Bills trade Sammy Watkins to Rams for CB Gaines, 2nd rd pick

[Bill_with_it]

He never said that. He said he wanted the ball, as they weren't throwing it to him hardly at all. Practically all WRs say this stuff at some point. It's their nature. He backed it up when they did, end of story. Any WR wants the ball and if one says he doesn't we don't need him

These are Watkins words:

"That's what I get mad at: when I don't get looked at. I can look at film, and his eyes go straight that way and I'm not getting looked at, at all. That's when I get frustrated. When I have one-on-one coverage, go to me. I don't care what's going on over there. I don't care if he's open. When I get one-on-one, just target me."

Please read the bold numerous times. Because that's exactly what i said he said.

[Boatdrinks]

These are Watkins words:

"That's what I get mad at: when I don't get looked at. I can look at film, and his eyes go straight that way and I'm not getting looked at, at all. That's when I get frustrated. When I have one-on-one coverage, go to me. I don't care what's going on over there. I don't care if he's open. When I get one-on-one, just target me."

Please read the bold numerous times. Because that's exactly what i said he said.

It's just a guy saying he's so confident in his abilities he wants the ball every time. Exactly what you want in a WR. It's never literally going to happen, nobody gets every ball. But they better WANT it. Thats how these guys motivate themselves at this level of competition. They believe they are the best. He's saying a QB should go to him if he sees him with one on one coverage. Not seeing anything bad here Edited August 12, 2017 by Boatdrinks

[Maury Ballstein]

Hes not always open. Dont start with that crap.

Yea okay, He's been hampered by halfrod for too long.

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wzrwEpKYHWk

[Kirby Jackson]

Cool story thats not what we were talking about. We were talking about a whiner in an interview stating he wants the ball everytime regardless of another player being open. Thats not 9-12 times a game thats every pass.

Im not revising any history. I didnt say he didnt put up numbers quite the contrary. Yet even putting up great numbers for the last 9 games of the year didnt cause the Bills as a team to perform even marfinally better with regard to the w/l column.

All great receivers want the ball. Good teams throw it there 9-12 times a game. They don't worry about Salas' feelings. If you think that he was adequately targeted I don't know what to tell you. You weren't watching or you don't know how often others are targeted. Edited August 12, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Bill_with_it]

All great receivers want the ball. Good teams throw it there 9-12 times a game. They don't worry about Salas' feelings. If you think that he was adequately targeted I don't know what to tell you. You weren't watching.

I never said any of that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I stated that a) its ridiculous to forego a easy completion to another wr thats open if Watkins is covered, b) giving the ball every play to Watkins is ridiculous, d) having the qb to disregard the progressions and reads /hc and oc play calls in order to accommodate a wrs request is stupid, and whining about it in the media is childish. Literally i had a problem with the paragraph i posted that sammy stated. Not the strawman you propped up there.

P.s. What of Sammys accomplishments make him great in the NFL?

Edited August 12, 2017 by Bill_with_it

[Boatdrinks]

I never said any of that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I stated that a) its ridiculous to forego a easy completion to another wr thats open if Watkins is covered, b) giving the ball every play to Watkins is ridiculous, d) having the qb to disregard the progressions and reads /hc and oc play calls in order to accommodate a wrs request is stupid, and whining about it in the media is childish. Literally i had a problem with the paragraph i posted that sammy stated. Not the strawman you propped up there.

P.s. What of Sammys accomplishments make him great in the NFL?

You mad a big mistake . Taking a mild rant by a player literally. No NFL player gets the ball every time. Wanting it every time is something different . I don't want guys who don't want the ball. If you think one one one coverage on a top WR is " covered" in the NFL you will lose a LOT of games.

[Bill_with_it]

You mad a big mistake . Taking a mild rant by a player literally. No NFL player gets the ball every time. Wanting it every time is something different . I don't want guys who don't want the ball. If you think one one one coverage on a top WR is " covered" in the NFL you will lose a LOT of games.

Man you are terrible. Stop pitting words in my mouth and read. I stated forgoing a open offensive player to throw the ball to a covered Watkins is crazy. Similarly bypassing the oc/hc/read/progressions to cater to a wr whole simultaneously not running your planned offense is crazy. Read what I write and not what fits your narrative.

[Kirby Jackson]

I never said any of that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I stated that a) its ridiculous to forego a easy completion to another wr thats open if Watkins is covered, b) giving the ball every play to Watkins is ridiculous, d) having the qb to disregard the progressions and reads /hc and oc play calls in order to accommodate a wrs request is stupid, and whining about it in the media is childish. Literally i had a problem with the paragraph i posted that sammy stated. Not the strawman you propped up there.

P.s. What of Sammys accomplishments make him great in the NFL?

A) he was always open b) that's exactly what the good teams do to their good receivers. That's why they lead the league in targets!!! You didn't notice that OBj, Mike Evans, and Antonio Brown were the 3 most targeted receivers?!? They weren't worried about Sammie Coates' feelings

[Bill_with_it]

A) he was always open b) that's exactly what the good teams do to their good receivers. That's why they lead the league in targets!!! You didn't notice that OBj, Mike Evans, and Antonio Brown were the 3 most targeted receivers?!? They weren't worried about Sammie Coates' feelings

A) he most certainly wasnt open all the time. B) Antonio brown/obj/evans/bryant arent getting every ball thrown their way regardless of their teamates being open, c) Their teams arent bypassing play calls to cater to those wrs to het the ball to them every play. You done with the strawmans? Ill knocking them down.

[Boatdrinks]

Man you are terrible. Stop pitting words in my mouth and read. I stated forgoing a open offensive player to throw the ball to a covered Watkins is crazy. Similarly bypassing the oc/hc/read/progressions to cater to a wr whole simultaneously not running your planned offense is crazy. Read what I write and not what fits your narrative.

And you somehow interpreted Watkins words to mean throw him the ball when he's covered and another guy is open. And somehow to bypass all progressions to cater to him and not run their planned offense? Talk about putting words in ones mouth. It's NFL football! If you think that great QBs don't see single coverage at the line and just know they are going to be tossing up a juicy TD instead of the 5 yard underneath route in the design of the play then again I'm not sure what you are watching! That's how things happen in the NFL. Don't worry, the coach / OC will love it when the 6 goes on the board. Translation: yes throw the ball to your best WR one on one vs an underneath route. In the immortal words of Herm Edwards " you play to WIN THE GAME" ! you don't worry if the #3 is getting the ball enough .

[Augie]

A) he most certainly wasnt open all the time. B) Antonio brown/obj/evans/bryant arent getting every ball thrown their way regardless of their teamates being open, c) Their teams arent bypassing play calls to cater to those wrs to het the ball to them every play. You done with the strawmans? Ill knocking them down.

Wait, are you serious? The point is simple: more targets for your best player. Not EVERY target. But MORE targets. Why try to argue and confuse something so simple?

[Bill_with_it]

And you somehow interpreted Watkins words to mean throw him the ball when he's covered and another guy is open. And somehow to bypass all progressions to cater to him and not run their planned offense? Talk about putting words in ones mouth. It's NFL football! If you think that great QBs don't see single coverage at the line and just know they are going to be tossing up a juicy TD instead of the 5 yard underneath route in the design of the play then again I'm not sure what you are watching! That's how things happen in the NFL. Don't worry, the coach / OC will love it when the 6 goes on the board. Translation: yes throw the ball to your best WR one on one vs an underneath route. In the immortal words of Herm Edwards " you play to WIN THE GAME" ! you don't worry if the #3 is getting the ball enough .

Ok ill break each sentence that Sammy stated down:

I can look at film, and his eyes go straight that way and I'm not getting looked at, at all.

Those words are indicatjve that he is perturbed that he wasnt tge read. I.e the call that tge coach called.

When I have one-on-one coverage, go to me. I don't care what's going on over there.

Once again he stating that he doesnt care what was called go to him even if hes covered.

 

I don't care if he's open. When I get one-on-one, just target me."

Now if you cant or willfully decide to bypass those other statements this is pretty clear. There is no grey area. He doesnt care if other players are open just target him. Im done with your trolling.

