JM2009 Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Hard to take much of a dive when you are already near the bottom. This has less to do with Sammy, and more to do with the QB and his limitations. That's who should've been sent packing. SW is a huge deep threat, and that is one area in the passing game that TT is very good at.Watkins had nice numbers in 2015 when he was more healthy. OBD was not interested in keeping Watkins and the money he would have demanded.......But didn't you say at one time that you could throw the ball to Watkins? Both I guess. The Bills aren't tanking, and the Jets, well they will botch their tank just like they do everything else... The Jets offense could set a new low for scoring. It could be that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Why didn't they pick up the option? Because they didn't want to gamble on his health anymore. They know more things about him than we do. You're not talking about the best player in terms of production here by any means. That's what people fail to realize. He wasn't going to be the best receiver in the league just because people want him to be. Best WR in the league, what are you talking about? No one is asking that nor saying that. he was by far this teams #1 WR. The Rams also think he will be their #1 WR. We Gamble on Matthews who has swirling questions about his knee, and wont be able to practice for weeks? The guy will not be a factor early on this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Why didn't they pick up the option? Because they didn't want to gamble on his health anymore. They know more things about him than we do. You're not talking about the best player in terms of production here by any means. That's what people fail to realize. He wasn't going to be the best receiver in the league just because people want him to be. Sure that's fair, but don't go on about signability then. Pointing to signability is disingenuous when you purposely turned away from a path that would give you control for at least three more years. My biggest argument against the trade is the rookie QB they are desperate to get next year. That rookie would be in a better position to succeed with a talent at receiver like Watkins. They'll be chasing a WR later when you already had one on the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 This season 5th year option Franchise Franchise I now just found 4 more seasons of Watkins if they wanted. I think we have to accept that they're just not going to pay WRs that much money until they know they have a franchise QB. It's better to have more assets at a lower price. You'll have a greater ROI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverboat Richie Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Best WR in the league, what are you talking about? No one is asking that nor saying that. he was by far this teams #1 WR. The Rams also think he will be their #1 WR. We Gamble on Matthews who has swirling questions about his knee, and wont be able to practice for weeks? The guy will not be a factor early on this year. How much you going to pay him on the franchise tag? Exactly what he's worth in terms of production? How much is that compared to the rest of the league? He's not shown he's top five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Sure that's fair, but don't go on about signability then. Pointing to signability is disingenuous when you purposely turned away from a path that would give you control for at least three more years. My biggest argument against the trade is the rookie QB they are desperate to get next year. That rookie would be in a better position to succeed with a talent at receiver like Watkins. They'll be chasing a WR later when you already had one on the roster. Or they will have to overpay to bring in a guy, who is not as good as Watkins. I think we have to accept that they're just not going to pay WRs that much money until they know they have a franchise QB. It's better to have more assets at a lower price. You'll have a greater ROI. I agree with that, but the fact that the GM used the ability to sign Watkins as a factor for the trade is a C.O.S. How much you going to pay him on the franchise tag? Exactly what he's worth in terms of production? How much is that compared to the rest of the league? He's not shown he's top five. Well if**** they get a rookie QB next year, having Watkins, Jones combo would be a hell of a lot better than Jones, Insert name here_____ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Here's a quote from McDermott's presser this morning that rationalizes (explains) why Watkins is gone: “We’re building a team, we’re not accumulating talent,” McDermott said. “We’re building a team and that comes down to roles, it comes down to chemistry, it comes down to camaraderie, and it comes also down to unselfishness. That’s the qualities we are looking for in our football players. . . . “If you go back, I’ve been fortunate to be around some pretty good teams over the course of my career in the NFL, right around 20 years. There were some receivers out there that played in a lot of important football games that maybe weren’t household names and we won a lot of football games.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 How much you going to pay him on the franchise tag? Exactly what he's worth in terms of production? How much is that compared to the rest of the league? He's not shown he's top five.Even if they signed Watkins to a 5 year $65M deal with $40M guaranteed (which is way more than he's getting) who would the Bills have to get rid of to do that? They wouldn't have to make a single roster decision because of that contract so the signability is irrelevant. This team is going to be half full of guys on rookie deals without a highly paid QB. The money is there to load up elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan4 Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 I don't get the tanking talk, but what I really don't get is why some think that Sammy Watkins makes or breaks the Bills season. This is a totally different team from last year. I believe there are something like 30 players left from last year, and over 50 new guys. We really have no idea what this team is going to be. I get that we traded the more talented player away in Sammy. But he hasn't really produced big numbers on the field here. I like to think this is the season that it was finally going to happen, but as of now they got back a receiver who's been just as productive but more available on the field. What I'm worried about is Cordy Glenn still not able to play and going to Wisconsin for some type of injection. This foot thing looks to be a lingering issue and we have no depth a LT (unless rookie Dion Dawkins is able to step in and play well). We could be in big trouble without Glenn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Even if they signed Watkins to a 5 year $65M deal with $40M guaranteed (which is way more than he's getting) who would the Bills have to get rid of to do that? They wouldn't have to make a single roster decision because of that contract so the signability is irrelevant. This team is going to be half full of guys on rookie deals without a highly paid QB. The money is there to load up elsewhere. It's becoming more clear that money wasn't going to be an issue, even though Beane rationalized it as one of the reasons. For whatever reason, Pegulas didn't want Sammy on their team going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherrybone Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 1. He started all 16 games as a rookie 2. In the only stretch of his career during which he was targeted more than 5 times per game (the final 9 games of the 2015 season), he was the most productive WR in the NFL. 3. The statement about far less at QB is highly debatable. Exaaactly. I'll get into the far less qb. To start the qb or qb's are considered lesser then Tyrod because of looking at numbers blindly, especially turnovers. They may throw more int's then Tyrod, but the most important thing is they're getting the ball out of their hands and giving receivers chances. And even throughout that they're receivers will still be more productive then Sammy and thats because Sammy is playing with a qb that wont throw the ball at all. But in some people eyes that make him slightly above average because he dont throw that many int's. Do that make a average receiver better then Sammy? Matthews is nowhere near Sammys level. Later for the numbers. Hes getting more opportunities then Sammy is. If it werent for some of the chances other qb's take that result in int's these guys would be light years ahead of Tyrod. Ask any receiver would they rather play with a qb thats not scared to allow them to make a play on the ball or would they rather play with a qb like Tyrod who dont turn the ball over because hes scared to take chances and has happy feet and will run at the first sight of a different jersey. Remember receivers are divas. Ill take a qb thats not scared to throw the ball over Tyrod any day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverboat Richie Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Even if they signed Watkins to a 5 year $65M deal with $40M guaranteed (which is way more than he's getting) who would the Bills have to get rid of to do that? They wouldn't have to make a single roster decision because of that contract so the signability is irrelevant. This team is going to be half full of guys on rookie deals without a highly paid QB. The money is there to load up elsewhere. They didn't think he was going to be a fit for them or they wouldn't have done it. Bottom line. It's not an indication of tanking. They invested a lot of time in him and apparently did not like the results enough to keep him. Unloaded him before he walked for nothing. People can spin it any way they choose but the bottom line is they didn't think he was a player they wanted to go with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 It's becoming more clear that money wasn't going to be an issue, even though Beane rationalized it as one of the reasons. For whatever reason, Pegulas didn't want Sammy on their team going forward. That's probably true. The money thing is a convenient excuse that most will just accept. If you look at it though it's not the real issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 That's probably true. The money thing is a convenient excuse that most will just accept. If you look at it though it's not the real issue. Money relative to other positions perhaps. They probably don't believe in paying a WR that high a percentage of the team's overall cap. I don't necessarily agree with such a rigid approach, but it might be where they're coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 They didn't think he was going to be a fit for them or they wouldn't have done it. Bottom line. It's not an indication of tanking. They invested a lot of time in him and apparently did not like the results enough to keep him. Unloaded him before he walked for nothing. People can spin it any way they choose but the bottom line is they didn't think he was a player they wanted to go with.We don't disagree at all with the last part. The "signability" thing is what's bs. There was nothing preventing (or even hindering) him from being re-signed. I keep saying it but "signability" in this case means, "we don't want to pay him what we think that he will get on the open market and we don't think highly enough of him to prevent him from hitting the open market." It's not more complicated than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLEN1QB Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 I for one hope they go 0-16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston's #1 Bills Fan Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 I for one hope they go 0-16. Why? just for the #1 pick? Who is worth that price? I mean, you really wish that much ill will towards the Bills? To be inevitably compared to the '08 Lions? This team has talent and deserves more. A zero win season would be massively disruptive. You think it's hard to get talented players to come now? You'll see players we draft refuse to sign. No, a zero win season would be a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 That's probably true. The money thing is a convenient excuse that most will just accept. If you look at it though it's not the real issue. Pegula has never been shy to pay up for talent that his GMs recommend. McD and Beane have certainly not ignored the receiving position this offseason. So to me, it's silly to think that they dumped Watkins on whim. There must be something else behind the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised to see him sign a veteran CB to a one year deal to enhance the sell. Then could also bring in Branden Albert at LT, before he retires again, to play if Glenn is out. ?? yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_with_it Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 1. He started all 16 games as a rookie 2. In the only stretch of his career during which he was targeted more than 5 times per game (the final 9 games of the 2015 season), he was the most productive WR in the NFL. 3. The statement about far less at QB is highly debatable. Rookie year targeted 8 times per game.Next year after that targeted 7.75 per game. Last year broke and all targeted 6.5 per game. So not one season was he close to being targeted 5 or less times on average per season, Dont be dishonest. http://www.fftoday.com/stats/players/14350/Sammy_Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts