most likely of the bunch because of the price we'd have to give to get him. I still think the best scenario is us trading down to Dallas or Denver and picking up a 2nd, taking Beason or Timmons and trading for Turner. We would still keep a 2nd rounder and address our two biggest needs. We'd have three first day picks left to address WR, LB, DL and/or CB. I would be very happy with this scenario.

[X-Era]

Turner seems the most likely of the bunch because of the price we'd have to give to get him. I still think the best scenario is us trading down to Dallas or Denver and picking up a 2nd, taking Beason or Timmons and trading for Turner. We would still keep a 2nd rounder and address our two biggest needs. We'd have three first day picks left to address WR, LB, DL and/or CB. I would be very happy with this scenario.

Trading down makes sense, but when you do that, you get lesser talent. Thats the gamble you make.

Weve spent a decade in mediocrity, its time to step out of that.

[ddaryl]

Trading down makes sense, but when you do that, you get lesser talent. Thats the gamble you make.

Weve spent a decade in mediocrity, its time to step out of that.


Lesser Talent ? I think this forum could point out quite a few picks made after the #12 pick that turned out to be a greater talent.

and then there are the numerous top 12 busts.... Mike Williams anyone.

but you are right it is a gamble. It really just comes down to talent evaluation and gut feelings. If the players the Bills covet are off the board at #12 then trading down makes a heluva alotta sense. We could trade back pick up extra picks, trade for Turner and still have 4 1st day picks, and still end up with a LB liek Beason or Poz.

[Ickybaluky]

IMO, trading down always makes sense for a team with multiple needs if there are several players who you feel the same way about. If you have several players all ranked pretty closely on your board, why not trade down a few spots and pick up another pick? You will still get one of those players.

When trading down doesn't make sense is if there is a guy that sticks out on the board. If the Bills pick comes up and someone like Beason is clearly the best player on their board at the time, then they would be better off over-drafting him and getting the player. Trading down is dumb in that case, because you risk losing a player. That is probably what happened with Whitner last year.

The same is true for trading up. If there is a player you clearly have rated higher than other players available on your board, you move to get him if it is possible.

This year it seems fewer teams are interested in trading up, so trading down might not be available as an option. Trading up may be a better value.