Jump to content

Mojo44

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mojo44

  1. 6 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:


    Because you just don’t get it. It doesn’t matter who drafted Sammy. The risk still remains. Josh Allen will be 28 when the season starts. You would like to blow our load on hope. Hope isn’t a sound strategy. What happens after 2-3 years when we realize the guy is a bust? That’s 2-3 more years of Josh down the drain.
     

    Due to Allen’s contract, this team has holes and will always need to plug them via the draft. If you want to mortgage our future, do it on proven players. Otherwise, draft a couple WR in the 1st and 2nd. Leave next year’s picks alone. 

    I really don’t know what you’re talking about here. You’re not making any sense. It’s a simple point. Try to understand it. A one off example that occurred 10 years ago is not predictive of anything, certainly now. As I have said in my recent post on this issue, it’s always a risk to trade up for ANY pick. This is not about Josh Allen’s contract or when we should draft a one or two wide receivers. It’s simply about using this 10 year old ancient history example. So I guess we never should’ve traded up to get Dalton Kincaid? You see it goes both ways. A better way to make your point would be to provide some good empirical evidence that over the years trading up for any position, even wide receiver, usually doesn’t work. I doubt such evidence exists. But if you could find it I would love to see it. I am simply challenging your logic that using this ancient history example by itself means we absolutely shouldn’t trade up for a wide receiver. I do agree with you that it’s a risk. But that might be a risk worth taking. It sounds like you were suggesting that we should never do it. If I’m mistaken, please correct me.

  2. 13 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:


    Huh?  He played with McVay and Goff, then Mahomes, Rodgers, and Lamar.

     

    How many MVPs does he have to play with to reach his potential?  
     

    LOL

    Think for a second. What if he was drafted under the current regime. Regardless of what happened after he left here as damaged goods, it’s not inconceivable that he could have fulfilled his potential. I’m laughing back at you. And this is all besides the point anyway. The whole point of my posts on this matter is that this was 10 years ago and posters still use it as a cautionary tale to not trade up to get a wide receiver. It’s just silly reasoning.

  3. 4 hours ago, Saint Doug said:


    Read again please. “It’s a cautionary illustration that trading a bunch of draft picks for a non-QB draft pick is very risky.”

    I got it. Read my post again. Trading up for any position is risky. Actually, trading up for a quarterback is even more risky than any other position. If you miss it you set the team back possibly years.The Sammy Watkins example is old and tiresome. It really doesn’t apply here. This is not Doug Whaley making decisions. Don’t forget that. If it’s an illustration, with respect, it’s a markedly poor one. The Sammy Watkins “example” needs to go away.

  4. 7 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:


    Sammy didn’t blow up the league when he left. He was only a Bill for 3 seasons. But this really isn’t about Sammy Watkins. It’s a cautionary illustration that trading a bunch of draft picks for a non-QB draft pick is very risky. It’s pertinent to now because WR busts are not that infrequent. 

    That he didn’t blow up the league after he left does not in anyway diminish my point. Trading up for any position is “risky“. Using your logic, we should never have traded up to get Josh. You’re using a one off example that is not relevant. 

  5. 1 hour ago, Saint Doug said:

    People are soon to forget what happened with Sammy Watkins. We only moved up only 5 spots and gave up the following year’s 1st and a 4th. And he was basically a bust. Everyone panned Whaley for this move. Now, fast forward to 2024 and we are talking about trading an even higher number of picks for an unproven player. We can’t afford to experiment. Go after a proven player. 

    The Watkins situation is ancient history. It’s not pertinent to the current one at all. Besides, imagine if we had Josh when we drafted him. Probably a very different result.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

    Diggs does dumb things that strain relationships. He undermines coaches and teammates. He needs the attention which is a trait that has only grown more as Josh's spotlight grew. He turns around and masquerades his bad behavior and poor choices as being misunderstood or competitive. He makes you the problem not his behavior. He is a headcase, eroding talent. Somebody who came up as a no show in the most competitive situations since he has been here. Everybody around him is now better because he is gone. You can't measure the impact of a bad apple. You can't just take the talent by itself. It's not how this works. 

    Well said. This is the context that seems to be unappreciated by those who are against this trade. He just became too malignant. This is addition by subtraction in my opinion

    • Agree 1
  7. 6 minutes ago, stevestojan said:

    Am I allowed to ask  1) how the Jesus folks get enough money to buy a SB commercial, and 2) doesn’t it seem there HAS to be a better way to help people (assuming that’s their goal) than said SB commercial? 

    How do they get enough money? Do you watch “The Fabulous Gemstones”? That could clue you in. You could also listen to the song “ Jerusalem on the Jukebox” by Richard Thompson.

×
×
  • Create New...