Magox

In regards to his speed or production?

You asked a question on what would define "success" for the "expectations" for Bills fans. I answered it, if you don't like my answer I can't help you out there. I just want to see us moving in the right direction, I understand that with a new system in place that there will be a learning curve and what defines success for me is progression and I partially defined what that progress would look like.

I don't see Tyrod as being part of their future plans. If I'm able to trade him for what Kirby is suggesting such as Sieman and a 2nd or maybe just a 1st rounder, then I think you pull the trigger. That may not be what this organization wants to do, but that is what I would do. I would venture to guess that there are at least a handful of GM's that disagree with you and in the NFL, all it takes is one.

The team "moving in the right direction" towards the end of the year. Seeing more disciplined football, less penalties and an overall improvement in play as the season progresses.

You responded to my retort of 4merper, so it was pertinent to the discussion. If you are going to talk strictly on the basis of the trade in itself if it is going to make us better for 2017, then no. It does not make us better for 2017, unless of course Watkins gets injured. But the trade in itself was all about building for the future and them coming to the realization that they did not want to take the financial risk to maintain Watkins due to the reasons that we've discussed ad nauseum.

Yes, I misspoke, they missed a couple games.

That's not in the context of the argument I was having with 4merper. We were discussing whether or not the Bills were "throwing in the towel", which I countered that the Boldin signing essentially disproves that theory. In regards to your last question, I suppose it all depends on the production Sammy puts up relative to Boldin and Matthews and more importantly what the direction of the team was heading towards the end of the season.

I think that having 2 new consistent solid players, who haven't missed any games over the past three years is arguably going to be as worrisome as Watkins who has yet to produce vs Belichek on a high level who also has missed a 1/3 of the games they've played.

How do you figure? You are assuming that Watkins will play a whole season which he has yet to do in his professional career. To not acknowledge this fact clearly indicates an agenda not driven by facts. On the other hand, I believe Boldin or Matthews haven't missed a single game over the past three years and they have been consistent performers. I would argue that there is more than 50/50 chance that we could see more consistent performance from Boldin and Matthews than what we'll see from Watkins and I'd have history on my side to make that argument.

Yes, I do think he would use more resources in stopping Watkins than Boldin, but at the end of the day if you judge all of Sammy's history vs. Belichik's defenses, he really wasn't a threat that executed. The point is that our big play making receiver for one reason or another was really never able to help us out too much against the Patriots. Or am I wrong?

Bad post

How is that any different than how Belichik's defense shutting down the Bills pass offense with Watkins in the lineup? Have you seen Watkin's numbers vs the Pats?

So I looked up Sammy's stats vs the Patriots over the past 3 years. 4 games 14 receptions 183 yards 13.07 yards a reception 1 TD Honestly Bandit, I think he had this under control.

Every team is "shooting for the playoffs". Let's call this trade for what it is, it potentially marginally makes the team worse for 2017 with an eye on the future with the type of team they want to build. McD/Beane sold the Pegulas on a vision which clearly Whaley was never capable of doing and they want to follow through on that vision. They may end up burning and crashing but they are getting to do it their way which is what you'd expect and hope from a new regime. They evaluated Watkins and clearly they made the judgement that they didn't think he was worth the risk at the cost he would have gotten at the Franchise Tag or open market value. Again, that decision may end up being something that we always remember as being a bad franchise decision much like we've seen in the past with Whaley but that was their determination based on all the information that they had on hand. I get the reasoning, I think it's sound as I also don't believe that Sammy isn't worth the financial risk. Time will tell if this ends up being a good decision.

That was deep

Yes, and maybe they didn't believe he was worth $15M or whatever the franchise number is? Maybe they didn't want to create more of a distraction of potentially having a disgruntled player miss training camp due to this dispute. It seems as if people are talking past each other here, the calculation to me was simple, they didn't want to pay him what he could get on the open market due to their concerns with his injuries. And there very well could have been other concerns that they have that we aren't privy to. The bottom line is that they made a calculation and there is a whole lot of reason and logic behind it. Doesn't mean that they made the right decision but that they made one based off of sound reasoning that may or may not pan out.

I think he's impervious to facts.

If Matthews plays well, what are we looking at? $7-$9M a year? $20-$28m guaranteed?

I so want to revisit this thread 9 months from now.

It may end up being the wrong decision, but I would hope that reasonable people can agree to disagree that their argument for making the trade they made was rooted in valid concerns from both a financial and injury/value aspect.

Beane/McD aren't banking their future on Peterman. If he turns out to be more than a quality backup it will come to a complete welcomed surprise. Stranger things have happened

Right, but now you are just parsing words. The underlying concern is valid, would you concede that point?

Doesn't that bolster his argument?

Spinning it? How do you figure? It's clear to me and by looking at his answer that he was concerned with his injury issues along with what Sammy was looking to get on the open market. Hold on a second Kirby. They could have easily retained him past the option year by How? Franchising him? Paying a sum that they believe was to risky to pay? And they could have possibly been dealing with a discontent player situation holding out during camp, not all-in with what McD is trying to do. I take exception with that characterization

How is he not better than Robert Woods?