thebandit27

Updated: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000919918/article/daniel-jeremiahs-top-50-prospects-for-2018-nfl-draft-20?campaign=tw-cf-sf183870243-sf183870243&sf183870243=1

Interesting comparison that I'm sure Sammy's agent will use in negotiations: D. Adams - 4 seasons, 59 games played, 237 receptions on 397 targets (59.7% rec rate), 2,811 yards (11.9 YPR and 7.08 YPT), 26 TDs, 133 first downs, 2 fumbles (1 lost) S. Watkins - 4 seasons, 52 games played, 192 receptions on 345 targets (55.7% rec rate), 3,052 yards (15.9 YPR and 8.84 YPT), 25 TDs, 141 first downs, 1 fumble (1 lost)

Actually, every single thing that I posted was factually correct. He lead the team in receiving TDs; somehow scoring touchdowns is a cherry-picked stat to you? No offense, but that's absurd. 33 of his 70 targets (39 receptions) went for first downs--by contrast, 36 of Woods' 85 targets (56 receptions) went for first downs, as did 42 of Kupp's 95 targets (62 receptions). Ask yourself: who was a more effective chain-mover? It's not cherry-picking to look at who scores the most, who converts more of his opportunities into first downs, who draws the majority of the coverage, and who plays the most snaps. That's simple analysis, and I realize that it's easier to read box scores, but it's also less informative. I actually have zero difficulty looking at the trade factors. It's really quite simple: I've seen more than one person on this board declare that Buffalo "won" the trade. That's a point that is simply indefensible IMO. The only argument that even slightly supports the notion is that the team's record was better with Gaines on the field than it was when he didn't play. Well, the team can't feel that strongly about him being the deciding factor in their playoff appearance if they already signed a guy that appears to be his replacement, can they? Furthermore, how can Buffalo have "won" a trade that involved moving a WR1 off their roster and resulted in them having the worst receiving corps in professional football? As I've said in this thread multiple times: I'd like for someone to tell me how Gaines was more valuable to Buffalo than Watkins was to LA. All I've seen is some folks taking issue with the idea that Watkins was their WR1. Well, his snap share, number of scoring plays, first-down conversion rate, tight-coverage reception rate, and coverage type drawn from opposing defenses all indicate that he was indeed their WR1. That he operates in an offense where the QB doesn't like to throw deep balls or into tight coverage is reflected in the target differential between he and the possession guys on the team. Now, I'm certain that many folks will simply read this and erroneously assume it's all a blind defense of Watkins out of some misplaced loyalty. As some other folks know, I'm not beholden to players; I'm beholden to facts and critical analysis of the hard data. The hard data don't show me that Buffalo "won" this trade--note that I haven't said that they "lost" it either.

I wonder if his agent will tell him not to do that. His case is very interesting; he could choose to take the most guaranteed money right now regardless of situation, and hope that it is his de facto big payday. Or--and this is what I would tell him to do--he could bet on himself by taking a 1-year deal with a team like SF, Baltimore, Tennessee, or Indy that has an established veteran at QB and go for the big payday next offseason. We shall see I suppose. I'll tell you what would be the craziest move, IMO: he signs a 1-year deal with New Orleans. They already have $18M in dead cap space committed to Brees, so a new deal for him shouldn't push his 2018 cap number up too much, which means that the $31M the team has in cap space right now is available for loading up. If they did nothing offensively in FA other than sign Watkins and keep Brees, they'd easily have the most potent offense in the NFC.

I'll agree that it's quite apparent that this group knows what they're doing, and behaving as though they do is going to inspire confidence. Now, whether or not what they do works is obviously going to determine the efficacy of their approach, but in the meantime it sure does feel nice. I'll be very interested to see if he can adjust to whatever blocking scheme Daboll likes to run. Last year, Ivory had the 10th-lowest yardage efficiency on his carries, which isn't good for a guy that has such a physical running style.

Cordy got the tag at a value of $13.7M; a second consecutive tag would've been a 25% increase--$17.125M. The total guaranteed cash flow in those two years would be $30.825M. According to Spotrac, Glenn signed a 5-year, $60M deal with $36M guaranteed. The signing bonus (paid immediately) was $16M, and his 2016 and 2017 base salaries (which total $12M) were fully guaranteed at signing. When you add in the portions of his 2018 salary that fully guarantee early in the 2017 league year as well as his roster bonus, his guaranteed cash flow in the first 2 years was an even $30M.

Well, typically the tagged player won't sign any long-term deal that doesn't include guaranteed cash flow in the first two years that equals the value of two consecutive tags. In the case of a WR in 2018, that amount would be $36M in the first two years

I agree with most of that; I doubt that they'll go into the season without a younger back in whom they have faith.

