Boatdrinks Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 You may be right, but it's totally irrelevant what he wants. The team controls him for a minimum of 2 years after his contract expires, if they are willing to pay him top dollar with the franchise tags. It's not irrevelant though. Players can force they way out if they don't want to be somewhere. A franchise tag is not a fortress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 I disagree, while I don't agree with not giving him the 5th year, I don't think he will mail it in, he is in a contract year. question; worse case scenario, can we franchise tag him after this year? Yes, absolutely, we can franchise tag him 2x AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 He can mail it in if he likes. What will that do to his FA contract negotiations? Hint: won't help them Exactly... SW is not going to mail it in. He's now months away from his exit and a big payday if he performs well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasovon Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 How did he do with Tyrod in the latter part of 2015? He was one of the best WRs in the league, QB is not the problem the only problem is his health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 You got to look at it from Sammys side. He definitely won't resign after being disrespected. So mail it in, so they don't franchise you. Right, now let's look at it from other teams' sides. Here's a player who got drafted high, hasn't quite lived up to his promise, has had so much trouble staying on the field that his drafting team declined to pick up an option with an injury guarantee, and now in his contract year is seen to be "mailing it in" His agent be "Sure Sammy, other teams be backing up the Brinks Truck for your FA contract after you mail it in, my boi". Not. His agent be, "ball hard because it's a contract year and it sets your value". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud420 Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Put Antonio Brown or Julio Jones on this team their production is like Sammys. We are a run first team and have a mediocre QB. Wr is the toughest position to evaluate, cause you can't throw the ball to yourself. I'm fine with Sammys past production in this offense and if he is healthy today, we should of picked up the option...and if one day we get a QB he can be one of the best in NFL. He is only 23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 I know I am in the minority here, but I believe this is a smart move. His draft class has alot of Stud WRs in it. Most of them are getting 5th year options. The 2nd and 3rd rounders are not. So what does this mean: He has a good/great season this year and they work out a solid contract for him or franchise tag him and continue it. If they 5th year optioned him, they wouldnt be able to negotiate the new contract until next year when the other studs are getting significant raises and they are competiting number wise compared to age. Also if they tagged him off of the previous 5th year...that tag would be higher too because it has to be a percentage above his previous year salary. That's some very interesting outside-the-box thinking. I don't really see it playing out that way, but it's not crazy. In this (unlikely) scenario, we would actually be better off, because Sammy's deal would set the market for OBJ, Evans, and Benjamin, rather than Sammy('s agent) insisting he make more than all of the above because he was drafted higher. Here were the various routes the Bills could have taken with Watkins' contract: http://www.espn.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/27898/bills-gain-flexibility-in-2018-by-declining-sammy-watkins-option Wow, a legitimately good post from Rodak - good for him! The trade possibility is somewhat interesting. I'm rarely in favor of tanking, but if we start out really bad next year - like 0-4 or 2-5 or something - I'd be fine with benching Tyrod for Jones and/or Peterman and potentially trading Sammy. (And potentially anyone else with value in the last year of his deal, although that's a short list - maybe Wood, maybe Kyle Williams, maybe Preston Brown) We'd wind up with probably a top 5 pick in hopefully a good QB year. If it becomes clear that the team or Sammy or both don't want him back in 2018, whether to trade him or let him walk really depends on 2 factors: 1.) What can you get for him? 2.) Do you plan to be aggressive in free agency? Rodak correctly points out that we'd be in line for a 3rd or 4th round comp pick for letting him walk, but didn't mention that we only get that pick if we have a net loss of qualifying free agents. For example, we would've gotten a 4th next year for losing Gilmore this year, but we won't, because we signed more free agents than we lost. So if you're going to be active players in FA, you might as well trade him for whatever you can get. But if you're going to sit tight and try to develop your draft picks faster via more playing time, then you wouldn't trade him unless you can get a 3rd or better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) @thadbrown7 Watkins has a brand new motivation this year. It could work out very well for the #Bills. http://www.rochesterfirst.com/sports/nfl/nfl-buffalo/brand-new-motivation-for-watkins/705005689 Watkins will have to earn his next deal. He must prove he can be dominant like the last half of 2015. He must prove he can play enough games to make the mega-contract his talent deserves worthwhile. The Bills still have plenty of time to reward Watkins if and when he comes through. They can sign him to a long term deal anytime until next offseason. If that doesn't work, the franchise tag is an option for 2018. That price tag was $15.6 million in 2017 and should be a bit above $16 mil for next year. The $40 million in cap room Buffalo has for 2018 says they can afford it. It's all on Watkins now. The bubble wrap is gone. There's no net. Edited May 2, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Well, to Ahab, the white whale signified his Maker - an indifferent, violent, nearly all-powerful nature. By killing the white whale, Ahab was displacing his own Maker and, therefore, becoming a god himself. So by deposing Whaley, McD destroyed that which made him what he was (hired him) and that which had stood in the way of his complete dominion. Perhaps that's what he meant? What did he actually do to Whaley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elite Poster Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) Then he'll leave... I mean, what exactly has he done for the Bills? He can't stay healthy... He has simply not performed, bottom line. Why pick up an option on a player who is not worth the option? I don't understand the whining... When on the field, he is a top 10 WR statistically. Its not something that needs to proven. Anyhow, list of starting WR in the NFL that have missed similar (5 games) or MORE time since Watkins has come into the league: 1. Kelvin Benjamin 2. Jordy Nelson 3. Julian Edelman 4. Alshon Jeffery 5. Julio Jones 6. AJ Green 7. Rob Gronk (not a WR I know, but that team's top target) 8. Keenan Allen 9. Dez Bryant 10. Desean Jackson 11. Jeremy Maclin 12. Allen Robinson Almost half of the leagues top target misses games. This a position where guys get injured. This was only taking into account the past 3 years. There are several more if you look at player's careers and pick out 3 years, most commonly, their first 3. He was one of the best WRs in the league, QB is not the problem the only problem is his health. He actually was one of the best WRs, but on a drastically LESS target rate. He was keeping up with OBJ, Antonio, and Julio with about an average of 50 less targets. 50. Five zero. EDIT: scratch that, about 70-100 targets... 205, 158, 193, 96 - Guess which target # is Sammy's? Edited May 2, 2017 by Elite Poster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 That's some very interesting outside-the-box thinking. I don't really see it playing out that way, but it's not crazy. In this (unlikely) scenario, we would actually be better off, because Sammy's deal would set the market for OBJ, Evans, and Benjamin, rather than Sammy('s agent) insisting he make more than all of the above because he was drafted higher. Wow, a legitimately good post from Rodak - good for him! The trade possibility is somewhat interesting. I'm rarely in favor of tanking, but if we start out really bad next year - like 0-4 or 2-5 or something - I'd be fine with benching Tyrod for Jones and/or Peterman and potentially trading Sammy. (And potentially anyone else with value in the last year of his deal, although that's a short list - maybe Wood, maybe Kyle Williams, maybe Preston Brown) We'd wind up with probably a top 5 pick in hopefully a good QB year. If it becomes clear that the team or Sammy or both don't want him back in 2018, whether to trade him or let him walk really depends on 2 factors: 1.) What can you get for him? 2.) Do you plan to be aggressive in free agency? Rodak correctly points out that we'd be in line for a 3rd or 4th round comp pick for letting him walk, but didn't mention that we only get that pick if we have a net loss of qualifying free agents. For example, we would've gotten a 4th next year for losing Gilmore this year, but we won't, because we signed more free agents than we lost. So if you're going to be active players in FA, you might as well trade him for whatever you can get. But if you're going to sit tight and try to develop your draft picks faster via more playing time, then you wouldn't trade him unless you can get a 3rd or better. .....I'd think 31 other GM's would take the same approach as Bflo's GM....er......HC....stay tuned............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 @thadbrown7 Watkins has a brand new motivation this year. It could work out very well for the #Bills. http://www.rochesterfirst.com/sports/nfl/nfl-buffalo/brand-new-motivation-for-watkins/705005689 With Sammy its never been a question of motivation. Hes a gamer. No dog in him. With him its all and only about his health. I think Sammy is in a good spot. If he is healthy and good to go he will be signing a big contract at the end of this year. He wont play under the F-tag if he was good enough in 2017 for the Bills to otherwise want to exercise it. So the Bills lose leverage. If the Bills sign him up long term they lose another year (2018) to evaluate his durability before taking the plunge. Another reason he wont sign a tag IMO. Bills position makes sense only if the risk of ongoing debilitating injury is very significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Ugh, damnit, this is all my fault. I bought a Watkins jersey his rookie year, cursed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 With Sammy its never been a question of motivation. Hes a gamer. No dog in him. With him its all and only about his health. I think Sammy is in a good spot. If he is healthy and good to go he will be signing a big contract at the end of this year. He wont play under the F-tag if he was good enough in 2017 for the Bills to otherwise want to exercise it. So the Bills lose leverage. If the Bills sign him up long term they lose another year (2018) to evaluate his durability before taking the plunge. Another reason he wont sign a tag IMO. Bills position makes sense only if the risk of ongoing debilitating injury is very significant. Exactly. They lose a year to see if the health checks out AND burn their bridges with the player by giving a vote of no confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Remember when Tyrod Taylor had the Bills over a barrel with his groin surgery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Exactly. They lose a year to see if the health checks out AND burn their bridges with the player by giving a vote of no confidence. It is not a no confidence vote. It is a let's make sure you're heathy vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Maybe they franchise him, but that costs $15 million and the Bills have no flexibility to spread that money. We'll see how it works out. It's only $2 million above the option Shaw. I think this was the right move. Not for Sammy's play but for his injury concerns. If he has another nagging lower leg injury this year that could have been $13 million in dead money... I'll pay the additional $2 million to find out what we have in Sammy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dablitzkrieg Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 This move makes perfect sense. You don't pick up a player's option who has regressed in playing time over the last 3 years. Year 1: 16 games Year 2: 13 games Year 3: 9 games He needs to prove he can stay on the field AND produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 He was one of the best WRs in the league, QB is not the problem the only problem is his health. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elite Poster Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 That was my point. I wrote an essay basically debunking the entire premise of that post and it just gets glossed right over lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts