Sammy V Odell Beckham

[FireChan]

If we're using that as a measuring stick then Ryan Leaf was a great pick because pundits thought he was great. The only question was whether he was better than Peyton Manning and Manning was already off the board. And no other QB was close.

Let's say that Ryan Leaf was as great of an offensive prospect as Sammy, even though I highly doubt that was the case, just to resist an apples to oranges situation. Was the pick great? Of course not. Was the decision to make the pick okay? Yes. It was.

 

Drafts are almost total crap-shoots. Unlucky breaks are going to happen. Same with lucky ones. If Leaf was a no-brainer as a high level prospect, even if he busted, the decision to pick him with all of the information possible was not wrong.

[Thurman#1]

So what you are saying is (I just want to make sure I understand this correctly)

 

Lets say Sammy Watkins ends up being great for us.....say multiple pro bowls...say he ends up being the greatest bill....ever

 

Now lets say Odel Beckum doesnt get tore in half by some linebacker and also has a great career

 

We lost because we gave up more for Sammy?

 

 

Don't have to bother writing anything new here ...

 

 

 

To repeat:

It's a simple thing ... did we pay too much? Putting it mathematically, is Sammy Watkins equal to or greater than ((Odell Beckham Jr. or Kelvin Benjamin or any of the other top five or six guys, not including Evans) plus one 2015 1st round pick and one 2015 4th round pick).

And there is no way on God's green earth that - based on the information we've seen so far - you can say that that that equation represents reality. Watkins isn't worth that.

Could that change as time passes? Sure. Is it likely to change enough that that equation ever becomes true? The odds are very low. MIniscule.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Thurman#1

[truth on hold]

 

You know....completely unrelated.

 

I was watching the pro bowl this past weekend and ODB goes and makes that excellent grab for a catch over the middle......

 

I was thinking to myself.....Sammy Watkins would be absolutely owning this game with these QBs throwing to him

lol ... on one hand you say ODB makes an excellent catch, and on the other you credit it to the QB throwing it to him ... it's gotten so bad the watkins-trade apologists can't even not contradict themselves in the same post. This was hardly a ball that catches itself, watkins had plenty of opportunities on similarly thrown balls from orton/ej

 

Edited January 28, 2015 by JTSP

[truth on hold]

I dont really think Im changing the subject.....the hindsight witch hunt is happening because people are upset that the bills used extra resources to draft a WR in what looks like a WR strong draft.

 

My point is....we really dont know that yet....you cannot really grade a draft for about 3 years after the draft.

 

But lets say for argument sake that the witch hunters are correct and this ends up being a strong WR draft?

 

So what?

 

- IMO you have to give a front office kudos for taking the shot that Sammy Watkins is gonna be a difference making player for the bills REGARDLESS of how other teams did in the draft.

 

- We have drafted players like Aaron Maybin in the first round......guys that never lived up to their billing (part of the reason why we have been bad so long) swinging for the fences on Sammy Watkins is a refreshing change to the Same old Bills.

 

- What are we actually losing by doing what we did? A difference making QB? HE ISNT THERE

we don't know who yet -- havent even been thru the combine. But one thing is almost certain: not having a 1st round pick precludes us from nabbing a top ranked QB like a Winston or Mariotta because we don't have enough value to trade up. Edited January 28, 2015 by JTSP

[Thurman#1]

Why does the trade make a difference? Let's say ODB turns out to be a HoFer and Sammy is the best Bill WR ever. We got Sammy at our original pick and ODB went after. Sammy is really good, and ODB is historic. You're telling me that taking Sammy over ODB on the draft isn't a conversation? You're telling me that the trade is what is driving this conversation?

 

Yes, that's what I'm telling you. It absolutely without question indubitably is the trade that is driving this conversation on my part and on the part of most of the people who disagree with you on this. If we'd had the fourth pick after the season ended and hadn't traded, I wouldn't have a single bad thing to say about picking Sammy. I would still think OBD had had a better first season, of course, but would also think Sammy had a good chance of turning out to be better in the long run.

 

Yes, dude. Seriously. It really is about the trade and losing the 2015 first and 2015 fourth.

 

However, I do not even begin to understand your example above, or what you are trying to show.

 

 

 

Why does the trade make a difference? Let's say ODB turns out to be a HoFer and Sammy is the best Bill WR ever. We got Sammy at our original pick and ODB went after. Sammy is really good, and ODB is historic. You're telling me that taking Sammy over ODB on the draft isn't a conversation? You're telling me that the trade is what is driving this conversation?

 

No chance. It gives one side, the "Sammy isn't as good as ODB" side to sling more dirt. Trade or no trade, the same folks would be saying that taking Sammy over ODB was a bad move, the FO sucks, huge mistake, etc.

 

And this is where the argument gets cyclical. At the time of the trade, Watkins was definitely worth more than ODB as a prospect, and there was a strong case for the extra first and fourth. And if you're going to diagnose a snap-shot trade based on something no one expected, it is not really fair. You can disagree with the idea, you can disagree with the philosophy, but you cannot say that at the time the decision was made, it was not worth it when comparing the prospects.

 

 

 

Why does a trade make a difference? Are you serious? For the same reason the price makes a difference when you buy something. Because if we didn't make that trade we could have brought in three extra guys in place of Sammy ... say Beckham and Landon Collins or Cameron Erving or La'el Collins if you think he can move to guard, plus somebody in the 4th.

 

 

 

You're kidding yourself. Plenty of people, me included, thought it was most likely that whoever the second-best WR in this draft was he wouldn't be so far below Sammy that it would be worth a first and a fourth in 2015 to trade up. That point was made over and over again.

 

And the national pundits didn't like the trade, most of them. At the time most of them made the same point we're making now, that Sammy would be a good player but that it wasn't worth what we had to give up to make the trade.

 

 

"My issue is that this draft is loaded with wide receivers — there are good ones already signing as undrafted free agents as I type this, in fact — and the Bills paid a significant price to get Watkins. A future first-round pick is always a heavy price, but they threw in a fourth as well, and they could have gotten a very good wide receiver in Odell Beckham Jr. without moving." - Mel Kiper the day after the draft, giving the Bills a C-

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/17158/mel-kiper-bumps-bills-grade-in-2014-re-grade

 

 

 

"Questionable move: Trading their first-round pick in 2015 to move up to the fourth spot to take Sammy Watkins. I love the player, but that's a bit of a steep price to move up five spots. " - Pete Prisco the day after the draft giving the Bills a C

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pete-prisco/24559020/nfl-draft-final-team-grades-and-analysis_2

"... the Bills gave up two first round picks to get him, which I believe will prove too much." - Rob Rang, same deal

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/nfl-draft-scout/24557849/grading-the-2014-nfl-draft-patriots-jets-tops-in-afc-east

Here's a Buffalo News article by Gaughan, who asked a bunch of folks about the trade. For example, he asked Polian, who said he liked Sammy but thought they gave up too much.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/nfl-draft/too-iffy-seems-consensus-on-watkins-deal-20140512?two-bills-drive

The title is "Too Iffy Seems Consensus on Watkins Deal."

Kiper is quoted in the article: “'I love Sammy Watkins, but I also really like Odell Beckham Jr.,' Kiper said on a conference call Monday ... They could have gotten Beckham without giving up anything.'”

McShay liked the trade but had questions about Manuel.

“'I think they gave up way too much,' he said. 'They could have stayed right where they were and got Odell Beckham, who I don’t think is that far off from Watkins. '" - Ross Tucker from the article.

The point is, this isn't something that is coming up only in hindsight. People were saying this right after the trade.

 

Edited January 28, 2015 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

Let's say that Ryan Leaf was as great of an offensive prospect as Sammy, even though I highly doubt that was the case, just to resist an apples to oranges situation. Was the pick great? Of course not. Was the decision to make the pick okay? Yes. It was.

 

Drafts are almost total crap-shoots. Unlucky breaks are going to happen. Same with lucky ones. If Leaf was a no-brainer as a high level prospect, even if he busted, the decision to pick him with all of the information possible was not wrong.

 

 

 

I agree that the pick was not OK.

 

But you're seriously saying that the trade was OK? Wow! Don't really know what to say to that, honestly.

 

For the right to choose the second-best QB that year whoever it was (they made the trade before the draft, when they still didn't know who the Colts would pick), they traded up from pick #3 to pick #2. They gave up two firsts, a second and two players. And you're saying that was a good trade?

 

That trade more or less destroyed Bobby Beathard's career. And for very good reason.

 

 

"I think the consensus of opinion is that two guys like (Manning and Leaf) don't come along very often," Charger General Manager Bobby Beathard said. "If we're going to be successful in getting that type of quarterback, we're going to have to give up something, and we really did."

 

 

 

The pick, not the trade the pick, meant they got Leaf instead of Charles Woodson, who went #4.

 

The trade, not the pick but the trade, meant that for the privilege of picking Leaf instead of Charles Woodson they gave up the same year's second rounder (Corey Chavous, Sam Cowart, Samari Rolle and Flozell Adams were available, though of course some unsuccessful guys went close to there also), the next year's first rounder (which came in at #8 where they had a chance at Chris McAlister, Jevon Kearse, Daunte Culpepper - who really was good till his injury - or Damien Woody, though of course some dogs went there too), and after the three picks they also gave up Eric Metcalfe and Patrick Sapp.

 

To move up from #3 to #2. To draft the second-best of two QBs, not knowing which would go first.

 

That was a genuinely awful trade. Horrible. Would it have been a good trade if they'd gotten a good QB? Yup. But not knowing which of the two they would get, it was awful. That's how trades get evaluated. On what you lost and what you gained. Did you get enough value.

 

Did they get enough value to make up for what they lost? Good lord, no.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Thurman#1

[Doug Flutie Band]

If everyone knew Odell would turn out to be Odell, then he would have gone #1 overall.

 

Can't really judge Sammy based on ODB. The trade doesn't look great right now, but it could still easily prove to end up being a good move.

[Thurmal34]

Who cares about this? The team identified a player they wanted and moved to get him. What's the big deal?

 

The team has to trust it's scouting. If they thought the player was going to be a game breaker, why not make the move?

 

You cant live in fear of "what if". If you are convinced on a player, get him. Being right or wrong after the fact should never affect that decision making process.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Thurmal34

[Thurman#1]

Who cares about this? The team identified a player they wanted and moved to get him. What's the big deal?

 

The team has to trust it's scouting. If they thought the player was going to be a game breaker, why not make the move?

 

You cant live in fear of "what if". If you are convinced on a player, get him. Being right or wrong after the fact should never affect that decision making process.

 

 

"Being right or wrong after the fact shouldn't never affect that decision-making process," you say? Well, I guess I get where you're going, but if you look at your exact words, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

In fact, being right or wrong after the fact, since it is the only thing that matters in terms of success or failure, should be the only thing that matters in terms of making this decision. If the trade doesn't work out, it's a failure. If it does work out, it's a success. Either one of those will happen after the fact.

 

If you're a GM, all your scouting expertise, all your experience, all your decision-making abilities ... they should be focused exactly on making the right decision. Which will only be shown by the results that come after the fact.

 

So when you ask "who cares about this?" the answer should be that your GM should be the number one on the list. It's his goal, for Pete's sake, to make decisions that prove to help the team after the trade, not decisions that prove to hurt the trade.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

 

That is what has been said since the beginning. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Whaley said himself, first hand, that Ebron was the pick.

 

 

 

The guy with the reading comp problem is you, not me.

 

I was referring to you when I said "he." I meant that if you had actually been there and heard this first-hand rather than having heard it from someone who had a friend whose barber heard it there, that that it made it more likely that it was true.

 

But then just a post or two later you argued that what Graham said proved your point. And this pretty much knocked that credit I'd given you aside. It makes it clear that your standard of proof isn't even close to what a neutral observer would actually consider proof. Makes it likely that if Whaley at the meeting said that they "likely" would have picked him, you'd have heard, "we definitely would have picked him." You've knocked yourself out of the ranks of reliable observers here.

 

Here are the two two sentences you've referred to as "proof."

 

1) "The !@#$ 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." - Tim Graham

 

2) "Q: Chris, ... Can you also explain to fans that the Bills would have taken Eric Ebron, and trading up for Sammy wasn't as risky as many thought. This year's list of WRs isn't as deep."

 

"A: ... As for last year's draft it was my understanding that if the Bills stayed at nine that Eric Ebron was the most likely target, assuming the likes of Sammy Watkins was off the board." - Chris Brown

 

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/tag/eric-ebron/

 

 

Those are the two things you seem to think are proof. Neither is. And that's quite clear to anyone not desperately set on finding them to be proof and willing to ignore anything that implies the opposite.

 

And I waited a couple of days to see if anybody could find more "proof." But nope. Those two maybes are all that is out there. Two sources now put the three guys in consideration if we hadn't made the trade to have been Zack Martin, Odell Beckham Jr. and Eric Ebron, but we don't know for sure which would have been the pick.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Thurman#1

[thebandit27]

I'd like to know who we expect to draft at 19 this year. Good or bad it should be on the table so when the next jj watt or whoever becomes evident based on their rookie season we don't have 1000 threads saying "we could have had odell beckham and x player"

 

I think that is the 20/20 hindsight people hate.

 

Obviously it's a little early but yeah that would be nice to know before the end of the 2015 season.

 

You aren't going to get an answer, because I've asked that question half-a-dozen times and gotten none.

 

You are absolutely correct that it's part of the equation...and I'll give you my opinion: there isn't a player at 19th overall in the 2015 draft that I feel is a significantly greater difference-maker to this team than what they'll get at 50.