No. He lead the team in receiving TDs and had the highest YPC of any of their WRs; that does not relegate him to their 4th most important RB/WR just because you think it does. He drew the opponent's coverage focus all season--he gets less cushion than all but 4 other WRs in the NFL; the WR that caught the most passes gets the most cushion--that's not a coincidence (especially not when the team has a QB with an average intended air yards figure that ranks 22nd in the NFL--behind the likes of Tyrod Taylor and Trevor Siemien). It's also worth noting that Goff is a pretty timid QB in terms of throwing into coverage; NextGenStats indicates that he ranks 37th out of 41 qualifying QBs in % of passing attempts thrown into tight coverage (so defined as having a defender within 1 yard of the target at the time of the attempt). Watkins was both the team's best deep threat and the team's best red zone receiver. You seem to believe that big plays and TDs are of less value to them than chain-movers, which is fine, but definitely debatable. Also, no, both players are not free agents. Right now, both players are property of their respective teams until March 14th (absent a new deal). All we know at the moment is that one team has signed a guy (V. Davis) that appears to be one of their replacements. What we've been told, however, is that the other team will try to keep the other player.

Indeed--it's somewhere south of $16M for a single season.

That's a salient point as well, so yeah, you could put Mahomes as the 2017 guy. Indeed...be bold about it. Take your shot. The best pick they've made in the last 10 years--from an organization-building standpoint--was EJ. They were in position to have their pick of any QB in the draft and they took it (not without trading down first, which wasn't the gutsiest move); they need to show the next step kind in committing to the position moving forward.

I don't think it's likely that Watkins is gone from LA; it's possible though. It's also not likely that Gaines gets a bigger deal than Watkins. Gaines has been a starter for less than 2 full seasons, and has missed far more time than Watkins. I also can't understand how a guy that started 16 games, played WR1 snaps, and lead the team in receiving TDs is less of a factor than a guy that missed 5 full games and parts of 3 others (totaling less than 60% of his teams defensive snaps). Like I said: it's hardly clear that either team won the trade, but it's certainly debatable on both sides.

That's a bit overstated IMO. Adrian Peterson was clearly brought in to be the RB2 for NO behind Ingram last year, but they still drafted Kamara in round 3, and look how that paid off.

While I think that drafting good players is ultimately the key, there's another side to this coin that, IMO, should be discussed. I know @BADOLBILZ has often pointed out the efficacy of drafting QBs until you get it right, so let's look at that idea quickly. If we go back 10 years, here's who Buffalo would've drafted if they simply drafted the next QB off the board in round 1: 2008 - J. Flacco 2009 - J. Freeman 2010 - T. Tebow 2011 - J. Locker 2012 - B. Weeden 2013 - EJ Manuel 2014 - J. Manziel 2015 - G. Grayson (round 3 since they didn't have a 1st) 2016 - P. Lynch 2017 - D. Kizer What's the point? Sitting where you are and letting the QB come to you is the wrong move, but so too is reaching for the next QB on your board. If you want to get a QB, you need to go after him with purpose, and be prepared to sacrifice picks to get him. If you aren't going to do that, then yes, take BPA where you're slotted.

Ivory and Fournette faced 8+ in the box 51% and 48.5% of the time, respectively. McCoy faced 8+ in the box ~36% of the time.

Way to take it personally dude. I love how someone is a "white knight" for pointing out that a 22-year old kid lashing out on social media isn't that big of a deal. What's ridiculous is expecting every kid to act like a mature adult after he gets handed millions of dollars to play a game.

Not really--NE had 3 different RBs that made $3M+ in 2017. Jax had 2 that made over $6M Carolina had 2 that made over $4M Seems like standard backup RB money to me.

He was a 22-year old kid that made a mistake on social media. It's been 2.5 years; time to let it go.

Note that Ivory's low YPC could have something to do with the fact that he faced 8 or more in the box almost 51% of the time--3rd highest for any RB in the NFL. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/rushing#percent-eight-defenders

Well, your assuming something that hasn't happened yet, which is, IMO, unwise. As to how else to look at it, I might also consider availability and performance on the field, but that's just me.

Gotcha--so neither availability or performance on the field matter, as long as we came away with a pick? That's...well, a very odd way of looking at it. Absolutely it would change my mind. The course of each player's career will determine who "won" the trade IMO.

The way I would look at it is this: Total number of offensive plays vs. snaps taken by each WR across the league. Toss out games with significant shortness of available WRs or blowouts and go from there. Of course, once the raw data were compiled, you'd have to go back and look for key points of statistical significance and outliers, which is why it's a project that will likely have to wait until summer.

Another need filled with a guy that doesn't count as a compensatory FA. I think he'll be fine as a backup to Shady

It has zero to do with defending a player and everything to do with looking at the way they run their offense. My comment about McVay's approach has zero to do with Watkins' performance, and everything to do with his innovation in how he rotates his wide-outs. You won't find another team that rolls 6 WRs the way he does; why is that so hard to accept? Even Pittsburgh, who has arguably a more talented WR corps, and was involved in their fair share of blowouts in 2017 (in both directions), didn't run anywhere near the rotation that LA did. Regardless, the point I made at the onset of the discussion was that I don't see any justification for saying that Buffalo won the trade. So far, nobody has provided one. If I have time in the next little while, I'll see about putting together a league-wide analysis of WR snap share with situational context and make a thread about it. It probably will have to wait until after the draft since draft prep is football priority #1 at the moment.

Blowouts happen for every team; if you're going to claim that they're the only reason that LA's WRs played as many snaps as they did, then go ahead and normalize the data for the entire league and get back to me. What you'll find is that LA plays their receivers in a rotation moreso than any other team.