Rocky Landing

Guiton should be awesome, as he can be a combination of Tuel and Kaufman, and morph into some crazy TE hybrid. BAM!!! Imaginary hole filled!

Ignorant, trolling statement.

Very excited about the team, and our additions this year. But, we're going to have to get a second locker room for all the baggage.

Do we really know this? I'm not asking to pick a fight. I really don't watch much college ball-- I've only seen his highlights. What I saw was certainly impressive, no doubt. But, watching the highlights, I had two thoughts: 1) I didn't see any amazing grabs. He seemed to always be open. Does he have the ability to get to the ball in tough coverage? The ability to get open is great-- but certainly won't be as easy in the NFL. How will he perform vs an NFL DB? 2) His speed is amazing. His acceleration is amazing. And he knocked over defenders like they were bowling pins. BUT, I couldn't help thinking that there isn't a single person on any NFL defense that would get knocked down like the college players shown in his reel. I know you're a huge Watkins fan, and I assume you watch college ball. Educate me.

I'm not sure why, but this list depresses me.

The OP has made some good points here. A few thoughts: 1) There is certainly a balance that has to be met between the profitability of the franchise vs. the profitability of the NFL. But, I'm not entirely sure that plays in Buffalo's favor. The league must look at the size of each fan base, as well as how the participation of the team affects the NFL brand. The OP makes the point that the participation of the Bills, an original AFL team, helps maintain the brand and lend weight to the leagues traditional roots. That certainly is true, and a good point, but the overall fan base is small. So, what would present a net benefit to the league? Keeping a small, original franchise, or turning that franchise into a much larger fan base, e.g. Los Angeles? 2) If the sale of the Bills drags on (which, hopefully won't happen), seven years may actually time out perfectly for the Bills to be moved. 3) I'm not convinced that hockey is an apt comparison. The NFL has a much larger market, and having two teams that close together in a far less dense market than NY, could present too much overlap. 4) If the NFL sees a move out of Buffalo as financially beneficial, I don't think it will be hard to get that 75% vote. 5) Nothing against Upstate NY (I was born and raised there!) but, It's cold up there! (...and, kinda boring...) It may not be too hard to convince the players to move! Good points, though from the OP.

That's really just hyperbole. You're equating risk assessment, and valuation with fear. There's a big difference between fear and rationality, just like there is a big difference between courage and recklessness. Your continued assertion that we can't make any judgement on the value of future drafts because we don't know who will be in that draft is silly. To say that we can't, or shouldn't make any predictions of future needs, even based on our current roster, is short-sighted. To say that anyone debating such subjects is operating out of fear is insulting. For the record, I am happy with the Watkins trade. But, I see no problem with evaluating its value based on how it fits with our current roster, and plausible future needs-- including EJ Manuel, and the quarterback position.

No it's not. Future values are always based on speculation. And, obviously, Whaley, et al, took such speculation into consideration when negotiating the trade. So, why can't we debate that speculation?

I did answer the question: It would be a zero risk trade with a high potential return. (As opposed to what we got: A high risk trade with a high potential return.) And, why are external sources not germane to football decisions?

High Risk/High Reward... (deja vu)...

If we were able to trade our #9 for Cleveland's #4, there would not be a person on the face of the planet criticizing us for it, because it would be a zero risk trade with a high potential return-- far from what we got. Of course (and I'm assuming this is your point), Watkins would still be Watkins.

I think I often come off as being an EJ hater. I'm not. My point in my doom and gloom scenario (not the one where Watkins gets hit by a train, but the one where EJ plays below expectations) isn't that I think it's going to happen, or that I am against the Watkins trade. (For the record, I didn't like it wham it happened, but I'm excited by it, and looking forward to see how it pans out.) My point is that it was a high risk/high return investment. Everyone knows what the potential return is-- and I'm certainly not ignoring that. But, I think a lot of fans with the rose colored glasses are utterly denying the level of risk. I think you're right that a lot of people who were against the trade have no faith in EJ. I think others are simply unconvinced, and wary of the cost.

Your arguments are becoming utterly semantic. For one thing, there is not a single person on this thread who has attempted to "quantify" anything. Quantification and valuation are two afferent things. The discussion is the value of the Watkins trade. For some reason, you are dismissing any discussion of the cost of Watkins, because you assert that the cost cannot be "quantified." But, you are more that wiling to tout the product of the trade (presumably, because Watkins lives ,and breathes, he can be "quantified"), even though the product results are equally speculative. But, then, you go on to make a value statement regarding next year's draft class! I suppose that's OK because your valuation doesn't contain any quantification?... or something? Just talking in circles, now. Here's a point I would like to make regarding the VALUE of the trade for Watkins: The VALUE of Watkins is not simply a measure of his ability, but of his production, as well. His production will be affected not only by his own ability, but by the performance of those around him, especially EJ. In other words, if EJ doesn't perform, Watkins value drops, and visa versa. So there are two plausible scenarios on which I and others have speculated on this thread that have opposite outcomes, vis a vis the value of the Watkins trade: 1) EJ perform great, Watkins performs great, and our pass production skyrockets. We win games. If at this point we don't end the season with dire needs, the value of next year's 1st rounder drops considerably, and we have made a great investment in Watkins. = Low Cost/High Return. 2) EJ is a bust. Watkins' talents are underutilized. His production is not enough to bring us up in the division. We end the season with a dire need at quarterback. In this scenario the value of our 2015 picks are much higher, and the investment in Watkins = High Cost/Low Return. These are both plausible scenarios, and one of these two things will happen to some degree. This is the nature of a High Risk/High Return investment. And, you'll notice, I didn't try to "quantify" anything.

Unfortunately, yeah. I remember a similar story regarding Tim Tebow, and we all know how that turned out. Edit: Just so we're straight, I'm NOT comparing EJ to Tebow. In fact, I'm sorta starting to drink the EJ kool-aide.

Wouldn't that be more of a libertarian agenda?

This is an absolutely silly post. Of course we can (and should) speculate on the future value of our two 2015 picks that we invested. The "value begins and ends with Sammy Watkins...(?)" I don't even know what that means. But, the assertion that you can't speculate on the value of anything until all of the "known values in the equation" are... er, "known" or something, is worthy of a face palm-- Look, here's a handy Draft Pick Value Chart: http://harvardsports...draftvalue1.jpg I'm not sure what any of that means, but I think it's pretty funny that it even exists. So, no, I can't tell you the precise value of the 2015 #1 pick we traded to Cleveland. It would be silly to try. No one can say exactly what the ROI will be on Watkins until it happens. If we did, there would be nothing to debate! But there is plenty of information, and various scenarios that make it worthy of discussion and speculation. Future values are always based on speculation-- even investments with guaranteed returns.

It's not that slippery. How many NFL players drink in their off-time?

I suppose that depends on the definition of "enhancement." I can say, with 100% certainty, that my performance in bed, and on the ski slopes is much better with a little weed. My performance on an aptitude test?... not so much.

That's not exactly true. There was quite a bit of speculation, right up until Kolb's injury (I'm not even sure which one!), as to who would be the starting QB last season. I would say that a clear majority of people on this forum argued adamantly that EJ should start right away, and anything else would be a waste of time. You might have been one of them. I was not-- and I felt distinctly in the minority.

That's really not true. We can easily place a value on future picks. (And the FO better be doing just that!) And, we can certainly discus how our current situation, and other likely scenarios will affect the value of our future picks. It's an interesting discussion. This thread is all about the perceived value of our trade-up for Watkins. How can we discus that trade, if we don't discus the potential value of what we invested?

I think this is a fair point, at least strictly in terms of numbers. But, watching the games (at least by my recollection), Tuel mostly stunk up the field. Lewis, i believe, played higher than expectations, and had clearly done his homework leading up to his performance. But, I think there was a definite difference in style, and it's easier to imagine EJ having a higher ceiling from what we saw, and Lewis less so. That's just my gut feeling, and my gut feelings are often wrong. Cute, but transparent.

That post pretty much qualifies you as a "hater."

Your post should have, "I conjectured," in quotation marks. It would still be wrong, however. I conjecture that Jauronimo was speaking in the present tense.

I agree with this. I wasn't at all happy with the trade when it went down, but it's exciting as hell. ALL IN!

In the simplest terms, the risk is that we won't get an adequate return on our investment. Our first, and fourth round picks in the next draft is our investment, which will be compounded if we have a dire need, say, at quarterback. The absolute worst case scenario is that Watkins gets hit by a train, and we get absolutely nothing for our investment. But, a more plausible scenario is that EJ plays below expectations, or gets injured again, we don't see a significant increase in our passing game, we miss out on a quality, first-round quarterback selection in the 2015 draft, and we start the 2015 season with very poor options at quarterback. That is a very real risk.