The end of the Watkins Trade, "use that 1st to draft a QB" BS

[Kirby Jackson]

 

I thought the rule was not to judge players until they've completed 2 NFL seasons. Furthermore, the picks Cleveland acquired won't be known for another 6+ months, and they won't have 2 seasons under their belt until the end of 2016.

 

No one's arguing Watkins isn't fantastic or a special player. The question is whether or not he's worth 2 1sts and a 4th. And, from a team-building perspective, would it have been better to sit at 9, take Odell Beckham, and kept that 1st and 4th? Well, we don't know right now and have to see how it plays out, despite early good returns.

Sitting at 9 meant Ebron though. The Bills have been forthcoming with that. Edited October 22, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[Rob's House]

 

Yeah, I also used the words "propensity" and "mode".

 

Apparently knowing the vocabulary of my own job, that I've been getting paid to do since 10th grade, and applying it properly = hiding?

 

No. The reason why we use these words is simple: predictive modeling is, by definition, predictive. Any number of outliers/one-time events can come along. Example: Pegula fires the entire FO/coaching staff tomorrow. It's possible, and in that edge case, it's now highly unlikely that we go 8-8. But how likely is that? Russel Wilson, and certainly Tom Brady are outliers, therefore, we say "Franchise QBs most likely come from the top 10"....because that is exactly correct.

 

Look: if I don't use definitive terms when I analyze a friggin linear process assembly line, or the daily wire transfer log of a large bank......how the F am I supposed to use them in terms of NFL football?

 

But, I understand your problem: you've been affected, and it's not just you, it's now the majority of sports fans.....by the notion that more than a very small # of "Sports Analytics" people know WTF they are doing, and that we should accept most of them/their work, because.....analytics.

 

 

Now I'm certain you have no clue what is happening here. And, no, it's not that "none of us would understand". It's merely that you've proven you don't understand. Don't speak for the board. There are a lot of smart people here.

 

But, don't let me stop you. Please continue.

 

So you need the top 10 draft pick to get the franchise QB b/c the higher in the draft you pick the better your odds of finding one.

 

And if we went 5-11 we might well have had one of those picks.

 

And if we had EJ Manuel start the whole season we might have gone 5-11.

 

But because we have Kyle Orton we probably finish with a better record and therefore wouldn't have that high pick.

 

But Kyle Orton wasn't in the mix at that time.

 

And without Kyle Orton we'd be up a creek without a QB or the kind of pick you claim to need to acquire one.

 

So you're basically pounding your chest claiming victory because the unforseeable outlier (Orton) prevented the likely scenario others feared, and you're applying knowledge of that outlier retroactively because you claim this situation was inevitable.

 

You normally write sound and logical posts, but this is not your best work.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rob's House

[Deranged Rhino]

The ONLY way to get a "cant miss QB" in this upcoming draft is by selecting FIRST. Marriota is the best QB since Luck...

 

Call me crazy, but Marriota seems to have a low ceiling in the NFL. I've seen him play a lot, he's good but he's not anywhere close to a sure thing in my mind and certainly isn't on the same level that Luck was when he came out.

[Rob's House]

 

Sitting at 9 meant Ebron though. The Bills have been forthcoming with that.

 

It's hard for the FO to defend the trade based on the argument that they'd have used their original pick poorly if given the chance.

[John from Riverside]

So you need the top 10 draft pick to get the franchise QB b/c the higher in the draft you pick the better your odds of finding one.

 

And if we went 5-11 we might well have had one of those picks.

 

And if we had EJ Manuel start the whole season we might have gone 5-11.

 

But because we have Kyle Orton we probably finish with a better record and therefore wouldn't have that high pick.

 

But Kyle Orton wasn't in the mix at that time.

 

And without Kyle Orton we'd be up a creek without a QB or the kind of pick you claim to need to acquire one.

 

So you're basically pounding your chest claiming victory because the unforseeable outlier (Orton) prevented the likely scenario others feared, and you're applying knowledge of that outlier retroactively because you claim this situation was inevitable.

 

You normally write sound and logical posts, but this is not your best work.

 

I actually think it is some of his best work

 

This team inevitably wins some games it shouldnt to help draft selection....and loses games needed to make the playoffs.....

 

They have been a "middling" team for years

 

I think it is foolish to think that we are anywhere near we need to be in draft selection next year for the QB that everyone perceives we need.....

 

I will take that one step sooner....this team need to stop playing the "draft lottery sweepstakes" and start trying to get into the damn playoffs where anything can happen.

[bonechiller]

Whoa!?~~~, I am so confuuussed d....

[Dawgg]

So you need the top 10 draft pick to get the franchise QB b/c the higher in the draft you pick the better your odds of finding one.

 

And if we went 5-11 we might well have had one of those picks.

 

And if we had EJ Manuel start the whole season we might have gone 5-11.

 

But because we have Kyle Orton we probably finish with a better record and therefore wouldn't have that high pick.

 

But Kyle Orton wasn't in the mix at that time.

 

And without Kyle Orton we'd be up a creek without a QB or the kind of pick you claim to need to acquire one.

 

So you're basically pounding your chest claiming victory because the unforseeable outlier (Orton) prevented the likely scenario others feared, and you're applying knowledge of that outlier retroactively because you claim this situation was inevitable.

 

You normally write sound and logical posts, but this is not your best work.

 

Spot on. Just don't use such big words next time, as folks might not understand what you mean.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I actually think it is some of his best work

 

This team inevitably wins some games it shouldnt to help draft selection....and loses games needed to make the playoffs.....

 

They have been a "middling" team for years

 

I think it is foolish to think that we are anywhere near we need to be in draft selection next year for the QB that everyone perceives we need.....

 

I will take that one step sooner....this team need to stop playing the "draft lottery sweepstakes" and start trying to get into the damn playoffs where anything can happen.

 

I don't disagree, I'm just not sure how it pertains to anything I said.

[GG]

You normally write sound and logical posts, but this is not your best work.

 

Are you referring to the OP?

[MDH]

You presume incorrectly.

 

The style is a neccesary component. Without it, the objective can't be acheived.

 

I suppose I might say, one has to lift the rock, if one seeks to exterminate the critters that hide under them. EDIT: I'm trying to exterminate a premise largely espoused by a specific type of critter. This critter won't respond without....the style.

 

That's because it was preachy, and please, only "a bit"? I'm hurt.

 

So, you're trolling.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Are you referring to the OP?

 

I was. I like OC, even if he is obnoxious and self-aggrandizing on occasion.

[GG]

I was. I like OC, even if he is obnoxious and self-aggrandizing on occasion.

 

On occasion? That's like calling DC Tom subtle.

Edited October 22, 2014 by GG

[Rob's House]

 

 

On occasion? That's like calling DC Tom subtle.

 

I can't argue with this.

[Protocal69]

4-3? Now it's dead as door nail. It's over. You were never right about the Watkins trade(just like you'll never be right about many things....fracking comes to mind). Lay. It. Down.

 

First let me define the premise(read: nonsense) properly. This should take care of any "but I didn't mean/say that" excuses:

 

Drafting Sammy Watkins, and giving away next year's 1st and 4th(note the proper use of math, logic, the dictionary, and grammar in saying that precisely, and therefore: correctly) to Cleveland, removes(d) the option for the Bills to draft a franchise QB in the first round of 2015's draft.

 

This premise was as nonsensical on the DAY of the 2014 draft as it is today. Yet, on WGR and elsewhere, this nonsense has been said, over and over, by people who seem to struggle in their understanding of the Bills, the AFC East, the draft and the NFL as a whole.

 

Need proof? As of now, the Bills most likely outcome to this season is 8-8. (I know, not a record anyone wants to hear, but this is about math). Please click here: http://www.sportsclu...st/Buffalo.html See the first "What if" chart, find the column labeled "Count", and understand that the largest count, out of 212k simulations is: 8 wins. Are we good? Let's move on then.

 

As many of our informed posters KNEW on draft day, as Whaley said on draft day, our 2015 pick was never going to be in the top 5, and had a very low propensity to be in the top 10. This directly contributed to the decision to make the trade for Watkins.

 

Why is this key fact so important? Answer: because the top 10 is where your franchise QBs are MOST LIKELY to come from, by a lot. And remember the premise: we're supposed to get a FRANCHISE QB with the 1st we gave up. Yes, I am aware of Russel Wilson, and Colin Kapernick. In response, I will remind the strugglers that Wilson was drafted with a 3, Kap with a 2, and we have given NEITHER of those picks to Cleveland for Sammy Watkins. In all cases, the most likely place to get a "franchise QB" remains the top 10.

 

And, let's not forget the cause that is Sammy Watkins, and his now obvious effect...on the value of the draft picks we gave away for him = it drops every week. Given what we've seen of Sammy, it should be obvious that he himself may be a major contributor to keeping us out of the top 15, never mind 10.

 

The Buffalo Bills have always had a minimal chance of drafting in the top 10 in 2015. The defense was simply too good. The O skill players were too good. The O, even in shambles, statistically had more chances to score, with shorter fields to manage, and too many weapons. This is why the premise above has always been statistically absurd. We have 9 games left, and only winning 4 of them, against our remaining schedule, I submit as a VERY pessimistic assessment. But, that's fine, it makes my point. Even with a pessimistic outlook going forward: we were never going to get the QB we wanted with the draft picks we lost.

 

Now, we have a real, not simulated, record of 4-3. We cannot lose those 4 wins. If we assume 8-8, find the chart at the very bottom of the link, find 8 wins in the 1st column, look across to see the mode at 8 is 26, find the column heading 17-->as of today, we are most likely to draft at 16. (The reverse order of the chart) Which QB, who is better than EJ, would we have been able to draft at 16 in 2015? Answer: nobody. We already drafted a QB at 16, didn't we? This premise has always relied on the magical thinking that a franchise QB was going to get past the top 5, never mind down to 16, and that is why it's absurd. The Bills were never a top 5 team, very unlkely to be a top 10 team, and now, by the most likely #s, we aren't even a top 15 team.

 

 

Now.....enough with this ridiculous crap. It was never right, and with each passing day, it gets more absurd. Every win makes me smile for lots of reasons. The tiniest reason I smile? It continues to prove the silliness of the premise above, and those who said/keep saying it.

 

 

This has been a great day for posters I see. This is what I have been saying all along give or take and your articulated your point very well +1

[John from Riverside]

I can't argue with this.

 

Me neither...

[Kemp]

Easily the most obnoxious post I have read here, to date.

 

No one can be certain how this will turn out. No matter how great a WR becomes, a good starting QB will always be more valuable.

 

We won't know what Buffalo could have gotten next season until next season.

[Kelly the Dog]

Whaley made a point when the trade was made to make it about the QB and that he wanted to give EJ every weapon he could to help him progress. I never believed that was really the reason for the trade, and if it were it was a dumb reason. I think he was just doing some PR type stuff that GMs and guys in sports management do every day. The fact is, we were going to have Sammy Watkins for 5-6 and hopefully 10+ years regardless of the QB, and he was going to make every QB he played with significantly better because of his sheer talent.

 

It didn't matter one bit that Orton wasn't on the team or in the plans then, or that EJ was the guy then. The trade was made because Watkins was a generational player, a sure thing, the highest player on their board, and a star in the making with a great attitude and demeanor. The QB issue was immaterial.

[l< j]

I'm the Douchebag.

 

We agree on something, anyways.

 

Right or wrong about the trade (and I like the trade), you are engaging in behavior that really isn't about dialogue and exchange of ideas and information. It's about you. You're right and everyone else can't see that and deserves to be called out.

 

This post violates the spirit of the TBD terms of service, although not the letter:

 

TBD hopes to foster a healthy exchange of views about the Buffalo Bills.

We want posters to share opinions not bludgeon others to death with them.

Just become someone doesn't share your opinion - doesn't make them an idiot.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

I bring this up not to flag this thread for the moderators (I'm not one) or to argue for its removal (I don't). I'm just pointing out that, no matter how valid your point, you aren't doing anything to foster a healthy exchange, and you are doing a great deal to provoke a fight (one that you have already decided you've won, despite the fact that you appear to be shadowboxing). Change your tone. The board will be better for it.

 

kj

[GG]

It didn't matter one bit that Orton wasn't on the team or in the plans then, or that EJ was the guy then. The trade was made because Watkins was a generational player, a sure thing, the highest player on their board, and a star in the making with a great attitude and demeanor. The QB issue was immaterial.

 

This is where I disagree. Yes, it's obvious there was a lot of OBD spin after the draft. But the clear downside to the trade at the time was a complete meltdown by EJ, which would have left the team without a high pick in 2015. So we have to credit Whaley for going hard after Orton to make sure there would not be a complete meltdown. (Which of course has nothing to do with OC's argument)

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

This is where I disagree. Yes, it's obvious there was a lot of OBD spin after the draft. But the clear downside to the trade at the time was a complete meltdown by EJ, which would have left the team without a high pick in 2015. So we have to credit Whaley for going hard after Orton to make sure there would not be a complete meltdown. (Which of course has nothing to do with OC's argument)

I agree with what you say about orton. I was furious with DW for not addressing the backup QB position, although he finally did in enough time. But even that didn't matter. That was a separate issue. He was failing in that regard at the time but he cleared it up. I wasn't even talking about this year. I was talking about this year and the next and the next and the next, etc. When we have no idea who the QB will be (and having Sammy Watkins here will be a HUGE draw to any prospective FA QB or trade partner).

[BigBuff423]

 

You presume incorrectly.

 

The style is a neccesary component. Without it, the objective can't be acheived.

 

I suppose I might say, one has to lift the rock, if one seeks to exterminate the critters that hide under them. EDIT: I'm trying to exterminate a premise largely espoused by a specific type of critter. This critter won't respond without....the style.

 

That's because it was preachy, and please, only "a bit"? I'm hurt.

 

We shall agree to disagree. You reduce yourself to someone else's base level when you begin hurling insults and name-calling. It diminishes the merit of your argument and only brings your character into focus, rather than the content of your argument, IMO.

[K-9]

OC, your thread is about this one specific premise. Do you mind if I broaden it just a bit?

 

The possibility of injury makes the trade one that is dangerous. If Watkins goes down, we are a team with qb issues, without Watkins, and no first round pick in 2015.

 

I hate trades like this but Watkins DOES look fantastic. He has a very unique style. I think that Fear The Losing sums it up well in another thread. The Bills need to make the playoffs this year, next year or both.

 

I just can't buy into the thinking that I can't/won't make a trade based on the CHANCE the player I trade for will get injured. And I don't want my GM afraid to pull the trigger on that basis, either. Every player is one play away from never playing again, but you can't make that prevent you from running your organization.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

The ONLY way to get a "cant miss QB" in this upcoming draft is by selecting FIRST. Marriota is the best QB since Luck. ...

 

That's not what I've heard from the early buzz in the community. At the moment, Marriota is not as good a prospect as Bortles was when he came out. That's not to say the Jags didn't draft him too high as many feel they did, but when you like your guy and have a chance, then you pull the trigger, so I can't blame them. Somebody will like Mariotta and will commit to taking him, but make no mistake, he's NOT regarded as a franchise QB at the moment.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

After sifting through this thread, I honestly feel many of us don't realize just how highly regarded Watkins was coming out. One of the best pro prospects, regardless of position, in years. Screw the future ramifications, when you see a talent like that and you have the desire to get him, you do it and don't look back.

 

Reminds me of the Bennett trade. While nobody will admit it now, half the city thought Polian sold the store for what he gave up to get him. Took balls then, took balls now. I'm glad our GM was willing to go all in on the courage of his convictions.

 

Hindsight takes no guts at all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

I just can't buy into the thinking that I can't/won't make a trade based on the CHANCE the player I trade for will get injured. And I don't want my GM afraid to pull the trigger on that basis, either. Every player is one play away from never playing again, but you can't make that prevent you from running your organization.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

 

That's not what I've heard from the early buzz in the community. At the moment, Marriota is not as good a prospect as Bortles was when he came out. That's not to say the Jags didn't draft him too high as many feel they did, but when you like your guy and have a chance, then you pull the trigger, so I can't blame them. Somebody will like Mariotta and will commit to taking him, but make no mistake, he's NOT regarded as a franchise QB at the moment.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

After sifting through this thread, I honestly feel many of us don't realize just how highly regarded Watkins was coming out. One of the best pro prospects, regardless of position, in years. Screw the future ramifications, when you see a talent like that and you have the desire to get him, you do it and don't look back.

 

Reminds me of the Bennett trade. While nobody will admit it now, half the city thought Polian sold the store for what he gave up to get him. Took balls then, took balls now. I'm glad our GM was willing to go all in on the courage of his convictions.

 

Hindsight takes no guts at all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Great stuff as always k-9. That's interessting on Mariota. I have said that he is a rich man's Alex Smith to me.

 

In terms of people not knowing what kind of prospect Watkins is it kind of speaks to the lack of interest in college football in WNY. In WNY people casually watch football on Saturdays. It is like that throughout the northeast. In parts of the country (like where I ask in Louisiana) college football is even bigger than pro. People know the players, follow recruiting, and have a really good sense of the player before his name is called on draft weekend. They are aware of their strengths, weaknesses and how they have showed out in big games. It's a little less scary to invest in Watkins if you followed him prior to the lead up to the draft. This guy was dominant and can't miss.

[BillsVet]

Sitting at 9 meant Ebron though. The Bills have been forthcoming with that.

 

Perhaps Ebron would have been the pick. And if EE was picked and then doesn't pan out in the NFL, Brandon would have chimed in to say Buddy told them to take Ebron though.

[Manther]

If you have a mid-range 1st round pick (say 16) you can trade up into the top 10 somewhat easily (package 1st and 2nd like St Louis gave us). Without that 1st rounder, it's almost impossible to get into the top 10 without trading your entire draft away for the next 2 years. And forget about getting into the top 5. Just delete this post, it sounds like a drunken rant to be honest.

It makes sense and always did. And, because you disagree with Watkins (closer to a sure thing than most top 10 picks) it is a drunken rant? Would you prefer to have Stephen Gilmore and EJ Manuel on your team or Sammy Watkins?

 

Gilmore was a #9 overall pick (I think) and EJ was #16. Those would be where we approx chose last year and the upcoming year if we didn't trade for Watkins. So, do you want two questions marks with upside or one of the top 5 game changing receivers in the last 10 years with little risk?

 

Even if you disagree, how is it a drunken rant.

 

Draft picks are draft picks. Or consider them like stock. However, if you pick with your draft picks and miss, your stock is worth less.

 

Watkins was closer to a can't miss than other players in this draft and other drafts, so, it was a well calculated risk.

 

It sounds like the only rant is you wanting to hear yourself complain because Watkins is doing well and the Bills are above .500! Did you have a tough childhood and enjoy being miserable!?

 

Perhaps you should reread my post. I said it's easily possible to move up into the top 10 from 16. Possibly top 5.

Move to the top 5? That is what we did to get Sammy and you thought it was terrible and we gave up too much in a first round pick!

 

Make up your mind and use it !

[Jim in Anchorage]

I was. I like OC, even if he is obnoxious and self-aggrandizing on occasion.

That is called a blowhard in some places.

[Kelly the Dog]

That is called a blowhard in some places.

Correction. All places.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blowhard

[Jim in Anchorage]

Correction. All places.

 

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/blowhard

I think windbag fits well.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think windbag fits well.

:lol:

 

Yup. Actually, "O.C. Windbag" has a nice ring to it, and kind of a Dickensonian air. But unfortunately, you can't even make this dude up. No one would believe it, even in fiction.

[What a Tuel]

#1- lots of good QB's have been picked after the 16th overall slot. Rodgers, brady, bress, Wilson, flacco, romo, foles, Dalton and kaepernick all say hi.

 

#2- Sammy will need to become a pro bowl player in order to justify two #1's.

 

Brady - We will just get him with our 6th.

Brees - We will just get him with our 2nd

Wilson - We will just get him with our 3rd

Romo - We will just get him in free agency

Foles - We will just get him with our 3rd

Dalton - We will just get him with our 2nd

Kaepernick - We will just get him with our 2nd

 

We should easily be able to stockpile franchise QBs without a single first round pick! This is too easy! I should be a GM!

 

We will just ignore the hordes of QB's drafted in the later rounds that haven't been franchise QBs.

 

Edit: On a side note, what did people see in Brees that pushed him to the second? His college highlights look phenomenal.

Edited October 22, 2014 by What a Tuel

[Kelly the Dog]

Brady - We will just get him with our 6th.

Brees - We will just get him with our 2nd

Wilson - We will just get him with our 3rd

Romo - We will just get him in free agency

Foles - We will just get him with our 3rd

Dalton - We will just get him with our 2nd

Kaepernick - We will just get him with our 2nd

 

We should easily be able to stockpile franchise QBs without a single first round pick! This is too easy! I should be a GM!

 

We will just ignore the hordes of QB's drafted in the later rounds that haven't been franchise QBs.

 

Edit: On a side note, what did people see in Brees that pushed him to the second? His college highlights look phenomenal.

Because he was considered too small, or at the very least his short height for a QB dropped him significantly just for that simple fact. Plus, this is somewhat picky but true, there were only 30 teams then. He was the 31st pick. He would have been a #1 pick today.

[What a Tuel]

Because he was considered too small, or at the very least his short height for a QB dropped him significantly just for that simple fact. Plus, this is somewhat picky but true, there were only 30 teams then. He was the 31st pick. He would have been a #1 pick today.

 

He was the (Edit 1st pick) 2nd pick of the 2nd round. Mind boggling, but I guess he wasn't too phenomenal in San Diego for those first few years, so there's that. He really took off when he went to NO, just fit better there I guess.

Edited October 22, 2014 by What a Tuel

[Kelly the Dog]

He was the (Edit 1st pick) 2nd pick of the 2nd round. Mind boggling, but I guess he wasn't too phenomenal in San Diego for those first few years, so there's that. He really took off when he went to NO, just fit better there I guess.

Yeah, first pick of second round. I thought there were 30 teams then but there were 31. But the point is, that's a #1 pick today. He took a little while, and he basically had one good season with the Chargers. He was beaten out by post-Bills 58 year old Doug Flutie as a rookie, was decent in his second year, pretty damn good in his third year, but the Chargers drafted Eli (and then traded for Rivers) even though they had Brees. He was still pretty good in his fourth year but got hurt late.

 

Actually, Nick Saban (according to him) wanted him for the Dolphins but the trainers and management overruled him, and thought his shoulder was worse than it was, and worse than the injury to Dante Culpepper, so the Fins signed Culpepper and that left Brees for the Saints. Ha.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Yeah I'm pretty sure people will still call him "basically a rookie" next year.

I'd bet a month's worth of chicken wings on it.

Yup till he hits that magic 16 game level. Then it will be well his rookie year was interrupted - he needs 16 consecutive games. So on and on. Forever.

 

Beauty of it is that I don't care. Orton is the QB and Orton is winning.

[BADOLBILZ]

If you have a QB you always make the Watkins trade. One Watkins is worth a whole sack of the Bills usual first round pick at #11. On this end you are right.

 

The first time I saw him as a freshman I knew this guy was going to be a potential #1 overall pick and a guy that the perenially mediocre Bills would have no shot at without a trade-up.

 

That said, I also believe that if you take the best available QB in every draft that you will end up the better organization for that strategy. Yes, even better than a team that has a star WR and no QB.

 

To me, the draft is an ongoing process and not just an annual event. And as much as I love me some Watkins that means drafting a QB #1 EVERY year until you get your man. Because nobody does that I can't give you statistical evidence but had the Bills taken the QB taken immediately after their first round pick from 2000 on they would have had Brees, Rodgers, and Flacco....guys who went on to win SB's.... as well as some other pretty good QB's.

 

Of course they probably don't get that same shot every year because those good QB's would have elevated this franchise but the fact remains that those players were there and they were passed on for a host of forgettable players who seemed special to someone AT THE TIME. And years from now when Sammy is retiring there will be QB's drafted from the past few seasons who will just be hitting their peak with many years ahead of them. That's a fact of life when evaluating the value of a position in the NFL.

 

So in short, while they made a good deal at that moment for Watkins.....they still have no answer at the only position that sets you up for long term success.

 

Right now that QB situation is BLEAK. Yeah, they are 4-3, but they've played well just once this season(Miami).

 

Your premise that the Bills were never going to be a bottom 10 team is complete garbage though. Truthfully, without Watkins they may be 0-7 which would have put them on the path to a very high first round pick well inside the top 10.

Edited October 22, 2014 by BADOLBEELZ

[GunnerBill]

To me, the draft is an ongoing process and not just an annual event. And as much as I love me some Watkins that means drafting a QB #1 EVERY year until you get your man.

 

I'm sorry but I think that is nonsense. Quarterback is the most important position on the field but it is not the only important position on the field. And how do you judge when you have got your man? If you bring a rookie in year 1 of that strategy I'm guessing he plays straight away.... say he does ok, kind of middle of the road so you draft another in round 1 in year 2. Then your 2nd year guy wins the job in camp, has a better command of the system and the offense etc and he plays better than he did in year 1 but is not yet proven as the answer (think an early years Matt Ryan maybe). You now have a promising QB who has played 2 years and 1st rounder on the bench.... do you draft another? Take a year off and focus on maybe one of the other key positions? I just think it is bonkers, because ultimately unless you find a guy who is truly elite through this strategy then he will never be able to inspire the lack of talent you put around him to be genuinely competitive in the NFL straight away....a Luck might or a Manning.... but otherwise you are judging each QB in a poor team.

 

That isn't to say I favour the Buddy Nix "get the team first then find the QB" approach. I just think that the relentless churn of 1st round QBs every year until you get your man is nonsensical and I severely doubt it helps you win.

Edited October 22, 2014 by GunnerBill

[JohnC]

If you have a QB you always make the Watkins trade. One Watkins is worth a whole sack of the Bills usual first round pick at #11. On this end you are right.

 

The first time I saw him as a freshman I knew this guy was going to be a potential #1 overall pick and a guy that the perenially mediocre Bills would have no shot at without a trade-up.

 

That said, I also believe that if you take the best available QB in every draft that you will end up the better organization for that strategy. Yes, even better than a team that has a star WR and no QB.

 

To me, the draft is an ongoing process and not just an annual event. And as much as I love me some Watkins that means drafting a QB #1 EVERY year until you get your man. Because nobody does that I can't give you statistical evidence but had the Bills taken the QB taken immediately after their first round pick from 2000 on they would have had Brees, Rodgers, and Flacco....guys who went on to win SB's.... as well as some other pretty good QB's.

 

Of course they probably don't get that same shot every year because those good QB's would have elevated this franchise but the fact remains that those players were there and they were passed on for a host of forgettable players who seemed special to someone AT THE TIME. And years from now when Sammy is retiring there will be QB's drafted from the past few seasons who will just be hitting their peak with many years ahead of them. That's a fact of life when evaluating the value of a position in the NFL.

 

So in short, while they made a good deal at that moment for Watkins.....they still have no answer at the only position that sets you up for long term success.

 

Right now that QB situation is BLEAK. Yeah, they are 4-3, but they've played well just once this season(Miami).

 

Your premise that the Bills were never going to be a bottom 10 team is complete garbage though. Truthfully, without Watkins they may be 0-7 which would have put them on the path to a very high first round pick well inside the top 10.

 

New Orleans got Brees in the free agent market.

Denver got Manning in the free agent market.

KC got Alex Smith in a trade with the 49ers.

Arizona got Palmer from the Raiders in a low scale trade. Although he is on his downside he helped stabilize that position.

Wilson was a third round draft selection for the Seahawks. He has done fairly well in his short tenure in the league.

Kaepernick was a second round draft choice for the 49ers who already had Alex Smith.

Hoyer is far from being an elite qb but he is a competent qb who so far has helped a dismal team be competitive. Maybe he is simply a place holder until Johnny Football is ready but at least he is a reasonable short term answer.

 

The point I am making with the above examples is that if you can't get a franchise qb with a high draft choice in the short term that doesn't mean that you can't find a credible qb who will

stabilize the position and quite possibly play above expectations. How many people would have thought that Kurt Warner was going to play at a HOF level during his short stint of excellence with the Rams and Cardinals?

 

Most people will agree that Orton is at best a pedestrian starter. Yet he has clearly put Watkins in a better position to exhibit his special talents than with the prior starter. Sometimes it is more fruitful to seek the best alternative option when the best option isn't available rather than sit on your hands and lament about your difficult plight.

 

Watkins is the type of player who is going to be at the top or near the top of the draft in any year. If you have an opportunity to get such a dynamic player you do so and continue to upgrade wherever you can. Passing on that type of player because you are not in the best position to accommodate that unique talent is the type of thinking that Buddy Nix used as a GM. Being cautious isn't always being smart.

[Rocky Landing]

The entire premise of this thread is a straw-man argument. And, the ensuing debate seems to go along with some bizarre assumption that the primary value of a first round draft pick is for the purpose of drafting a "franchise quarterback." Since when? Our disfunction at qb contributed to the risk of paying such a high price for Watkins in other ways. EJ's inaccuracy lowered Watkins value on the field.

 

I don't believe the main concern in Watkins high price was that "now we don't get to draft a franchise qb in the first round in 2015." Especially since we were so "all in on EJ" at the time. The question was, and still is: was Watkins worth our 9th pick (Ebron, apparently), 4th round pick, and whomever we would have drafted in the first round in 2015 (whichever position that might be) combined.

 

It wasn't a low-risk move. But, considering Ebrons so-far underwhelming rookie season, and how good Watkins is proving to be, I think most of us, at this point, think it was worth it.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[Bills Fan of St Augustine]

That is called a blowhard in some places.

OC is entitled to his opinion. He may be a bit obsessive in his compulsive need to argue, but the man is entitled to his opinion. Perhaps its a disorder and he goes with "OCD"?

[Rocky Landing]

I just can't buy into the thinking that I can't/won't make a trade based on the CHANCE the player I trade for will get injured. And I don't want my GM afraid to pull the trigger on that basis, either. Every player is one play away from never playing again, but you can't make that prevent you from running your organization.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I don't think that's really the point. A GM must always consider all the risks vs. rewards in a given trade, and the possibility of a Watkins injury is more significant in terms of risk when you are assessing whether that one player is worth the three players you would have acquired otherwise.