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

[birdog1960]

the same guys pronouncing the trade a success after 7 games would be saying "it's too early to know" if he were having a bad start. guess what? it's too early to know.

 

he has nearly identical numbers to lee evans at this point in his rookie year. in retrospect, was lee worth two 1's and a 4th?

[thewildrabbit]

Absolutely, how many starts does Locker have? Does anyone think that guy is a franchise QB?

He was just benched for 6th round pick Zach Mettenburger. http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/9379/zach-mettenberger

 

The thing with Buffalo they didn't even try and draft a QB in the first round since Jim Kelly, and EJ was graded a developmental QB that should have been brought along slowly. If the reason that Locker was benched was because he never attained the proper accuracy to compete in the NFL. Where does that leave EJ ?

[Kirby Jackson]

He was just benched for 6th round pick Zach Mettenburger. http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/9379/zach-mettenberger

 

The thing with Buffalo they didn't even try and draft a QB in the first round since Jim Kelly, and EJ was graded a developmental QB that should have been brought along slowly. If the reason that Locker was benched was because he never attained the proper accuracy to compete in the NFL. Where does that leave EJ ?

Losman was a 1st.

 

To answer your question I don't see EJ becoming an NFL starter for the same reason as Locker. I don't think that the Bills draft a QB early next year. They may take a developmental guy but will be playing a vet. The team is built to compete now and they will work to plug holes this offseason (OG, TE) but won't start over with a young QB. They will miss the best years of the rest of the talent by doing so.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Then why draft QB's at all?

 

There's risk and reward. To simplify it as, "the odds aren't great you'll find a franchise QB outside the top 5," is a terrible argument. Absolutely terrible. Please be clear that I'm not talking just the Sammy trade here. You're basically dead in the the water without a good QB in the NFL. Just because the odds are lower doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Especially if you feel like the guy can be "the guy."

 

To answer your question, you draft the can't miss everytime. Andrew Luck was drafted with Peyton Manning on the roster. Those guys are once a decade though.

 

You also take a QB early when you are going nowhere. It makes sense for Tennesse next year for example. They are in rebuild mold and don't have a ton of talent. They can take a flier early and hope to catch lightning in a bottle.

 

The examples sighted Ponder, Gabbert, Locker, and even Tannehill speak to the issues with missing early on a QB. It sets you back years!! If you miss elsewhere it hurts but if the Bills are set back 3 years you are missing the best years of the DL, the end of Freddy, etc... They have to keep playing a veteran (whether it be Orton or Bradford) while developing a young guy.

 

KC, is the perfect example with Alex Smith. They were in a similar position to the Bills with a good deal of talent but had the 1st overall pick. The resisted the urge to take a QB (probably would have been Geno) and went to the playoffs that year. They traded a 2nd for Smith. This is more along the lines of what I think that the Bills will be doing if it isn't Orton.

 

he has nearly identical numbers to lee evans at this point in his rookie year. in retrospect, was lee worth two 1's and a 4th?

It was never about numbers. It was about pedigree, skill set and how he was viewed in the scouting community. It didn't matter what Luck's numbers were through 7 games it was his talent that made everyone know that he would be a star. It's the same thing with Sammy. His game has no holes. Edited October 23, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

I agree with most of the OP outside of the premise that this team did/does not have a likely chance of finishing in the bottom 10 this season. I think going into the season one would have to realistically view the chances of finishing the season as one of the 10 worst teams at about a 50% likely hood. Heck, we are 4-3 but I am still not ready to guarantee more than 6 or 7 wins (lets see how these next two games go, Jets and Chiefs looked like much easier games a couple weeks ago). Six wins probably puts us right around 8-10 and 7 wins probably has us in the 11-13 range. And had we not made the QB change, which was probably not conceivable back at the time of the draft, we would probably be sitting at 3-4 or even 2-5.

 

With that said, I can't see how anyone can argue against the Watkins trade. He is a very talented player. In only seven games you can already tell that he is the most talented players we have had on our team since, well, heck, probably the Super Bowl days. That is a long freaking time.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Sammy Watkins' Rib

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

he has nearly identical numbers to lee evans at this point in his rookie year. in retrospect, was lee worth two 1's and a 4th?

 

What the heck numbers are you looking at??

 

Through 7 games Lee Evans had 11 receptions about 260 yards and 1 Td. He had zero 100 yard games, zero multi TD games and the most receptions he had in one game was 4. He also had a game with zero receptions on four targets. The only positive Lee Evans had through seven games was tremendous ypc average.

