Thurman#1

Yeah. Probably depends who got raised up to the 51 in his place. Whoever it was was apparently not a minimum salary guy. Or alternatively whoever did the figuring on how much dead money they owe for him may have missed the $4.5 mill roster bonus they gave him in 2015, if I remember correctly. $12.3 mill available now. And the Bills always keep around $6 mill or so available going through the season in case of injuries they might need FAs for. So that'll be around $6 mill they have to use. With our depth problems, that's money we can really use. It'll be interesting to see what they do with it.

I'd guess 5 - 6. Plus or minus one or two. Too early to say, of course, but if we're guessing now ...

Not entirely true. Tyrod to the RBs 89/ 459 ... 19.4% Rodgers to the RBs 104/615 ... 16.9% Ryan 114/530 ... 21.5% Brady 130/ 546 ... 23.8% Roethlis 126/ 590 ... 26.4% Though Brady and Roethlisberger threw a bit larger percentages to RBs than Tyrod, he was almost exactly on a par with Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan. Nobody was that far out in front, really, though Brady threw significantly larger percentages than any of the others. In any case, I expect Shady to have a good year but for them to limit his touches at his age.

You don't have to be told. It's really not how it's done. He says he'll be happy w/200 a game passing if we put up 250 per game running and win. 250 running a game? We're by far the best in the game and we're not even in the same county, much less the same ballpark. Nobody except us manages 150 a game and we put up 164.4, which is terrific. 250 a game running ... Jeez. And even with that terrific running attack, we won seven games. There was plenty of room left over for more productivity from the pass game. And while a great run game does potentially mean fewer pass plays, it also makes it easier for the pass game when they do decide to throw the ball. Fewer passes is a good reason for smaller gross numbers, but it doesn't give any good reason for lesser efficiency.

I'd argue they tell a story of inconsistency and being pretty good. 800 yards a year and 6 plus TDs don't say "very good." Nor does the catch percentage, which was less than Woods', for instance. With yeah, that one terrific streak, but also a lot of not so terrific production. In any case, let's say I agree he's already very good even with his injury history. I don't, but let's say I did. If trading a very good player was the difference between getting and not getting a top ten QB ... I make the trade in an instant. I trade McCoy, Glenn, Sammy, Incognito ... there's not a player on the team I wouldn't trade to make that difference. That argument doesn't entirely hold up. Beckham, for instance, has a much higher catch rate than the other Giants recievers do over the period. It's more him than Eli. And yet Woods has a higher catch rate than Sammy. Defenses plan to attack the pass games of those teams. In Buffalo, it's been "Make him be a quarterback." They plan to stop the run first. Having Tyrod as his QB has likely had some very positive effects as well what you're looking at.

t His per-target production is elite, you say? Beckham: 63% catch rate (higher than his teammates), 9.01 yards per target. 7.66 TDs per target. That's elite. Antonio Brown: 67% catch rate. 8.87 yards per target. 5.30 TDs per target. Julio Jones: 64% catch rate. 9.79 yards per target. 5.15 TDs per target. Sammy: 55% catch rate. 8.91 yards per target. Very fine yards and TDs per target. Ungreat catch rate. They do not. Injuries have looked like a much larger factor. The target numbers are likely effect rather than cause. He might, for example, not have been getting open as much when injured, causing his target numbers to go down.

Look at the story. These injuries aren't just in one season. He's been injured consistently. It's a move that could be good or bad depending on what they got for him and what they turned it into. IMHO, anyway. I agree there's a lot of good arguments against trading him. I just think that if it became the difference between getting and not getting a QB who is a consistent top ten guy, I'd support it in a second. Though I absolutely agree that a healthy Sammy stands a chance of being a very good player.

Agreed, but all context, not just one stat. Fewest passes. Terrific ground game to take pressure off the pass game. Injuries. An unspectacular catch percentage, even compared to a few of his teammates over the years he's been here. And also his terrific nine-game streak. But also the times he just didn't look dangerous. There's a lot of context. Plenty more for Watkins detractors and supporters to add in.

While he didn't miss a lot of games, he spent much of his first two years fighting injuries as well. Here's a story listing some: http://www.espn.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/24712/add-broken-foot-to-sammy-watkins-growing-list-of-nfl-injuries I agree that a trade is unlikely. Highly unlikely? Fair enough. And the Bills shouldn't take any low offer. But it's possible someone on another team could have as much faith in his eventual ability to become a very good player as many on this thread seem to.

While I'm no huge Tyrod fan, what you're saying there is a guess. Could be right. But equally, maybe his injuries and other circumstances would not have allowed much improvement. We don't know, though certainly you might be right. Maybe extra wear and tear would have caused his injuries to become worse. We don't know.

Oh, you made a mistake? Fine, don't worry about it. These things happen. As for my saying that he isn't a bust, that that shouldn't be an argument at this point, I stand by it. A #4 pick. Who's gotten 2459 yards (7th best in his draft so far) and 17 TDs, which comes out to 820 yards and 6.66 TDs per year. For, again, a #4 pick? Nope, not a bust. Too early to say that.

That's just it. Playing with an injury. The guy's been unable to stay healthy. Perhaps he'll stay healthy this year. But maybe not. And we'll be in a different offense this year, there's no knowing what'll happen, healthy or not. We just don't know, and that should make the trade possible. Certainly very unlikely. But possible especially if they think he could be turned into the final piece of a tradeup for a franchise QB.

So, noone is arguing that we gave up three picks in that trade? I'm afraid you missed one person who is arguing that. Which would be me. Because it's true. We did in fact give up three picks in that trade. It's what happened. The 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Given up in trade for the 2014 #4. One trade. Not two or three little mini-transactions. As for the rest of it, I won't address it anymore after this. You keep talking about implications that perhaps someone is making somewhere, but I certainly am not, nor do I care if somebody else is.

That's not reasonable. He earned it before the contract. That's why the Bills gave him a very high offer. But yeah, after the contract injuries and a scheme - Thanks, Rob Ryan!! - that never really fit him and a defense that just wasn't very good ... he didn't perform anywhere near the contract. But he did certainly play extremely well before the contract. Got a link of anyone from the Bills saying anything slightly like this? Or is it just more fan sour grapes? Yeah, he was about the money. So are they all, really, until the second or third multi-million dollar contract when they can start thinking about hometown discounts.

Yeah, cap is tight. We've got around $8.75 mill available after the top 51, and the Bills habit is to keep around $6 mill or so unused and available in case we need injury replacements during the season. Whoever we get won't likely cost much.

t I honestly have no idea why you're saying all of this to me. Have you mistaken me for someone else you're having a different argument with? That trade isn't "technically" one transaction. It's one transaction. There is no other way to look at it. We received the 2014 #4 in exchange for giving up three picks, the 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. That's the trade. Wanna use the word "swap" instead? Fine, they swapped the 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115 for the 2014 #4. But you're trying again to separate one trade into two or three separate mini-transactions. What the GMs mindsets are like here doesn't really interest me beyond that they both wanted something and so they had to give up something to get it. It's what trades are. As for the rest of what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're saying it to me. Or really exactly what you're saying. I think this has gone as far as it's worth taking it, personally.

Did I somewhere agree to say the best thing I could say? Is this even the best thing I actually said in that post about him? No. It appears to just be that you needed to say something negative, and I was there.

I'd argue what they said was right on. He has struggled during large parts of his career even when he was on the field. Now, yeah, he had that one nine-game streak when he was insanely cleaning up. But he's also had a lot of pretty meh games, and it's arguable that for a #4 pick a lot of meh games amounts to struggling. Here's his 2016 games: four catches on six targets for 43 yards two catches on five targets for 20 yards three catches on three targets for 80 yards, a very very good game three catches on nine targets for 38 yards four catches on six targets for 54 yards and a TD, a pretty good game one catch on four targets for 10 yards seven catches on 10 targets for 154 yards and a TD, a terrific game four catches on nine targets for 31 yards For a #4 pick, I think you could call that struggling a bit. 28 catches on 52 targets for 430 yards and 2 TDs in eight games? Yeah, it's not unreasonable to call that struggling. Now, you can't take that wildly productive purple patch in 2015 away from him. But it hasn't just been when he's here he's produced. He's struggled plenty. Probably injuries were a large part of that, but they're part of the picture so far with Sammy. Again, I'm not arguing he's a bust. It's not reasonable to say that yet.

No, that is simply not true. Find a dictionary definition somewhere that lists "get nothing in return" as a requirement for using the word "give up." You won't. It's not part of the meaning of that word. You give up something if you get nothing in return. However, you also give up something if you get three draft picks in return. Or a kumquat. Or anything. Sure, I gave up a watermelon, but I got a squash and a lemon in trade. Perfectly grammatical and acceptable. "Give up" only means relinquish. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not you get anything in return. Doubt it? Fine. Find me a dictionary definition that includes the part about getting nothing in return. I do have issues with language. It should be used correctly. And you're not doing so, in this case. And yeah, it was sarcastic, but it wasn't childish sarcasm. It was mature sarcasm. Again, you're assigning "give up" a meaning it simply doesn't have. Yes, we did give something up. Three things in fact. The 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Yeah, we recieved something in return, but that does not make it even slightly wrong to say that we gave those three picks up to receive the #4 pick. That's what we did.

