RealGM

http://www.realgmfootball.com/src_wiret ... in_turner/

Union-Tribune - Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans are the teams most heavily interested in San Diego running back Michael Turner, according to the Union-Tribune.

Turner could be a free agent until after the draft because of the large crop of running backs who will be available.

Turner is an unrestricted free agent.

I think it would be a good idea to sign him. The Bears NEED to sign some players to fill holes because they just don't have enough draft picks to do it. And if they really plan on contending this year, rookies will not put them over the top. You know what you are getting in Turner more than you do with rookie RB's.

But how about this. Say Mendenhall drops to the Bears at 14 and Turner is still unsigned. What do you do?

Looking at it, why would Turner sign in New Orleans? He'd be a backup, and don't they still have McCallister? He'd start in Detroit, but I could only see him going there if the money is through the roof. Chicago is home and he'd be an instant number 1. I could see why he wouldn't want to sign in Chicago with the O-Line and QB in limbo but if it's between those three teams I think Chicago wins out.

I think if Michael Turner does go to saints, it will spell the end of McCallister or well just tell us they don't really trust Reggie as a RB. (I think it's the end of Deuce though. Look at Pierre Thomas. Beast)

Why would the Saints want Turner? They have Bush who they are spending a lot on and they have Deuce as well.

So we've put our hopes on Michael Turner... I hope coming home is enough for this guy 'cause you know the Bears are going to low ball the offer.

Hmmmm.... I don't see why he'd want to play for the saints, unless they move Bush to WR, then it'd be Deuce and Turner, which would be a sick combo.

Lions - they'd be interesting. He'd have a ton of WR to deflect the focus of the defense.

The Bears just seem like the obvious choice.

[quote="Ruben Douglas"]Looking at it, why would Turner sign in New Orleans? He'd be a backup, and don't they still have McCallister? He'd start in Detroit, but I could only see him going there if the money is through the roof. Chicago is home and he'd be an instant number 1. I could see why he wouldn't want to sign in Chicago with the O-Line and QB in limbo but if it's between those three teams I think Chicago wins out.[/quote]

I don't know if he'd be an instant #1. I think Benson would still be our guy considering we pay him so much.

I don't see this signing going through because we already are wasting so much salary on Benson. You know how the Bears are with paying guys at the same position.

The real need here is O-Line help. If Turner comes in, he won't do anything more than what Benson did last year if the O-Line is the same. I'd save the money and just pay one of the top FA O-lineman out there. We really are only 2 or 3 solid O-Lineman away from being pretty darn good in the trenches.

I kinda agree with chibears, getting Turner, without improving our O-line, is like having a bunch of bullets but no gun.

Do this.

I agree with chibears! If the Bears do manage to get an O-Line and RB (via FA or draft), whose to say we won't struggle then? I mean, if teams expect us to be a running machine again, without Berrian or any decent core of WRs, opposing Defenses are going to stack 5 or 6 (maybe 7) in the box to stop the run etc. We have too many holes, we need to address the O-Line first, then probably have a decent WR (esp. if we lose Berrian) to make some big catches who can take the big hit. I think we have good draft positioning to address most of this and enough $ to procure some FAs. However, the really top tier FAs are getting nabbed up early right now. I dunno about you guys, but I'm really pessimistic on Angelo and his abilities as a GM.