K-9 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 I said NO with conviction and disdain last year and have not changed my position. In a DEEP WR draft, there was no need to give up this year's first to get a quality #1 WR. You don't make that trade unless you have a franchise QB and are a WR away from competing. The argument that it was a good trade because the Bills would have taken Ebron makes no sense. It makes Whaley look even more incompetent, "if we didn't make the trade our GM would have made an even worse decision, so it was a good trade ???!!!". Ugh. Think where this team would be with Mosley (who I wanted), or Martin (who several draft pundits slotted to Buffalo)or a hindsight is 20/20 pick like Beckham, Jr AND this year's 19th (or higher) pick ? Having said all that, I like Sammy. I said it last year and still feel that way. If he becomes a perennial all-pro, I'll happily eat my words and say I was wrong. As we sit here today, I am not wrong. Sammy looked good, not great last year. He needs to be great for the trade to make sense. With conviction and disdain! Why not go for the trifecta and add contempt as well? So if Sammy goes on to have a perennial All-Pro career, you'll be happy to eat your words? Way to go out on a limb there! http://fat.gfycat.com/WindingBowedAquaticleech.webm GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 With conviction and disdain! Why not go for the trifecta and add contempt as well? So if Sammy goes on to have a perennial All-Pro career, you'll be happy to eat your words? Way to go out on a limb there! http://fat.gfycat.com/WindingBowedAquaticleech.webm GO BILLS!!! No sure why you have an issue with what I posted. I said I didn't like the trade then, I don't like it now. I want Sammy to be great and prove me wrong. What's your beef ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iraq Vet Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 50% of all 1st rounders after pick 10 amount to nothing and are out of the league by year 3. This year our pick would have been #19. So yes I am still ok with the trade for a franchise WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 No sure why you have an issue with what I posted. I said I didn't like the trade then, I don't like it now. I want Sammy to be great and prove me wrong. What's your beef ? No beef. I thought your post was amusing in how its level of rancor contrasted with your complete willingness to "happily eat your words." I'm skeptical though. Your lack of appreciation for his abilities now suggests to me you'll have a hard time seeing and appreciating how good he is later. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 No beef. I thought your post was amusing in how its level of rancor contrasted with your complete willingness to "happily eat your words." I'm skeptical though. Your lack of appreciation for his abilities now suggests to me you'll have a hard time seeing and appreciating how good he is later. GO BILLS!!! Sammy's ceiling is not under his own control, he is (unfortunately for him) linked to the play of the QB and the offensive scheme around him. Last season, he was not great, you can argue the WHY, but the result is the result. I had two big problems with the trade (then and now): 1- Bills did not have QB to get him the ball 2- Last year's draft was DEEP at that position and there wasn't a need to move up The reason it is still a bad trade is that neither 1 or 2 has changed. If Cassel (or other Bills QB) plays well enough for Sammy to be great, then the trade works. But, if the Bills continue with poor QB play and don't get Sammy the ball, he could in his own right be a great player, but won't be a great player for THIS TEAM and the trade will not have made sense. This isn't as much about how good Sammy could be, it's about how good Sammy WILL be on this team with this QB. Again, last year, the results were the results. It's great to know that he was open and our QB sucked (which isn't his fault), but Whaley knew we had a crappy QB when he made trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 any WR that must be double teamed on every single play is worth it - Rex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Sammy's ceiling is not under his own control, he is (unfortunately for him) linked to the play of the QB and the offensive scheme around him. Last season, he was not great, you can argue the WHY, but the result is the result. I had two big problems with the trade (then and now): 1- Bills did not have QB to get him the ball 2- Last year's draft was DEEP at that position and there wasn't a need to move up The reason it is still a bad trade is that neither 1 or 2 has changed. If Cassel (or other Bills QB) plays well enough for Sammy to be great, then the trade works. But, if the Bills continue with poor QB play and don't get Sammy the ball, he could in his own right be a great player, but won't be a great player for THIS TEAM and the trade will not have made sense. This isn't as much about how good Sammy could be, it's about how good Sammy WILL be on this team with this QB. Again, last year, the results were the results. It's great to know that he was open and our QB sucked (which isn't his fault), but Whaley knew we had a crappy QB when he made trade. I think problem #2 conflicts with problem #1. Doesn't matter how deep the WR class was if your contention is that we have nobody to get him the ball, anyway. Based on that and given their respective rankings going into the draft, I could say the Odell Beckham Jr. would not have had as good a rookie year as Watkins if he played for us. Anyway, I have no desire to just keep regurgitating the same tired arguments about Watkins. There is no new ground to till here. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Re Beckham vs. Watkins vs. Evans vs. Benjamin, it is WAY too soon to tell. A case in point: in 1985, the first receivers drafted went in this order: Al Toon, Eddie Brown, and Jerry Rice. Four years in, while Rice on average had the better stats by a little bit, he also benefited from playing in a better offense. Even still, they were all pretty close. Toon led the league in receptions in 1988 and had played in 3 Pro Bowls through that year (and been named All-Pro once). Also in 1988, Eddie Brown had a whopping 24.0 ypc average (for nearly 1300 yards total) on a Super Bowl team with the NFL's #1 offense - which he certainly contributed to. He was good in the prior years too. Toon had to retire early because of concussion problems and Brown had a knee injury that cut short his career. Rice had a knee injury in 1996 that he recovered from, but he wasn't the same after (although he was still good). But he also went 11 seasons with a real injury beforehand. Luck was involved. In any case, after 4 years in, you'd have been hard pressed to say that either of the guys taken before Rice were "mistakes." That's because at the time they weren't. Anyway, this debate is kind of pointless. Edited April 30, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Thanks for ruining tonight, Whaley, and for what, a receiver? I wouldn't move up to get Jerry Rice if we had Montana for a QB. Moving up and paying like you did was a rookie move, bro. Banana - You KNEW you were going to get nailed for that big time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 I think problem #2 conflicts with problem #1. Doesn't matter how deep the WR class was if your contention is that we have nobody to get him the ball, anyway. Based on that and given their respective rankings going into the draft, I could say the Odell Beckham Jr. would not have had as good a rookie year as Watkins if he played for us. Anyway, I have no desire to just keep regurgitating the same tired arguments about Watkins. There is no new ground to till here. GO BILLS!!! I think what you meant to say is that problem #2 remains even if problem #1 goes away. Which is true. However, if EJ turned out to be a very good QB and got Sammy the ball and Sammy had great season, I would argue that even though it was a DEEP WR class, most of us who were against the trade would admit the trade worked, even if it meant giving up an extra #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 50% of all 1st rounders after pick 10 amount to nothing and are out of the league by year 3. This year our pick would have been #19. So yes I am still ok with the trade for a franchise WR. That's not what I see when I look back at recent drafts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NFL_draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NFL_draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 I think what you meant to say is that problem #2 remains even if problem #1 goes away. Which is true. However, if EJ turned out to be a very good QB and got Sammy the ball and Sammy had great season, I would argue that even though it was a DEEP WR class, most of us who were against the trade would admit the trade worked, even if it meant giving up an extra #1. Just out of curiosity if they used last year's 2nd (Kouandjio) instead of their 1st this year would you feel differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 any WR that must be double teamed on every single play is worth it - Rex Simple but true. The problem with defending Watkins is that he runs EVERY route in the tree equally well regardless of what kind of coverage he faces. The same simply can't be said for the vast majority of the wideouts in the game. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 My biggest gripe with Watkins is there appeared to be a number of plays he took off or gave up on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Simple but true. The problem with defending Watkins is that he runs EVERY route in the tree equally well regardless of what kind of coverage he faces. The same simply can't be said for the vast majority of the wideouts in the game. GO BILLS!!! My hope is this year our coaching staff may choose to include some of the simpler routes and actually throw Sammy a screen pass so he can get the "free yards" that he made a living off of in college ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Sammy's ceiling is not under his own control, he is (unfortunately for him) linked to the play of the QB and the offensive scheme around him. Last season, he was not great, you can argue the WHY, but the result is the result. I had