Jump to content

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


Roundybout

Recommended Posts

 

@mikerodak

 

 

 

I will say again I didn't like the trade. But Jimbo is just being silly now. Reed was his slot guy, and played a different role than Sammy had been playing. Plus Andre was durable.

 

I didn't like the trade because I thought Dennison was going to use Sammy the way he should have been used, slants, screens, etc. And I think Sammy if healthy would have thrived. I remain thinking other factors were going on behind the scenes.

 

 

 

Jim Kelly said Sunday that Tyrod Taylor losing Sammy Watkins is "like me losing Andre Reed," but urges Bills fans to "stay on the wagon."

 

 

He's referring to Reed as his go to guy, just as Sammy was for Tyrod. That's irrespective of playing in the slot or the outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying he panicked is completely absurd.

It's far from absurd. He needed to do nothing now. If SW isnt healthy in 2017 , the Bills FO look like geniuses for not picking up his option. If he is healthy ( looking more likely now) he probably has a good season. Great! Except there's one problem . He won't re- sign in Buffalo because you didn't pick his option up and he's playing hardball. Suddenly you look foolish. Call it what you want, it's a panic because it could all have been avoided . Beans and company care only about their egos, winning is not the top priority.

He's referring to Reed as his go to guy, just as Sammy was for Tyrod. That's irrespective of playing in the slot or the outside.

Yes, he meant that in the sense that Reed was his best WR and his go to. Rodak is still an idiot .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Saying McDermott and Beane don't want to win is beyond completely absurd. I'm not sure a word exists to define how screwed up such a thought is.

Take it for what it is worth;

 

You cannot reason with the unreasonable

Edited by Magox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying McDermott and Beane don't want to win is beyond completely absurd. I'm not sure a word exists to define how screwed up such a thought is.

I said it apparently is not the #1 priority. Mitigating PR damage seems to have played a role in a major decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that McCoy is saying that Sammy never had anyone on the team that knew anything about winning in the NFL. Could've used Anquan a lot earlier than this year.

I think he's simply saying it's hard for a good player to teach someone how to be great. Sammy has had very few opportunities to be led by a player that's been where he is, and there's only so much a lunch pail guy can teach you about being a superstar. That's not to say Sammy ignored everyone simply that there are only so many people in the world that can teach him some of the stuff he needs to learn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again, not arguing talent vs. talent. Matthews isn't as good, but he's on the field more, so the stats even out.

 

Hypothetical: would you take the most talented WR in NFL history if you knew he could only play 8-12 games?

 

Watkins has played in a run-dominant system, agreed. Not sure how that would change had he stayed.

 

Matthews also caught balls from Sanchez/Foles/Bradford/Wentz. None of them are exactly blowing Taylor out of the water.

Nobody has an idea of how many games he will play. He stands as much of a chance as any other player because injuries aren't predictable.

 

Julio, Dez, and Edelman all needed the second surgery for the Jones fracture and are now all fully recovered and producing...Watkins is now healthy and may now be entering his prime.

 

My point was that Watkins has had the detriment of not only a not very good passer throwing to him a limited amount, but that the scheme also hurts him and both these things aren't allowing him to fully realize his potential. Matthews I imagine is pretty much getting the most out of his ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has an idea of how many games he will play. He stands as much of a chance as any other player because injuries aren't predictable.

 

Julio, Dez, and Edelman all needed the second surgery for the Jones fracture and are now all fully recovered and producing...Watkins is now healthy and may now be entering his prime.

 

My point was that Watkins has had the detriment of not only a not very good passer throwing to him a limited amount, but that the scheme also hurts him and both these things aren't allowing him to fully realize his potential. Matthews I imagine is pretty much getting the most out of his ability.

 

I agree that Watkins can recover from injury, like you pointed out with Jones, Bryant, and Edelman. It's about probability.

 

Matthews, while less talented, is more likely to be available to play given both of their injury histories.

 

Watkins might be entering his prime. He might not. Same for Matthews.

 

I get your point regarding our passing game and scheme fit, but my point was that, Watkins or no Watkins, Dennison's play-calling and Taylor's ability at QB are going to be relatively the same.

 

It boils down to a boom-or-bust argument I think. Watkins gives you the potential for a top 10 WR, but the injury and availability concerns loom. Matthews is less talented, but he's consistent and plays more often. I like the safer bet, that's all, but I do understand wanting to take that chance at the same time.

 

It was mentioned somewhere above, but I would think the money aspect of the whole argument has to favor Matthews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You said, "The per game average is the correct method for comparison with Matthews playing in 9 more games than Watkins."

 

Then I showed how they have the same targets per game, but because Matthews plays more often his stats are a little better.

 

You're moving the goal posts by re-focusing on YPC and TDs per game, but even considering that, my argument is on the "per game" part. Less games = less TDs, no?

 

Let me stress that I agree it is obvious Watkins is a more explosive and dangerous WR. But Matthews is more productive overall because he's the more available and consistent WR.

 

This is completely fair - on all accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@mikerodak

 

 

Andre could be counted on

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim Kelly said Sunday that Tyrod Taylor losing Sammy Watkins is "like me losing Andre Reed," but urges Bills fans to "stay on the wagon."

 

 

Good comparison of #1 WRs in different eras.

 

 

@mikerodak That's a bit hyperbolic from Jim. No need to kick the fan base when they're down. I love Jim, but cringe at most of he says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jim Kelly said Sunday that Tyrod Taylor losing Sammy Watkins is "like me losing Andre Reed," but urges Bills fans to "stay on the wagon."

 

 

Kelly recognizes the talent as most people do and it was a perfectly fine comparison to make.

 

I feel like Matthews plays more like Reed than does Watkins.

 

Not at the same level of Reed or Watkins. Matthews has primarily played the slot as did Reed, but that wasn't the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He's referring to Reed as his go to guy, just as Sammy was for Tyrod. That's irrespective of playing in the slot or the outside.

 

 

 

Jimbo may have been a little over the top with his statement, no?

 

Kelly to Reed was tried and true - historic.

 

Taylor to Sammy? Fleeting, if not unnoticeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think Kelly was referring to the go-to role Watkins played for Taylor that Reed played for him. No reason Matthews can't be that for Taylor.

 

Every time I note that Matthews is more consistent and available, I feel like I have to add a disclaimer that I understand Watkins is more talented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jimbo may have been a little over the top with his statement, no?

 

Kelly to Reed was tried and true - historic.

 

Taylor to Sammy? Fleeting, if not unnoticeable.

 

You like some others are missing the point. It was a comparison of Reed and Watkins as the #1 targets of the respective QBs. Unnoticeable? That's pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jimbo may have been a little over the top with his statement, no?

 

Kelly to Reed was tried and true - historic.

 

Taylor to Sammy? Fleeting, if not unnoticeable.

Perhaps he was speaking to the importance of having a true number one WR and how that can give a QB the confidence he needs. Something Taylor won't be getting with an aging Boldin and a mediocre Jmatt. One good thing about the trade that nickname is so bad that it's fun to type.

 

JMatt! I'm in 6th grade again!

Edited by Commonsense
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think Kelly was referring to the go-to role Watkins played for Taylor that Reed played for him. No reason Matthews can't be that for Taylor.

 

Every time I note that Matthews is more consistent and available, I feel like I have to add a disclaimer that I understand Watkins is more talented.

 

Matthews is not a #1 WR. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...