Sammy V Odell Beckham

[Thurman#1]

 

How many hand gernades between the ears does it take with some of you guys

 

THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PICK BECKHAM.....They were going to take Ebron (who REALLY struggled) and Whaley said as much a a bills backers meeting.

 

 

OK, fine. Let's see the link.

 

Bills backers meetings are covered in exhaustive detail these days.

 

Where's the link?

[thebandit27]

The trade was reckless. It was the day of the draft and remains so after this season.

 

Two biggest reasons were well known the day of the draft. No franchise QB on the roster and the draft was DEEP at WR. Not to mention, you don't trade a 1st and 4th and use your own 1st for a WR.

 

I still think this trade was a desperate attempt by Brandon/Whaley to win in 2014 to save their jobs with the new owner.

 

In the end, they didn't win, the trade was proven to be a bad one and they saved their jobs anyway.

 

So, all is well that ends well for Russ and Doug and us fans suffer as a result. UGH !

 

Seattle believed they were an impact WR away from winning a Superbowl, so they traded a 1st, 4th, and 7th for Percy Harvin...and won the Superbowl.

 

There are no absolutes.

1. That's true, I guess Cleveland traded with Minnesota to move back up to 8.

2. Sammy was drafted before Beckham. So the Bills used a 1st and next yr's 1st and 4th. So they thought Sammy was better by that total value (2 firsts and a fourth). Read any publication. They all say the cost of the Sammy trade was 2 firsts and a fourth. I understand what you guys are saying that "it only cost 1 extra 1st rounder" but that is not how it is reported because logistically they needed to give up their pick at 9 to move up to 4. Get it?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000348048/article/bills-grab-sammy-watkins-after-trading-up-to-no-4

"The Bills traded the No. 9 overall pick as well as first- and fourth-round picks in 2015 to the Cleveland Browns to move up and nab Watkins at No. 4 overall."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/08/bills-trade-up-with-browns-take-sammy-watkins/

"The Bills paid a huge price to move up from No. 9. In addition to giving up the ninth pick, Buffalo surrendered its No. 1 selection in 2015, as well as a fourth-rounder in 2015, to take Watkins, regarded as one of the draft’s top offensive playmakers."

 

 

Anyhow, the point is I thought they were pretty close talent-wise going in to the draft with a slight edge to Sammy. I would have been happy with either guy. But that was before I saw how Beckham warmed up before every game. They never showed that before "the catch." If our scouts saw that routine and still made that move to pick Sammy then shame on them.

 

That's fine if that's what you thought--very few teams thought the same. Sammy was clear and away the #1 WR on most boards.

 

 

 

Yeah, case closed. Except not.

 

The Bills gave up three picks. Not two. Three. So many of you try to use two separate verbs here, like they "swapped" this and they "gave up" that. It was one transaction, not two. The amount they traded was the same amount they gave up and the same amount they swapped. All three words have the same meaning here, to relinquish something in a trade.

 

Now in that trade they got back one first.

 

So yeah, the difference was a first and a fourth. To justify this trade, Sammy must be the value of a first and a fourth better than the next best WR in the draft. That's extremely likely to ever happen.

 

But yeah, they traded, gave up and swapped the same three picks, two firsts and a fourth. Saying otherwise is only a desperate attempt to spin the trade to make it look better than it was.

 

 

 

 

Again, Whaley didn't "give up" a first and a fourth. He gave up two firsts and a fourth. "Give up" means relinquish. He relinquished three picks. In return he got the pick that got him Sammy.

 

 

As for them picking Ebron, we've heard it a million times. And there's no proof whatsoever. It's just an article of faith among some of you, mostly those desperate to defend this trade. We might indeed have picked Ebron. Or not. We also might have picked Beckham. Or Zack Martin. Or someone else.

We can argue semantics if you want: the response that started this rigamarole stated that Sammy needed to be 2 1sts better than Beckham. Not only is that not true, it's not even an accurate gauge of the compensation.

 

I think we all understand that a team has to use a pick to get a player. If we're going to call that "giving up" then fine. The Giants "gave up" a pick to get Beckham.

 

The whole point of this discussion is whether or not Sammy justifies the compensation...we can't say that one way or another for a variety of reasons ranging from (a) we don't know who they'd have picked if they didn't trade up (although Whaley said it was Ebron) to (b) we don't know what Sammy would do with adequate coaching or QB play, and about a dozen others.

 

 

OK, fine. Let's see the link.

 

Bills backers meetings are covered in exhaustive detail these days.

 

Where's the link?

Here:

 

http://bills.buffalonews.com/2014/05/09/inside-draft-room-buffalo-made-trade-land-sammy-watkins/

 

"The insider told me their board listed North Carolina tight end Eric Ebron, Notre Dame tackle Zack Martin and Louisiana State receiver Odell Beckham. All three still were available at No. 9. The insider said Ebron likely would've been the choice."

Edited January 26, 2015 by thebandit27

[GG]

 

 

Again, Whaley didn't "give up" a first and a fourth. He gave up two firsts and a fourth. "Give up" means relinquish. He relinquished three picks. In return he got the pick that got him Sammy.

 

 

 

Giving up and swapping are not one and the same.

[TXBILLSFAN]

 

Seattle believed they were an impact WR away from winning a Superbowl, so they traded a 1st, 4th, and 7th for Percy Harvin...and won the Superbowl.

 

There are no absolutes.

 

That's fine if that's what you thought--very few teams thought the same. Sammy was clear and away the #1 WR on most boards.

We can argue semantics if you want: the response that started this rigamarole stated that Sammy needed to be 2 1sts better than Beckham. Not only is that not true, it's not even an accurate gauge of the compensation.

 

I think we all understand that a team has to use a pick to get a player. If we're going to call that "giving up" then fine. The Giants "gave up" a pick to get Beckham.

 

The whole point of this discussion is whether or not Sammy justifies the compensation...we can't say that one way or another for a variety of reasons ranging from (a) we don't know who they'd have picked if they didn't trade up (although Whaley said it was Ebron) to (b) we don't know what Sammy would do with adequate coaching or QB play, and about a dozen others.

Here:

 

http://bills.buffalonews.com/2014/05/09/inside-draft-room-buffalo-made-trade-land-sammy-watkins/

 

"The insider told me their board listed North Carolina tight end Eric Ebron, Notre Dame tackle Zack Martin and Louisiana State receiver Odell Beckham. All three still were available at No. 9. The insider said Ebron likely would've been the choice."

 

In your Seattle example, they had Russell Wilson in tow and they DID end up winning a Super Bowl --- AND --- they only traded 1st, 4th and 7th --- Bills parted with 2-1st's and 1 4th -- a BIG difference ---

 

 

An equivalent trade for Buffalo would have been to trade our 1st, 4th and 7th in 2014 to move up --- and then select Watkins -- I would have been perfectly fine with that scenario

Edited January 26, 2015 by TXBILLSFAN

[Deranged Rhino]

 

As for them picking Ebron, we've heard it a million times. And there's no proof whatsoever. It's just an article of faith among some of you, mostly those desperate to defend this trade. We might indeed have picked Ebron. Or not. We also might have picked Beckham. Or Zack Martin. Or someone else.

 

The pick was Ebron. Came from Whaley himself. That's not an article of faith, it's a fact.

[Bills Fan888]

 

The pick was Ebron. Came from Whaley himself. That's not an article of faith, it's a fact.

That makes me lose some faith in Whaley if they were gonna go for Ebron. He still might turn out but he just doesn't seem all that great, especially with the other players available.

[Deranged Rhino]

That makes me lose some faith in Whaley if they were gonna go for Ebron. He still might turn out but he just doesn't seem all that great, especially with the other players available.

 

That's a fair conclusion to draw, and some have, but it's also folly because Whaley didn't pick Ebron. He picked the best WR prospect in the class.

[Thurman#1]

Anyone debating Sammy vs Beckham doesn't need to look any further then the targets they both received.

 

Beckham was targeted 21 times in the season finale vs the Eagles which is pretty insane. Sammy was target 30 times the last 4 games combined.

 

 

Yeah, you really do have to look further.

 

Sometimes the reason a guy isn't targeted is that he isn't open. Other times it's because he hasn't earned as much confidence from the coaching staff as the guy on the other team who's getting more targets and by the way catching a much higher percentage of the balls he's targeted with.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Yeah, you really do have to look further.

 

Sometimes the reason a guy isn't targeted is that he isn't open. Other times it's because he hasn't earned as much confidence from the coaching staff as the guy on the other team who's getting more targets and by the way catching a much higher percentage of the balls he's targeted with.

 

Which one of those was Sammy? To me, he wasn't any of those things. He had confidence from Orton and EJ -- Watkins had a coaching staff that had no idea what to do with him and worse, seemed hesitant to gameplan around their best offensive player. That's why targets are so jarring and really the only stat you need to look at.

[Thurman#1]

 

The pick was Ebron. Came from Whaley himself. That's not an article of faith, it's a fact.

 

 

 

Fine. Then you'll have a link.

 

If you can produce one, I'll happily concede the point. To this date, though, I haven't seen anybody produce any link.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

Fine. Then you'll have a link.

 

If you can produce one, I'll happily concede the point. To this date, though, I haven't seen anybody produce any link.

 

Look above... it's there.

 

"The (insider) told me their board listed North Carolina tight end Eric Ebron, Notre Dame tackle Zack Martin and Louisiana State receiver Odell Beckham. All three still were available at No. 9. The insider said Ebron likely would've been the choice."

http://bills.buffalonews.com/2014/05/09/inside-draft-room-buffalo-made-trade-land-sammy-watkins/

 

This on top of Whaley personally telling the Los Angeles Bills Backers the pick was Ebron. So we've had first hand confirmation from Whaley himself, and this article, AND the Chris Brown draft piece from the main site.

Edited January 26, 2015 by GreggyT

[GG]

 

 

 

Fine. Then you'll have a link.

 

If you can produce one, I'll happily concede the point. To this date, though, I haven't seen anybody produce any link.

 

Ask Kelly the Dog

[Thurman#1]

 

Which one of those was Sammy? To me, he wasn't any of those things. He had confidence from Orton and EJ -- Watkins had a coaching staff that had no idea what to do with him and worse, seemed hesitant to gameplan around their best offensive player. That's why targets are so jarring and really the only stat you need to look at.

 

 

Yup, the only fact you have to look at if your mind is made up and you don't want to be bothered by anything which might disprove your thesis.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Yup, the only fact you have to look at if your mind is made up and you don't want to be bothered by anything which might disprove your thesis.

That's not true. I watched every snap of all the top rookie WRs this year on the all-22s. Sammy is going to be juuuuust fine.

Edited January 26, 2015 by GreggyT

[thebandit27]

 

In your Seattle example, they had Russell Wilson in tow and they DID end up winning a Super Bowl --- AND --- they only traded 1st, 4th and 7th --- Bills parted with 2-1st's and 1 4th -- a BIG difference ---

 

 

An equivalent trade for Buffalo would have been to trade our 1st, 4th and 7th in 2014 to move up --- and then select Watkins -- I would have been perfectly fine with that scenario

I don't disagree that the lack of a QB alters the discussion--all I was saying is that there's no hard-and-fast rule.

 

I also don't think it's as big a difference as you do...it's only the 19th pick this year. Part of gauging the value of that pick is knowing the relative strength of the draft class--the 2015 class isn't a great one IMO...I don't see a difference-maker at the 19th pick.

[FireChan]

 

In your Seattle example, they had Russell Wilson in tow and they DID end up winning a Super Bowl --- AND --- they only traded 1st, 4th and 7th --- Bills parted with 2-1st's and 1 4th -- a BIG difference ---

 

 

An equivalent trade for Buffalo would have been to trade our 1st, 4th and 7th in 2014 to move up --- and then select Watkins -- I would have been perfectly fine with that scenario

Bills parted with two firsts, and got one back. Which was used on Sammy.

 

It's virtually the same as trading one first rounder for a player already picked in the first round.

[Dopey]

OBJ is the best receiver ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3kf6TDw5Tg start watching at 40secs. Pretty funny.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Dopey

[Thurman#1]

 

Look above... it's there.

 

"The (insider) told me their board listed North Carolina tight end Eric Ebron, Notre Dame tackle Zack Martin and Louisiana State receiver Odell Beckham. All three still were available at No. 9. The insider said Ebron likely would've been the choice."

http://bills.buffalonews.com/2014/05/09/inside-draft-room-buffalo-made-trade-land-sammy-watkins/

 

This on top of Whaley personally telling the Los Angeles Bills Backers the pick was Ebron. So we've had first hand confirmation from Whaley himself, and this article, AND the Chris Brown draft piece from the main site.

 

 

Excuse me, do you understand the word "likely"?

 

You didn't say Ebron "likely" would have been the choice. You said Ebron would have been the choice.

 

As for the Bills Backers meetings, they're tweeted, they're blogged, they're on line.

 

As for the Chris Brown deal, he goes out of his way to say that he doesn't know, that it's a guess.

 

 

So if you're saying that your guess is that it would have been Ebron, or if you're saying a Bills source quoted by Tim Graham said it "likely" would have been Ebron, hey, fair enough. But if you're saying it would have been Ebron ...

 

Where ... is ... the ... link?

That's not true. I watched every snap of all the top rookie WRs this year on the all-22s. Sammy is going to be juuuuust fine.

 

 

Yeah, if I'd disagreed that Sammy would be just fine, you'd really have an argument here. I don't. I think he's going to be very good.

 

Again, for me the question is whether he's going to be the value of a first round pick and a fourth round pick better than the next best guy (excepting Evans, who was already gone by the Bills original pick). And that's really really unlikely at this point.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Thurman#1

[GG]

 

 

As for the Bills Backers meetings, they're tweeted, they're blogged, they're on line.

 

 

Then I urge to you get acquainted with the Search function of this site.

[FireChan]

 

 

Excuse me, do you understand the word "lkely"?

 

You didn't say Ebron "likely" would have been the choice. You said Ebron would have been the choice.

 

As for the Bills Backers meetings, they're tweeted, they're blogged, they're on line.

 

As for the Chris Brown deal, he goes out of his way to say that he doesn't know, that it's a guess.

 

 

So if you're saying that your guess is that it would have been Ebron, or if you're saying a Bills source quoted by Tim Graham said it "likely" would have been Ebron, hey, fair enough. But if you're saying it would have been Ebron ...

 

WHERE ... IS ... THE ... LINK?

 

 

Yeah, if I'd disagreed that Sammy would be just fine, you'd really have an argument here. I don't. I think he's going to be very good.

 

Again, for me the question is whether he's going to be the value of a first round pick and a fourth round pick better than the next best guy (excepting Evans, who was already gone by the Bills original pick). And that's really really unlikely at this point.

Depends on who is taken with the pick. What if the first and fourth are both colossal busts?