No first round pick? Why not trade Sammy?

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Of all the things to bring up today...jeeezzz! The organization is a freaking mess and you want to trade Sammy Watkins.

[The Frankish Reich]

Of all the things to bring up today...jeeezzz! The organization is a freaking mess and you want to trade Sammy Watkins.

The guy with the Black Swan avatar didn't read the book!

[ko12010]

I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean:

 

1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not."

 

2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB.

 

This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ndowment_effect

 

This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack.

You really thought this 'idea' was worthy of a new thread? Unreal.

[RyanC883]

not a crazy idea. One worth exploring, the Eagles idea is the most interesting. But it would have to be their first, and Foles. you'd need to replace Sammy's production somehow. I'm not saying they should do it, but worth looking into quickly in case the right situation presents itself.

[The Frankish Reich]

You really thought this 'idea' was worthy of a new thread? Unreal.

Yes. Because I've been a fan of crappy teams for most of my life, and the crappiness always starts and ends with a GM or ownership who deems certain guys "untouchable" even though they've never won anything with them.

[jletha]

Foles and a first for Sammy? Seems like you're over valuing what you have. Nobody would make that trade. If this year shows anything it's that productive WRs can be found easily in the draft. Sammys stock has likely dropped this year. He's very valuable but nobody would give up a QB with talent. Nobody would give up a first for him is bet. I'm not even sure he's our most tradeable asset.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

The guy with the Black Swan avatar didn't read the book!

Taleb would not be an advocate for your idea pal.

[The Frankish Reich]

Foles and a first for Sammy? Seems like you're over valuing what you have. Nobody would make that trade. If this year shows anything it's that productive WRs can be found easily in the draft. Sammys stock has likely dropped this year. He's very valuable but nobody would give up a QB with talent. Nobody would give up a first for him is bet. I'm not even sure he's our most tradeable asset.

A second and a significantly better QB than we otherwise can find on the open market? I don't think that's a stretch at all.

[HOUSE]

I said it before......I will trade Sammy and Kiko for a young top 10 quaterback

 

Not interested in draft picks.............

[jletha]

 

A second and a significantly better QB than we otherwise can find on the open market? I don't think that's a stretch at all.

 

Are we giving up the second in this scenario? Cause that's the only way I see any team making that. Are you still talking about foles?

[The Frankish Reich]

Taleb would not be an advocate for your idea pal.

Well, he'd have nothing to say about it I'm sure, but in the sense of being willing to go against the prevailing wisdom ...

 

... the prevailing wisdom here is this: The Bills are a team on the rise. Their defense is for real. Some better offensive coaching and a new lineman or two combined with Orton/Manuel level of QB play and we may very well make the playoffs next year or the year after (at which point everyone will agree that age and salaries of key defensive players start to erode the defense).

 

To me that means this: we are aiming to be the Chiefs of 2013-2014. The best case scenario is we make the playoffs, then lose in Round 1. Believe me, I'd be thrilled to see a Bills playoff game again. But with the Chiefs I feel like we've seen the best we're going to see out of this roster. And the Bills haven't even hit that level yet, and to be honest there's not even an Alex Smith quality QB out there. We need to face the reality that without some major, major rethinking of things, 2014 may be the best Bills season we'll see for some time. This is no time to stand pat.

[OldTimer1960]

I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean:

 

1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not."

 

2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB.

 

This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

 

This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack.

 

So, if you were in charge, who would you trade Watkins to and what QB would you draft?

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Well, he'd have nothing to say about it I'm sure, but in the sense of being willing to go against the prevailing wisdom ...

 

... the prevailing wisdom here is this: The Bills are a team on the rise. Their defense is for real. Some better offensive coaching and a new lineman or two combined with Orton/Manuel level of QB play and we may very well make the playoffs next year or the year after (at which point everyone will agree that age and salaries of key defensive players start to erode the defense).

 

To me that means this: we are aiming to be the Chiefs of 2013-2014. The best case scenario is we make the playoffs, then lose in Round 1. Believe me, I'd be thrilled to see a Bills playoff game again. But with the Chiefs I feel like we've seen the best we're going to see out of this roster. And the Bills haven't even hit that level yet, and to be honest there's not even an Alex Smith quality QB out there. We need to face the reality that without some major, major rethinking of things, 2014 may be the best Bills season we'll see for some time. This is no time to stand pat.

Look, we don't need to trade our best playmaker right before he explodes. I agree the QB situation needs to be improved. My deal is you don't know who the next great QB will be without luck. You can do your best to predict who will be great and go through the process. You will still have Tom Brady, Russell Wilson Tony Romo etc. that you can't predict. The bottom line is for good fortune to happen to us in the QB department we need optionality as a strategy. Putting all my eggs in the Nick Foles basket is asking for trouble...or moves of this type. We have a young QB or 2? We must draft one and sign on in FA. The Bills have been making a huge mistake not drafting a QB every year. The position is too important to not make sure you have a couple (at least) who can play. I'm thinking a bit outside the box here as well because most teams believe you can only have one QB. The old school approach if you will.

[OldTimer1960]

I'm just saying think outside the box. Philly never got over losing DeSean Jackson. Sammy for Foles + their 1st? Doesn't sound outrageous. + their 2nd instead? Sounds like a good deal for both. Too much for Foles? Again, who else? Chase Daniel is making Kyle Orton money as Alex Smith's backup. Matt Flynn got two huge deals. QBs are always more valuable than people realize. The Foles for a 5th rounder talk strikes me as ridiculous. And no, I'm not just focused on Foles, it's just an example.

 

But the QBs that you mentioned aren't any good. Look at Foles' stats this year - nothing at all like his miracle year in 2013. Now the question is, which year was the aberration? I don't want to trade Watkins away to find out. Heck, by your own argument Philly would overvalue Foles (they already have him) and wouldn't be willing to trade him for Watkins - unless they realize that Foles really is the middling QB he looked like before injury this year. If Philly was willing to trade their starting QB for a WR, then you can be sure that Philly doesn't think Foles is the answer at QB.

[Freddie's Dead]

I find it fascinating how organizations (and fans) think. A few questions to clarify what I mean:

 

1. If you're the Vikings, would you trade Bridgewater for Sammy? I think we all agree that the answer is "of course not."

 

2. Some fans bemoan the trading up to draft Sammy rather than taking a QB with our initial pick, or even trading down to take a QB later. The same fans agree that Sammy had a very good rookie season (particularly given the fact that he didn't exactly have great QB play feeding him), and that his star is on the rise. Yet they never consider trading Sammy for what we need more: a QB, or the chance to draft a QB.

 

This is what economists call the "endowment effect." You tend to overvalue what you have, and undervalue what you could get.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ndowment_effect

 

This is something some great sports GMs like Billy Beane do not run afoul of. Think you need a pitcher to finally make it to a World Series? Go get Lester and Samardzija! That doesn't work? Let Lester go, trade Samardzija, reload with some other players! If you want a QB now your best trade chip is Sammy and it's not even close. So at least consider it ... all you'd be doing is a classic Billy Beane transaction: you traded up to try to get it done in 2014, you came close, but didn't make it. Now you're stuck with no first round pick in 2015? Simply undo that by trading Sammy. No harm done. But it takes guts, which most GMs lack.

 

So we trade Sammy for a 1st round 2015 pick, losing our 2014 1st round pick, and our starting receivers are Woody, Hogannnnnn, and Glass Goodwin. Brilliant. I'll pass, thank you.

[metzelaars_lives]

If one more person tries to tell me that the verdict is in on the Watkins trade- if it wasn't for freaking Beckham everyone would be perfectly happy with the trade. For all we know Watkins will be in the hall of fame someday. It's a freaking 19th overall pick, get over it. I thought it was a good trade then and I think it's a good trade now. Of course I would take Beckham at 9 if I had it to do over but no one saw that coming. I wouldn't trade Watkins for anyone else we would've realistically drafted at 9 plus the 19th pick this year. To quote wind in his hair, "good trade."

[The Frankish Reich]

If one more person tries to tell me that the verdict is in on the Watkins trade- if it wasn't for freaking Beckham everyone would be perfectly happy with the trade. For all we know Watkins will be in the hall of fame someday. It's a freaking 19th overall pick, get over it. I thought it was a good trade then and I think it's a good trade now. Of course I would take Beckham at 9 if I had it to do over but no one saw that coming. I wouldn't trade Watkins for anyone else we would've realistically drafted at 9 plus the 19th pick this year. To quote wind in his hair, "good trade."

I don't think it was a bad trade at all. But it was predicated on the idea that Manuel would show significant development. In fact, on the idea that one of the reasons Manuel wasn't showing significant development was the lack of weapons at WR, hence the Sammy deal and the Mike Williams signing. Sammy performed well. He was well worth the 4th pick overall. That's why I think he has great trade value. I just think this team is going nowhere fast with stopgap QBs and a young, perhaps soon-to-be-great WR, whereas teams with really good young QBs and no special talent at WR are always primed for success. Circumstances changed. I think Sammy is now more valuable to some other teams than to us, which is what makes for big trades.

[Uffalo Ills]

The question is: "Is there anything out there in the draft that we need and can't get in the second round worth our proven #1 WR?"

The answer is probably no.

Even if we miracluously snagged a #1 overall pick for last years #4 pick, who would we draft? Mariota is basically EJ Manuel 2.0, and Winston would be booed by fans if he got into more trouble in Buffalo (see: Marshawn Lynch). None of those guys is the second coming of peyton or luck...You can't just plug in a rookie QB into an offense with no WR1 and expect a winning season. This thread is ridiculous. I'd rather get cutler or RG3 or Foles. Unless we can trade Sammy for Andrew Luck, I'm not gonna be happy with a trade involving Watkins.

[mead107]

You want to go backwards ?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Ok thanks for clarifying, makes it easier to say no

 

1) Who's to say we can't get a top 10 QB by 2016 We're not stuck with a Matt Moore type beyond this season at worst. We've now lost a potential superstar forever.

 

2) So you want to get rid of a player who appears from everything seen to be the real deal for Winston or the 3rd best QB? Wow! QB of all the positions is one of the toughest to draft with the highest risk of flame out. There are no sure things QB's in this years draft and I'd put Foles in that same boat, from what we've seen of him he could just be a one year wonder who was helped last season by an offense teams took awhile to figure out how to stop.

 

Even if one of these QB's does work out, he just lost a huge weapon to throw to.

 

Here's my list of who I'd probably trade Sammy for and I'm guessing many posters here would likely cut my list in half: Arron Rodgers, Andrew Luck Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan Tony Romo, Matt Stafford, Big Ben,, maybe Wilson in Sea.

 

If the team would throw in a 2nd or 3rd rounder, I'd also likely go for: Andy Daulton, Joe Flacco, Alex Smith, Derek Carr, Ryan Tannihill, SF's QB(not going to try to spell it) I'll throw in Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as they are certainly talented enough to make the first list, but don't have enough years left to warrant more.

 

So yes I'd make these trades for Sammy , but highly doubt any other team would agree to it.

 

Baseball is a different sport, much easier to build though trades, easy to give up prospects, and need much less great players to have a good team. Comparing Billy Beane to football is pointless..

 

 

 

Your question is wrong. The correct questions are:

1. Can we make the playoffs and be competitive in them over the next 2 seasons with Sammy at WR and Manuel or Matt Moore at QB?

2. Can we make the playoffs and be competitive in them over the next 2 seasons without Sammy at WR but with someone like Foles, or the 3rd best QB in the draft, or even Winston (if he drops) at QB?

 

I think the answer is clearly "no" to Q.1, and very possibly "yes" to Q.2.