Kirby Jackson Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Let's go on record as to our feelings on the deals today. There are no bs in between answers either. It is a yes or a no. If you were the GM and had the exact same deals on the table would you have made the moves? We are not seperating them out either because they are tied together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Where is the undecided. While i think they were good moves and scheme right and got picks for future. Bills did downgrade the altheticism and explosion from the two positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Abso-damn-lutely. The Bills lost two capable players and brought in two capable players.....all the while adding draft picks. Out !@#$ing standing, Pyle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Yes. INitially very pissed. Now like it. Has a lot to do with thinking Pats are a lock this year, and possibly next if Brady still plays. Build for when he is gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasovon Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I've come to terms with it, it makes sense long term but i really love Sammy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 Where is the undecided. While i think they were good moves and scheme right and got picks for future. Bills did downgrade the altheticism and explosion from the two positions. There is no indifference here!! I'm glad to see you voted. You've had a really interesting perspective lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Where's the "yes, but finish the purge" option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 No. Bad trades. Sammy is going to be a superstar. With two ones and a two next year we can get the franchise QB we want without the extra two if that's what they are doing. I wouldn't mind the Darby trade if we didn't do the Sammy one. I would have taken Matthews and a 3 for Darby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Boy Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Yes!!! Sick of hearing " if" and " but" This isn't a playoff contending team and has no SB shot whatsoever. Draft your young guns together, bring them up together, build a perennial contender. Edited August 11, 2017 by Buffalo Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Let's go on record as to our feelings on the deals today. There are no bs in between answers either. It is a yes or a no. If you were the GM and had the exact same deals on the table would you have made the moves? We are not seperating them out either because they are tied together. I say no. To evaluate the Watkins trade, I think back to the baffling decision to not exercise his option. If Watkins had his 5th year on his deal, we would've gotten more for him, as we would've been trading a longer rental. The Bills tanked Watkins' value by not exercising it. Then sold low. Idiotic. I personally thought he was an idiot as a person, but a talented idiot. He was arguably our youngest, best player. The exact player you keep in a rebuild, not sell low to the highest bidder. Darby on the other hand is different. Still say no, but if he was not having a good camp, couldn't do much in zones, I get it. As a superb athlete 1 year removed from a great year, I still say no, but I get it. Edited August 11, 2017 by jmc12290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 I say no. To evaluate the Watkins trade, I think back to the baffling decision to not exercise his option. If Watkins had his 5th year on his deal, we would've gotten more for him, as we would've been trading a longer rental. The Bills tanked Watkins' value by not exercising it. Then sold low. Idiotic. I personally thought he was an idiot as a person, but a talented idiot. He was arguably our youngest, best player. The exact player you keep in a rebuild, not sell low to the highest bidder. Darby on the other hand is different. Still say no, but if he was not having a good camp, couldn't do much in zones, I get it. As a superb athlete 1 year removed from a great year, I still say no, but I get it. Really good stuff here JMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Abso-damn-lutely. The Bills lost two capable players and brought in two capable players.....all the while adding draft picks. Out !@#$ing standing, Pyle! ....exactly.....and who the hell knows what happens in 2018?.....Sammy is healthy and decent with Rams and Beane signs 'em as a UFA......uh oh............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Yes. The Watkins deal was particularly good. The team was moving on from him after this season and he didn't want to stay here. We got what will almost certainly be a very high 2nd round pick and a CB who showed real potential in 2014 prior to injury in return. That's stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBean Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Yes. Heck yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 There is no indifference here!! I'm glad to see you voted. You've had a really interesting perspective lately. The trades make football sense and fits what both have said about how they are building the team so for that i like it. And they actually got good value for both players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the Watkins' trade Would have really like the Darby trade if they kept Watkins. It might be a draw but it makes our WRs so slow. Winner is the bar I'm going to drink away the pain of being a Bills fan. Loser, my girlfriend for having to deal with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4_kidd_4 Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 It's about time we had some proactive management that has the stones to follow through on their vision instead of plugging and patching the roster with the last guy's junk. Not to mention getting value for a guy that was gone after this year anyways. What a concept! Sure, results may vary long term, but how refreshing it is to sense actual vision from OBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I like the thinking behind it. I would have liked a better CB. We needed a starter not a backup caliber player. At first I was shocked. I came inside after mowing the lawn and all hell was breaking loose. Then I stopped to consider everything and Watkins wasn't going to come back and Darby didn't fit the scheme. So I like the trades, I don't love them. If we somehow got a 1st or a starting CB I would probably be doing cartwheels right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Loser, my girlfriend for having to deal with me. That's probably not much different than everyday, amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I say no. To evaluate the Watkins trade, I think back to the baffling decision to not exercise his option. If Watkins had his 5th year on his deal, we would've gotten more for him, as we would've been trading a longer rental. The Bills tanked Watkins' value by not exercising it. Then sold low. Idiotic. I personally thought he was an idiot as a person, but a talented idiot. He was arguably our youngest, best player. The exact player you keep in a rebuild, not sell low to the highest bidder. Darby on the other hand is different. Still say no, but if he was not having a good camp, couldn't do much in zones, I get it. As a superb athlete 1 year removed from a great year, I still say no, but I get it. That's a solid take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Yes. INitially very pissed. Now