two big problems with the trade (then and now): 1- Bills did not have QB to get him the ball 2- Last year's draft was DEEP at that position and there wasn't a need to move up The reason it is still a bad trade is that neither 1 or 2 has changed. If Cassel (or other Bills QB) plays well enough for Sammy to be great, then the trade works. But, if the Bills continue with poor QB play and don't get Sammy the ball, he could in his own right be a great player, but won't be a great player for THIS TEAM and the trade will not have made sense. This isn't as much about how good Sammy could be, it's about how good Sammy WILL be on this team with this QB. Again, last year, the results were the results. It's great to know that he was open and our QB sucked (which isn't his fault), but Whaley knew we had a crappy QB when he made trade. Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Just out of curiosity if they used last year's 2nd (Kouandjio) instead of their 1st this year would you feel differently? At the time of last year's draft, YES. My reaction at the time of last year's draft was "oh $hit, we have no proven QB, and won't have a shot at a good one in next year's draft if EJ fails". I get that the two picks probably have equal value (according to trade value chart), especially since this year's pick is #19. So, my reaction is somewhat illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 I have a couple of serious logic problems with some of the responses from the peanut gallery. I appreciate the responses, as I didn't expect this discussion to get much traction. But we still have to address the logical fallacy perpetrated by some.#1 - Sammy Watkins was rated THE top prospect at WR with Mike Evans a close second. Despite being perceived to be a deep draft at WR, those two were the defacto 1-2. After them, there was quite a few guys in the next tier, including Benjamin, OBJ, and others. #2 - Looking at OBJ last year and what he did and saying he should have been the Bills pick is revisionist history. It's like saying that the Raiders should have taken traded out of their 5th pick where they took Khalil Mack and taken C.J. Mosely with a a mid first rounder (actually picked 17th). Mosely did have better numbers last year, but when it comes to pre-draft rankings, was not in the same conversation as Mack. Same with Sammy and OBJ. #3 - There was no TE besides Ebron that was projected to be a first round pick. There was no TE even rated close in terms of NFL potential. That is why the Bills would have chosen him with their pick in lieu of one of the "other" WR's not named Watkins or Evans. The perception going into the draft last year was that Buffalo could get one of those "other" guys in a later round, but certainly not an Ebron.It comes back to the analogy some have made about Tom Brady. It's nice to see just how much value that the Patriots go where they got him. Suggesting however that one of the other 31 teams front offices "should have known" is ridiculous. What we can do as we sit here today though is speculate with some amount of certainty. We would not be paying huge $$$ for Clay if we had drafted Ebron last year. Maybe we would pay for another free agent WR. Is Ebron + whomever that would be a better option than Clay and Watkins? Would there be a player at #19 + a free agent + Ebron that would be better for us than what they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 I think what you meant to say is that problem #2 remains even if problem #1 goes away. Which is true. However, if EJ turned out to be a very good QB and got Sammy the ball and Sammy had great season, I would argue that even though it was a DEEP WR class, most of us who were against the trade would admit the trade worked, even if it meant giving up an extra #1. No, I didn't mean to say that at all. I don't like to make arguments in retrospect, especially given the appreciation I have for the scouting process and all that it entails. And even though I am now indeed regurgitating old arguments, the simple fact is that as good as the WR class was, Sammy Watkins was head and shoulders above anyone else and by a pretty substantial margin, especially from an understanding of the game perspective. Nobody else was considered nearly the complete package coming out as Watkins and that consensus remains even after their rookie seasons. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 At the time of last year's draft, YES. My reaction at the time of last year's draft was "oh ****, we have no proven QB, and won't have a shot at a good one in next year's draft if EJ fails". I get that the two picks probably have equal value (according to trade value chart), especially since this year's pick is #19. So, my reaction is somewhat illogical. My understanding is that the #19 pick this year isn't better than the #41 pick last year because last year's draft was considered exceptionally deep: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000325406/article/steelers-gm-kevin-colbert-says-this-is-deepest-draft-in-30-years This draft looks to be pretty lousy; there are allegedly only 12-14 picks or so with first round grades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts