Was the trade for Watkins worth it?

[The Frankish Reich]

The way the OP framed this question is what's wrong here. It amounts to this: "If the Bills hadn't traded up for Watkins, had kept their original pick, and had made a poor decision with that pick, would they be better or worse off?" Of course the correct question is this: What if the Bills had not made the trade, had drafted to fill their most obvious glaring need (QB) and had taken Bridgewater; would they be better off going in to 2015 with Bridgewater as the incumbent QB AND a first-round pick? And that's a no-brainer yes. Or try it this way: would the Vikings trade Bridgewater for Watkins right now? Of course not. And that says it all. It was done in an effort to make the playoffs at whatever cost in 2014. Reminder: the Bills did not make the playoffs in 2014. Fail. Period.

[K-9]

The way the OP framed this question is what's wrong here. It amounts to this: "If the Bills hadn't traded up for Watkins, had kept their original pick, and had made a poor decision with that pick, would they be better or worse off?" Of course the correct question is this: What if the Bills had not made the trade, had drafted to fill their most obvious glaring need (QB) and had taken Bridgewater; would they be better off going in to 2015 with Bridgewater as the incumbent QB AND a first-round pick? And that's a no-brainer yes. Or try it this way: would the Vikings trade Bridgewater for Watkins right now? Of course not. And that says it all. It was done in an effort to make the playoffs at whatever cost in 2014. Reminder: the Bills did not make the playoffs in 2014. Fail. Period.

Says nothing other than hindsight is nice and having a total disregard for the scouting process and grade valuations should always guide your selections.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

The way the OP framed this question is what's wrong here. It amounts to this: "If the Bills hadn't traded up for Watkins, had kept their original pick, and had made a poor decision with that pick, would they be better or worse off?" Of course the correct question is this: What if the Bills had not made the trade, had drafted to fill their most obvious glaring need (QB) and had taken Bridgewater; would they be better off going in to 2015 with Bridgewater as the incumbent QB AND a first-round pick? And that's a no-brainer yes. Or try it this way: would the Vikings trade Bridgewater for Watkins right now? Of course not. And that says it all. It was done in an effort to make the playoffs at whatever cost in 2014. Reminder: the Bills did not make the playoffs in 2014. Fail. Period.

Except there is not a GM in the league that would have taken Bridgewater at 9. Every team passed in him. He didn't go to 32 and would have lasted to the second round if the Vikings didn't trade up to get him. And they had already taken Barr at 9, the pick below the Bills, so they wouldn't have taken him either at 8. That's a foolish way to look at it.

[Rob's House]

Yes. Absolutely.

 

When our pick came along, there wasn't anyone I'd rather have. Sammy is better than Ebron + Whoever was left at 19.

 

Even if the Bills had a first round pick, I wish they would have traded back.

But is he better than the worst of Benjamin, Beckham, and Evans + whoever was left at 19? That's the real question.

[Kelly the Dog]

But is he better than the worst of Benjamin, Beckham, and Evans + whoever was left at 19? That's the real question.

Yes. A star player is better and more important and valuable than two good players.

[FireChan]

You're an azzhat!

 

LOL

 

I guess you haven't caught on yet that elite WR talent isn't really useful if the QB sucks.

 

See Watkins' stats for last year.

 

See Watkins' stats for this upcoming year.

 

Maybe you'll catch on eventually.

 

Gunning for 40,000 posts?

Go outside!

 

I've never see anyone use the term "comic gold" on an internet chat forum before.

You are an innovative genius.

So a TE would've also sucked. And an O-lineman. Who care if our QB has time to throw if he sucks.

 

That tears it, don't draft any more offensive players until they prove they're good.

[Rob's House]

Says nothing other than hindsight is nice and having a total disregard for the scouting process and grade valuations should always guide your selections.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Hindsight's the only way of auditing your evaluations.

[FireChan]

Let's say you bought a house for $400K and you are proud of your new house, but the market value is only $250K. Does that mean you have a bad house? No, of course not. You just overpaid unnecessarily. I am convinced this is what Whaley did last year. He overpaid! This is a short term strategy that usually backfires in the long run. Remember it was Whaley who was instrumental in drafting Manuel. The subsequent trade to draft Watkins was an attempt to save the Manuel selection as being a total waste. His first mistake made him reach for his second mistake.

 

The Bills justified the trade to provide weapons for EJ Manuel. They could have acquired other WR's to accomplish the same thing and kept their 1st and 4th round picks this year. IMO, they would have received more value taking one of the other WR's available last year and drafting a top offensive lineman in the 1st round this year.

 

The idea that the trade was made to help Manuel was rejected by the Bills themselves when they benched him for the rest of the season. If your premise is faulty, so will be your conclusion.

That analogy would work better if the dollar crashed and would be next to worthless the next year. Which top O-line guy is good this year? That the Bills could've picked. Tell me. The amount of backtracking here is insane. I haven't heard one 2015 1st round prospect worth it yet.

[Rob's House]

Yes. A star player is better and more important and valuable than two good players.

I don't disagree. I just find this business of using Ebron as the measuring stick to be absolutely idiotic. It wouldn't be as frustrating if it were only morons saying it, but when otherwise intelligent people say that stupid **** it's maddening.

[Virgil]

But is he better than the worst of Benjamin, Beckham, and Evans + whoever was left at 19? That's the real question.

 

That's not the question. I'm not going to play the hindsight game there as it's not debatable yet. They still have years to grow. Right now, I'd say it's a push.

 

But it's been said that they would have taken Ebron. Either way, Sammy was the best WR projected, he won us at least 2 games, and we got him. So yeah, for as much as you can analyze a trade and picks in the NFL within the first year, the Bills did just fine

[K-9]

Hindsight's the only way of auditing your evaluations.

This is beyond my ability to even respond. I gotta share this with some folks who actually do this for a living.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rob's House]

This is beyond my ability to even respond. I gotta share this with some folks who actually do this for a living.

 

GO BILLS!!!

They think their assessment is right and the results on the field are wrong?

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't disagree. I just find this business of using Ebron as the measuring stick to be absolutely idiotic. It wouldn't be as frustrating if it were only morons saying it, but when otherwise intelligent people say that stupid **** it's maddening.

It's not the only way to look at it. It's one of ten ways to look at it. But a legitimate one of ten IMO.

[Rob's House]

 

That's not the question. I'm not going to play the hindsight game there as it's not debatable yet. They still have years to grow. Right now, I'd say it's a push.

 

But it's been said that they would have taken Ebron. Either way, Sammy was the best WR projected, he won us at least 2 games, and we got him. So yeah, for as much as you can analyze a trade and picks in the NFL within the first year, the Bills did just fine

It's the question of you're trying to guage the value of the deal by any kind of objective standard. Otherwise you're just saying it is better (by an unquantified margin) than something that is very bad.

It's not the only way to look at it. It's one of ten ways to look at it. But a legitimate one of ten IMO.

I agree with you. But if you look through this and countless other threads it is repeatedly held up as the sole criteria upon which the value of the pick should be judged. It's like saying Spiller was a great pick because otherwise they'd have drafted Jahvid Best (assuming that were true).

[Kelly the Dog]

It's the question of you're trying to guage the value of the deal by any kind of objective standard. Otherwise you're just saying it is better (by an unquantified margin) than something that is very bad.

 

I agree with you. But if you look through this and countless other threads it is repeatedly held up as the sole criteria upon which the value of the pick should be judged. It's like saying Spiller was a great pick because otherwise they'd have drafted Jahvid Best (assuming that were true).

Maybe. I think this was a unique situation for a few different reasons. The biggest of which is, the person who made the actual pick, said pretty much definitively, and said it to my face in person, that this guy was going to be the pick. We never have that certainty. So a lot of people make that leap that they wouldn't make before because before it would have been rumor or speculation.

[The Frankish Reich]

It's the question of you're trying to guage the value of the deal by any kind of objective standard. Otherwise you're just saying it is better (by an unquantified margin) than something that is very bad.

Exactly. In my baseball fan life I'm a Colorado Rockies fan. (I enjoy suffering) The Rockies whiffed in a colossal fashion in the 2006 draft, passing on Evan Longoria for a Stanford pitcher named Greg Reynolds (there's a reason you've never heard of him). The Rockies did this because they thought they had a great 3B prospect named Ian Stewart already in their minor league system. When people point out what a huge mistake drafting Reynolds was, I've had many Rockies fans tell me that it wasn't, since even if they passed on Reynolds they would have drafted some other guy and not Longoria since he would have been blocked by Ian Stewart. I have a hard time impressing on these people exactly how illogical this argument is. It amounts to "but if they hadn't failed by picking Greg Reynolds, they would have failed by picking some other player also not named Evan Longoria." It is so stupid an argument that I can't even see how someone could make it. Yet people do. All the time ...

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly. In my baseball fan life I'm a Colorado Rockies fan. (I enjoy suffering) The Rockies whiffed in a colossal fashion in the 2006 draft, passing on Evan Longoria for a Stanford pitcher named Greg Reynolds (there's a reason you've never heard of him). The Rockies did this because they thought they had a great 3B prospect named Ian Stewart already in their minor league system. When people point out what a huge mistake drafting Reynolds was, I've had many Rockies fans tell me that it wasn't, since even if they passed on Reynolds they would have drafted some other guy and not Longoria since he would have been blocked by Ian Stewart. I have a hard time impressing on these people exactly how illogical this argument is. It amounts to "but if they hadn't failed by picking Greg Reynolds, they would have failed by picking some other player also not named Evan Longoria." It is so stupid an argument that I can't even see how someone could make it. Yet people do. All the time ...

I have this argument all of the time with people. No one ever just picks BPA. Ever. Every single pick in every single round by every single team in every single year in every single sport is the exact same process. BPA on your board, compared to BPA at position(s) of need, which could be anywhere from 1 position to 10.

 

Then you compare how much better the BPA is compared to the 4-5 positions of need. If he is way better, you consider him strongly. But 90-99% of the time it's a tough choice, and almost always a team will take one of the BPA at one of the positions of need.

 

Sometimes after going through that entire process they will decide on the BPA and take him. But that doesn't happen all that often either.

 

Very, very, very few teams will think or draft using your reasoning, including the very best drafters and evaluators. Ozzie Newsome and the Steelers do not take players in the first couple rounds when they have stars at those positions unless they can both play side by side.

[FireChan]

I have this argument all of the time with people. No one ever just picks BPA. Ever. Every single pick in every single round by every single team in every single year in every single sport is the exact same process. BPA on your board, compared to BPA at position(s) of need, which could be anywhere from 1 position to 10.

 

Then you compare how much better the BPA is compared to the 4-5 positions of need. If he is way better, you consider him strongly. But 90-99% of the time it's a tough choice, and almost always a team will take one of the BPA at one of the positions of need.

 

Sometimes after going through that entire process they will decide on the BPA and take him. But that doesn't happen all that often either.

 

Very, very, very few teams will think or draft using your reasoning, including the very best drafters and evaluators. Ozzie Newsome and the Steelers do not take players in the first couple rounds when they have stars at those positions unless they can both play side by side.

YES.

 

Using arbitrary variables, if the Packers have Petty as the BPA in the second round, but someone close at DT, who do you think they are taking?

Edited May 1, 2015 by FireChan

[Rob's House]

Maybe. I think this was a unique situation for a few different reasons. The biggest of which is, the person who made the actual pick, said pretty much definitively, and said it to my face in person, that this guy was going to be the pick. We never have that certainty. So a lot of people make that leap that they wouldn't make before because before it would have been rumor or speculation.

