Sammy=Moulds

[Kirby Jackson]

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.

No one has any doubt about his game translating. He was the number 1 overall player (in a good draft) on numerous draft boards. He is probably as safe a draft pick as the Bills have made since Bruce. One poster admittedly likes to be antagonistic.

[K-9]

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.

 

Good read, thanks for the link. Bowen mentions his footwork which is not surprising as I know a couple grown men who waxed poetic about this kid's feet. Not in a Rex Ryan way, but I'd never heard that from them before. And then I read the article in SI about his work ethic and his solo workouts designed to improve his footwork; like the kid is obsessed about it. He sets his feet while catching the ball and putting himself in a position to run unlike anyone I've seen, kinda like an outfielder positioning his feet to make a throw while setting up to catch the ball. I thought that was interesting.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Big Turk]

Moulds was a good WR too many people consider great.

[Buftex]

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.

 

I don't typically like to get in these arguments, because when you say one guy is better than the other, it comes off as, one guy sucks (or sucked in this case) and the other was so clearly better. I like both Reed and Moulds a lot..I think they are both worthy of "best Bills receive of all time" status, consideration. But honestly, while Moulds may have been a better athlete, I don't think he was near as versatile as Reed was. It amazes me, to this day, HOF and all, how little some appreciate how truly great Andre Reed was. Reed may not have been as fast as Moulds, as strong as Moulds, but Reed was every bit as tough... in one of those HOF threads on TBD, somebody claimed that Reed doesn't belong in the HOF, because he was "afraid to go over the middle"... not saying this is true of you, but that made it clear to me that some people either have horrible memories, they are too young to have seen Reed play, or they simply didn't comprehend what they saw.

 

Moulds was a good WR too many people consider great.

 

Again, I like the guy, and he was great...perhaps the greatest physicall talent the Bills have had at the position in the last 25-30 years..but not the best receiver.

 

Who knows what he might have done on better teams. But he wasn't on a lot of the Bills truly awful teams, and was on some pretty good offensive Bills squads. By that I mean, the argument that Reed had a great career, simply because there was more talent on the Bills during his time, just doesn't necessarily ring true for me. Flutie and Bledsoe, while not Jim Kelly, were better than average NFL starting QB's. I would also argue that Rob Johnson, when healthy, was a pretty decent passer as well... they also had a good running game, during most of Moulds tenure...and Peerless Price, the first time around, was a pretty decent complimentary receiver for about 4 years... they had guys like Larry Centers...the cupboard wasn't as bare as some paint it out to be.

 

As talented as he was, I was always frustrated (particularly when Bledsoe came to Buffalo, and through the rest of his time in Buffalo) that Eric had a propensity for being as concerned about drawing pass interference flags as he was with trying to catch the ball.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Buftex

[QB Bills]

I don't typically like to get in these arguments, because when you say one guy is better than the other, it comes off as, one guy sucks (or sucked in this case) and the other was so clearly better. I like both Reed and Moulds a lot..I think they are both worthy of "best Bills receive of all time" status, consideration. But honestly, while Moulds may have been a better athlete, I don't think he was near as versatile as Reed was. It amazes me, to this day, HOF and all, how little some appreciate how truly great Andre Reed was. Reed may not have been as fast as Moulds, as strong as Moulds, but Reed was every bit as tough... in one of those HOF threads on TBD, somebody claimed that Reed doesn't belong in the HOF, because he was "afraid to go over the middle"... not saying this is true of you, but that made it clear to me that some people either have horrible memories, they are too young to have seen Reed play, or they simply didn't comprehend what they saw.

Andre Reed is a hall of famer, and deservedly so. It's not a slight against him in the least. As for being afraid to go over the middle? That's actually what he was known for, so anyone who says that obviously didn't watch him play much.

 

I'm just saying that I believe Moulds had more talent. In my opinion, if you placed Moulds with Jim Kelly for most of his career, and Reed with the likes of Kelly Holcomb and Rob Johnson, there wouldn't even be a discussion as to who the best receiver in Bills history was.

[rstencel]

Think a lot of that opinion on Reed comes from the fact he rarely got a lot of separation. He was a master of positioning and had great hands, so if put the ball in the right spot he would use his body and hands to make the play. If he had the QB's that Molds had I don't think he would have put up the great numbers he had because few QB's could get away with throwing into coverage as well as Kelly could, because of his arm strength/accuracy combo. Their strengths matched up perfect, which is why both are in hall now probably. Not trying to take anything away from Reed, as he was perfect receiver for the situation.

