RODAK: Watkins Trade Sets Up TT To Fail

[grb]

With the acquisition of a good QB, the difference between Watkins and Matthews is negligible. Which is what the trade facilitates.

 

OK - Two Points,

 

First, about the draft choices : I'm assuming the Bills are going to be competitive this year and have a better record than 2016. A lot of people are more pessimistic and see only 4-6 wins. Regardless which proves true, what will those picks buy? My guess is the top draft slots go to quarterback hungry teams not interested in trading down. Now this is projected to be an exceptionally deep QB draft, but only 2-3 are the prime choices. I doubt the Bills get a shot at them. Therefore, they'll pick from group 3-6, and if the 2017 season pessimists are right the Bills may barely have to move up (if at all). If they pick at Number 10 again (for instance) there's bound to be good QB choices available there. The good news is then have extra picks to fill holes in the team - which will be needed, because they now have to replace a journeyman cornerback and wide receiver. (So much for that second & third)

 

The bad news is picking after the ultra prime QB choices are gone increases the chance the choice is a coin flip.

 

Second, about Receivers : Yeah, people say Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers don't need receiver talent. Even if that was true, your mythical god-like quarterback will probably need at least half a season to reach Brady Level, ya think? So maybe he could use some actual talent at the position after all. When people get to fantasizing about their dreamboat quarterback they tend to say the damndest things, but look : Better wide receivers are better, leading to a better passing attack. QED

Edited August 14, 2017 by grb

[GoBills808]

 

OK - Two Points,

 

First, about the draft choices : I'm assuming the Bills are going to be competitive this year and have a better record than 2016. A lot of people are more pessimistic and see only 4-6 wins. Regardless which proves true, what will those picks buy? My guess is the top draft slots go to quarterback hungry teams not interested in trading down. Now, this is projected to be an exceptionally deep QB draft, but only 2-3 are the prime choices. My assumption is the Bills won't get a shot at them. Therefore, they'll pick from group 3-6, and if the 2017 season pessimists are right the Bills may barely have to move up - if at all. If they're picking at Number 10 again (for instance) there's bound to be good QB choices available there. The good news is then have extra picks to fill holes in the team - which are needed because they now have to replace a journeyman cornerback and wide receiver. (So much for that second & third)

 

The bad news is picking after the ultra prime QB choices are gone increases the chance the selection is a coin flip.

 

Second, about Receivers : Yeah, people say Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers don't need receiver talent. Even if that was true, your mythical god-like quarterback will probably need at least half a season to reach Brady Level, ya think? So maybe he could use some actual talent at the position after all. When people get to fantasizing about their dreamboat quarterback they tend to say the damndest things, but look : Better wide receivers are better, leading to a better passing attack. QED

OK? Your first point is guesswork about the draft, which I could very well refute by guessing the opposite and saying they will be in position to draft the QB they want. Waste of time.

 

Your second...let's examine that statement of yours that says better wide receivers lead to a better passing attack. Because the last time I looked, at least in Buffalo, we had Sammy Watkins and a horrific passing attack. So QED get a better QB and your passing attack will improve. This pissing and moaning about how trading Watkins is going to effect our pass game is laughable.

[liverpoolkev]

Well, to be fair, RGIIIs injury ruined him. Kap-we know what ruined him.

No I don't know what ruined Kap. , unless your talking about a person not standing for a flag because unarmed people of color was being killed for no reason by the police.. Is that what your talking about? If you are I will take Kap and you can play with pop-gun Peterman

[grb]

OK? Your first point is guesswork about the draft, which I could very well refute by guessing the opposite and saying they will be in position to draft the QB they want. Waste of time.

 

Your second...let's examine that statement of yours that says better wide receivers lead to a better passing attack. Because the last time I looked, at least in Buffalo, we had Sammy Watkins and a horrific passing attack. So QED get a better QB and your passing attack will improve. This pissing and moaning about how trading Watkins is going to effect our pass game is laughable.

 

First : If you think you know a more likely draft day scenario, please go ahead. It's not a question of "refuting" anything. Also, if you didn't like wasting time you wouldn't be here, would you?

 

Second : This is Taylor's numbers with legit No. 1 and 2 recievers ( The 15 games where both Watkins and Woods played ) : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs

 

Guess what? They're much better than when he was playing with journeymen. Your theory that good or bad receivers have no effect on good or bad quarterbacks was obviously absurd, but it's good to see it so clearly proved. You could also do a little research on how more-or-fewer offensive weapons affected Andy Dalton, Matt Ryan, or Kirk Cousins. On the other hand, you could stick with the Tom Brady Doesn't Need Receivers shtick. Whatever you come up with, I'm sure I won't be able to "refute" it.........

Edited August 15, 2017 by grb

[GoBills808]

 

First : If you think you know a more likely draft day scenario, please go ahead. It's not a question of "refuting" anything. Also, if you didn't like wasting time you wouldn't be here, would you?

 

Second : This is Taylor's numbers with legit No. 1 and 2 recievers ( The 15 games where both Watkins and Woods played ) : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs

 

Guess what? They're much better than when he was playing with journeymen. Your theory that good or bad receivers have no effect on good or bad quarterbacks was obviously absurd, but it good to see it so clearly proved. You could also do a little research on how more-or-fewer offensive weapons affected Andy Dalton, Matt Ryan, or Kirk Cousins. On the other hand, you could stick with the Tom Brady Doesn't Need Receivers shtick. Whatever you come up with, I'm sure I won't be able to "refute" it.........

Oh, I see. This is more about Taylor for you and how he 'just needs a legit #1 and #2 receiver'. And not...you know...the actual trade we were discussing.

[grb]

Oh, I see. This is more about Taylor for you and how he 'just needs a legit #1 and #2 receiver'. And not...you know...the actual trade we were discussing.

 

Huh? You're the one who said this : "Because the last time I looked, at least in Buffalo, we had Sammy Watkins and a horrific passing attack"

 

So I provided numbers which showed exactly what happened when Watkins & Woods played. It was low volume to be sure - as the Bills were still heavily run-first - but hardly a "horrific passing attack".

 

If you can't remember what you've said from 4:06 to 4:45, I'm not sure there's any point in arguing with you. Amnesia is such a convenient defense.

Edited August 14, 2017 by grb

[GoBills808]

 

Huh? You're the one who said this : "Because the last time I looked, at least in Buffalo, we had Sammy Watkins and a horrific passing attack"

 

So I provided numbers which showed exactly what happened when Watkins & Woods played. It was low volume to be sure - as the Bills were still heavily run-first - but hardly a "horrific passing attack".

 

If you can't remember what you've said from 4:06 to 4:45, I'm not sure there's any point in arguing with you. Amnesia is such a convenient defense.

Watkins has been in the league since 2014.

 

Buffalo Bills passing rankings since 2014: 18th, 28th, 30th.

 

Spare me the 'when we had everything perfect' stats, as I'm sure you can imagine what other teams' stats would look like if similarly cherry-picked. Sammy Watkins was part of a bad passing offense that will probably not suffer greatly in his absence.

[CarpetCrawler]

Bills set up Tyrod Taylor to fail, blowing up 2017 season with shocking trades

 

Mike Rodak ESPN Staff Writer

 

Turn out the lights on the Buffalo Bills' 2017 season, because it is over before it started.

 

In a shocking pair of trades Friday, the Bills traded their top wide receiver, Sammy Watkins, and their top cornerback, Ronald Darby, in separate deals with the Los Angeles Rams and Philadelphia Eagles. In exchange, the Bills acquired Eagles wide receiver Jordan Matthews, Rams cornerback E.J. Gaines, as well as second- and third-round picks in 2018.

 

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/28518/bills-set-up-tyrod-taylor-to-fail-blow-up-2017-season-with-shocking-trades

Hey old dude, how you doing??? Good to see your user name.

 

This is similar to my first thought after I heard about the trades, although i just thought of it as a general lack of confidence vs. actively trying to make him look worse....i really doubt it goes that far...more of a just looking past him and not an out and out sabotage.

[Boatdrinks]

Watkins has been in the league since 2014.

 

Buffalo Bills passing rankings since 2014: 18th, 28th, 30th.

 

Spare me the 'when we had everything perfect' stats, as I'm sure you can imagine what other teams' stats would look like if similarly cherry-picked. Sammy Watkins was part of a bad passing offense that will probably not suffer greatly in his absence.

So the goal is to remain a bad passing offense , not to get a better QB and hopefully combine that with better coaching? We saw what Watkins could do for half a season when the O coordinator decided to get him consistent targets in every game, and we got a competent stretch of QB play from Taylor. Watkins was the part you keep , and try to upgrade the other areas.

[stinky finger]

 

 

I'm sorry, but the Bills didn't dump Watkins because he wasn't "a fit" and they didn't bring in Matthews because he was the "right kind of guy to win"

 

 

 

 

The average term of a Bills head coach this century is under three years. The next coach in line always knows that, knows he's dealing with an angry fan base & impatient ownership, knows he'll be under a spotlight because of the team's playoff streak. Of course he'll get the generous multi-year contract and statements of undying support, but Rex got all that, didn't he? Two years of .500 ball and he was out the door. If a Bills coach - any Bills coach - doesn't see his job as a two year audition then he's blind stupid, and McDermott doesn't strike me as stupid. Of course dump major team talent in a firesale and you raise the stakes even higher. For instance : The Bill's may be unable to do anything more with their collection of draft choices except pick the quarterback who would have fallen to them anyway - and then spend the leftovers on cornerbacks & wide receivers. That is an entirely possible scenario. Quarterback selections are usually a coin flip anyway. So now you're on a two year leash, you've made a major bet with no idea how it will turn out, and your future depends on some unknown person and the flip of a coin.

 

Yes, that is just ..... well ...... silly, but welcome to your life coaching the Buffalo Bills.

 

 

This regime is here for the long haul.

 

Get used to it.

[grb]

 

 

This regime is here for the long haul.

 

Get used to it.

 

Well, there's always a first time for everything, so I guess it's possible.......

[Figster]

Hey old dude, how you doing??? Good to see your user name.

 

This is similar to my first thought after I heard about the trades, although i just thought of it as a general lack of confidence vs. actively trying to make him look worse....i really doubt it goes that far...more of a just looking past him and not an out and out sabotage.

Good to see you to Buddy

 

Myself personally, I don't think everyone was in favor of McD's decision to keep Taylor in Buffalo and Taylors success proves them wrong.

 

Taylors success also adds wrinkles to the Bills (someone upstairs) draft strategy in my humble opinion.

 

Who knows, provided he doesn't get traded first a pissed off Tyrod Taylor might be a good thing.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Figster

[oldmanfan]

 

That second round pick isn't getting you a QB that is likely better than the one you have now. And its not going to be enough trade ammo to get you to be the first team picking QB.

 

If you want to have a dominant offense - you need to have some players who are dominant at their position. The Bills just traded one away. That makes them less competitive. It makes it harder for the offense to become dominant. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.

. Say hi to Derek Carr or Drew Brees

[reddogblitz]

But to say the Bills dumped an exceptional athletic talent in receiver for a mediocre replacement - but don't worry because the replacement is "capable" strikes me as a very Bills way of looking at things.

The players we got rid off were not fits and didn't respect the process and were going to cost too much next year. Beane is cheap.

I don't think either wanted to be here

Why do you think Sammy didn't want to be here? Please be specific.

Edited August 15, 2017 by reddogblitz

[MarlinTheMagician]

Bills are better on the field this year. And they were not that far out of the playoffs last year. And we got the picks. Rejoice.

[mead107]

If he keeps playing like he is, he may fail

Edited August 20, 2017 by mead107

[aristocrat]

imagine if were able to sign cousins after this year? this could have been the move that allowed that. saving 15 mil in salary cap. picks to add talent.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

F5