I get that. I just don't understand why so many people fail to see the distinction between an objective analysis of the trade as it relates to the overall value of the assets in play and the subjective analysis based on the value relative to what a particular GM would have done with it.

 

Let me illustrate with an analogy:

 

If you invested $100k into a low risk investment with a high minimum buy in that gives you a 3% annual return, it's okay, but that's not a great investment. The fact that your 2nd option was to put 2/3 of that money into a high risk stock that plummeted doesn't make your investment great, it just means you made the better of two less than ideal moves that you yourself decided were your best two options. If there were plenty of popular mutual funds with lower minimum buy ins that you could have invested in that got a 7%-10% return and you passed on them for the other then your investment was a poor one despite being better than the other ****ty investment you were going to make.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Sammy is the football equivalent of the 3% return in this analogy, just illustrating how measuring one choice by another without considering the other alternatives can paint a false picture of the wisdom and value of that choice.

[K-9]

They think their assessment is right and the results on the field are wrong?

They think their assessments, after 13 months of compiling and re-compiling data and reports, interviewing and re-interviewing every key figure in a player's career, along with the nearly 200 man-years of experience in player evaluation among them, serves to provide the best foundation to base their projections on AT THE TIME. They know when these reports are compared to others in the arena and consensuses are reached, grades unanimously assigned, and these grades point to an elite talent level that far surpasses others in the same class, regardless of position, they know just how rare a particular player is compared to the thousands they've evaluated over the decades. There were two such players last year. Sammy Watkins was one of them.

 

They don't "audition their evaluations" in hindsight. They don't have that luxury. And that's the point. They auditioned their evaluations all throughout their high-school and college careers and those "auditions" served to inform the scouting assessment. NOTHING about these evaluations was wrong based on the results, on the field, AT THE TIME. Far from it. Everything they did on the field PRECLUDED the evaluation in the first place.

 

Now you and others are free to pronounce successes and failures in those assessments after one year in the league all you want. It's utterly short-sighted, even unwise, but certainly your prerogative.

 

But I find the contempt for the process around here interesting.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

I get that. I just don't understand why so many people fail to see the distinction between an objective analysis of the trade as it relates to the overall value of the assets in play and the subjective analysis based on the value relative to what a particular GM would have done with it.

 

Let me illustrate with an analogy:

 

If you invested $100k into a low risk investment with a high minimum buy in that gives you a 3% annual return, it's okay, but that's not a great investment. The fact that your 2nd option was to put 2/3 of that money into a high risk stock that plummeted doesn't make your investment great, it just means you made the better of two less than ideal moves that you yourself decided were your best two options. If there were plenty of popular mutual funds with lower minimum buy ins that you could have invested in that got a 7%-10% return and you passed on them for the other then your investment was a poor one despite being better than the other ****ty investment you were going to make.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Sammy is the football equivalent of the 3% return in this analogy, just illustrating how measuring one choice by another without considering the other alternatives can paint a false picture of the wisdom and value of that choice.

I don't think any of that even entered into the decision. 50% of all first round draft choices are busts. Each year there are only 0-2 or so sure things. Can't miss players. Sure stars. They don't come around. A can't miss player is a WAY different selection than a guy who is expected to go in the top five or ten. Last year, Watkins was the only can't miss. This year there wasn't any. 2013 there wasn't any. Not one. That's what makes this trade different. You're getting a can't miss guy. Everyone thought that. No one thought OBD was a can't miss guy. No one thought Evans was a can't miss guy. That is worth a tremendous amount. They knew what they were getting. That rarely happens.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[Rob's House]

They think their assessments, after 13 months of compiling and re-compiling data and reports, interviewing and re-interviewing every key figure in a player's career, along with the nearly 200 man-years of experience in player evaluation among them, serves to provide the best foundation to base their projections on AT THE TIME. They know when these reports are compared to others in the arena and consensuses are reached, grades unanimously assigned, and these grades point to an elite talent level that far surpasses others in the same class, regardless of position, they know just how rare a particular player is compared to the thousands they've evaluated over the decades. There were two such players last year. Sammy Watkins was one of them.

 

They don't "audition their evaluations" in hindsight. They don't have that luxury. And that's the point. They auditioned their evaluations all throughout their high-school and college careers and those "auditions" served to inform the scouting assessment. NOTHING about these evaluations was wrong based on the results, on the field, AT THE TIME. Far from it. Everything they did on the field PRECLUDED the evaluation in the first place.

 

Now you and others are free to pronounce successes and failures in those assessments after one year in the league all you want. It's utterly short-sighted, even unwise, but certainly your prerogative.

 

But I find the contempt for the process around here interesting.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I never said anything about auditions.

 

I don't think any of that even entered into the decision. 50% of all first round draft choices are busts. Each year there are only 0-2 or so sure things. Can't miss players. Sure stars. They don't come around. A can't miss player is a WAY different selection than a guy who is expected to go in the top five or ten. Last year, Watkins was the only can't miss. This year there wasn't any. 2013 there wasn't any. Not one. That's what makes this trade different. You're getting a can't miss guy. Everyone thought that. No one thought OBD was a can't miss guy. No one thought Evans was a can't miss guy. That is worth a tremendous amount. They knew what they were getting. That rarely happens.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that Ebron is not the standard by which that trade/pick should be judged. Edited May 1, 2015 by Rob's House

[Kelly the Dog]

They think their assessments, after 13 months of compiling and re-compiling data and reports, interviewing and re-interviewing every key figure in a player's career, along with the nearly 200 man-years of experience in player evaluation among them, serves to provide the best foundation to base their projections on AT THE TIME. They know when these reports are compared to others in the arena and consensuses are reached, grades unanimously assigned, and these grades point to an elite talent level that far surpasses others in the same class, regardless of position, they know just how rare a particular player is compared to the thousands they've evaluated over the decades. There were two such players last year. Sammy Watkins was one of them.

 

I usually include Greg Robinson in that draft, too, as a can't miss player. But I also think there were some detractors to him. Same with Mack. There were no such detractors I know of with Watkins.

[OCinBuffalo]

Given the draft that I just watched, tonight, that ended 48 minutes ago? That...abortion?

 

The answer is: of course. That was the worst draft all of us have ever seen, and we know it, unless we are in denial, seriously deluded, or beligerently refusing to accept reality because we are clinging to the anti-Watkins argument we made last year on draft day.

 

How can you come away from that top ten...which was a joke, realize that there really wasn't any difference between pick #2, and pick #32(damn Pats got one of the best players IMO), and tell me that I am supposed to cry about being denied the opportunity to pick from this menagerie of JAGs?

 

Come on. Every pick in the 1st was a F'ing reach. The "highlights" were a joke. Over and over the other guy does nothing/falls down...and that's a "highlight" of the player we are talking about?

 

It's time for the "Watkins trade bad" people to hang it up. Eespecially given that calvalcade of average I just saw. When the #3 overall, LT..."is probably going to move to G in the NFL"? Like I said: time to hang it up, lay it down, move on, do whatever you have to, because it's over.

Edited May 1, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[K-9]

I never said anything about auditions.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that Ebron is not the standard by which that trade/pick should be judged.

Now that's funny. I read "auditing" as "auditioning." Been a long day.

 

My point remains, though. Every bit of it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Given the draft that I just watched, tonight, that ended 48 minutes ago? That...abortion?

 

The answer is: of course. That was the worst draft all of us have ever seen, and we know it, unless we are in denial, seriously deluded, or beligerently refusing to accept reality because we are clinging to the anti-Watkins argument we made last year on draft day.

 

How can you come away from that top ten...which was a joke, realize that there really wasn't any difference between pick #2, and pick #32(damn Pats got one of the best players IMO), and tell me that I am supposed to cry about being denied the opportunity to pick from this menagerie of JAGs?

 

Come on. Every pick in the 1st was a F'ing reach. The "highlights" were a joke. Over and over the other guy does nothing/falls down...and that's a "highlight" of the player we are talking about?

 

It's time the "Watkins trade bad" people to hang it up. Eespecially given that calvalcade of average I just saw. When the #3 overall, LT..."is probably going to move to G in the NFL"? Like I said: time to hang it up, lay it down, move on, do whatever you have to, because it's over.

Agreed.

 

If there is one thing that points to a weak draft more than anything else, it's the lack of trades. Teams have known for over a year that this draft was going to be low in overall talent and it showed tonight with the lack of movement.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rob's House]

Now that's funny. I read "auditing" as "auditioning." Been a long day.

 

My point remains, though. Every bit of it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I'm not sure how saying that hindsight is the only way of knowing whether your predictions were right is showing contempt for the process nor do I see how it is a declaration that the jury's in after one season, but if you want to let every bit of those points stand then so be it.

[Kelly the Dog]

I never said anything about auditions.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that Ebron is not the standard by which that trade/pick should be judged.

How can you not consider that when evaluating how it should be judged? It's not just one thing. That to me is the biggest factor it should be judged by. Just using whatever standard you are using will only be one way of looking at it, too.

[Rob's House]

How can you not consider that when evaluating how it should be judged? It's not just one thing. That to me is the biggest factor it should be judged by. Just using whatever standard you are using will only be one way of looking at it, too.

I don't know how else to explain it; I've analogized it to the point of exhaustion. I know you're a smart guy. If you still don't get it it's because you don't want to.

[K-9]

I usually include Greg Robinson in that draft, too, as a can't miss player. But I also think there were some detractors to him. Same with Mack. There were no such detractors I know of with Watkins.

IIRC, the thinking at the time was that Clowney, Sammy, Robinson were at the top of most boards. Can't say how many teams exactly, but I know SD, Jax, Buffalo, TB, Pitt, and Philly definitely had Clowney/Sammy or Sammy/Clowney. And a couple guys, not easily given to hyperbole, thought Sammy was the best WR prospect since C. Johnson. Jax really belabored their choice, too. But knowing the premium on QBs and the Gabbert fiasco, they HAD to take Bortles.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

If there is one thing that points to a weak draft more than anything else, it's the lack of trades. Teams have known for over a year that this draft was going to be low in overall talent and it showed tonight with the lack of movement.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The other indicators:

 

1. 2 RBs taken in the 1st. As I said in my "worst draft ever thread", mediocrity flattens out the normal positional value curve. Taking a JAG LT then == taking a stud RB...because their value is the same. Might as well go with the skill player, on the chance he becomes an impact player. And speaking of trades, I believe the only trade up was for a RB, no? There's your underscore.

 

2. The QBs. When there's no real difference between 2 and 32? You might as well take the QBs immediately, because hitting on a QB is so valuable, that you should take every shot you can. Note: Reasonable means staying put at your spot and drafting a QB. Reasonable does not mean: trading up to draft JP Losman.

How can you not consider that when evaluating how it should be judged? It's not just one thing. That to me is the biggest factor it should be judged by. Just using whatever standard you are using will only be one way of looking at it, too.

We only need 1 standard:

 

The 2015 draft sucks.

 

Therefore, getting resources in the 2014 draft, in return for resources in the 2015? Easy. The Browns have been raped. I'm going to their board, so I can observe the butthurt, and gain lulz. Perhaps I will even login to one of my troll accounts and start twisting the knife? But...I'm tired...and I literally have months of enjoyment ahead.

[K-9]

I'm not sure how saying that hindsight is the only way of knowing whether your predictions were right is showing contempt for the process nor do I see how it is a declaration that the jury's in after one season, but if you want to let every bit of those points stand then so be it.

