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

[BillsFanM.D.]

Totally agree then and now. The trade was very calculated what the FO thought was lower risk for very high reward! Agreed then and now too!

 

"If" we can believe Whaley and his claim that Watkins was the overall #1 guy on their board....the only question is whether trading next years 1st and fourth was worth the right to take him. I don't care if he's a qb, WR, DE etc. How often do you get a chance to draft 'the best player' coming out of college? The QB stuff is nonsense. This is about getting the first pick (at least in Whaley's view/valuation) in this draft. Power move. Results yet to be determined.... but that #14 sure looks like a shiny toy on Christmas morning.

[quinnearlysghost88]

So, in your mind, only teams with top 10 drafted QBs will ever be successful? Let's look at last year's playoff QBs, and see who was a top 10:

 

Foles: No

Brees: No

Smith: Yes

Luck: Yes

Kap: No

Wilson: No

Rivers: Yes

Rodgers: No

Manning: Yes

Brady: No

Cam: Yes

Dalton: No

 

7 QBs not drafted in the top 10 (or even the 1st round) and they MIRACULOUSLY made it to the playoffs!! 1 even WINNING THE SUPERBOWL. HOW?! How could they possibly do that if they weren't drafted top 10? That's unpossible.

Edited October 22, 2014 by quinnearlysghost88

[OCinBuffalo]

So, in your mind, only teams with top 10 drafted QBs will ever be successful? Let's look at last year's playoff QBs, and see who was a top 10:

 

Foles: No

Brees: No

Smith: Yes

Luck: Yes

Kap: No

Wilson: No

Rivers: Yes

Rodgers: No

Manning: Yes

Brady: No

Cam: Yes

Dalton: No

 

7 QBs not drafted in the top 10 (or even the 1st round) and they MIRACULOUSLY made it to the playoffs!! 1 even WINNING THE SUPERBOWL. HOW?! How could they possibly do that if they weren't drafted top 10? That's unpossible.

No that is not what is in my mind.

 

What is in my mind, is what I wrote: "Most likely" and 'by a lot"

 

Apparently what's in your mind is a single-year data sample of playoff teams is enough data to form definitive statement...in a thread that is predicated on PROPER statistical analysis. To simplify it for you: your post is doing it wrong.

 

But, what's in my mind, is also what I wrote "Over the last 10 years".

 

How's about you try reading what I wrote, and comprehending it properly, before you move on to the much larger and more difficult task, I assure you, of determining what's in my mind? In fact, given what I see here, that task is probably beyond your capability.

 

Oh I see the math. 2+2=Douchebag. Thanks.

Yeah....I'm the Douchebag in this story. Not Bulldog. Not the clowns at ESPN. Not you.

 

No. Me, the one who always backs up exactly what he says, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I'm the Douchebag.

 

Hilarious. Got anything else. It's been a tough night/day, and I can use all the unintentional humor you can provide.

[peterpan]

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.

 

We didnt have Orton at the time. We wouldnt have a chance with EJ. Case Closed.

[BigBuff423]

So, in your mind, only teams with top 10 drafted QBs will ever be successful? Let's look at last year's playoff QBs, and see who was a top 10:

 

Foles: No

Brees: No

Smith: Yes

Luck: Yes

Kap: No

Wilson: No

Rivers: Yes

Rodgers: No

Manning: Yes

Brady: No

Cam: Yes

Dalton: No

 

7 QBs not drafted in the top 10 (or even the 1st round) and they MIRACULOUSLY made it to the playoffs!! 1 even WINNING THE SUPERBOWL. HOW?! How could they possibly do that if they weren't drafted top 10? That's unpossible.

 

Actually, to be fair to your post: there is not "1" QB that won the Super Bowl Drafted out of the 1st round from that list, there are 3: Brady, Brees, and Wilson.

 

As to the OP's original point, despite the sarcastic and caustic tenor of the post, to the substance I agree regarding the value of the Watkins trade but disagree about needing a top 10 1st Round pick to get your Franchise QB, as shown my statements above. Furthermore, not only recent history, but a longer term of NFL history shows that not only do you not need a top 10 Franchise QB to go to or win a Super Bowl, but far more 2nd and 3rd round, or later, QBs have taken their team to the Super Bowl and some have even won them. Too many to list, but basically, especially true in today's NFL - the QBs at the college level who win and show great potential don't always translate to the NFL. IMHO, the skill-set required is very different. That's why I'm an advocate of the BILLS ignoring all QBs in a spread option Offense or Run option Offense. Fully and carefully scout the QBs in a Pro Style Offense ONLY, and do all your homework on JUST those QBs, no one else. To me, it reduces the sample size, allows the scouts to focus on just those QBs with more information and evaluation and it reduces the learning curve at the NFL level...just my two (and maybe a half) cents.