That's the issue. As deep as the position was, EVERY OTHER PROSPECT WAS A DISTANT SECOND to SW. It really wasn't close. At all. Not even a little. Every talking head pundit is indeed using 20/20 hindsight to suggest it was. I would wager Whaley has seen only a handful of higher rated prospects, regardless of position,in all his years of perusing scouting reports and watching game tape. This really isn't surprising considering SW had an unprecedented college career as a wide out.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Correct...it wasn't even close.

 

If we're using that as a measuring stick then Ryan Leaf was a great pick because pundits thought he was great. The only question was whether he was better than Peyton Manning and Manning was already off the board. And no other QB was close.

That's not what K-9 is saying...c'mon Rob, you know that.

 

 

 

 

The guy with the reading comp problem is you, not me.

 

I was referring to you when I said "he." I meant that if you had actually been there and heard this first-hand rather than having heard it from someone who had a friend whose barber heard it there, that that it made it more likely that it was true.

 

But then just a post or two later you argued that what Graham said proved your point. And this pretty much knocked that credit I'd given you aside. It makes it clear that your standard of proof isn't even close to what a neutral observer would actually consider proof. Makes it likely that if Whaley at the meeting said that they "likely" would have picked him, you'd have heard, "we definitely would have picked him." You've knocked yourself out of the ranks of reliable observers here.

 

Here are the two two sentences you've referred to as "proof."

 

1) "The !@#$ 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." - Tim Graham

 

2) "Q: Chris, ... Can you also explain to fans that the Bills would have taken Eric Ebron, and trading up for Sammy wasn't as risky as many thought. This year's list of WRs isn't as deep."

 

"A: ... As for last year's draft it was my understanding that if the Bills stayed at nine that Eric Ebron was the most likely target, assuming the likes of Sammy Watkins was off the board." - Chris Brown

 

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/tag/eric-ebron/

 

 

Those are the two things you seem to think are proof. Neither is. And that's quite clear to anyone not desperately set on finding them to be proof and willing to ignore anything that implies the opposite.

 

And I waited a couple of days to see if anybody could find more "proof." But nope. Those two maybes are all that is out there. Two sources now put the three guys in consideration if we hadn't made the trade to have been Zack Martin, Odell Beckham Jr. and Eric Ebron, but we don't know for sure which would have been the pick.

Straight from the mouth of Whaley, unless you want to call Kelly the Dog--a guy with over 30k posts on this board and a reputation for having reliable info--a liar:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/172744-doug-whaley-joined-la-bills-backers-to-watch-games-this-morning/

(post #15)

Edited January 28, 2015 by thebandit27

[GG]

 

Straight from the mouth of Whaley, unless you want to call Kelly the Dog--a guy with over 30k posts on this board and a reputation for having reliable info--a liar:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/172744-doug-whaley-joined-la-bills-backers-to-watch-games-this-morning/

(post #15)

 

This was also provided before & ignored.

[Beerball]

Only 12 pages "debating" two WR's after their rookie year? You people are slipping. I want more Thurman on Thrumal violence! (or vice versa)

[Maury Ballstein]

Sammy will dominate soon enough and the trade bashers will eat crow

 

lock it down.

[Thurmal34]

Thurman the point I'm making here is that no GM ever right all the time. You institutionalize a process and trust it.

 

Beerball is correct, these guys have played one year. Let's see how it shakes out over time.

[Thurman#1]

You know, we hear the draft is a crapshoot, and it's nonsense. If it were a crapshoot, some teams wouldn't consistently be better than others at it. Is it hard to predict? Sure. Are even good GMs often wrong? Yeah. But good teams make a higher percentage of good picks, and as a result their teams get better. That's not what happens in a crapshoot. And that's why you can and should hold your GM responsible for his results. If it were really a crapshoot, you wouldn't fire your GM after four or five years of bad drafting, because after all, its a crapshoot.

 

I'd like to respond to this whole thing, piece by piece, but I don't have the time right now. I'm just gonna ask you about the bolded.

 

What teams are consistently better than others in the draft? Can you share some examples? What are your parameters for being better? More role-players and starters? How do you quantify one superstar over 3 role-players and STers? Would ODB be better than Sammy, Preston Brown, and Seantrel? Or the opposite? Are you quantifying how good they are based on wins?

 

Edit: One more actually.

 

If you're going to narrow this down to one question that's already been asked and answered numerous times, let me ask you a question that comes up immediately when your question is asked. When you answer this one, I'll answer yours, though obviously answering yours is a lot easier. How many times was Sammy Watkins open to be targeted compared to those other receivers?

 

Targets aren't purely a result of how good the team thinks the receiver is, or how bad the coaches are. They're also a result of how open the guy is, where the safety is playing, how often the guy has fumbled or dropped balls, which affect how much the QB trusts the guy ... There are a ton more factors, but those are a few. One is how often the QB receives the endorphin rush of seeing passes he throws towards that receiver caught and turned into serious gains and successful plays. Generally if he gets that rush a higher percentage of the time, he's going to automatically be more likely to throw towards that guy.

 

QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Beckham are going to throw more to him than QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Sammy. Beckham was simply better this year. Not that that necessarily continue next year. Nobody knows yet. Sammy could easily be better. But the likelihood of Sammy being better by the margin of the value of a first and a fourth draft pick (over the other WRs of the class also) are miniscule.

 

How do you grade the qualities of the WR? Does ODB run better routes? Is he faster? Is he better at breaking the press off the line? Is he better at cutting and losing defenders? Better hands? Lower drop percentage? I mean, are you really confident in saying that the reason ODB is better than Sammy is because ODB is "trusted" more by his QB? How would you even quantify that? Have you watched all of their snaps and their All-22's? Are you basing it on just the numbers of targets? Can you compare how many of their snaps they got open? How many times they got double- and triple-teamed? What about quality of CB? Are the defensive backs they both saw equal in ability?

 

ODB was more productive this year. But you need more to convince me that he's better.

 

 

This is actually a good post. Didn't see it till now, and it's a good one.

 

Although, realistically you're asking me for a novelette of a post. Don't have the time or inclination to go into detail about all you're asking me. But they're good questions.

 

Which teams are better at drafting? Well, Baltimore quickly springs to mind. Generally it's not that difficult to find those teams, as they're consistently good without a whole lot of FAs being brought in. Baltimore is maybe the most obvious one as they stay a high-level team without a truly excellent QB.

 

SF looks to be one of those teams also, since they brought in McCloughan.

 

I might argue the Packers too, but if someone wanted to argue that that's a result of having Rodgers and Favre, it'd be hard to argue.

 

As for all the questions you ask about ODB and Sammy ... again, all good and legit questions. Worth exploring. But in no way do I have time to answer that. But your final sentence is "But you need more to convince me that he's better."

 

I didn't say ODB is better. I'm not sure of it.

 

But did he have a better year? Was he better this year? Yeah. If you need convincing of that, well, I'd argue that might be because you've already got a dog in the fight.

 

As I've said a number of times, Sammy may well end up better than ODB. But the odds he ends up better by the value of a 1st and a 4th are extremely slim.

[Maury Ballstein]

 

 

Baltimore is maybe the most obvious one as they stay a high-level team without a truly excellent QB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree to disagree on this one. Might want to check out Flacco's playoff record.

 

He only threw 4 td's vs the Patriots this year in the playoffs. He is definetly excellent.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

Thurman the point I'm making here is that no GM ever right all the time. You institutionalize a process and trust it.

 

Beerball is correct, these guys have played one year. Let's see how it shakes out over time.

 

 

If that's your point, it's not one I'll disagree with.

 

My point is that, again, for this trade to be considered a success Sammy must be equal to or better than Beckham or Benjamin or whoever the best WR still left at #9 was, plus a 2015 first and a 2015 fourth. And it seems very unlikely to ever work out that way.

 

 

 

Baltimore is maybe the most obvious one as they stay a high-level team without a truly excellent QB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree to disagree on this one. Might want to check out Flacco's playoff record.

 

He only threw 4 td's vs the Patriots this year in the playoffs. He is definetly excellent.

 

 

 

 

 

Agreeing to disagree is something I'm comfortable with.

[Thurman#1]

 

This was also provided before & ignored.

 

 

 

If it was provided before, it sure wasn't anywhere obvious. I looked at all the links he gave me, I think.

[Billsfan1972]

Watkins is very good. He is someone I'm excited to watch and cheer for. There is no way that the Bills would ever target him 23X's a game unless KO was throwing it away, which he was a significant amount of times in 2014. Heck if there was a stat tracking catchable balls, real targets,missed opportunities or double coverage, I'd like to see that.

 

I don't really care about woulda/coulda/shoulda on a draft choice that is id/late first round. We got a very good player (without a doubt)......

 

The people arguing the trade are those who would have been happy with Ebron (though pissed the Bills didn't take ODB) and excited at the 7-9 (or 6-10 season as Watkins doesn't impact 2 wins the last second in 2014) and talking about the 9th pick this year..... Pathetic.....