Sammy=Moulds

[papazoid]

let's hope the biggest difference is Sammy doesn't have 10 different QB's throwing him the ball during his career like Moulds did.

[Donald Duck]

I'd say Andre Reed is the best Bills WR and I'm hoping Watkins takes Jerry Rice's title of best ever.

 

 

When you take YAC into consideration

 

Sammy Watkins = Andre Reed

[Webster Guy]

so much of a receiver's career is based on who is throwing to him, the quality of the offensive line, the opponents they play against, other wideouts on their team, effectiveness of the running game, even the defense (are they playing from behind and in obvious passing situations more frequently?), coordinators etc.

 

keep that in mind when you compare andre reed to eric moulds. Levy didn't even play Eric at WR his rookie season if I remember correctly.

 

interestingly, Moulds still hold the NFL all time single playoff game receiving record for that wild card game against Miami. 240 yards. total domination. i still remember that game. The record for most receptions in a single NFL playoff game is 13, held by Thurman Thomas (tied with a few other dudes).

 

It's safe to say Reed and Moulds were both dominant receivers who worked hard in the offseason and kept themselves in peak shape (unlike stevie aka "the magic groin") And they were both game changers who were fun to watch. Eric made training camp fun to watch as well because of his unbelievable catches. We used to call him the thoroughbred because he looked so much bigger and faster than everyone else out there.

 

It remains to be seen what Sammy Watkins pro game will look like. It's harder to run some of those Clemson bubble screens and quick-outs in the NFL until you get respected for the deep ball. Otherwise you're jammed and played short and every catch you get is 2 or 3 yards and you are more susceptible to the INT.

 

It will be fun to watch for sure, but EJ is going to need to be sharp for Sammy to be productive. I'm more worried about that than anything. Hackett and EJ have been given the offensive weapons, now they need to get tuned up and ready to use them.

 

I'm more excited for this season than ever. And that's saying something.............

[QB Bills]

Sorry bud, you didn't convince me or most others in my opinion. Nice try. I think you need to look at the stats and the teams win/loss. It's pretty clear Andre was tops. Potential doesn't mean anything if not realized

No offense, as you are just one of many people that use that overly simplistic barometer, but that is the worst argument to make for/against a singular player's abilities.

 

You can say Reed is the more accomplished player, but that is more of a function of the team he was on...specifically a certain #12 throwing him the ball. But on pure talent, Moulds was clearly better.

[26CornerBlitz]

Sammy Watkins = Sammy Watkins

[Braedenstearns]

Sammy Watkins = Sammy Watkins

 

Agreed. But its fun comparing!

[26CornerBlitz]

Agreed. But its fun comparing!

 

It is indeed.

[C.Biscuit97]

I want Sammy to be better than Moulds. IT wasn't his fault but Moulds never put together back to back great seasons. Also, I'd rather not have Sammy knock up a bunch of strippers.

 

Side note, with the way some folks overreact after rookie years here, I would have loved to see what people would have said after Moulds' rookie year.

Edited June 18, 2014 by C.Biscuit97

[Big Turk]

I think Sammy has some Moulds like attributes and skills, but athleticism wise, he is on another planet.

 

JMO

 

Yeah, he is much more skilled than Moulds...he is HOF caliber if he lives up to potential

[John from Riverside]

Sammy had better put up a lot better numbers than Moulds for what we gave up to get him. He also had better be far more consistent.

 

Jesus some of your posts.....

 

If you knew what you knew now and could go back in time Eric Moulds would have EASY been worth 2 1st round picks.......one of the most dominant WRs of his era along with Marvin Harrison.......

 

So yes....we hope that Sammy Watkins is even a notch above Moulds.....but no one would shed a tear if he ended up being AS GOOD as Moulds

[Ronin]

Why do you post here?

 

Good question.

 

I enjoy the emotional challenges? Only partially being facetious.

 

Why do you post here?

Edited June 19, 2014 by TaskersGhost

[Ronin]

More than one.

looks like he is going to be a good investment , I see people smiling and cheering.

When a team puts that kind of investment in you. Hmm. Well i guess you better try your hardest to do the the very best you can. Any reason to think he wont ? Or doesn't . but i was referencing your acute use of better, as if he had better or else .

i think you will be pleased over the next 4 years or so with Sam Watkins. Both of my crystal balls say so

 

I hope you're right.

 

Any reason to think he wont ?

