Packers after RB Turner?

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
I thought of an interesting but only one in one million chance of happening sciernos for obvious reasons.

Packers get

Randy Moss
Michael Turner

Chargers get

16th overall pick

Raiders get

30th overall pick

Thompson probably wouldn't do that but personally I'd be all over that if I could get the contracts done with the players. Also I doubt two division rivals would want to be involved in the same deal.

Another thought to this. If the Pack do move down to 30 and pickup Turner they could then trade their original 2nd round pick for Moss and use #30 to move down into round 2 and obtain multiple picks. #30 could probably get the Pack a 2nd and 3rd this year. This would allow the Pack to address TE on Day 1 and Safety for sure as well as possibly adding someone like Brian Leonard to play FB or offensive line depth. These are moves that I believe could put the Pack near the top of the NFC. However right now it’s more so wishful thinking.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
bozz_2006 said:
if we could pick him up with a swapping of 1st round picks, i'd be all over that but i think they'll want more, ie. swapping first round picks and a 2nd day pick... or maybe even swapping 1sts + a 3rd rounder. still, i agree with warhawk, i'd do that before trying to move up in the draft to pick up A. Peterson

GB has to give up a 1st and a 3rd
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
bozz_2006 said:
if we could pick him up with a swapping of 1st round picks, i'd be all over that but i think they'll want more, ie. swapping first round picks and a 2nd day pick... or maybe even swapping 1sts + a 3rd rounder. still, i agree with warhawk, i'd do that before trying to move up in the draft to pick up A. Peterson

GB has to give up a 1st and a 3rd

Only if the Packers sign him to an offer sheet and San Diego decides not to match. The Packers and Chargers can work out a seperate deal if they desire too. Much like the Texans and Falcons did with Matt Schaub.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
SD ain't budging


From CBS Sportsline


Say hello to San Diego's Michael Turner. He's a restricted free agent. He's tendered with a one-year offer. And he's available ... for the right price.

Which is where we, er, you, have a problem.


You see, to acquire Turner it will cost first- and third-round draft picks, compensation that all but killed interest in one of the league's promising talents. I hedge here because there's still time, with April 20 the deadline for signing restricted free agents to offer sheets.

The probability, of course, is that no one will jump for Turner. He's strictly a backup, playing only when LaDainian Tomlinson sits down, and has 157 carries in three NFL seasons, with 80 attempts in 2006 a career high. He also returns kicks.

So why, clubs ask themselves, spend two draft picks on him?

Well, the guy is good. Real good. When I asked one NFL general manager about Turner, he went on and on about his speed, quickness, power and vision. What he didn't mention is that Turner -- nicknamed "The Burner" -- has a career average of 6.0 yards per carry, improves his numbers each season and ended the Colts' unbeaten run in 2005 with a game-clinching 83-yard touchdown.

"He has all the intangibles you look for in a running back," the GM said.

What he doesn't have, of course, is much of a chance. Not with L.T. ahead of him. Turner plays only when Tomlinson needs a breather or when the Chargers are so far ahead they can sit the league's MVP.

But that's one reason Turner is intriguing. He hasn't absorbed the hits of, say, Jamal Lewis. He has far more upside than Ahman Green. And, frankly, he's a better, more powerful runner than Dominic Rhodes. Yet all of those backs signed free-agent contracts worth megabucks, while Turner sat home waiting for offseason workouts to begin.

That doesn't mean he won't cash in. In gaining the highest tender, Turner picks up $2.35 million for one year's service as Tomlinson's caddy. Then, when he becomes a free agent a year from now, he is auctioned to the highest bidder -- and, trust me, there will be no shortage of suitors ready to empty their vaults.

So if you're an NFL shopper, why not beat the rush? Why not take a chance on the guy now, figuring you can't do better in the draft than you can with Turner?

Well, some clubs have. They contacted the Chargers to see if they're willing to deal Turner at a reduced cost, but they might as well have been looking for snow in Mission Bay. It's just not going to happen. Sure, Turner is available ... for a one and a three. Period. End of discussion.

"Let's just say there has been a lot of activity," Chargers general manager A.J. Smith said of the number of inquiries.

Smith isn't interested in negotiating. He has something of value, and he intends to hold it as long as he can. That means one more season. He knows Turner probably will exit as a free agent after 2007, but, as he said, "that's what happens when you have good football teams. Guys go to the market."

But 2008 is not Smith's concern. This season is, and he intends to protect his club in critical areas. He did it a year ago, with Shaun Phillips behind Steve Foley at linebacker. I think we all know what happened there. And Smith did it in 2005, too, keeping Drew Brees and Philip Rivers when the GM's critics predicted he would jettison one.

Smith wants Michael Turner around as an insurance policy against an injury to Tomlinson. In six seasons L.T. missed exactly one game, so the odds of something happening there aren't what you'd call high. Yet, Smith isn't about to risk losing Turner -- unless, of course, someone is willing to meet the Chargers' demand.

"I believe in depth," Smith said.

That's why he stuck the highest possible tender on Michael Turner. It would have been less expensive for the Chargers if Smith reduced the cost to a first-rounder alone, but then he would have invited interest.

Look what happened with Laveranues Coles in 2003. When the Jets made the mistake of tendering the wide receiver with a first-round draft choice as compensation, Washington jumped in with an offer sheet the Jets did not match.

Afterward, Redskins officials acknowledged they wouldn't have acted had the Jets upped the price to a first- and third-rounder.

That explains what's going on with Michael Turner -- or, more accurately, what is not going on. When the New York Jets needed a starter at running back, they didn't think about signing Turner to an offer sheet; they traded for Thomas Jones. It cost them a second-round draft pick for a former first-rounder who rushed for a combined 2,545 yards the past two seasons.

Turner is far more expensive, which is why nobody has budged. And why, in all likelihood, nobody will.

Michael Turner is the best back out there, but he's a rarity in The Year of Spending Freely: He's a back no one can afford.
 

bozz_2006

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
283
Location
Grand Forks, ND
pyledriver80 said:
bozz_2006 said:
if we could pick him up with a swapping of 1st round picks, i'd be all over that but i think they'll want more, ie. swapping first round picks and a 2nd day pick... or maybe even swapping 1sts + a 3rd rounder. still, i agree with warhawk, i'd do that before trying to move up in the draft to pick up A. Peterson

GB has to give up a 1st and a 3rd

Only if the Packers sign him to an offer sheet and San Diego decides not to match. The Packers and Chargers can work out a seperate deal if they desire too. Much like the Texans and Falcons did with Matt Schaub.

thanks.
 

OregonPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
OregonPackFan said:
After Peterson there isn't anything special in this draft class. Lynch is not special.

What makes you think that?

Average speed, barely a decent receiver, major durabillity concerns, always shared carries in college, some character issues,

overall he's just an average RB to come out, he's not special like Reggie Bush i.e.
 

OregonPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Forget Randy Moss, forget Adrian Peterson, forget Marshawn Lynch

we are getting Michael Turner and Calvin Johnson!!

Let's hope TT the magician can make both those moves happen, our franchise would be in great shape if it happened.
 

OregonPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
all about da packers said:
Greg C. said:
Thanks for the feedback. But are there any larger backs that have had success in this scheme? It seems like the guys in Denver have all been small to medium sized. And I heard that the Falcons traded away T.J. Duckett, who is a larger, power-back type, because he wasn't fitting the scheme well. Najeh Davenport did not fit the scheme, either. That's why I'm skeptical.

I think you're right to be skeptical, I can only think of Droughens as the other 'larger' back to have been in the scheme, and he is around 220 LBS. However his success was for only one year before he got traded.

Problem with Turner is that he is listed at 237 LBS on the Chargers website. That is a significant different (in football terms) than 220. That makes me think he might not be that good of a fit...

As long as he can read the hole his size shouldn't play a huge factor. The zone blocking scheme is all about making the proper reads. In a man blocking scheme the RB knows where the hole is going to be when the huddle breaks. In the zone blocking scheme he has an idea of where it will be but it generally can open up anywhere. The player reads the hole and makes the cut. It's really a simple philosophy. That's why I don't understand why people make it out more than it is for the running back. I hear “will he work in it” all the time on this forum but with the proper coaching the system is designed to plug just about anybody back there and it should work.

Look at Ron Dayne last year. He had success for the Texans late last year and he's about 245. He's good at making reads though and that's why he ended up working well there late last year.

Generally the system is tough for offensive lineman and fullbacks. They have to be quicker and common sense says for them to be quicker they have to be smaller so they can get low. You could still fine a big guy and play him there but it’s rare. A smaller lineman can also struggle there if he lacks quickness and can’t make proper cuts. Lineman and Fullbacks play a far more important role than the running back in this scheme. So guys like Turner and Peterson could easily work in this scheme especially if they are coached well.

Michael Turner is faster than Marshawn Lynch, he also has good quickness off the line, what makes anyone think Turner isn't a good fit when they think Lynch is a good fit?
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
we are getting Michael Turner and Calvin Johnson!!

Let's hope TT the magician can make both those moves happen, our franchise would be in great shape if it happened.


Realistically, the chances of that happening are about the same as hell freezing over.

You'd have to give over a TON in draft picks to trade up to get Johnson.

Based on what Schuab got traded for, the Packers would have to dip into next years draft picks (day 1) to make the trade work. Then you'd have Turner's contract demands, I'm sure he'd like to get paid as a #1 and if you don't pay him you risk loosing him to FA next year or are forced into applying the franchise tag on him....

In the end, it may be more wise to sign a vet this year, and target Turner next year when he is an UFA.
 

OregonPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
hey, I want to live in the hope! :D

wow this is the most exciting offseason in a looong time.

The Packers have some crucial decisions to make for the future.
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
porky88 said:
all about da packers said:
Greg C. said:
Thanks for the feedback. But are there any larger backs that have had success in this scheme? It seems like the guys in Denver have all been small to medium sized. And I heard that the Falcons traded away T.J. Duckett, who is a larger, power-back type, because he wasn't fitting the scheme well. Najeh Davenport did not fit the scheme, either. That's why I'm skeptical.

I think you're right to be skeptical, I can only think of Droughens as the other 'larger' back to have been in the scheme, and he is around 220 LBS. However his success was for only one year before he got traded.

Problem with Turner is that he is listed at 237 LBS on the Chargers website. That is a significant different (in football terms) than 220. That makes me think he might not be that good of a fit...

As long as he can read the hole his size shouldn't play a huge factor. The zone blocking scheme is all about making the proper reads. In a man blocking scheme the RB knows where the hole is going to be when the huddle breaks. In the zone blocking scheme he has an idea of where it will be but it generally can open up anywhere. The player reads the hole and makes the cut. It's really a simple philosophy. That's why I don't understand why people make it out more than it is for the running back. I hear “will he work in it” all the time on this forum but with the proper coaching the system is designed to plug just about anybody back there and it should work.

Look at Ron Dayne last year. He had success for the Texans late last year and he's about 245. He's good at making reads though and that's why he ended up working well there late last year.

Generally the system is tough for offensive lineman and fullbacks. They have to be quicker and common sense says for them to be quicker they have to be smaller so they can get low. You could still fine a big guy and play him there but it’s rare. A smaller lineman can also struggle there if he lacks quickness and can’t make proper cuts. Lineman and Fullbacks play a far more important role than the running back in this scheme. So guys like Turner and Peterson could easily work in this scheme especially if they are coached well.

Michael Turner is faster than Marshawn Lynch, he also has good quickness off the line, what makes anyone think Turner isn't a good fit when they think Lynch is a good fit?

Lynch has better vision. He is more instinctive. Two things you need to play in the zone blocking scheme but personally with the right coaching either or would work. You said above he was an average receiver. That's an awful assessment. He has great hands and he runs solid routes for a running back. Mid 4.4 40 yard dash is solid as well. It's definitely not slow. He did excellent in the agility drills. Lynch has just as much upside as Turner but Turner has far more experience and his combination of size and speed is probably one of the best in the NFL.
 

OregonPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
I didn't say Lynch was slow, I said his best wasn't more than average.

Also I believe he's not more than an average receiver from what I've seen.

Michael Turner has adequate vision, he's also quicker off the line than Lynch. Also in college he had only 2 fumbles in 508 carries. That has to be one of his most impressive stats, among many impressive stats.
 

warhawk

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,922
Reaction score
17
Location
Gulf Shores, Al
SD is not going to get a 1st and a 3rd for Turner.

After this season they will get 0 for him.

Their GM would be foolish not to explore the middle ground.

Depth is a great thing but holding onto Turner until he becomes a FA and leaves and ending up with zip is dumb.
 

OregonPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Their GM did it with Drew Brees. Could have traded him away, but kept both him and Rivers.

So obviously he's pretty stupid :p
 

warhawk

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,922
Reaction score
17
Location
Gulf Shores, Al
I know he did that but it doesn't make it a smart move and the QB position is different than RB.

When your loaded like SD was the only thing keeping you from the SB is an injury to your QB or having a HC who chokes.

He dealt with the first one and got jabbed by the second.

I'm not saying he won't sit on Turner but it's not the same move as holding onto Brees.
 

packerfan1245

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
721
Reaction score
0
Lynch will be good. I have he feeling. And you guys are the only people I have heard that lynch won't be god. I like him. :)
 

warhawk

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,922
Reaction score
17
Location
Gulf Shores, Al
GM's say a lot of things and end up doing something else. He's put a price tag on the dress and hung it on the rack.

I have a question. Did he do this with Brees? Did he dangle him out there at all or did he sit on him?

There comes a time when just sitting on guys for the luxury of having depth and ultimately getting nothing when they leave get's your own *** gone.

He'd be smarter taking a 1st in '08 and getting something for the guy or am I missing something. I mean that's a helluva return for a guy that's not going to get the ball more than six times a game.
 

Pack93z

You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
8
Location
Central Wisconsin
Lynch will be good. I have he feeling. And you guys are the only people I have heard that lynch won't be god. I like him. :)

I agree, three years from now, we will see that Lynch was a better overall pick than Peterson. IMO. Lynch is not the runner Peterson is, but a better overall total back.
 

LambeauLeaper

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Location
Arizona
Their GM did it with Drew Brees. Could have traded him away, but kept both him and Rivers.

So obviously he's pretty stupid :p

Your sarcasm (which doesn't bother me, btw) leads one to believe you thought that WAS smart. Brees walked the next year and they got nothing for him. Please explain to me how that was a smart move.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
OregonPackFan said:
Their GM did it with Drew Brees. Could have traded him away, but kept both him and Rivers.

So obviously he's pretty stupid :p

Your sarcasm (which doesn't bother me, btw) leads one to believe you thought that WAS smart. Brees walked the next year and they got nothing for him. Please explain to me how that was a smart move.


They also went 14-2
 

LambeauLeaper

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Location
Arizona
They also went 14-2

I realize that, but that doesn't change (nor does it justify) the fact that they didn't receive anything in return for Brees. If they at least had gotten draft picks it would help down the road when the players that got them to 14-2 are no longer around.

I'm not saying A.J. Smith is dumb, and maybe the Brees/Rivers situation ended up working out well for them, but he's not maximizing the value of his players by letting them walk for nothing when he could have gotten valuable return the year before.
 

net

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
980
Reaction score
22
Location
Rhinelander
I haven't read all the posts here, so I hope I'm not plowing the same ground, but I think this would be a tremendous move by Ted Thompson.

You don't hear me praising Ted very often, but this is a very, very good thing if it happens.

Go to NFL.com and look at Turner's stats. He averaged more than 6 yards a carry this year. Schottenheimer's offense is close to McCarthy's offense. Turner is 24-25 years old with low mileage. He backed up the league MVP.

The draft is not the be-all and end-all of building a team. Getting the right player at the right time is. Drafting means you have a ROOKIE. Rookies rarely work out right away, with Hawk being one of the few exceptions.
So the Packers would have an experienced, young, tough runner to get the ball from Brett Favre. Other than A. Green, I can't think of a better situation for Green Bay. All for the price of an iffy draft pick, this would be a good thing.

If it happens, chalk up a positive for Ted Thompson.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
I haven't read all the posts here, so I hope I'm not plowing the same ground, but I think this would be a tremendous move by Ted Thompson.

You don't hear me praising Ted very often, but this is a very, very good thing if it happens.

Go to NFL.com and look at Turner's stats. He averaged more than 6 yards a carry this year. Schottenheimer's offense is close to McCarthy's offense. Turner is 24-25 years old with low mileage. He backed up the league MVP.

The draft is not the be-all and end-all of building a team. Getting the right player at the right time is. Drafting means you have a ROOKIE. Rookies rarely work out right away, with Hawk being one of the few exceptions.
So the Packers would have an experienced, young, tough runner to get the ball from Brett Favre. Other than A. Green, I can't think of a better situation for Green Bay. All for the price of an iffy draft pick, this would be a good thing.

If it happens, chalk up a positive for Ted Thompson.

I feel the same Net. However, I doubt this will happen. This would be an awesome move. Turner could possibly be the back of the future if we would land him. I feel much better about him than drafting a rookie to run the ball.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top