[K-9]

Andre Reed is a hall of famer, and deservedly so. It's not a slight against him in the least. As for being afraid to go over the middle? That's actually what he was known for, so anyone who says that obviously didn't watch him play much.

 

I'm just saying that I believe Moulds had more talent. In my opinion, if you placed Moulds with Jim Kelly for most of his career, and Reed with the likes of Kelly Holcomb and Rob Johnson, there wouldn't even be a discussion as to who the best receiver in Bills history was.

 

You're right. That honor goes to Elbert Dubenion.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[hondo in seattle]

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.............

 

Great post.

[Kemp2Warlick]

Retweeted by

Buffalo Bills

Adam Rank

‏

@

adamrank

1h

Reason No. 77 to be excited for the

@

NFL

season: Sammy Watkins. Doing this.

http://

ow.ly/y5odX

@

buffalobills

[YoloinOhio]

45]

Retweeted by

Buffalo Bills

 

45]

Adam Rank

‏

@

adamrank

1h

Reason No. 77 to be excited for the

@

NFL

season: Sammy Watkins. Doing this.

http://

ow.ly/y5odX

@

buffalobills

 

Meh - that was only against the SEC def ....oh.

 

<off to watch on a loop>

[Snorom]

IMO, Eric Moulds was and is probably the best WR of the bills in the 2000's(21st century). I Know some people have compared him to Eric Moulds. The way he goes up for the Balls and His speed after the catch, He Looks like Eric Moulds. Any thoughts on this? Would you like Sammy to be like Eric Moulds?

 

Sammy can be more explosive after the catch

[pi2000]

Moulds was big guy who could break tackles.

 

Watkins seems more of a speed guy, his explosiveness after the catch is what makes him special. I see him more like a Peerless Price or Don Beebe.

[Ronin]

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.

 

Again, no facts or data, just opinions.

 

He was the #1 best prospect in the draft, just like Ryan Leaf, Jamarcu Russell, Drew Bledsoe, Jeff George, and Tim Couch were at one time too. Your point? What, that draft analysts are never or even often wrong? I'll beg to differ. If that's your sole counterargument ...

 

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

 

Yeah, the experts under Whaley for 5 seasons have done such a remarkable job. They've pretty much whiffed completely on 3rd rounders and later picks. We all know that this season will be different, it always is.

 

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!!!

 

So was Manuel.

 

No one has any doubt about his game translating. He was the number 1 overall player (in a good draft) on numerous draft boards. He is probably as safe a draft pick as the Bills have made since Bruce. One poster admittedly likes to be antagonistic.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with being antagonistic. I told you, when rumors about the Bills drafting Watkins were flying, I was the first to say what a terrible pick that would be, and that was without trading up.

 

Whaley has now put all of his eggs into one basket with Manuel's and Watkins' names on it. Does that make sense to you?

 

Otherwise I'm analyzing while trying to marry-up the facts and data on Watkins. Draft "experts" are wrong just as often as they are right. No one ever provides post-draft success rates in calling 100 players for any draft expert for reasons. All they and you do is cite them prior to those players ever having hit the field.

 

Remember when Bill Walsh told us all how great Trent Edwards would be in the annuls of football history? He was right as he was in predicting that Rick Mirer would do the same.

 

What, Bill Walsh was a moron? Hardly. But clearly there was much more than just collegiate film review in projecting how well players translate to the NFL. One of them is terribly discounted here, and that's the nature of the competition faced by prospects, and the system in which they played in. It's routine that players in certain systems and not having faced top-notch competition very often don't translate well to the NFL level.

 

Naturally we know that just because everyone discounts that here that it's all meaningless.

 

Also, this childish notion that somehow I or any other Bills fan will be happy when our draftees flop merely insults those trying to engage in decent conversation on the topic.

 

I'll bookmark this thread and we'll come back to it in November. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm going to stand on every word that I've said about Watkins. I expect him to struggle given his status as you guys all here insist will carry him into the NFL, and for the very reasons I've cited. Not sure what your excuse will be if that happens, and again, hopefully it doesn't, but you won't be able to use anything that I've cited to explain it if it does.

[C.Biscuit97]

Moulds was big guy who could break tackles.

 

Watkins seems more of a speed guy, his explosiveness after the catch is what makes him special. I see him more like a Peerless Price or Don Beebe.

 

No offense, but that is a really bad comparison. Price and Beebe were purely speed guys who's best routes were just going deep. Watkins catches screens and breaks tackles. Watkins couldn't be more different than those 2.

[John from Riverside]

Moulds was big guy who could break tackles.

 

Watkins seems more of a speed guy, his explosiveness after the catch is what makes him special. I see him more like a Peerless Price or Don Beebe.

 

OMG......I guess your missing the plays where he is flat running over players....he is like a RUNNING BACK playing WIDE RECIVER

 

Where do these noobs come up with this crap.......deep breaths....deep breaths

[Ronin]

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.

 

LOL

 

He uses Ohio State film as the example? Did you bother to look at how good OSU's passing D was prior to boasting this? It makes my point perfectly. OSU's pass D sucked elephant balls. They were ranked 6th from worst in all of college. Everyone had a heyday passing performance against them.

 

Bowens says this:

 

While I do believe Watkins will earn his money early in 2014 as a vertical threat, there is no question he can produce within the entire route tree.

 

That may be fine, but he didn't produce using the entire route tree at Clemson. So not sure about this "no question" stuff. Talk is cheap.

 

But more importantly, can Manuel deliver it?

 

Here's another good piece;

 

http://www.sbnation....ceiver-rankings

 

I will agree with two points in this guy's piece about Watkins and Evans.

 

First, that Watkins is the type of receiver that can be brought in, start straight away and become a star. Expecting him to have the same type of impact Green did for the Bengals should be the expectation.

 

I agree that that not only should, but has to be the expectation given the way that the team acquired him now.

 

Green's rookie season was 65, 1,057, 7. So let's just say that Watkins needs to post 60+ catches, 1,000+ yards, and 6+ TDs or his draft status will have been too much.

 

Can we agree on that at least?

 

Secondly, I agree with the guy on this:

 

Evans grades out as one of the ten best players in the draft on our latest big board. He's the type of receiver who instantly makes his quarterback better. The skills he used to make plays in college all translate to the NFL. He already learned how to win when he wasn't the fastest player on the field. That's only going to help him as he transitions to the NFL and learns how to use his physical tools to out-muscle defensive backs for passes.

 

I don't necessarily view Watkins as making his QB better. I view Watkins as posing a potential job challenging issue for a QB like Manuel though. Think about it, if Manuel doesn't automatically become far more accurate, and consistently so, and he keeps overthrowing Watkins like he did so many WRs last year on the relatively limited number of "deep" balls that he threw, or even medium balls, then they're going to be pointing the finger at Manuel initially and calling for his head.

 

The one thing that I've not read anywhere by any credible analyst, is how Watkins' skills used in college translate well to the NFL. That has been conspicuously absent from draf previews.

 

Mike Evans also didn't make a living out of beating up on B-rate talented teams, he absolutely lit up both Alabama and Auburn more than any other WR in recent years.

Edited June 19, 2014 by TaskersGhost

[thebandit27]

Again, no facts or data, just opinions.

 

He was the #1 best prospect in the draft, just like Ryan Leaf, Jamarcu Russell, Drew Bledsoe, Jeff George, and Tim Couch were at one time too. Your point? What, that draft analysts are never or even often wrong? I'll beg to differ. If that's your sole counterargument ...

 

 

 

Yeah, the experts under Whaley for 5 seasons have done such a remarkable job. They've pretty much whiffed completely on 3rd rounders and later picks. We all know that this season will be different, it always is.

 

 

 

So was Manuel.

 

 

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with being antagonistic. I told you, when rumors about the Bills drafting Watkins were flying, I was the first to say what a terrible pick that would be, and that was without trading up.

 

Whaley has now put all of his eggs into one basket with Manuel's and Watkins' names on it. Does that make sense to you?

 

Otherwise I'm analyzing while trying to marry-up the facts and data on Watkins. Draft "experts" are wrong just as often as they are right. No one ever provides post-draft success rates in calling 100 players for any draft expert for reasons. All they and you do is cite them prior to those players ever having hit the field.

 

Remember when Bill Walsh told us all how great Trent Edwards would be in the annuls of football history? He was right as he was in predicting that Rick Mirer would do the same.

 

What, Bill Walsh was a moron? Hardly. But clearly there was much more than just collegiate film review in projecting how well players translate to the NFL. One of them is terribly discounted here, and that's the nature of the competition faced by prospects, and the system in which they played in. It's routine that players in certain systems and not having faced top-notch competition very often don't translate well to the NFL level.

 

Naturally we know that just because everyone discounts that here that it's all meaningless.

 

Also, this childish notion that somehow I or any other Bills fan will be happy when our draftees flop merely insults those trying to engage in decent conversation on the topic.

 

I'll bookmark this thread and we'll come back to it in November. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm going to stand on every word that I've said about Watkins. I expect him to struggle given his status as you guys all here insist will carry him into the NFL, and for the very reasons I've cited. Not sure what your excuse will be if that happens, and again, hopefully it doesn't, but you won't be able to use anything that I've cited to explain it if it does.

 

A very easy Google search can show you the film breakdown on Watkins and why your concerns with him may, in fact, be largely misguided.

 

That said, you're straw-manning a bit with the "experts are wrong" talk. Watkins was dominant in college, has a great blend of size/speed, and showed that he's anything but a one-trick pony.

 

If you could provide any facts that speak to the contrary, then your opinion may be taken more seriously. Instead, you've cited a statistic about catches behind the LOS (without any regard to the fact that he did far more than just catch the ball behind the LOS at Clemson).

 

You also cite a lack of ability to win contested catches, which tells me you really haven't watched him play. There are clips on top of clips of him fighting for catches (and winning); they aren't hard to find. Here's a small sampling of his variety of skills:

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-draft/0ap2000000347625/Film-Study-Sammy-Watkins

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000281906/article/film-room-clemsons-sammy-watkins-a-bigtime-playmaker

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/3/28/5521124/2014-nfl-draft-sammy-watkins-video-scouting-report

 

And of course feel free to Google the Bleacher Report breakdown from Matt Bowen, which is my personal favorite.

 

Lastly, if you want to dispel the notion that you'll be happy if the team (or its draftees) go in the tank, perhaps you could try not being overtly negative about literally everything that happens with this team. Yes, I know, 14 years...that doesn't mean nothing good ever happens with the team.

[Ronin]

OMG......I guess your missing the plays where he is flat running over players....he is like a RUNNING BACK playing WIDE RECIVER

 

Where do these noobs come up with this crap.......deep breaths....deep breaths

 

Find me some footage of good defensive teams against which Watkins had good games? Particularly pass defense.

Edited June 19, 2014 by TaskersGhost

[thebandit27]

LOL

 

He uses Ohio State film as the example? Did you bother to look at how good OSU's passing D was prior to boasting this? It makes my point perfectly. OSU's pass D sucked elephant balls. They were ranked 6th from worst in all of college. Everyone had a heyday passing performance against them.

 

Bowens says this:

 

While I do believe Watkins will earn his money early in 2014 as a vertical threat, there is no question he can produce within the entire route tree.

 

That may be fine, but he didn't produce using the entire route tree at Clemson. So not sure about this "no question" stuff. Talk is cheap.

 

But more importantly, can Manuel deliver it?

 

Here's another good piece;

 

http://www.sbnation....ceiver-rankings

 

I will agree with two points in this guy's piece about Watkins and Evans.

 

First, that Watkins is the type of receiver that can be brought in, start straight away and become a star. Expecting him to have the same type of impact Green did for the Bengals should be the expectation.

 

I agree that that not only should, but has to be the expectation given the way that the team acquired him now.

 

Green's rookie season was 65, 1,057, 7. So let's just say that Watkins needs to post 60+ catches, 1,000+ yards, and 6+ TDs or his draft status will have been too much.

 

Can we agree on that at least?

 

Secondly, I agree with the guy on this:

 

Evans grades out as one of the ten best players in the draft on our latest big board. He's the type of receiver who instantly makes his quarterback better. The skills he used to make plays in college all translate to the NFL. He already learned how to win when he wasn't the fastest player on the field. That's only going to help him as he transitions to the NFL and learns how to use his physical tools to out-muscle defensive backs for passes.

 

I don't necessarily view Watkins as making his QB better. I view Watkins as posing a potential job challenging issue for a QB like Manuel though. Think about it, if Manuel doesn't automatically become far more accurate, and consistently so, and he keeps overthrowing Watkins like he did so many WRs last year on the relatively limited number of "deep" balls that he threw, or even medium balls, then they're going to be pointing the finger at Manuel initially and calling for his head.

 

The one thing that I've not read anywhere by any credible analyst, is how Watkins' skills used in college translate well to the NFL. That has been conspicuously absent from draf previews.

 

Mike Evans also didn't make a living out of beating up on B-rate talented teams, he absolutely lit up both Alabama and Auburn more than any other WR in recent years.

 

So Bowen's entire analysis is tossed aside because he diagrammed one play from Watkins' best game as a Junior? Nice cherry-picking.

 

And I'm sorry, but if Manuel cannot get the ball to Watkins then the finger should indeed be pointed at him...if your contention is that having a great WR is damaging to the QB because it exposes him as not being good enough, then my response is this: get a better QB, don't hide him by not surrounding him with talent. What sense does that make?

 

Find me some footage of good defensive teams against which Watkins had good games? Particularly pass defense.

 

FSU was #1 in pass defense - Sammy had 8 rec, 68 yds and a TD

He also had 7 catches for 93 yards against South Carolina's #12 ranked pass defense

 

And just as a sidenote, Mike Evans got owned by the #82 pass defense in college football (Duke), so that method of analysis has errors that don't quite fit what you're saying.

[Buftex]

Think a lot of that opinion on Reed comes from the fact he rarely got a lot of separation. He was a master of positioning and had great hands, so if put the ball in the right spot he would use his body and hands to make the play. If he had the QB's that Molds had I don't think he would have put up the great numbers he had because few QB's could get away with throwing into coverage as well as Kelly could, because of his arm strength/accuracy combo. Their strengths matched up perfect, which is why both are in hall now probably. Not trying to take anything away from Reed, as he was perfect receiver for the situation.

 

I get your point, but again, I think you are minimizing how fantastic Reed was in traffic. He may not have had quite the same career with the guys throwing passes to Moulds, but I honestly think he might have helped those guys look better. You can't really judge guys on what they might have been able to do if circumstances had been different... did anybody ever stop to ponder that, perhaps, Reed made Kelly look good from time to time too?

Edited June 19, 2014 by Buftex

[YoloinOhio]

LOL

 

He uses Ohio State film as the example? Did you bother to look at how good OSU's passing D was prior to boasting this? It makes my point perfectly. OSU's pass D sucked elephant balls. They were ranked 6th from worst in all of college. Everyone had a heyday passing performance against them.

 

Bowens says this:

 

While I do believe Watkins will earn his money early in 2014 as a vertical threat, there is no question he can produce within the entire route tree.

 

That may be fine, but he didn't produce using the entire route tree at Clemson. So not sure about this "no question" stuff. Talk is cheap.

 

But more importantly, can Manuel deliver it?

 

Here's another good piece;

 

http://www.sbnation....ceiver-rankings

 

I will agree with two points in this guy's piece about Watkins and Evans.

 

First, that Watkins is the type of receiver that can be brought in, start straight away and become a star. Expecting him to have the same type of impact Green did for the Bengals should be the expectation.

 

I agree that that not only should, but has to be the expectation given the way that the team acquired him now.

 

Green's rookie season was 65, 1,057, 7. So let's just say that Watkins needs to post 60+ catches, 1,000+ yards, and 6+ TDs or his draft status will have been too much.

 

Can we agree on that at least?

 

Secondly, I agree with the guy on this:

 

Evans grades out as one of the ten best players in the draft on our latest big board. He's the type of receiver who instantly makes his quarterback better. The skills he used to make plays in college all translate to the NFL. He already learned how to win when he wasn't the fastest player on the field. That's only going to help him as he transitions to the NFL and learns how to use his physical tools to out-muscle defensive backs for passes.

 

I don't necessarily view Watkins as making his QB better. I view Watkins as posing a potential job challenging issue for a QB like Manuel though. Think about it, if Manuel doesn't automatically become far more accurate, and consistently so, and he keeps overthrowing Watkins like he did so many WRs last year on the relatively limited number of "deep" balls that he threw, or even medium balls, then they're going to be pointing the finger at Manuel initially and calling for his head.

 

The one thing that I've not read anywhere by any credible analyst, is how Watkins' skills used in college translate well to the NFL. That has been conspicuously absent from draf previews.

 

Mike Evans also didn't make a living out of beating up on B-rate talented teams, he absolutely lit up both Alabama and Auburn more than any other WR in recent years.

Cherry pick much? You forgot to add that Evans struggled against press coverage and was projected as a #2 WR in the NFL... and was drafted to be just that in TB. Oh and " Did not run a full route tree"

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/mike-evans?id=2543468

Evans played with a very accurate QB. We don't have that, yet...

 

Watkins was projected as a "A legitimate No. 1-caliber receiver"

.. and drafted to be just that. We needed a #1 WR, and we got one. Every player has some polishing to do from college to the NFL. Each system is different in terms of how it fits to that player.

Watkins played with Tajh Boyd.. IMO a poor man's EJ.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/profiles/sammy-watkins?id=2543457

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Again, no facts or data, just opinions.

 

He was the #1 best prospect in the draft, just like Ryan Leaf, Jamarcu Russell, Drew Bledsoe, Jeff George, and Tim Couch were at one time too. Your point? What, that draft analysts are never or even often wrong? I'll beg to differ. If that's your sole counterargument ...

 

 

 

Yeah, the experts under Whaley for 5 seasons have done such a remarkable job. They've pretty much whiffed completely on 3rd rounders and later picks. We all know that this season will be different, it always is.

 

 

 

So was Manuel.

 

 

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with being antagonistic. I told you, when rumors about the Bills drafting Watkins were flying, I was the first to say what a terrible pick that would be, and that was without trading up.

 

Whaley has now put all of his eggs into one basket with Manuel's and Watkins' names on it. Does that make sense to you?

 

Otherwise I'm analyzing while trying to marry-up the facts and data on Watkins. Draft "experts" are wrong just as often as they are right. No one ever provides post-draft success rates in calling 100 players for any draft expert for reasons. All they and you do is cite them prior to those players ever having hit the field.

 

Remember when Bill Walsh told us all how great Trent Edwards would be in the annuls of football history? He was right as he was in predicting that Rick Mirer would do the same.

 

What, Bill Walsh was a moron? Hardly. But clearly there was much more than just collegiate film review in projecting how well players translate to the NFL. One of them is terribly discounted here, and that's the nature of the competition faced by prospects, and the system in which they played in. It's routine that players in certain systems and not having faced top-notch competition very often don't translate well to the NFL level.

 

Naturally we know that just because everyone discounts that here that it's all meaningless.

 

Also, this childish notion that somehow I or any other Bills fan will be happy when our draftees flop merely insults those trying to engage in decent conversation on the topic.

 

I'll bookmark this thread and we'll come back to it in November. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm going to stand on every word that I've said about Watkins. I expect him to struggle given his status as you guys all here insist will carry him into the NFL, and for the very reasons I've cited. Not sure what your excuse will be if that happens, and again, hopefully it doesn't, but you won't be able to use anything that I've cited to explain it if it does.

Please do bookmark it. Let's take it a step further. You said that Watkins would be a terrible pick at 9 which tells me that you don't believe that he will be one of the 9 best players in the class. If Watkins finishes in the top 9 in ROY voting you never post here again. If he finishes outside of the top 9 I will never post here again.

[John from Riverside]

Please do bookmark it. Let's take it a step further. You said that Watkins would be a terrible pick at 9 which tells me that you don't believe that he will be one of the 9 best players in the class. If Watkins finishes in the top 9 in ROY voting you never post here again. If he finishes outside of the top 9 I will never post here again.

 

He wont go for that....he knows damn well Sammy is gonna be right up there at the end of the year.

[K-9]

...That may be fine, but he didn't produce using the entire route tree at Clemson. So not sure about this "no question" stuff. Talk is cheap.

 

You are either lying, didn't see much of his college career, or are relying solely on those draft "analysts" who are either lying or didn't see much of his college career.

 

But more importantly, can Manuel deliver it?

 

That remains be seen, obviously.

 

Here's another good piece;

 

http://www.sbnation....ceiver-rankings

 

I will agree with two points in this guy's piece about Watkins and Evans.

 

First, that Watkins is the type of receiver that can be brought in, start straight away and become a star. Expecting him to have the same type of impact Green did for the Bengals should be the expectation.

 

I agree that that not only should, but has to be the expectation given the way that the team acquired him now.

 

Green's rookie season was 65, 1,057, 7. So let's just say that Watkins needs to post 60+ catches, 1,000+ yards, and 6+ TDs or his draft status will have been too much.

 

Depends on whether or not EJ keeps his end of the bargain. Watkins wouldn't be the first star receiver to be victimized by poor QB play. My question to you is will you recognize where the fault lies?

 

Secondly, I agree with the guy on this:

 

Evans grades out as one of the ten best players in the draft on our latest big board. He's the type of receiver who instantly makes his quarterback better. The skills he used to make plays in college all translate to the NFL. He already learned how to win when he wasn't the fastest player on the field. That's only going to help him as he transitions to the NFL and learns how to use his physical tools to out-muscle defensive backs for passes.

 

I don't necessarily view Watkins as making his QB better. I view Watkins as posing a potential job challenging issue for a QB like Manuel though. Think about it, if Manuel doesn't automatically become far more accurate, and consistently so, and he keeps overthrowing Watkins like he did so many WRs last year on the relatively limited number of "deep" balls that he threw, or even medium balls, then they're going to be pointing the finger at Manuel initially and calling for his head.

 

The one thing that I've not read anywhere by any credible analyst, is how Watkins' skills used in college translate well to the NFL. That has been conspicuously absent from draf previews.

 

Mike Evans also didn't make a living out of beating up on B-rate talented teams, he absolutely lit up both Alabama and Auburn more than any other WR in recent years.

 

Mike Evans is big and fast. Two nice attributes to be sure. And he should win the majority of battles on jump balls. But he is far from a polished route runner and he'll have to become one in order to consistently gain the separation required at the next level. Otherwise he'll be that one-trick, jump ball pony.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kemp]

Anyone who believes Moulds was better than Reed knows nothing about football. Rice once called Reed the best WE in the game.

 

If Watkins isn't much better than Moulds, the trade is a disaster.

[3rdand12]

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.

Well i am not one to counter and attempt to win a dialogue. Kinda surprised you have picked on me to make your points . All i was saying is that i "imagine " hence crystal balls " that Watkins will be fantastic for the Bills. I also was taken aback by your demanding tone the Watkins better do this and better do that. .

You have done a admirable job of rebuffing and attempting to defend your position. To what end i dont know why because we all should be wishing for Sammy to be a Andre Reed , Eric Moulds ,Jerry Rice all rolled up into one fortune cookie.

So my retort to you is simple

[John from Riverside]

Anyone who believes Moulds was better than Reed knows nothing about football. Rice once called Reed the best WE in the game.

 

If Watkins isn't much better than Moulds, the trade is a disaster.

 

Jesus do people forget so quickly......

 

Easily one of the 3 most dominate WR's of his generation was Eric Moulds........he tailed off as he got older and went to another team.....and it took him a while to get going with us.......but he was a stud and allowed Peerless Price to operate pretty freely.

 

This is not discounting Reed who was totally worthy of his hall of fame induction....but there is not reason to have revision history of Moulds to talk up the other wideouts

[Cleveland Rocks?]

45]

Retweeted by

Buffalo Bills

 

45]

Adam Rank

‏

@

adamrank

1h

Reason No. 77 to be excited for the

@

NFL

season: Sammy Watkins. Doing this.

http://

ow.ly/y5odX

@

buffalobills

 

[3rdand12]

Jesus do people forget so quickly......

 

Easily one of the 3 most dominate WR's of his generation was Eric Moulds........he tailed off as he got older and went to another team.....and it took him a while to get going with us.......but he was a stud and allowed Peerless Price to operate pretty freely.

 

This is not discounting Reed who was totally worthy of his hall of fame induction....but there is not reason to have revision history of Moulds to talk up the other wideouts

good and balanced post John from Hemet

[Dibs]

Again, no facts or data, just opinions.

 

He was the #1 best prospect in the draft, just like Ryan Leaf, Jamarcu Russell, Drew Bledsoe, Jeff George, and Tim Couch were at one time too. Your point? What, that draft analysts are never or even often wrong? I'll beg to differ. If that's your sole counterargument ...

.....

 

 

I understand where you are coming from on this topic. Some people are irrationally convinced of Watkins' star NFL future status, and you have determined that his chances are not as good as most pre-draft talent evaluations had him. However, instead of simply stating the obvious logic that his future stardom is not a sure thing, you seem to have diverged into trying to convince everyone that it is a slim chance at best.....and in a manner that brooks no argument(which is what I have an issue with).

 

From your listing of previous highly touted rookie busts I assume that you acknowledge that there is a chance that Watkins can become a star in the NFL......your point obviously being that prediction is not a 100% science. Assuming then that you are not giving him a 0% chance of becoming a star NFL player, all arguments become mathematically moot.

 

In explanation to my mathematically moot point; if you give SW a 15% chance of becoming a star, and an expert gives SW an 85% chance of becoming a star.......then if he does become a star, you were both correct as both acknowledged that there was a chance for it to happen. Conversely, if he doesn't become a star, again both correct as both acknowledged the chance for that as well. He will become what he will become. As time progresses, any analyst's prediction percentage will alter. As example, if he isn't going to become a star, the experts 85% might drop to 50% after a mediocre rookie year.....then drop to 25% in year two......and by year 5 become 0%(and conversely, your low prediction will periodically increase if he is going to become one).

 

In effect you are dogmatically arguing the percentage chances of something occurring that you not only acknowledge is notoriously difficult to predict, but has no real relevance to what will actually occur.

 

 

For me personally......I don't pretend to have any ability to be able to analyze college players and give any form of reasonable prediction of percentages as to their future hopes in the NFL. I rely upon all of the "experts" in the media, the NFL teams and the player's final draft position to help form my initial assessments of a rookies potential. In SW's case, virtually all sources had him as one of the rare elite prospects.......so please forgive me(and all of the other Bills fans) who would rather go with the consensus expert's opinion over yours.

 

I am happy hoping SW will become a star. I don't see why you feel the need to try and convince me(everyone) that my hopes are poorly founded.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Good points. I remember Moulds as well to have that long stride, and he did have sure hands. He just played on a number of bad Bills teams.

 

The key to Sammy is how well he picks up his route running in the NFL. He should be very exciting to watch. I'm tempering my feelings on Sammy as it takes time for WR to develop, so he may not light up the field his first year. It could be year 2 where he just turns into an absolute stud.

 

I think we drafted Watkins because we hoped he could become for EJ what Green is to Dalton - that WR with velcro hands and uncanny adjustment ability who can pull in those slightly off-target or too-high throws and make his QB look about 5-10% better than he is with a lesser wideout.

 

And that was in Green's rookie season

 

I hope we see it

Edited June 22, 2014 by Hopeful

[SJDK]

 

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.

 

Ok, how about this barometer: andre reed did what he did. Eric moulds did what Eric Moulds did. Based on what Each of them ACTUALLY DID, who was better?

P.S. Talent also includes what is between the ears amongst other intangible qualities. Again, moulds was very good and I loved him but you cannot discount andre reeds field vision or or innovativeness on the field. YAC monster anyone? Also, amongst the first to popularize the back shoulder fade with Jim Kelly. Most of all while I sat in the stands witnessing the greatest comeback IN NFL HISTORY, I don't recall Jim Kelly throwing even one pass to Andre Reed. Big deal? One Game? Ok, I wish I could find it on YouTube but I can remember JERRY RICE CALLING ANDRE REED the best receiver in football during an interview (late 80's early 90's). Talent doesn't only include the measurables like combine numbers, it also includes measurables like actual PRODUCTION. Lastly even Jim Kelly himself has publically stated that without Andre Reed he would not be a hall of famer and we would not have gone to 4 superbowls.

Edited June 22, 2014 by SJDK

[NoName]

How about we actually let Sammy Watkins play one down of NFL football before he we debate if he's better than Moulds......

[FluffHead]

How about we actually let Sammy Watkins play one down of NFL football before he we debate if he's better than Moulds......

 

That's no fun

[Kemp2Warlick]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 8m

#Bills WR Sammy Watkins already has a national @adidasUS commercial to his name. A pretty sick one, too #Springblade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtXo9boGj3g&feature=youtu.be …

[YoloinOhio]

 

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 8m

#Bills WR Sammy Watkins already has a national @adidasUS commercial to his name. A pretty sick one, too #Springblade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtXo9boGj3g&feature=youtu.be…

That was nice

[Beerball]

I searched Adidas and didn't see this posted...Sammy's commercial.

 

http://www.ballerstatus.com/2014/06/23/adidas-launches-springblade-drive-shoe/

[oman128]

Some of you guys need to stop living in the past and stop comparing these guys to the glory years guys. Kelly, Reed, Bruce, Thurman, Biscuit etc.

 

All of these kids are totally different, they have to find their own way not the Jim Kelly way or the Bruce Smith way.

Give them the opportunity to be themself and not have to try to chase an image of a former player.

 

There is another thread talking about whose our Darryl Talley? Do you mean LB, leader, tackler or Spiderman body suit wearer?

 

For God sake let the past be the past and look to the future with the players we have and stop comparing them to players of old.

Edited June 24, 2014 by oman128

[hondo in seattle]

Whatever we think of Sammy's potential (or his value as a draft pick), it's interesting to see what Whaley is doing here. Last year he got himself a young, coachable QB with - hopefully - a high ceiling. We have a stable of good backs so the team doesn't need to depend entirely on the kid's arm. Whaley and Nix have collected a bunch of speedy, mostly tall, talented WRs who seem to have potential. And this year we drafted 3 OLs to protect the young QB.

 

IF Whaley is right in his talent evaluations, this offense will be good for years to come as EJ develops chemistry with his young wideouts. There's not a ton of proven talent on this offense... but it oozes potential.

[YoloinOhio]

Some of you guys need to stop living in the past and stop comparing these guys to the glory years guys. Kelly, Reed, Bruce, Thurman, Biscuit etc.

 

All of these kids are totally different, they have to find their own way not the Jim Kelly way or the Bruce Smith way.

Give them the opportunity to be themself and not have to try to chase an image of a former player.

 

There is another thread talking about whose our Darryl Talley? Do you mean LB, leader, tackler or Spiderman body suit wearer?

 

For God sake let the past be the past and look to the future with the players we have and stop comparing them to players of old.

The day we no longer need to prop up the 90s heroes as the faces of the franchise will be the day the Bills are finally back.