 

Of course there are, if you've done your research then you'd know what those reasons are. The draftniks laid them all out. It's hardly private knowledge.

 

Let me ask you a question, how do you compare Clemson's offense to typical NFL offenses generally speaking, and more specifically speaking, how do you compare Clemson's offense to Buffalo's offense?

 

While answering that, ask yourself how Watkins earned his reputation at Clemson and then correspondingly ask yourself if you think he'll be able to do the same thing in the NFL.

 

Once you understand all of that you'll see clearly that something's going to have to change drastically if Watkins is going to have the same degree of success in the NFL, particularly with us, the Bills.

 

Then ask yourself with the pieces in place, whether A) Watkins have ever even shown or proven that he can do that, for which the short answer is 'no," and B) can he excel by doing what was not his bread and butter at Clemson. The answer to that last part, B), will determine everything. I don't know whether that will work out as such, but I see two things holding him up from achieving that, first, Manuel, second, time, as it will take time for him to adjust and adapt to a role that he never was in while at Clemson. Anyone thinking that this leopard is going to come to the NFL and change his spots to stripes seemlessly is best advised to be cautious in their expectations.

 

On top of that, Watkins had lots of strengths attached to him, primarily his athleticism, but among his negatives are poor route running, which is often if not usually a showstopper in preventing receivers from exceling in the NFL,

 

It's not as if I simply make this stuff up because it's what I wanted to believe. In fact, I told numerous people prior to the draft that if the Bills take Watkins it will be the dumbest pick they'll have made in years, so I drew this conclusion before they even drafted him much less traded away next year's 1st to get him. IMO they should have taken Evans if they really wanted a receiver, I'll stand by my prognosis that Evans will have both a better rookie season as well as better NFL career, and that's starting off in Tampa, a very similar situation.

 

Anyway, here's a really good article praising Watkins as among the best athletes in the Draft, and I agree, as athletes go he's proably among the top there. But it's the system at Clemson, the fact that he made a living off of bubble screens, and what's contained in his negatives here that concern me, this is an excerpt from that piece;

 

http://nfl.si.com/2014/04/22/2014-nfl-draft-top-64-sammy-watkins/

 

Weaknesses: Watkins’ height creates concerns with regards to jump balls and contested catches; he’s simply not big enough to grab some of the balls that more physically imposing receivers might. And while he’s strong, he needs space to operate — he’ll get taken down on first contact a lot if the first contact is a form tackle attempt, though he’ll drive his helmet in and try to gain extra yardage. Watkins said at the combine that he’s comfortable with all manner of route concepts, but he was a quick up-and-out and vertical target at Clemson, and there are times when he appears a step slow on some more angular routes — especially curls and comebacks or anything with really quick cuts. Has the physical talent to master the techniques required and shows it at times, but that could be a process.

 

nfl.com, and other sources, list his weakness as an over-the-middle receiver too talking about how he rarely had many challenges.

 

We heard the same about Spiller needing space, which is merely another phrase for getting the ball to a player with no one around him. Well la-dee-dah, wouldn't every offensive skill-position player do better "in space" and wouldn't they all love that on every play. The problem is that they typically don't get "space" in the NFL and NFL players are much much bigger and faster than collegiate players.

 

On that note, Watkins' opposition in college was easily on the lighter end of the scale. His senior season his Tigers didn't even play the best teams in the ACC other than FSU against which his performance was pedestrian, much less great defenses in their other games. He essentially lit it up against the worst passing Ds in college ball. So will he now all of a sudden play well against top DBs at the NFL level? To me that's a huge if, and only time will tell.

 

But looking at this from Whaley's angle, he's promised playoffs now. To think that this young and inexperienced cadre of WRs is going to lead us to a winning season with Manuel throwing, much less to the playoffs, is somewhat ridiculous. In Cleveland they're talking about how Manziel, now that it appears that he may be starting, won't have anyone to throw to with Josh Gordon out. But over there they have Miles Austin, Nate Burleson, Travis Benjamin, and Andrew Hawkins are at least what we have and the experience among them exceed that of the experience on our roster by miles. Is anyone talking about Cleveland having a winning season, or making the playoffs, even if Manziel plays well for a rookie, and I can easily see him outplaying Manuel this season.

 

So whether or not you like my answer, I think that I've answered your question pretty comprehensively.

 

Any reason to think he wont ?

 

Those are the reasons why I think that the chances of him doing so are notably less than the chances of him not doing so. I think that he's going to be more of a project than anyone thinks. For what the team gave up to get him he should easily be the team's leading WR this year, especially if Whaley is to be believed that this move is going to propel us into the playoffs. But I don't think he will be, I think Woods will have that honor and that he won't even cross the 1,000 yard mark.

 

Let met ask you a question, if Watkins only post 700 or 800 yards and 5 TDs and we end up being 5-11, and his draft negatives begin to play out and reveal that he's got a lot more work than everyone seems to think that he does in turning himself into a top-shelf NFL WR, do you think that he'll have been worth what we gave up to get him?

 

Because if in three seasons he's not elite as a WR, two 1st-rounders will have been a complete waste and one more in a long string of reaches for this franchise. Presumably we can agree on that.

 

Either way, I answered your question honestly and legitimately. If you want to argue those facts, then take it up with what just about every Draft analyst said about him not with my opinions beyond that.

 

Moulds was a big physical receiver. Sammy is a totally different type of player. Not sure why the comparison. Yes, they are both good receivers that have played for the Bills. Sammy can be physical after the catch but he's going to rely on his speed to get open. They are going to have to be a little more creative in order to get Sammy the ball in space in order to utilize that speed. Screens, reverses, pick plays. I think he will have some growing pains early on but hopefully he stays with it and tightens up his down field routes and maybe if the defense starts playing him under he can turn it up on them and go deep. This is the year we really need to stretch the field. I hope Manuel is working on his deep ball

 

Agreed. Here's the thing, he doesn't have a lot of experience "in traffic" over the middle. They also said that when he's in such a role, which wasn't often, he often struggled. Having said that, every player enjoys "getting the ball in space," but it's a luxury that NFL skill position players typically don't have. Every opposing DC is going to prevent him from having that space, and I don't think it's going to be difficult for them to do that, especially not the Jets or Pats which we play four times.

 

"Stretching the field" will help, but as you imply, is Manuel up to the task? He wasn't last year and he was massively inconsistent at best on deep balls at FSU too for four years. That's going to change all of a sudden now, after five seasons of futility in that way? I suppose it could, but what are the odds?

 

We were all lectured, both by the team and the long list of know-it-alls here too, about how great Spiller would be and his "key to success" was getting the ball in space too. But both he as well as his apologists have learned what should have been obvious, that "space" comes at a premium in the NFL, especially when defensive coordinators know that when a key to a player's success is "space," And who cares what the worst DCs in the league do, it's not them that we have to beat, it's the better defensively minded head coaches and better DCs, plenty of which we face this season with Ryan and Belicheat being in our division, and we can't seem to be able to beat the Pats under any circumstances as it is.

[K-9]

... Either way, I answered your question honestly and legitimately. If you want to argue those facts, then take it up with what just about every Draft analyst said about him not with my opinions beyond that.

 

Let me guess, this array of draft "analysts" all claim that Watkins made a living on bubble screens and slants and that just won't translate to the pro game. Which is total crap. But it's not surprising because it's lazy reporting.

 

The draft "analysts" would be better served by "analyzing" each game he played rather than just a collection of highlights. If they do that, they'll find Watkins routinely killed press coverage as a freshmen and DCs REFUSED to let that happen anymore. And that's why they started playing off the LOS and Clemson's coaches took advantage.

 

For every draft "analyst" you find that questions his ability to translate his game to the next level because he's only good at bubble screens and slants, there is an actual scouting report on the kid that refutes that.

 

There's a reason he is a 3 time All America selection at the position and the best WR prospect in years. And it's not because he's a one-trick pony.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Ronin]

Let me guess, this array of draft "analysts" all claim that Watkins made a living on bubble screens and slants and that just won't translate to the pro game. Which is total crap. But it's not surprising because it's lazy reporting.

 

The draft "analysts" would be better served by "analyzing" each game he played rather than just a collection of highlights. If they do that, they'll find Watkins routinely killed press coverage as a freshmen and DCs REFUSED to let that happen anymore. And that's why they started playing off the LOS and Clemson's coaches took advantage.

 

 

Something's not matching up there. If he were in fact that absurdly fast, why didn't he do KRs more often?

 

For every draft "analyst" you find that questions his ability to translate his game to the next level because he's only good at bubble screens and slants, there is an actual scouting report on the kid that refutes that.

 

There's a reason he is a 3 time All America selection at the position and the best WR prospect in years. And it's not because he's a one-trick pony.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Nice of you to bring some actual facts and data to the table of this discussion.

 

By the way 3rdand12, one more thing, that causes me to raise a question is this, we're told about how Watkins is so ridiculously fast and uncatchable, but then unlike Spiller even, why was he only marginal at best at returning KOs at Clemson, and downright putrid at returning punts there in the few that he returned?

 

I'm having a difficult time trying to reconcile this pure speed with his complete inability to do better than what would have been 85th in ranking, tops, in KO return average if he had had enough KRs to qualify. Throw in the fact that in 27 returns in his Jr. and Sr. seasons, he didn't even have a single TD, and only had one at that in '11. Other than an 89-yard return, his longest was 39 yards and his average at Clemson was well below average by collegiate standards.

 

In your opinion is this relevant? Because I think it is. It makes me question how well he'll play in the NFL when he isn't playing the likes of the defensive talent on NC State, BC, Maryland, Virginia, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Citadel, and South Carolina State, not to mention Ohio State who had the 6th worst passing defense in the country.

 

At least Spiller made a name for himself in returns. Watkins couldn't even perform to average levels in the return game, not even close.

 

Don't think that's relevant? I most certainly do.

Edited June 19, 2014 by TaskersGhost

[QB Bills]

Nice of you to bring some actual facts and data to the table of this discussion.

 

By the way 3rdand12, one more thing, that causes me to raise a question is this, we're told about how Watkins is so ridiculously fast and uncatchable, but then unlike Spiller even, why was he only marginal at best at returning KOs at Clemson, and downright putrid at returning punts there in the few that he returned?

 

I'm having a difficult time trying to reconcile this pure speed with his complete inability to do better than what would have been 85th in ranking, tops, in KO return average if he had had enough KRs to qualify. Throw in the fact that in 27 returns in his Jr. and Sr. seasons, he didn't even have a single TD, and only had one at that in '11. Other than an 89-yard return, his longest was 39 yards and his average at Clemson was well below average by collegiate standards.

 

In your opinion is this relevant? Because I think it is. It makes me question how well he'll play in the NFL when he isn't playing the likes of the defensive talent on NC State, BC, Maryland, Virginia, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Citadel, and South Carolina State, not to mention Ohio State who had the 6th worst passing defense in the country.

 

At least Spiller made a name for himself in returns. Watkins couldn't even perform to average levels in the return game, not even close.

 

Don't think that's relevant? I most certainly do.

I don't.

 

Kick/punt returning isn't about straight-line speed until you've already passed the last defender. Its more about agility, following your blocks, and seeing the play develop.

 

I'm with you in the sense that I'm skeptical about Watkins, especially considering the reckless way Whaley acquired him. But to use his kick returning abilities to make your point is misguided, in my opinion.

[Dibs]

I hope you're right.

 

Any reason to think he wont ?

 

Of course there are, if you've done your research then you'd know what those reasons are. The draftniks laid them all out. It's hardly private knowledge.

 

Let me ask you a question, how do you compare Clemson's offense to typical NFL offenses generally speaking, and more specifically speaking, how do you compare Clemson's offense to Buffalo's offense?

 

While answering that, ask yourself how Watkins earned his reputation at Clemson and then correspondingly ask yourself if you think he'll be able to do the same thing in the NFL.

 

Once you understand all of that you'll see clearly that something's going to have to change drastically if Watkins is going to have the same degree of success in the NFL, particularly with us, the Bills.

 

Then ask yourself with the pieces in place, whether A) Watkins have ever even shown or proven that he can do that, for which the short answer is 'no," and B) can he excel by doing what was not his bread and butter at Clemson. The answer to that last part, B), will determine everything. I don't know whether that will work out as such, but I see two things holding him up from achieving that, first, Manuel, second, time, as it will take time for him to adjust and adapt to a role that he never was in while at Clemson. Anyone thinking that this leopard is going to come to the NFL and change his spots to stripes seemlessly is best advised to be cautious in their expectations.

 

On top of that, Watkins had lots of strengths attached to him, primarily his athleticism, but among his negatives are poor route running, which is often if not usually a showstopper in preventing receivers from exceling in the NFL,

 

It's not as if I simply make this stuff up because it's what I wanted to believe. In fact, I told numerous people prior to the draft that if the Bills take Watkins it will be the dumbest pick they'll have made in years, so I drew this conclusion before they even drafted him much less traded away next year's 1st to get him. IMO they should have taken Evans if they really wanted a receiver, I'll stand by my prognosis that Evans will have both a better rookie season as well as better NFL career, and that's starting off in Tampa, a very similar situation.

 

Anyway, here's a really good article praising Watkins as among the best athletes in the Draft, and I agree, as athletes go he's proably among the top there. But it's the system at Clemson, the fact that he made a living off of bubble screens, and what's contained in his negatives here that concern me, this is an excerpt from that piece;

 

http://nfl.si.com/20...-sammy-watkins/

 

Weaknesses: Watkins’ height creates concerns with regards to jump balls and contested catches; he’s simply not big enough to grab some of the balls that more physically imposing receivers might. And while he’s strong, he needs space to operate — he’ll get taken down on first contact a lot if the first contact is a form tackle attempt, though he’ll drive his helmet in and try to gain extra yardage. Watkins said at the combine that he’s comfortable with all manner of route concepts, but he was a quick up-and-out and vertical target at Clemson, and there are times when he appears a step slow on some more angular routes — especially curls and comebacks or anything with really quick cuts. Has the physical talent to master the techniques required and shows it at times, but that could be a process.

 

nfl.com, and other sources, list his weakness as an over-the-middle receiver too talking about how he rarely had many challenges.

 

We heard the same about Spiller needing space, which is merely another phrase for getting the ball to a player with no one around him. Well la-dee-dah, wouldn't every offensive skill-position player do better "in space" and wouldn't they all love that on every play. The problem is that they typically don't get "space" in the NFL and NFL players are much much bigger and faster than collegiate players.

 

On that note, Watkins' opposition in college was easily on the lighter end of the scale. His senior season his Tigers didn't even play the best teams in the ACC other than FSU against which his performance was pedestrian, much less great defenses in their other games. He essentially lit it up against the worst passing Ds in college ball. So will he now all of a sudden play well against top DBs at the NFL level? To me that's a huge if, and only time will tell.

 

But looking at this from Whaley's angle, he's promised playoffs now. To think that this young and inexperienced cadre of WRs is going to lead us to a winning season with Manuel throwing, much less to the playoffs, is somewhat ridiculous. In Cleveland they're talking about how Manziel, now that it appears that he may be starting, won't have anyone to throw to with Josh Gordon out. But over there they have Miles Austin, Nate Burleson, Travis Benjamin, and Andrew Hawkins are at least what we have and the experience among them exceed that of the experience on our roster by miles. Is anyone talking about Cleveland having a winning season, or making the playoffs, even if Manziel plays well for a rookie, and I can easily see him outplaying Manuel this season.

 

So whether or not you like my answer, I think that I've answered your question pretty comprehensively.

 

Any reason to think he wont ?

 

Those are the reasons why I think that the chances of him doing so are notably less than the chances of him not doing so. I think that he's going to be more of a project than anyone thinks. For what the team gave up to get him he should easily be the team's leading WR this year, especially if Whaley is to be believed that this move is going to propel us into the playoffs. But I don't think he will be, I think Woods will have that honor and that he won't even cross the 1,000 yard mark.

 

Let met ask you a question, if Watkins only post 700 or 800 yards and 5 TDs and we end up being 5-11, and his draft negatives begin to play out and reveal that he's got a lot more work than everyone seems to think that he does in turning himself into a top-shelf NFL WR, do you think that he'll have been worth what we gave up to get him?

 

Because if in three seasons he's not elite as a WR, two 1st-rounders will have been a complete waste and one more in a long string of reaches for this franchise. Presumably we can agree on that.

 

Either way, I answered your question honestly and legitimately. If you want to argue those facts, then take it up with what just about every Draft analyst said about him not with my opinions beyond that.

 

 

 

Agreed. Here's the thing, he doesn't have a lot of experience "in traffic" over the middle. They also said that when he's in such a role, which wasn't often, he often struggled. Having said that, every player enjoys "getting the ball in space," but it's a luxury that NFL skill position players typically don't have. Every opposing DC is going to prevent him from having that space, and I don't think it's going to be difficult for them to do that, especially not the Jets or Pats which we play four times.

 

"Stretching the field" will help, but as you imply, is Manuel up to the task? He wasn't last year and he was massively inconsistent at best on deep balls at FSU too for four years. That's going to change all of a sudden now, after five seasons of futility in that way? I suppose it could, but what are the odds?

 

We were all lectured, both by the team and the long list of know-it-alls here too, about how great Spiller would be and his "key to success" was getting the ball in space too. But both he as well as his apologists have learned what should have been obvious, that "space" comes at a premium in the NFL, especially when defensive coordinators know that when a key to a player's success is "space," And who cares what the worst DCs in the league do, it's not them that we have to beat, it's the better defensively minded head coaches and better DCs, plenty of which we face this season with Ryan and Belicheat being in our division, and we can't seem to be able to beat the Pats under any circumstances as it is.

 

Gee, and there I was thinking that several analysts, teams & scouts had him as the #1 best prospect in the draft. Oh well, I guess Sammy is gonna be crap then.

[John from Riverside]

Gee, and there I was thinking that several analysts, teams & scouts had him as the #1 best prospect in the draft. Oh well, I guess Sammy is gonna be crap then.

 

Its funny.....I keep hearing these "once a generation" type quotes from analysts, coaches, etc on Sammy....

 

Then I see Tasker's posts

 

Then I thank god that fans are fans and there are people that know how to evaluate talent doing their jobs for our team

[K-9]

Nice of you to bring some actual facts and data to the table of this discussion.

 

By the way 3rdand12, one more thing, that causes me to raise a question is this, we're told about how Watkins is so ridiculously fast and uncatchable, but then unlike Spiller even, why was he only marginal at best at returning KOs at Clemson, and downright putrid at returning punts there in the few that he returned?

 

I'm having a difficult time trying to reconcile this pure speed with his complete inability to do better than what would have been 85th in ranking, tops, in KO return average if he had had enough KRs to qualify. Throw in the fact that in 27 returns in his Jr. and Sr. seasons, he didn't even have a single TD, and only had one at that in '11. Other than an 89-yard return, his longest was 39 yards and his average at Clemson was well below average by collegiate standards.

 

In your opinion is this relevant? Because I think it is. It makes me question how well he'll play in the NFL when he isn't playing the likes of the defensive talent on NC State, BC, Maryland, Virginia, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Citadel, and South Carolina State, not to mention Ohio State who had the 6th worst passing defense in the country.

 

At least Spiller made a name for himself in returns. Watkins couldn't even perform to average levels in the return game, not even close.

 

Don't think that's relevant? I most certainly do.

 

My post was fact. If you weren't as lazy as those draft "analysts" you describe, you'd have already watched a wide spectrum of his games over his three years, all of which were All American years (that's a fact, too), and you'd know that, before he embarrassed defenses on bubble screens and slants, he was making CBs look silly when they tried playing him close. You'd also see the direct impact he had on DCs and their coverage schemes. This is all observable and is the reason why he was rated as high as he was by GMs, scouts, and others.

 

Not sure how Watkins' ability as a return specialist and how that compares to Spiller is germane to anything. Has nothing at all to do with the discussion.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I don't.

 

Kick/punt returning isn't about straight-line speed until you've already passed the last defender. Its more about agility, following your blocks, and seeing the play develop.

 

I'm with you in the sense that I'm skeptical about Watkins, especially considering the reckless way Whaley acquired him. But to use his kick returning abilities to make your point is misguided, in my opinion.

 

Nothing reckless about it. Quite the opposite in fact. He's the definition of a targeted acquisition.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

My post was fact. If you weren't as lazy as those draft "analysts" you describe, you'd have already watched a wide spectrum of his games over his three years, all of which were All American years (that's a fact, too), and you'd know that, before he embarrassed defenses on bubble screens and slants, he was making CBs look silly when they tried playing him close. You'd also see the direct impact he had on DCs and their coverage schemes. This is all observable and is the reason why he was rated as high as he was by GMs, scouts, and others.

 

Not sure how Watkins' ability as a return specialist and how that compares to Spiller is germane to anything. Has nothing at all to do with the discussion.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

 

Nothing reckless about it. Quite the opposite in fact. He's the definition of a targeted acquisition.

 

GO BILLS!!!

What he said ^^^

[thebandit27]

Google "Matt Bowen Bleacher Report Sammy Watkins" for a nice breakdown.

 

I cannot post the link, but Bowen does a great job with the film review.

 

If you have any doubt about Sammy Watkins and his ability to translate his game to the NFL, it's well worth the read.