[Boatdrinks]

Wait, are you serious? The point is simple: more targets for your best player. Not EVERY target. But MORE targets. Why try to argue and confuse something so simple?

Amazing the lengths some will go to convince themselves that incompetent from office is good / player bad

[NoSaint]

Wait, are you serious? The point is simple: more targets for your best player. Not EVERY target. But MORE targets. Why try to argue and confuse something so simple?

Dude has been erratic the whole way through, there's a reason I ducked out from the debate with him and focused on others

[Boatdrinks]

Ok ill break each sentence that Sammy stated down:

I can look at film, and his eyes go straight that way and I'm not getting looked at, at all.

Those words are indicatjve that he is perturbed that he wasnt tge read. I.e the call that tge coach called.

When I have one-on-one coverage, go to me. I don't care what's going on over there.

Once again he stating that he doesnt care what was called go to him even if hes covered.

 

I don't care if he's open. When I get one-on-one, just target me."

Now if you cant or willfully decide to bypass those other statements this is pretty clear. There is no grey area. He doesnt care if other players are open just target him. Im done with your trolling.

It's not trolling! A QB that looks only at one WR straight off the snap sucks and is actually doing what you say is bad : NOT going through his progression. One on one coverage on a QBs top WR should take the QB there most of the time. It's called " taking what the defense gives you" . often followed by the announcer saying " now that's just too easy" . No need to break it down it's obvious what was meant by that statement . It's what good teams and players do.

[3rdand12]

That's, actually, not very good. Even an optimistic take is We have a bunch of 2-4 WRs in that list. Only way you get away with that is elite qb play. Couple that with a question mark at TE with nothing behind him...

 

I think the list of teams with worse pass catchers would be short right now and as you mention- no speed to respect.

Shorts and Brown perhaps.

O Leary is solid and Logan Thomas might well find his way onto the 53

 

edit

i forgot to highlight this feature.

 

oops

Edited August 12, 2017 by 3rdand12

[Augie]

Dude has been erratic the whole way through, there's a reason I ducked out from the debate with him and focused on others

He must like attention. Bless his little heart.....

[NoSaint]

It's not trolling! A QB that looks only at one WR straight off the snap sucks and is actually doing what you say is bad : NOT going through his progression. One on one coverage on a QBs top WR should take the QB there most of the time. It's called " taking what the defense gives you" . often followed by the announcer saying " now that's just too easy" . No need to break it down it's obvious what was meant by that statement . It's what good teams and players do.

Right- short of catching the DB tying his shoes at the line instead of covering WR2, if Sammy is single Sammy should be first read and a hard read to pass up for most offenses.

Shorts and Brown perhaps.

O Leary is solid and Logan Thomas might well find his way onto the 53

I'd love to see Thomas step up- but if simply penciling in what you can count on, we have to be ranked pretty low at this point. A few wild cards in there though that could hopefully make me look silly later.

[Kirby Jackson]

A) he most certainly wasnt open all the time. B) Antonio brown/obj/evans/bryant arent getting every ball thrown their way regardless of their teamates being open, c) Their teams arent bypassing play calls to cater to those wrs to het the ball to them every play. You done with the strawmans? Ill knocking them down.

OMg, this is quite possibly the strangest conversation that I've ever gotten into here. You are the first person that I've heard of satisfied with his targets. If you agree that he wasn't targeted enough than he was right when he spoke up. He needed the ball more. Just for fun here you go:

 

Watkins has been targeted 7.46 times per game in his career. He averages 8.91 yards per target.

 

Mike Evans was targeted 10.81 times per game last year. He averaged 7.64 yards per target.

 

If Watkins received the same amount of targets as Evans he'd would have averaged an additional 29.8 yards per game or another 478 yards per season. At the same 173 targets Watkins season numbers (based on career averages) would be 1,541 yards. Don't throw him the ball more though...

[NoSaint]

OMg, this is quite possibly the strangest conversation that I've ever gotten into here. You are the first person that I've heard of satisfied with his targets. If you agree that he wasn't targeted enough than he was right when he spoke up. He needed the ball more. Just for fun here you go:

 

Watkins has been targeted 7.46 times per game in his career. He averages 8.91 yards per target.

 

Mike Evans was targeted 10.81 times per game last year. He averaged 7.64 yards per target.

 

If Watkins received the same amount of targets as Evans he'd would have averaged an additional 29.8 yards per game or another 478 yards per season. At the same 173 targets Watkins season numbers (based on career averages) would be 1,541 yards. Don't throw him the ball more though...

It's the same guy you earlier had to argue with that you can pay star players. Dude emotionally hates Sammy on the bills and has the heels dug in. Some of his arguments fair, some completely outlandish though and because of his emotional stance he doesn't much care about the difference

[3rdand12]

Right- short of catching the DB tying his shoes at the line instead of covering WR2, if Sammy is single Sammy should be first read and a hard read to pass up for most offenses.

I'd love to see Thomas step up- but if simply penciling in what you can count on, we have to be ranked pretty low at this point. A few wild cards in there though that could hopefully make me look silly later.

I am sure your points are quite relative. I never discount them .

But i am thinking some of the options as to how they run the Offense.

I like O Leary more than popular opinion. But if Clay goes down ( and he well might ) Bills are in a tough spot.

Unless they have WRs they can pull in tight to block. lets keep in mind the WCO principles we have heard bandied about. timing routes are really on the receiver fooling his coverage mostly.

My point might be, the receiving core in Dennison's mind is adequate to accomplish consistent execution.

Soon enough we will see where this hullaballoo is taking the Bills..

I am one of the few perhaps that have faith Bills are still playing the game to win.

No offense but settling for the 3rd best anything is terrible.

best , is an opinion keep in mind. Especially evaluating QBs !!

[SWATeam]

OMg, this is quite possibly the strangest conversation that I've ever gotten into here. You are the first person that I've heard of satisfied with his targets. If you agree that he wasn't targeted enough than he was right when he spoke up. He needed the ball more. Just for fun here you go:

 

Watkins has been targeted 7.46 times per game in his career. He averages 8.91 yards per target.

 

Mike Evans was targeted 10.81 times per game last year. He averaged 7.64 yards per target.

 

If Watkins received the same amount of targets as Evans he'd would have averaged an additional 29.8 yards per game or another 478 yards per season. At the same 173 targets Watkins season numbers (based on career averages) would be 1,541 yards. Don't throw him the ball more though...

And if we had a Jameis to target Watkins maybe we hold on to him.

 

Lets acquire picks, and cap flexibility, and do everything we can to get our QB. This doesn't mean tanking, just being smart with our draft picks, and cap situation, allowing for maximum flexibility. I think this is the plan. Not spend huge money, if he even re-signs, on an immensely talented WR that will probably be underutilized.

 

If this extra 2nd gives us the necessary ammunition to go up and get our guy in the draft, or if not having another giant contract on the books allows us to go after one of the FA QB's like Cousins, is this still a bad trade?

[BringBackOrton]

And if we had a Jameis to target Watkins maybe we hold on to him.

 

Lets acquire picks, and cap flexibility, and do everything we can to get our QB. This doesn't mean tanking, just being smart with our draft picks, and cap situation, allowing for maximum flexibility. I think this is the plan. Not spend huge money, if he even re-signs, on an immensely talented WR that will probably be underutilized.

 

If this extra 2nd gives us the necessary ammunition to go up and get our guy in the draft, or if not having another giant contract on the books allows us to go after one of the FA QB's like Cousins, is this still a bad trade?

I think everyone is arguing that this is probably not the case in both respects.

 

I don't see how Sammy's hypothetical contract doesn't allow us to sign Cousins. I don't see how having 3 1sts, 2 seconds, and 3 3rds in the next two years would need another second to trade up to get a QB.

Edited August 12, 2017 by jmc12290

[3rdand12]

One thing understated here.

Bills have gained some pretty decent leverage for trading.

Beane is thankfully, a rather confident young GM. He is trusting his staff to do 2 things very well.

Scout for trades using picks as a resource.
Evaluate thoroughly the upcoming talent crop and then make good picks. Both for quality players and managing Draft day.

Dude is betting on himself, as is McDermott.

I find this to be the most exciting season i have had in years.

I liked Marrone hire but not him bringing along College Coaches. and that went sour for me.
Rex was exciting and fun. Till he was undressed as a viable Head Coach. which was all too quickly,

The years before Pegula ar not worth mentioning any more for me

 

looking forward to watch this thing grow
Go Bills !

[DriveFor1Outta5]

Yea okay, He's been hampered by halfrod for too long.

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wzrwEpKYHWk

Who do you think Jared Goff is?

[Kirby Jackson]

And if we had a Jameis to target Watkins maybe we hold on to him.

 

Lets acquire picks, and cap flexibility, and do everything we can to get our QB. This doesn't mean tanking, just being smart with our draft picks, and cap situation, allowing for maximum flexibility. I think this is the plan. Not spend huge money, if he even re-signs, on an immensely talented WR that will probably be underutilized.

 

If this extra 2nd gives us the necessary ammunition to go up and get our guy in the draft, or if not having another giant contract on the books allows us to go after one of the FA QB's like Cousins, is this still a bad trade?

Use Deandre Hopkins and his 160 targets from Brock Osweiler. At that many targets Watkins would be at 1,427 yards.

 

The root of this conversation is that the poster was mad that he asked to be thrown the ball more. Every great receiver wants the ball more. He is right on a per target basis but hasn't been targeted like other great receivers. The QB argument is a lazy one because I just gave you Hopkins. Allen Robinson is right there as well. It is not QB dependent.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Boatdrinks]

And if we had a Jameis to target Watkins maybe we hold on to him.

 

Lets acquire picks, and cap flexibility, and do everything we can to get our QB. This doesn't mean tanking, just being smart with our draft picks, and cap situation, allowing for maximum flexibility. I think this is the plan. Not spend huge money, if he even re-signs, on an immensely talented WR that will probably be underutilized.

 

If this extra 2nd gives us the necessary ammunition to go up and get our guy in the draft, or if not having another giant contract on the books allows us to go after one of the FA QB's like Cousins, is this still a bad trade?

Well, short of Brees( injury situation) there is little history pointing to FA as a way to get a franchise QB. I don't want to see them go that route. There are other ways to obtain an extra 2nd, and it's unlikely that's the pot sweetener that pushes a move up partner over the edge. A better argument could be made for an actual tank- finishing in the best possible draft position to either draft a QB or be close enough to move into a top spot. The amount of spots is a bigger factor than price paid. Teams don't want to move beyond a certain number of picks. Assuming SW will be underutilized due to a persistent QB problem is a big leap. A FO is going to think they will find their guy, not assume they won't have one. The likelihood of the poor ROI for Watkins with only a 2nd rounder to show for it makes the trade a bad one.

[SWATeam]

Use Deandre Hopkins and his 160 targets from Brock Osweiler. At that many targets Watkins would be at 1,427 yards.

 

The root of this conversation is that the poster was mad that he asked to be thrown the ball more. Every great receiver wants the ball more. He is rite on a per target basis but hasn't been targeted like other great receivers. The QB argument is a lazy one because I just gave you Hopkins. Allen Robinson is right there as well. It is not QB dependent.

But are those teams with poor QB's and elite WR's competing for championships? I don't see it as the smartest way to allocate resources in building a team.

 

My stance is to find your QB before paying a huge contract to an elite WR. Accumulating picks, and having maximum cap flexibility, is a good way to increase the odds of finding that guy. Then build around him.

[Kirby Jackson]

But are those teams with poor QB's and elite WR's competing for championships? I don't see it as the smartest way to allocate resources in building a team.

 

My stance is to find your QB before paying a huge contract to an elite WR. Accumulating picks, and having maximum cap flexibility, is a good way to increase the odds of finding that guy. Then build around him.

I'd maybe be on board if he didn't just turn 24. His timeline matches up with your team's. Watkins should be one of the guys that you are paying while all of these young guys are on rookie deals. What's a better use of money for a young QB than a 25 year-old star receiver?

 

The teams that have poor QBs and good WR feed the good WR. Those teams that have good QBs and good WR feed the good WR. That's been the point. Sammy, when healthy, didn't see the ball like other top wideouts. That 9 game stretch that we always reference he averaged 8.67 targets a game and 100 yards per game. When he saw the ball like the other great players he was great. We will see it again even with Goff.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Boatdrinks]

But are those teams with poor QB's and elite WR's competing for championships? I don't see it as the smartest way to allocate resources in building a team.

 

My stance is to find your QB before paying a huge contract to an elite WR. Accumulating picks, and having maximum cap flexibility, is a good way to increase the odds of finding that guy. Then build around him.

Why is cap flexibility a big factor under this CBA, when most top QB s are drafted by their teams, not acquired as free agents? How could possibly having to pay market rate for a Watkins if he produces in 2017 and 2018 hamper the team's ability to find their franchise QB ? If somewhere down the road, the QB earns a huge deal ( a good problem to have) you deal with it then. That is a long way off for this team. Edited August 12, 2017 by Boatdrinks

[Kirby Jackson]

Why is cap flexibility a big factor under this CBA, when most top QB s are drafted by their teams, not acquired as free agents? How could possibly having to pay market rate for a Watkins if he produces in 2017 and 2018 hamper the team's ability to find their franchise QB ? If somewhere down the road, the QB earns a huge deal ( a good problem to have) you deal with it then. That is a long way off for this team.

Exactly

[BringBackOrton]

But are those teams with poor QB's and elite WR's competing for championships? I don't see it as the smartest way to allocate resources in building a team.

 

My stance is to find your QB before paying a huge contract to an elite WR. Accumulating picks, and having maximum cap flexibility, is a good way to increase the odds of finding that guy. Then build around him.

What was your stance on the Sammy selection in 2014?

[Kemp2Warlick]

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet 29m29 minutes ago

More

Interesting note from @NFLResearch on new #Rams WR Sammy Watkins... look at his 1st 3 seasons compared to Julio Jones. Had same injury, too:

[SWATeam]

I'd maybe be on board if he didn't just turn 24. His timeline matches up with your team's. Watkins should be one of the guys that you are paying while all of these young guys are on rookie deals. What's a better use of money for a young QB than a 25 year-old star receiver?

 

The teams that have poor QBs and good WR feed the good WR. Those teams that have good QBs and good WR feed the good WR. That's been the point. Sammy, when healthy, didn't see the ball like other top wideouts. That 9 game stretch that we always reference he averaged 8.67 targets a game and 100 yards per game. When he saw the ball like the other great players he was great. We will see it again even with Goff.

Yes, but do they win? That's been my point. My point has nothing to do with Sammy. I love Sammy. He's an AMAZING talent.

 

I just don't think it's smart to invest a large amount of the cap in a number one receiver without a franchise QB in place. Especially on a run first team. What if you could use the money saved on Sammy to sign a FA QB that comes available? Or use the acquired picks to move around and draft your guy? The more cap space you have, and the more draft picks you have, the more ammunition you have to land a guy in FA or the draft.

 

It's a general philosophy. Position ourselves to have the flexibility to capitalize on opportunities to land our guy. It is all that really matters.

 

We have been signing good players to big contracts for years. We extend Dareus, Glenn, and Hughes. We sign Mario, Shady and Clay. We give up draft assets to move up in the draft. And we don't win.

 

How is NE able to let so many good players go instead of signing them to big contracts? Because, to an extent, it doesn't really matter. Find your QB and the rest is gravy.

 

How do you improve your odds of finding a QB? Collect draft picks and carefully manage the cap to allow for maximum flexibility.

[Kirby Jackson]

Yes, but do they win? That's been my point. My point has nothing to do with Sammy. I love Sammy. He's an AMAZING talent.

 

I just don't think it's smart to invest a large amount of the cap in a number one receiver without a franchise QB in place. Especially on a run first team. What if you could use the money saved on Sammy to sign a FA QB that comes available? Or use the acquired picks to move around and draft your guy? The more cap space you have, and the more draft picks you have, the more ammunition you have to land a guy in FA or the draft.

 

It's a general philosophy. Position ourselves to have the flexibility to capitalize on opportunities to land our guy. It is all that really matters.

 

We have been signing good players to big contracts for years. We extend Dareus, Glenn, and Hughes. We sign Mario, Shady and Clay. We give up draft assets to move up in the draft. And we don't win.

 

How is NE able to let so many good players go instead of signing them to big contracts? Because, to an extent, it doesn't really matter. Find your QB and the rest is gravy.

 

How do you improve your odds of finding a QB? Collect draft picks and carefully manage the cap to allow for maximum flexibility.

Except, the Bills have loads of cap space and will have a very high percentage of players on rookie deals.

 

Accumulating picks is all fine and good if you have a trade partner. If the Jets, 49ers and Browns are 1,2,3 you might be looking at QB 4. It doesn't matter how many picks you have.

 

In terms of a FA QB that's always an option. The irony is a lot of people in Washington have the same concerns about Cousins that we do about TT, he's not good enough. I suppose Jimmy G is an option. If we are concerned about cap management I'm not sure that $20M plus and $50m guaranteed is a good investment on a guy with 2 more starts than me. Who is the mythical FA QB? Maybe they are going to try to trade for a guy?

 

Either way paying Watkins, even has the highest paid receiver in the league, would have minimal impact on our cap situation. We are going to have something like 30 guys on the roster on rookie deals in 2018.

 

To the other point the teams with good QBs and good WRs win. You don't need to not have a good wr because you don't like the QB. You can have a good WR regardless of who is under center. You always need top end talent.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[SWATeam]

What was your stance on the Sammy selection in 2014?

I liked it. I absolutely loved Sammy coming out of Clemson. Thought he could be the best WR in football and had HOF talent. Still do. Also, still had hope for EJ. Made sense that Watkins could help EJ develop. And we were in "win now" mode with our D and the signing of Mario.

 

In retrospect, the trade up obviously didn't work out.

[BringBackOrton]

I liked it. I absolutely loved Sammy coming out of Clemson. Thought he could be the best WR in football and had HOF talent. Still do. Also, still had hope for EJ. Made sense that Watkins could help EJ develop. And we were in "win now" mode with our D and the signing of Mario.

 

In retrospect, the trade up obviously didn't work out.

Not sure how you could believe Sammy's talent was worth 2 firsts and a fourth 3 years ago, and now not worth a good contract and a second.

Edited August 12, 2017 by jmc12290

[SWATeam]

Except, the Bills have loads of cap space.

 

Good. The more the better for a new regime trying to build their team.

 

I will trust that they have a plan. They seem well respected. This isn't Buddy and Chan.

[Boatdrinks]

I liked it. I absolutely loved Sammy coming out of Clemson. Thought he could be the best WR in football and had HOF talent. Still do. Also, still had hope for EJ. Made sense that Watkins could help EJ develop. And we were in "win now" mode with our D and the signing of Mario.

 

In retrospect, the trade up obviously didn't work out.

Well that trade was bad at the time. The price was just too high for a non QB. That cost is paid, however and the only way it approaches value was if SW was a top WR and on the Bills for a long time. It was worth more to see if he could be that player now that he's healthy. But keeping SW and not needing to give him a new deal until after 2018was in no way a hindrance to obtaining a franchise QB.

[Kirby Jackson]

Good. The more the better for a new regime trying to build their team.

 

I will trust that they have a plan. They seem well respected. This isn't Buddy and Chan.

They don't plan to be active in FA though (their words not mine). The money needs to go somewhere. If you have 30 guys on rookie deals (or whatever it will be) you will need to spend a lot elsewhere (especially if you aren't paying a QB).

 

I'm just not ready to blindly follow these guys. They haven't accomplished anything yet. I've loved some things (the way they worked the draft) and hated others (the way that they bungled this). "A plan" and "a good plan" aren't necessarily the same. We will see how it plays out.