Please point to all the pre-draft posts by you and others last year leading up to the draft that argued that the consensus agreement in the scouting community that Sammy Watkins was an elite talent and one of the top two players in the deepest draft in decades, was wrong. Do that and I might alter my view that using hindsight to criticize those who never have the luxury of using that to inform decisions is something other than contempt for their process.

 

The whole tenor of this thread by those that disagree with the trade is that the jury is indeed in after only one year.

 

So yeah, I'll let every bit of my earlier points stand.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The other indicators:

 

1. 2 RBs taken in the 1st. As I said in my "worst draft ever thread", mediocrity flattens out the normal positional value curve. Taking a JAG LT then == taking a stud RB...because their value is the same. Might as well go with the skill player, on the chance he becomes an impact player. And speaking of trades, I believe the only trade up was for a RB, no? There's your underscore.

 

2. The QBs. When there's no real difference between 2 and 32? You might as well take the QBs immediately, because hitting on a QB is so valuable, that you should take every shot you can. Note: Reasonable means staying put at your spot and drafting a QB. Reasonable does not mean: trading up to draft JP Losman.

 

Can't argue any of this. Good points, all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rob's House]

Please point to all the pre-draft posts by you and others last year leading up to the draft that argued that the consensus agreement in the scouting community that Sammy Watkins was an elite talent and one of the top two players in the deepest draft in decades, was wrong. Do that and I might alter my view that using hindsight to criticize those who never have the luxury of using that to inform decisions is something other than contempt for their process.

 

The whole tenor of this thread by those that disagree with the trade is that the jury is indeed in after only one year.

 

So yeah, I'll let every bit of my earlier points stand.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

GO BILLS!!!

If you're going to reply to me please try to say something that at least vaguely addresses something I said.

 

My first post in this thread stated that I'd wait til the end of the season to judge the trade.

 

And this "hindsight" business is getting a bit ridiculous. I stated a truism: you can only judge the accuracy of your evaluations with the benefit of hindsight. Care to explain what part of that you take issue with?

 

And as an aside, to use your criteria, Matt Millen was a great GM because the busts he drafted were thought to be good prospects when he drafted them.

[Kelly the Dog]

IIRC, the thinking at the time was that Clowney, Sammy, Robinson were at the top of most boards. Can't say how many teams exactly, but I know SD, Jax, Buffalo, TB, Pitt, and Philly definitely had Clowney/Sammy or Sammy/Clowney. And a couple guys, not easily given to hyperbole, thought Sammy was the best WR prospect since C. Johnson. Jax really belabored their choice, too. But knowing the premium on QBs and the Gabbert fiasco, they HAD to take Bortles.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Absolutely. But Clowney was never thought of as a can't miss guy. He may have been the best player in the draft, and a good #1, but you know better than me that doesn't mean can't miss. No one thought Clowney was a can't miss. When you said there were two last year I thought you must have been talking about Robinson. Because he was the guy that I most saw as can't miss, but I also thought I saw a few respectable people that were not entirely sold on Robinson. Other times I have mentioned this I note the discrepancy. Some thought Robinson was can't miss but not everyone. Mack was super highly regarded but played at the small school. Again, this year and 2013 there were no can't miss guys.

I don't know how else to explain it; I've analogized it to the point of exhaustion. I know you're a smart guy. If you still don't get it it's because you don't want to.

I admit I have not read everything you posted on it, so I don't know. I do, however, very much respect you as a poster, and thinker, so I am not dismissing your stance. When I have time I will go back and see if I can figure out what you mean.

[T master]

I love Sammy as a player & his ability & what he brings to the team , but what the Bills said they have wanted for the past 2 + seasons "A Big Receiver Thats Open When He's Not Open" is not what Sammy is .

 

Given what Buddy & Whaley said & the out put of the receiver class last year & EJ being our "QB of the future" I thought they would have went after there big receiver & some one EJ would have been familiar & comfortable with to bring EJ along .

 

That person being Kelvin Benjamin . He did great in his rookie season , is the BIG receiver they were saying they wanted , a great red zone threat , & a player they wouldn't have had to give up this years 2015 first round pick for .

 

The only thing i can figure is that with Sammy loving the Bills as a kid & him being a great kid & football player , not to mention some saying he was the best talent in the draft (which Odell Beckham might have something to say about that) i think Whaley did what he thought was best for the team .

 

I think this year will tell us all a lot more about the pick !!

[Turk]

Yes.You all will get your gratification this season and many more to come. It is over as of yesterday.Let's let it go now focus on the future and a great season ahead. Let those who let this not die move on to how immoral it was to draft Collins the OT from LSU.

[eball]

The argument is not about Sammy Watkins being good or having the potential to be very good. This is not a referendum on Watkins as is repeatedly argued by many. The argument is about priorities and value. The Bills had other more important priorities than WR and they paid way too much!

 

Irrelevant. They were going to take Ebron if they didn't trade. Do you prefer Hogan/Ebron or Watkins/Clay? It really is that simple.

[Dorkington]

 

Irrelevant. They were going to take Ebron if they didn't trade. Do you prefer Hogan/Ebron or Watkins/Clay? It really is that simple.

Seems that's part of the criticism.... that Whaley/the Bills suck because they traded for the 3rd/4th best WR, AND the fact that if they didn't, they would have gotten a crappy TE. We just suck all the way around apparently.

[YoloinOhio]

My thoughts last night were that a lot of teams drafted players in the 1st who need to replace guys they lost in FA, traded, retired, etc. I think the old bills would have let hughes walk and take a pass rusher in the 1st. To me that's not improvement, it's treading water. The Bills are building a team of studs because they have the money to do it and like whaley said without an elite QB they need to be great everywhere else. Looking fwd to a nice addition to the OL.

[Wayne Cubed]

My thoughts last night were that a lot of teams drafted players in the 1st who need to replace guys they lost in FA, traded, retired, etc. I think the old bills would have let hughes walk and take a pass rusher in the 1st. To me that's not improvement, it's treading water. The Bills are building a team of studs because they have the money to do it and like whaley said without an elite QB they need to be great everywhere else. Looking fwd to a nice addition to the OL.

 

But hey the Jest took BPA...

[8-8 Forever?]

I've seen articles about the subject, but was not able to find a thread. But the articles raise the question of whether the Bills trade for Sammy Watkins was worth it. They obviously gave their first last year and now the #19 this year. So here's my take on the subject.

 

I want to first get something very straight. The Bills had only two wide receivers that they would have taken at #9 last year, and that's Sammy Watkins and Mike Evans. There's no way anyone could convince me that Sammy wouldn't have gone early had the Bills not traded up to get him, nor that Tampa Bay had their sites set firmly on Mike Evans.

 

Given that fact set, the Bills wouldn't have reached for the third best WR on the board in Odell Beckham, Jr. over the unilateral best TE in the draft class. So instead of Sammy Watkins, they would have likely picked Eric Ebron. You might say they would have taken a tackle at that point, but that would be based on hindsight that our offensive line wasn't good last year and that Chris Williams didn't turn out as good as expected.

 

So what would that have meant for this year assuming everything else is a constant? First, there would be zero reason to go get Clay in free agency. After all, Ebron is your guy of the future. He can't block worth a damn, but he looks like a decent TE at times. So at #19, they probably would have been looking at the 4th or 5th best WR in this years draft class. Best case scenario Green-Beckham slides to them and worst (and more likely) scenario is they have to reach for a Phillip Dorsett or Nelson Agholor. Personally, I would rather have Watkins/Clay than the alternative. The Bills in free agency have effectively rendered the 19th pick useless to them by virtue of the trade last year for Sammy. Thoughts?

Yes it was. Generational talent who now only needs a QB to get him the d--- ball.