 

Sammy Watkins numbers through 7 games: 35 receptions, 422 yards and 4 Tds. Three games with 7 or more receptions, two 100 yard games and one multi TD game.

 

Honestly, those numbers are not eve close. It is one would suggest they are similar. Now, Lee Evans finished his rookie year strong. But still, Sammy would have to hit a brick wall for him to not best Lee's rookie numbers. The only one I could see Sammy and Lee being close in at the end of the season is TDs.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

I never understood that talk and I still dont......

 

Franchise QBs dont grow on trees......and for that matter you can take a QB NUMBER 1 overall in a draft and it seems like the odds are they will not be a franchise QB.......

 

Sam Bradford?

 

Alex Smith?

 

These guys could possibly be available to us next year and they were NUMBER 1 OVERALL PICKS......

 

Then we have a player like Sammy Watkins......I just love this kid.

 

We can wait till 2016 to start thinking about another QB in the first round

 

/thread

 

 

CBF

[ricojes]

Absolutely, how many starts does Locker have? Does anyone think that guy is a franchise QB?

The hurt Locker...

[birdog1960]

What the heck numbers are you looking at??

 

Through 7 games Lee Evans had 11 receptions about 260 yards and 1 Td. He had zero 100 yard games, zero multi TD games and the most receptions he had in one game was 4. He also had a game with zero receptions on four targets. The only positive Lee Evans had through seven games was tremendous ypc average.

 

Sammy Watkins numbers through 7 games: 35 receptions, 422 yards and 4 Tds. Three games with 7 or more receptions, two 100 yard games and one multi TD game.

 

Honestly, those numbers are not eve close. It is one would suggest they are similar. Now, Lee Evans finished his rookie year strong. But still, Sammy would have to hit a brick wall for him to not best Lee's rookie numbers. The only one I could see Sammy and Lee being close in at the end of the season is TDs.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/columnist/roth/2014/10/19/leo-roth-veteran-leadership-pays/17589873/

[bowery4]

http://www.democrata...-pays/17589873/

That maybe the worst graph I have ever seen. why odd numbered games? What are the statistical perimeters (from what I see only yardage)? I do see they say Evans had in the blurb above it but there is a lot missing there. I would like to see Lee's career totals (as he seemed to fall off the proverbial cliff from what I can remember) and compare in a few years. We are talking about different players with different skills.... Except they are stats from their rookie campaign so far.... I mean compare Sammy to Moulds.... or Andre or any one else. You can't yet compare him.

Evans finished with 48 catches for 843 yards and nine TDs, and averaged an impressive 17.6 yards per catch.

Anyway just to chime in on this thread, if Bruce was there in this situation and it cost you 2, 1st and a 2nd you would do it right? The idea behind the trade was that IMO, the kid is obviously projected to be a future HOFer, it was worth a gamble and yeah he isn't a QB. I am excited to see him as a Bill and hope he turns out as advertised. And yea a "Franchise QB" would be nice but that is clearly also a gamble in most instances. I am alright with what we did to get Sammy.

Edited October 23, 2014 by bowery4

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

I would like to see Lee's career totals (as he seemed to fall off the proverbial cliff from what I can remember)

 

A look at Lee's career numbers tells us that his rookie year was arguably his second best season total he had. Really kind of sad when you consider the 48 catches and 850 yards. He had two seasons over 1000 yards, but in one of them, it was just barely over (1,017) and he only managed 3 TDs. His career also ended up only lasting for 8 seasons. That is incredibly short for a receiver.

[quinnearlysghost88]

What the heck numbers are you looking at??

 

Through 7 games Lee Evans had 11 receptions about 260 yards and 1 Td. He had zero 100 yard games, zero multi TD games and the most receptions he had in one game was 4. He also had a game with zero receptions on four targets. The only positive Lee Evans had through seven games was tremendous ypc average.

 

Sammy Watkins numbers through 7 games: 35 receptions, 422 yards and 4 Tds. Three games with 7 or more receptions, two 100 yard games and one multi TD game.

 

Honestly, those numbers are not eve close. It is one would suggest they are similar. Now, Lee Evans finished his rookie year strong. But still, Sammy would have to hit a brick wall for him to not best Lee's rookie numbers. The only one I could see Sammy and Lee being close in at the end of the season is TDs.

 

I think he's talking avgs. Where as Lee (for the year) and Watkins (to date) have similar TDs per game (0.5ish) and yards per game (i think it was 52 to 61, Watkins).

[Deranged Rhino]

the same guys pronouncing the trade a success after 7 games would be saying "it's too early to know" if he were having a bad start. guess what? it's too early to know.

 

he has nearly identical numbers to lee evans at this point in his rookie year. in retrospect, was lee worth two 1's and a 4th?

 

It was never about numbers. It was about pedigree, skill set and how he was viewed in the scouting community. It didn't matter what Luck's numbers were through 7 games it was his talent that made everyone know that he would be a star. It's the same thing with Sammy. His game has no holes.

 

Beat me to it Kirby.

 

But you're of course right. Bird has a point that if Sammy had started off slow, EJ behind center or not, that people would be saying it's early. But it wouldn't change things. Sammy passes every test imaginable: the eye test, the film test, the work ethic/professionalism test... the guy has it all and it's not a question of if he can be a dominate receiver in this league, but just how dominate he can become. To me the answer is: the sky is the limit.

 

Sammy can flat out ball.

Edited October 23, 2014 by GreggyT

[K-9]

the same guys pronouncing the trade a success after 7 games would be saying "it's too early to know" if he were having a bad start. guess what? it's too early to know.

 

he has nearly identical numbers to lee evans at this point in his rookie year. in retrospect, was lee worth two 1's and a 4th?

 

That may be true, but Lee Evans wasn't half the prospect coming out of college. So yes, SW only has seven games as a pro under his belt, but he has a precedent setting college career before that that separates him from most players.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Losman was a 1st.

 

To answer your question I don't see EJ becoming an NFL starter for the same reason as Locker. I don't think that the Bills draft a QB early next year. They may take a developmental guy but will be playing a vet. The team is built to compete now and they will work to plug holes this offseason (OG, TE) but won't start over with a young QB. They will miss the best years of the rest of the talent by doing so.

 

They also spent 1st round picks on RJ and Bledsoe. It's not as if they didn't try to address the position, but the results were less than what they were hoping. By leaps and bounds.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

You will get no argument from me that you can find a franchise QB outside the first round. But strictly from a probability standpoint drafting the best available one with your highest selection every year is easily the most likely way to succeed in finding one. The Bills are a study in how NOT to draft. They have traditionally shunned the QB position with their highest pick....doing so only twice with that selection and doing it over 50 years apart! And that is being kind, because EJ was a tradeback pick in a weak QB draft. They have also overvalued the impact of other positions on an organization with dozens of those highest picks used on RB's and DB's. Utter stupidity organizationally. And they have traditionally drafted for need and that is a product of a play-it-by ear organization and a setup for long term disappointment.

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

Of course it isn't, on the scale you've defined. It wasn't designed to be.

 

The rest of the PPPers seem to get it. You should too. (Well, except for PPPers that are still butthurt over a whipping I've given them in the past. They showed up like the drones they are to insult me here, because really? That's their best work. But, that was expected, and worked as expected.)

So, you're trolling.

Noooooo. They're on to me!

 

Actually, I would define this as: anti-trolling. The trolling was done when the trade was made, and the premise I seek to eradicate was born. It's continuing to be presented as anything other than absurdity? That is trolling. This is better considered as: trolling vaccination.

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

I can't argue with this.

Neither can I. This handle is specifically designed to eradicate bad behavior and/or attack nonsense. It is designed to encourage people that might be fearful of taking on "doctrine", and those who would stifle debate via PC name calling, or just regular name calling(and both of you have seen it do that here, on many occasions, don't lie). It has been highly effective: compare PPP today to what it was like in 2005, and tell me this handle wasn't part of that. The handle says things nobody else would, or, says them in a way that is sure to draw out and expose the nonsense-brokers, and the REAL LAMP people. It's been working great. I see no reason to change it.

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.

Now we're getting somewhere, finally.

 

Don't you see it? The premise I defined in the OP and the continuing arguments based on it ARE ALSO NOT designed to create dialogue. Many have only run with this due to an ulterior agenda. Who...honestly...says "we missed out on a 1st round QB" after drafting a sure winner in Watkins, with the intention of creating dialogue. Come on.

 

No friggin' way. The intention is to criticize, and never be called out on it, period. They say it from their pulpit of daily Bills disdain, with finality. Safe in the knowledge that yet again, somebody in this world, in this case the Bills FO, is worse than them, and boy are they going to lay into that FO this time....

 

Have you considered that there is a "Bills can do nothing right" industry/people who derive benefit, which may come in various forms($, a relief from their own self-loathing, etc.)?

 

Look: I know all about wrestling with pigs = all you get is dirty and pig likes it....but, I also know that if the pig has learned how to throw mud? We've lost our choice to avoid them, because we're still getting dirty, and the pig is loving it. Somebody has to go in there and kick that pig in the nuts.

 

Hence, this post.

Hindsight takes no guts at all.

Agreed, but sniping at the Bills FO, and Bills fans, who were genuinely excited by the trade, from day 1 until now? Spreading FUD(fear, uncertainty, and doubt), because of an ulterior motive? '

 

That takes even less guts. We are in less than zero guts territory with these people.

/thread

 

 

CBF

Oh no sir. As you will see, this thread isn't quite over.

 

 

In summation: Raise your hand if you think we are going to hear this premise written/spoken again. I don't. At the very least, it's going to be challenged every time it is raised again. Thus this thread has worked, so far, as designed.

 

Now we can say /thread, as it has served it's intented purpose. That is, unless somebody wants to state the obvious, about this handle's style, one more time.

Edited October 24, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Jim in Anchorage]

This is your response in a thread about the Watkins trade BS being over? My avatar? (And, no, I'm not going to change it, for reasons that would involve highjacking my own thread. So, no.)

 

But, I will ask you this: Have you considered that bringing up EJ, in this thread, which is about Sammy vs. Magical Franchise QB, who "would have been there at 16", is hilariously ironic?

 

EJ was drafted at 16. So....we should be upset at losing a chance to draft a QB at 16, to replace the QB we drafted at 16. Right.

 

What is this? Your 3am free association time? I'm up because of ze Germans. I have a reasonable excuse. What's yours?

This is bad coming from a guy that brags that he can turn a failing company around with his Superior perception and brilliant analyses. Look at my user name. Get that part? Jim in Anchorage? I posted that at 11 PM Alaska time. I could not care less what you're time was.

[Boatdrinks]

Look, Watkins passes the eye test and every test imaginable to date. He is truly a player and was worth a high pick as one of the 3 or 4 elite guys in the draft. That said, he would have to pretty much have a HOF career to be worth what the Bills gave up. That's a tremendous gamble and one probably only worth taking on a QB. Remember though, the only reason the Bills made this move was the fact the franchise was for sale. This was self preservation at its " go down swinging" finest. If the team is not being sold, the GM , HC , and the rest of the FO are relatively secure in their jobs heading into season 2 . RW's death meant all bets were off as a new owner might just clean house and likely wouldn't care about eating of few years of contracts to do so. Any arguments about SW being worth it need to factor in that if the Bills win a few more games ( and some keep their jobs) it will be worth it to those who made the deal happen, as that was the hoped for result. The HOF career won't mean a thing to them if they are shown the door after 2014.

[BADOLBILZ]

Look, Watkins passes the eye test and every test imaginable to date. He is truly a player and was worth a high pick as one of the 3 or 4 elite guys in the draft. That said, he would have to pretty much have a HOF career to be worth what the Bills gave up. That's a tremendous gamble and one probably only worth taking on a QB. Remember though, the only reason the Bills made this move was the fact the franchise was for sale. This was self preservation at its " go down swinging" finest. If the team is not being sold, the GM , HC , and the rest of the FO are relatively secure in their jobs heading into season 2 . RW's death meant all bets were off as a new owner might just clean house and likely wouldn't care about eating of few years of contracts to do so. Any arguments about SW being worth it need to factor in that if the Bills win a few more games ( and some keep their jobs) it will be worth it to those who made the deal happen, as that was the hoped for result. The HOF career won't mean a thing to them if they are shown the door after 2014.

 

I disagree that he has to be a HOF player to justify that kind of trade value, but you gotta' hand it to them, it's a much tougher decision to fire a 9-7 or 8-8 coaching staff and GM than it is a group coming off of a 4-12 season. This team might very well be 1-6 or 0-7 without Watkins. The fact of the matter though is that one of the chief reasons this team has been so bad for so long is short sighted, self-preserving moves by shaky regimes.

[Kirby Jackson]

Look, Watkins passes the eye test and every test imaginable to date. He is truly a player and was worth a high pick as one of the 3 or 4 elite guys in the draft. That said, he would have to pretty much have a HOF career to be worth what the Bills gave up. That's a tremendous gamble and one probably only worth taking on a QB. Remember though, the only reason the Bills made this move was the fact the franchise was for sale. This was self preservation at its " go down swinging" finest. If the team is not being sold, the GM , HC , and the rest of the FO are relatively secure in their jobs heading into season 2 . RW's death meant all bets were off as a new owner might just clean house and likely wouldn't care about eating of few years of contracts to do so. Any arguments about SW being worth it need to factor in that if the Bills win a few more games ( and some keep their jobs) it will be worth it to those who made the deal happen, as that was the hoped for result. The HOF career won't mean a thing to them if they are shown the door after 2014.

Was the Bennett trade worth it?