like it. Has a lot to do with thinking Pats are a lock this year, and possibly next if Brady still plays. Build for when he is gone Exact same initial reaction. Then looked at it as we're no better or worse off and added two good draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I say no. To evaluate the Watkins trade, I think back to the baffling decision to not exercise his option. If Watkins had his 5th year on his deal, we would've gotten more for him, as we would've been trading a longer rental. The Bills tanked Watkins' value by not exercising it. Then sold low. Idiotic. I personally thought he was an idiot as a person, but a talented idiot. He was arguably our youngest, best player. The exact player you keep in a rebuild, not sell low to the highest bidder. Darby on the other hand is different. Still say no, but if he was not having a good camp, couldn't do much in zones, I get it. As a superb athlete 1 year removed from a great year, I still say no, but I get it. Exactly what I've thought and argued in the Watkins thread. The 5th year option makes him more valuable. Do the Pats give up a 1st if Cook doesn't have the 5th year option? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Yes. Problem is the full benefits of this deal likely won't be felt until the 2019 season, and I hate waiting. But I don't believe our chances to win this year have been seriously downgraded. This season's success will depend on the running game and the defense, same as it ever was. If we can tweak the passing game into some sort of quasi west coast offense we should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Do I "like" the moves? No. Would I have done the same thing as GM? Probably, so I voted yes. I get it. I just dont like it "right now" and that is what we're voting on, so I'm torn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I say no. To evaluate the Watkins trade, I think back to the baffling decision to not exercise his option. If Watkins had his 5th year on his deal, we would've gotten more for him, as we would've been trading a longer rental. The Bills tanked Watkins' value by not exercising it. Then sold low. Idiotic. I personally thought he was an idiot as a person, but a talented idiot. He was arguably our youngest, best player. The exact player you keep in a rebuild, not sell low to the highest bidder. Darby on the other hand is different. Still say no, but if he was not having a good camp, couldn't do much in zones, I get it. As a superb athlete 1 year removed from a great year, I still say no, but I get it. Agree. We burned the first bridge by not taking the fifth year. Then we get rid of him for questionable value in return. If they hit home runs in the 2018 Draft I'm sure I'll feel better but right now this sucks. I'm also convinced Sammy will be a Patriot next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinceThe70s Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 The player with the highest ceiling went the wrong direction so as I sit here today contemplating what to drown my sorrow with I do not like this trade. Hopefully in time I'll find I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Exactly what I've thought and argued in the Watkins thread. The 5th year option makes him more valuable. Do the Pats give up a 1st if Cook doesn't have the 5th year option? I doubt it. Looks bad if Beane's vision included getting the least amount back for a young promising player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I say no. To evaluate the Watkins trade, I think back to the baffling decision to not exercise his option. If Watkins had his 5th year on his deal, we would've gotten more for him, as we would've been trading a longer rental. The Bills tanked Watkins' value by not exercising it. Then sold low. Idiotic. I personally thought he was an idiot as a person, but a talented idiot. He was arguably our youngest, best player. The exact player you keep in a rebuild, not sell low to the highest bidder. Darby on the other hand is different. Still say no, but if he was not having a good camp, couldn't do much in zones, I get it. As a superb athlete 1 year removed from a great year, I still say no, but I get it. Good points on Watkins that I had not thought of before, but I never in the world thought they would trade Sammy. So I thought not picking up the option was worth the couple $M risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan17 Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I think the Darby trade was good, especially if they get Matthews to resign. Watkins I think they could have played it a bit differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 Yes. The Watkins deal was particularly good. The team was moving on from him after this season and he didn't want to stay here. We got what will almost certainly be a very high 2nd round pick and a CB who showed real potential in 2014 prior to injury in return. That's stealing.I didn't know that he didn't want to stay here? I hadn't read that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Really good stuff here JMC. I've been known to deliver from time to time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Looks bad if Beane's vision included getting the least amount back for a young promising player. He even admitted, in the Pc, that they weren't shopping him but the Rams had enquiries back in June. Things finally ramped up. So Beane honestly thinks the best value he could get from Sammy was a 2nd round pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Kevi Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Here is my "bs in between" answer: I like them but feel we could have gotten more for SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmoorman4jesus Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 We will be fine at WR, but I'm concerned about CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I didn't know that he didn't want to stay here? I hadn't read that.People are saying that because last week he said he absolutely wanted to be in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Here is my "bs in between" answer: I like them but feel we could have gotten more for SW. I agree. I would do the Darby trade in a second. I would have asked for more for Sammy (better CB or an additional pick). That's my final answer Edited August 11, 2017 by kdiggz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RalphWilson'sNewWar Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I love the moves for the Future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 That's probably not much different than everyday, amirite? You're 100% right. She's a saint for putting up with me. I'm complaining about the Watkins trade since I got home. She looked at his picture, said he was ugly, and she didn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) yes, because they weren't making a run to the playoffs before the trade and they aren't after. And now they have 2 extra picks to use as bait to get their QB of the future. The biggest IF in the whole thing is Sammy's health. If he stays healthy all year, he is a dynamic playmaker and much more helpful to the team than Matthews. If not, Matthews durability should help the Bills. The think Darby and the CB we acquired are basically the same guys. So that, to me, is a wash. The gravy in the deal is the extra picks. I love draft currency/flexibility. Edited August 11, 2017 by Maddog69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts