RD1, Pick #4: WR Sammy Watkins - Clemson

[Campy]

this pick was about Russ and Doug mortgaging our future so they have a shot at keeping their jobs under new ownership.

 

Sammy Watkins is a nice player, but not worth two #1's and a 4th.

 

the bills got fleeced.

 

And here I was thinking the trade and pick was consistent with Brandon's January press conference where he talked about the Bills taking bold steps to return to relevancy.

 

Some players will take a little time to develop and we need to be patient but this is one of those instances where the Bills are a better team today than they were yesterday. And that's a good thing, isn't it?

[May Day 10]

Im shocked that so many people hate this. Im as negative/down/skeptical about the Bills and management as anybody... and I feel like this is the greatest thing they have done in years, and I feel like they got a steal. (as long as the #1 isnt in the top 5 or 10).

 

Watkins is going to be a superstar.

[Campy]

He's extremely good -- better than you apparently think he is. Enjoy it for a moment. The Bills went out and got themselves a bona fide five-star stud -- a likely difference maker.

 

^ This.

[34-78-83]

Read my post again. Never mind, let's try another format:

 

The ONLY way we could not have spent 1(one) 1st round pick yesterday? Draft NOBODY.

 

This is NOT semantics, this is about "we gave up 2 1sts" being illogical, nevermind an affront to arithmetic.

 

3-1 = 2. With 1(one) being the pick we were going to use no matter what...because we were not drafting: NOBODY @9.

 

Right? Difference. Hence, minus sign. Or, "The difference between 3 and 1, is 2". The difference between taking Sammy Watkins, and staying put, is also: 2

 

QED It cost us 2 additional draft picks to take Watkins. We therefore "Gave Up" 2, not 3, picks to take Watkins.

 

Once again, you cannot have your draft pick, and your player. You can have one or the other. When you pick your player in the 1st round, you give up 1(one) 1st round pick 100% of the time.

 

We gave up 2 picks, not 3, to get to Watkins @ 5.

 

If this continues, perhaps the next format I try should be in crayon?

 

Haha love it!

[zazie]

Read my post again. Never mind, let's try another format:

 

The ONLY way we could not have spent 1(one) 1st round pick yesterday? Draft NOBODY.

 

This is NOT semantics, this is about "we gave up 2 1sts" being illogical, nevermind an affront to arithmetic.

 

3-1 = 2. With 1(one) being the pick we were going to use no matter what...because we were not drafting: NOBODY @9.

 

Right? Difference. Hence, minus sign. Or, "The difference between 3 and 1, is 2". The difference between taking Sammy Watkins, and staying put, is also: 2

 

QED It cost us 2 additional draft picks to take Watkins. We therefore "Gave Up" 2, not 3, picks to take Watkins.

 

Once again, you cannot have your draft pick, and your player. You can have one or the other. When you pick your player in the 1st round, you give up 1(one) 1st round pick 100% of the time.

 

We gave up 2 picks, not 3, to get to Watkins @ 5.

 

If this continues, perhaps the next format I try should be in crayon?

 

We spent 2 first round picks on one player, this is without question.

 

We gave up one first round pick.

 

Semantics aside, you are a bit high-strung my friend, maybe you need to spend a couple of days in Boulder?

[xsoldier54]

They used their 1st on him this year...1+1=2

They got a first rounder back, so 1+1=2-1=1. They didn't give up this year's first rounder, they traded it for Cleveland's. They gave up next year's.

[truth on hold]

 

 

He won't if he's laying on his back or running for his life ! But if he can't do it now with these weapons the EJ faithful will know he's not the guy & will know it sooner rather than later !!

How do we find his replacement in time to use this elite WR crew while we can keep them together ? We have no #1 next year and good luck waiting on a franchise QB to hit FA.

[MDH]

Read my post again. Never mind, let's try another format:

 

The ONLY way we could not have spent 1(one) 1st round pick yesterday? Draft NOBODY.

 

This is NOT semantics, this is about "we gave up 2 1sts" being illogical, nevermind an affront to arithmetic.

 

3-1 = 2. With 1(one) being the pick we were going to use no matter what...because we were not drafting: NOBODY @9.

 

Right? Difference. Hence, minus sign. Or, "The difference between 3 and 1, is 2". The difference between taking Sammy Watkins, and staying put, is also: 2

 

QED It cost us 2 additional draft picks to take Watkins. We therefore "Gave Up" 2, not 3, picks to take Watkins.

 

Once again, you cannot have your draft pick, and your player. You can have one or the other. When you pick your player in the 1st round, you give up 1(one) 1st round pick 100% of the time.

 

We gave up 2 picks, not 3, to get to Watkins @ 5.

 

If this continues, perhaps the next format I try should be in crayon?

 

I think it's you who didn't read my post. You're not saying anything I didn't say, you're just doing it with the histrionics, bolt font and all caps of a teenage girl.

[Wayne Cubed]

I'm going to have to agree with him on that point. Any way you look at it, they have two first round picks invested in Sammy Watkins.

 

That said, I don't think its an awful trade. A little steep, yes, but that's the price you pay if you want to keep the rest of your picks this year. Obviously, we won't know how good it actually was for a couple of years, but as I said last night, regardless of trade value, I'm pretty sure they got the right player. I like it well enough.

 

It's really semantics, they didn't give up the 9th pick is what I'm trying to saying. But yes Sammy's value is 2 first's and a 4th.

 

Anyways, I agree they got the right guy.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I also think people need to remember that first round picks are not quite the value they used to be, because they simply don't cost as much due to the rookie cap. Therefore, if you have rookie cap to spend on player X, you may as well make player X elite.

 

Two very good players, vs one that is universally hailed as a sure thing that you can plug in for the next 5-6 years and never worry about the position? I'm for it.

 

Too many people are bringing their EJ issues into this without realizing that the Bills will not be drafting his replacement this year, and without really looking at what he accomplished as a rookie. To say nothing of the fact that he had to take the field far earlier than the team had hoped.

 

Beerball brought up the fear of giving this kid a "Ferrari" a few weeks ago, and thought it better to get the OL and TE positions more in order. That's a fair statement, but I look at it this way. If EJ TRULY can't handle the Ferrari, you can bring in a FA QB who would love to drive one next year. I for one think that OL issues could be minimized with better footwork from EJ

setting up better passes, and by getting the ball out quickly to dangerous targets. If we have passing threats, they cannot send the house against EJ all day long.

[Mike in Syracuse]

A fantastic story from Peter King on last nights decision:

 

http://mmqb.si.com/2...ns-gutsy-trade/

Edited May 9, 2014 by Mike in Syracuse

[truth on hold]

If we have passing threats, they cannot send the house against EJ all day long.

That's exactly what they will do, figuring they don't have enough quality corners to cover all our guys. EJ will see a lot of Blitz's this year

[OCinBuffalo]

I think it's you who didn't read my post. You're not saying anything I didn't say, you're just doing it with the histrionics, bolt font and all caps of a teenage girl.

I swear I'm going to get the cayons. I have some, for real I read what you said. I always read the posts I reply to. What is the friggin point otherwise? And, no, you aren't even close to saying what I am.

 

"Divesting 3 picks", and ignoring the fact that 1(one) 1st round pick was going to be spent no matter what(expect trading out of the first completely = not), is obtuse. If we had traded down last year, and got a 1st rounder this year, and gave it up, along with our 1st next year, then, and only then, would we have "given up 2(two) 1st round picks". Yes, then and only then, would we be giving up something we "invested" in.

 

Therefore, by the English language, logic, reason, Holy God....we did not "divest ourselves of 3 picks", because drafting NOBODY in the first round was never a real option.

 

Only in the obtuse vacuum of this thread, is drafting NOBODY with our 1st round pick an option...

 

...and therefore...

 

giving up the option to draft NOBODY...counts...as a 1st round pick....that was "given up", along with next year's 1st and 4th...to make 3, not 2, picks.

Edited May 9, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[May Day 10]

That's exactly what they will do, figuring they don't have enough quality corners to cover all our guys. EJ will see a lot of Blitz's this year

and thats when you screen it to Watkins and Spiller (and Goodwin)

[Green Lightning]

 

A single first and a fourth. Not two. We traded first rounders. Why is this so confusing?

 

I said invested in. We used two first round draft picks and a 4th to get this guy. That's investing two 1st rounders and 4th- get it? That's a huge investment and I hope to hell this guy is worth it.

[bobobonators]

 

Read my post again. Never mind, let's try another format:

 

The ONLY way we could not have spent 1(one) 1st round pick yesterday? Draft NOBODY.

 

This is NOT semantics, this is about "we gave up 2 1sts" being illogical, nevermind an affront to arithmetic.

 

3-1 = 2. With 1(one) being the pick we were going to use no matter what...because we were not drafting: NOBODY @9.

 

Right? Difference. Hence, minus sign. Or, "The difference between 3 and 1, is 2". The difference between taking Sammy Watkins, and staying put, is also: 2

 

QED It cost us 2 additional draft picks to take Watkins. We therefore "Gave Up" 2, not 3, picks to take Watkins.

 

Once again, you cannot have your draft pick, and your player. You can have one or the other. When you pick your player in the 1st round, you give up 1(one) 1st round pick 100% of the time.

 

We gave up 2 picks, not 3, to get to Watkins @ 5.

 

If this continues, perhaps the next format I try should be in crayon?

 

dude, this is awesome. only on TSW do we argue about these things.

 

furthermore, most people on here always crying about not having playmakers - cry cry cry cry; then we land a playmaker and they cry b/c we gave up too much. cry cry cry cry.

[RuntheDamnBall]

That's exactly what they will do, figuring they don't have enough quality corners to cover all our guys. EJ will see a lot of Blitz's this year

If they sell out for blitz and fail with this receiving crew + Spiller there is a good chance it's going to be six points.

[May Day 10]

If they sell out for blitz and fail with this receiving crew + Spiller there is a good chance it's going to be six points.

 

if they are all healthy its going to be an absolute nightmare for defenses. No matter what you think of Manuel.

[Storm Front]

It seems that in years past we always finish the season around 6-10 or 7-9, so we would draft in the middle of the first round. The Bills would end up drafting a semi-talented player who wouldn't make much of an impact. However, this year we moved up and drafted a truly elite player who could end up being a huge difference maker to our team for years to come.

 

Robert Woods will only get better over the next couple of years. He may end up being close to #1 WR talent. Mike Williams is a top tier #2 WR. Marquis Goodwin has potential. Stevie is a fun player to watch when he has his game on. I am intrigued by what we may have in Ramses Barden. I think we now have an outstanding corp of talented WR's.

[Fan in Chicago]

Long thread so I may have missed it, but just saw a Forbes article on the draft that Watkins' agent is the esteemed Eugene Parker. Thought that was worth mentioning.