I think realizing that can be put in perspective by pointing out that age just doesn't mean much in terms of productivity. What means much more is receiving yards and seasons on the roster and how those two go together. Have only 3 players had as many receiving yards as Sammy after three years in the NFL? Beckham, picked later in the same draft, has averaged around 500 yards per year more in those same three years. I can name six receivers who've gotten more yards in their first three years ... wait for it ... from the same draft. Beckham, Matthews, Evans, Cooks, Robinson and Landry. And John Brown isn't far behind. It was an awful trade, particularly in a draft that even at the time was seen as one of the best WR drafts of all time. An awful trade. But yeah, he isn't a bust yet. Yeah, the result of an awful trade, but not yet a bust. And it's not like the Bills can't keep him if he does well this year, by force if necessary with the tag.

Mickelson's #5? Higher than Tiger? At being famous? Hmm, that seems more than a bit skewed. As for the rest, they're right about the NFL. I live in Japan and most people here used to be able to name Joe Montana and that was about it. Nobody recent, except for the kids who actually play the game. It's just nowhere near big here. They know LeBron and some NBA guys, but mostly nobody in the NFL.

A lot of guys look really fast against UAB, Texas Tech, Texas A & M and Missouri. Especially on their highlight reels. Doesn't mean he won't be great. Maybe he will. But right from training camp he just didn't seem to have quick acceleration. We'll see. Hope you're right.

If he were healthy. Which he mostly has not been. That really really is a part of it. "Giving up something means you don't get it back." Oh, I get it. So we got the 2014 #9 pick back? Golly, I had no idea. It has nothing to do with what verb you pick. Swap. Give up. Relinquish. Forsake. Abandon. Yield. Forswear. Cut loose. Abandon. Cede. Vacate. Surrender (yes, look it up, one of the meanings is simply to relinquish), Hand over ... or Give up. We did all those things to three picks, the 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Now, we did get something in return, the #4, which we used to acquire Sammy. So we got something back. Acquired it. Received it. Picked it up. I could go on, as there are as many synonyms for "got" as there are for "gave up." What's a fact is that there were three players who would have been Bills but aren't because we traded away the picks that could have been used to select them to Cleveland. Three players who would have been Bills but aren't. And two of them would have been #9 and #19 in their respective drafts. Every team, but I hear you. It's easier for Pats fans this year though everyone's bored silly.

Entertain offers? Sure, why wouldn't you? For every player. Whether you take the offers is another matter, but who knows what kind of offer you might get. That's far from the best way to say it. You are really really stretching. We gave a way three things and recieved one in return. To say that of those three things, we "swapped" one but then "gave up" the other two says more about the fact that you desperately want to spin this than what happened. It would be like saying, "In return for that watermelon, I swapped a banana." "Oh, I thought you also gave up a prune and a peach." "Yeah, for the watermelon, I swapped a banana and then gave up a prune and a peach." Puh-leeze. It wasn't two transactions, it was one. Pick the word you want to use, swapped or gave up, whichever, but it was one transaction. Here's what we swapped for the 2014 #4 pick: the 2014 #9 pick, the 2015 #15 pick and the 2015 #115 pick. What did we give up? Same thing. When you're talking about a trade, swap and give up are synonyms. Oh, and there's no such thing as a net loss unless you can subtract. And you can't meaningfully subtract people unless you want to say, for example, "I traded away Flash Goodwin for Aaron Rodgers straight up. Wasn't all that great a trade, though, 'cause after all there was a net gain of zero." Or unless you want to say, "I made a brilliant trade, I traded away our first rounder, the #9 pick and got in return the #143, the #168 and the #174. Brilliant, right? A net gain of two." Net gain only means something when you're dealing with things of exactly equal value, like dollars or brand new Spalding 32 inch bats. When you have to use "net gain" to talk about people, you're desperately trying to spin something to make it look better or worse. "I used to have only one girlfriend, Scarlett Johannson, but now I've got three, Aileen Wuornos, Myra Hindley and Jane Toppan. SCORE, baby, I racked up a net gain of two!!!!!!" (Note: those are three famous female serial killers)

Anyone ignoring awards given in any field for excellence because it doesn't mean much to them is only saying that they don't care about either that field or about excellence. What you precisely said was that you felt that those awards "carry little water but for two groups: the people who give them, and the people who receive them." That's more than saying that you don't care, it's disparaging the awards, and more, it's just not true. Plenty of people who care about journalism care about excellence in it. The Pulitzers carry plenty of water. Just not true. If there's one thing we know about Graham from his twitter, it's that he's not thin-skinned. He keeps a lot of guys who consistently attack him and leaves a lot of unpleasant posts to be seen. The alternative to being thin-skinned is to look at the experience and make a business decision that the positives of being here are no longer outweighing the negatives, that it's an effort rather than a pleasure. It wasn't a part of his job, and the people who were annoying him really were being consistent jerks, and in a really non-entertaining way. I wouldn't have stuck around if I were him. Again, I'm amazed that Wawrow has done so despite all the crap he's taken for it through the years. Hah, I'm on that thread you posted from 2010. You're right, the crash must've come before.