Thurman#1

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.

No, you really are knocking Buffalo. Assuming that a successful person would want to be elsewhere just because he's successful, you may not have been thinking that way, but it is absolutely what you're implying. Journalists don't have any particular reason to care whether the team they're writing about wins or loses. It's fans who care about that. If Graham stays here it's probably because he likes Buffalo. And that in fact is what he's written several times. Agreed, but it won't be smart people making those calls. I see a season of around 6 or 7 wins. It's the most common guess league-wide on us. We're a team climbing out of major cap problems, a team that is switching schemes on both sides of the ball, a team apparently without a franchise QB, and not a wildly talented roster right now. So yeah, there'll be calls for their heads, but the Pegulas will have understood that some time is likely to be necessary

Yup, everyone who is a head coach was a first time head coach at some point. But plenty of coaches who do much better the second time didn't do as well their first time. You don't have to look any further than the head coaches of the winning teams in the last four Super Bowls. They all did much better later than they did during their first stints as a head coach. Experience is not overrated one bit. Yeah, successful people tend to succeed. Not always at their first try, though. Sometimes first-timers succeed. But picking a first-timer is a bit like drafting a player, in that people say that the draft is a crap-shoot. Same with picking a first-timer. An awful lot of very promising first-timers don't succeed and it's really not possible to tell which ones will do well.

I have some hope. But while McDermott may have been a good choice, I would much rather have had a head coach with a record as a head coach. We don't know if McDermott has the goods or has a few bad ideas or methods that could hold him back that a prior stint might have allowed him to address. Some good things some bad things. No, not all in. Show me.

I remember when Lori was here. Without commenting on what you're saying about how she left, she was a real asset to these boards. And a general good egg. Recommended several books to me that I just loved. Most particularly several collections of the journalism of W.C. Heinz. I've always been grateful to her.

Fair enough to believe that. It could be true. And agreed that cleaning out the deadwood was a good start. Doesn't prove that the new guys will be better. But it could be. For what it's worth, I'm hopeful, but I generally have been at least a bit positive about most new regimes. Proof's in the pudding, as always. I like what they're saying. But I've liked what a lot of new folks said. I'm not new here. I remember when Graham was here and vaguely that he was annoyed off. Don't remember any of the names of the people who did it. But I've always admired Wawrow for hanging around. But didn't most of the old archive of this site get destroyed and become unavailable? Am I confused about that?

I understand people being irritated by his twitter. He's pretty snarky. I've always found it pretty funny, but no doubt very snarky and sarcastic. But while I don't read everything he's read, I read a lot, and I get just the opposite impression, that he's a guy I'd like to have a beer with and talk sports. And nobody who knows him says anything bad about him that I've seen. But the stuff about how the Pulitzer means nothing and the net has shown how writing is easy ... that just says a lot more about you than what you're writing about. And that stuff about prodding saddened Bills fans? I'm a saddened Bills fan. Never noticed anything untoward. Nor anything condescending. He says bad things about a bad team. That, I understand.

Ah.

I haven't bothered responding to your comments about Graham, because people dislike who they want. It's all fair enough. Not liking Graham is reasonable. But he's a terrific writer and a smart guy. The guy's story on that famous Vietnam war photo was nominated for a Pulitzer. He won a "Barney" award from the Boxing Writers of America for first place for best story of the year. He's been published in the "Best American Sports Writing" anthology series, no small achievement. He's repeatedly won writing awards from the Professional Hockey Writers' Association, including at least two first-place awards. His Bjorn Nittmo pieces have been fascinating but heart-breaking and have been mentioned in SI as some of the best journalism of 2016: https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/01/03/best-journalism-writing-reporting-2016 It's still reasonable to disagree with him, to not like him. But Graham's a highly respected journalist. As for your contest, it looked interesting to me. I live in Japan, so I wouldn't have been able to collect my prize, so I didn't enter. Have you ever had to pay off? I'd guess not, yeah? Picking all sixteen games correctly is seriously difficult. It's always looked like a really good idea to me. I think it's way too early to say they've improved. Not too early to guess, though. Maybe they have. Let's hope so. Well, that's one guess.