[RCOHEN13]

The ONLY way to get a "cant miss QB" in this upcoming draft is by selecting FIRST. Marriota is the best QB since Luck. Outside of Marriota, all the other QB's have far too many question marks to be labeled "cant miss" prospects. Once u pass the top 10, maybe 15.. Qb's start dropping cuz most of the teams drafting in 2nd half of 1st round were either in the playoffs or barely missed out. Most of those teams HAVE a legit QB and have greater needs than drafting a Connor Cook, Bryce Petty type to be theie "kirk Cousins" (who just got benched to the OUTSTANDING (cough) Colt Mccoy!

 

If drafting a QB is going to happen, i see zero issue with getting a 2nd or even 3rd rounder like TB did with Glennon and allow him to be groomed behind a vet like Orton.

 

Like OP CLEARLY pointed out... Bills D was gonna keep us out of top 10 regardless. Try and picture SJ13 in Sammy's role.... Would he have made that catch to set up GW FG vs Lions????? Would he have caught that go route for TD? Let alone the catches Sammy made on final drive????

 

Sammy has had his rookie moments, but has shown through training camp, and so far in 1st half of regular season that this is a kid with WR1 talent, and has work ethic to go along with it. He's a game changer. The D has alot to do with our record but with needing game winning drives, having a guy like Sammy is an absolute MUST in this league. You cant get by with SJ13 types as #1 WR's.

 

At least we are at pretty much midway point of season, and the Bills are still VERY much relavent in both WC and division. Would we be there WITHOUT Sammy???? NO WAY..

 

RC

[quinnearlysghost88]

I'm definitely not going to try to figure out what's in your mind. It's a football message board, and I don't care. But, if you're going to hide behind qualifiers like "most likely" and "by a lot" then do so. Why even write this if you're going to sidestep it when pressed with FACT that 7 playoff QBs last weren't Top 10s. I'm not tackling your whole rant, just the part where you blow up about the Bills never being able to secure a top 10 pick because we're just good enough not to be slotted there. and then your deduction is that we need a top 10 QB to be maybe, likely, hopefully, almost always, in certain cases, when otherwise not successful. More qualifiers to fall back on.

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

First let me state, out of respect for you Bill, I waited for the(I think it's ~5 minutes) to respond to you so that this response wouldn't be added to what is above. You deserve better than to be lumped in with them.

 

I fail to see how injury stands alone as a reasonable objection. Anyone can get injured at any time. We just experienced that this weekend. Btw, I know you hate Spiller, but, ask yourself: how much did you really hate him at yard 40 of that 52 yard run?

 

This sort of goes back to the age-old debate you and I have been having since I joined this board: skill players vs. fat guys. (And you know I said that just for you!)

 

For 9 years, my point has only been continuously reinforced: this has become of a game of what I call the critical .5 second after the snap. In that time, a WR/TE/RB is going to beat a CB/LB/S, or not. Whoever wins the most .5 second battles is going to win the game. It used to be that the 2 second battle between lineman was the key pattern. It's still important, but it's now less important than the ,5 second battle.

 

When I was at the Pats game, watching Sammy exclusively, he won the .5 second battle on almost every play. The notion that Revis "shut down" Watkins is hilariously false. It's lazy analysis by somebody whose effort began and ended with the box score, and perhaps "well, I didn't see him catch the ball, so....".

 

This is why I've never been a 100% Moneyball supporter(and remember this is coming from a guy who was doing Moneyball-like stuff 10 years before the A's won those 20 games. We didn't even call it analytics back then.) You have to both see the game, AND, analyze it with PROPER statistical methodology(the lack of which creates most of the nonsense posts/premises here and elsewhere).

 

And that's the thing: if you observe Sammy as I did, and accept my .5 "rule", then Cleveland was absolutely stupid for letting us get him. A player who can consistently win the .5 second battle against another, well recognized champion of the .5 second rule? AUFKM? "Value"-wise, it's not even a question.

 

I can have that, or, can have a chance to draft EJ, Round 2 at 16? Watkins might get hurt?

 

These questions/concerns become negligible, and frankly border on irrelevant, when I have a chance to draft a guy who can win the .5 battle 80-90% of the time.

 

despite the sarcastic and caustic tenor of the post

You don't think that's merely accidental, do you?

 

No. Thus far, things are operating as designed. Sometimes you have to be a thief to catch a thief.

 

Consider that...in the context of this thread. Perhaps you are capable of determining what's in my mind?

Edited October 22, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[HeHateMe]

Forget QB, how far can this team go with a freaking Guard???

[quinnearlysghost88]

 

You don't think that's merely accidental, do you?

 

No. Thus far, things are operating as designed. Sometimes you have to be a thief to catch a thief.

 

Consider that...in the context of this thread. Perhaps you are capable of determining what's in my mind?

 

I think you spend more time patting yourself on the back then actually arguing your point. But none of us would understand that. You've been an analytics guy before they even kept track of sacks. You were keeping track though. You were.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm definitely not going to try to figure out what's in your mind. It's a football message board, and I don't care. But, if you're going to hide behind qualifiers like "most likely" and "by a lot" then do so. Why even write this if you're going to sidestep it when pressed with FACT that 7 playoff QBs last weren't Top 10s. I'm not tackling your whole rant, just the part where you blow up about the Bills never being able to secure a top 10 pick because we're just good enough not to be slotted there. and then your deduction is that we need a top 10 QB to be maybe, likely, hopefully, almost always, in certain cases, when otherwise not successful. More qualifiers to fall back on.

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.

 

I think you spend more time patting yourself on the back then actually arguing your point. But none of us would understand that. You've been an analytics guy before they even kept track of sacks. You were keeping track though. You were.

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.

Edited October 22, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[GunnerBill]

I'm sure the OP will correct me in his own inimitable style if I have got this wrong, but I think people who are saying "yea but loads of Quarterbacks drafted outside the top 10 win" are missing his point somewhat. The 2015 #1 was the only real ammunition we had to pick a Quarterback in the top 10 and the reality is that was never really likely to be sufficient ammunition without packaging something else very valuable with it.

 

The fact that you can pick up Quarterbacks outside the top 10 who can be franchise guys surely strengthens this point..... because we still have a 2nd round pick and a 3rd round pick with which we could take a QB who could be our Dalton or Wilson or Kaepernick if we so wished or we could package them together to get up the top of the 2nd if a supposed 1st round QB started slipping.

[ricojes]

I'm sure the OP will correct me in his own inimitable style if I have got this wrong,

That's one word for it...I'll refrain from using the others that come to mind. But good points on the rest of your post! I believe OC had some good points as well and I agree, it just could have been phrased a little better to sound less dick'ish....

Edited October 22, 2014 by ricojes

[Webster Guy]

Also, Sammy has won us two games this year in my opinion, which further justifies OP's point.

 

The detroit bobble catch was a thing of beauty, and probably only sammy makes that catch. We don't win that game without it.

 

and I give him the Vikes game too.

[BigBuff423]

 

You don't think that's merely accidental, do you?

 

No. Thus far, things are operating as designed. Sometimes you have to be a thief to catch a thief.

 

Consider that...in the context of this thread. Perhaps you are capable of determining what's in my mind?

 

Perhaps, it's not about determining what's in your mind, but rather that you can make your argument without insulting people through the aforementioned "tone" to your post. Reasonable expectation I presume.

[xsoldier54]

No that is not what is in my mind.

 

What is in my mind, is what I wrote: "Most likely" and 'by a lot"

 

Apparently what's in your mind is a single-year data sample of playoff teams is enough data to form definitive statement...in a thread that is predicated on PROPER statistical analysis. To simplify it for you: your post is doing it wrong.

 

But, what's in my mind, is also what I wrote "Over the last 10 years".

 

How's about you try reading what I wrote, and comprehending it properly, before you move on to the much larger and more difficult task, I assure you, of determining what's in my mind? In fact, given what I see here, that task is probably beyond your capability.

 

 

Yeah....I'm the Douchebag in this story. Not Bulldog. Not the clowns at ESPN. Not you.

 

No. Me, the one who always backs up exactly what he says, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I'm the Douchebag.

 

Hilarious. Got anything else. It's been a tough night/day, and I can use all the unintentional humor you can provide.

Who says it was unintentional? I just thought your post was a bit preachy, that's all. It was a joke bro. All the best.

[quinnearlysghost88]

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.

 

You're pretty tone deaf. See below. Everyone's over you.

[OCinBuffalo]

Perhaps, it's not about determining what's in your mind, but rather that you can make your argument without insulting people through the aforementioned "tone" to your post. Reasonable expectation I presume.

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.

Who says it was unintentional? I just thought your post was a bit preachy, that's all. It was a joke bro. All the best.

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

Edited October 22, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[BillsVet]

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.

[BuffOrange]

Like "look at me" threads much? Seems to be all you ever post. Last year was the necessity of having eleven caliber starting CB's in case of injuries.

 

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.

 

Is there that much of an obsession with ripping the trade here or WGR? It's mostly a "damn that's a gamble, wouldn't have done it but hey, Sammy is great and exciting.." sort of sentiment.

 

But since you brought it up, how would that 8-8 math be looking now if EJ Manuel to Robert Woods was our #1 connection? Because that's what would be happening now without the trade.

Of course there is also the opportunity cost ie how much worse are the other guys we could've picked. Oddell Beckham looks pretty good.

Edited October 22, 2014 by BuffOrange