GoBills808 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 The trade up to get him is only bad right now because we didn't keep the kid who is clearly at a talent level worth the trade up. His injuries were IMPOSSIBLE to predict as he had NO injury concerns coming into the NFL. When healthy he is an ELITE talent capable of living up to the trade cost to get him. He is only 24, had we not been rash and traded him and goes onto be a top WR in the NFL, he is absolutely worth the trade. Julio Jones cost more, no one complains about that cost. Sammy has that kind of ability to be an impact like Julio, he had one real bad luck injury that has never reoccured in history of the NFL one the player made a full recovery, that doesn't negate the level of his ability as a WR. Isn't the word on the street he wasn't going to re-sign here after some bad blood last season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Isn't the word on the street he wasn't going to re-sign here after some bad blood last season? Not buying that. It was a completely new regime that had 100% control of the situation for as long as four years including this season with the 5th year option and the franchise tag if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 The week he didn't do something was the week he got 2 targets. Imagine that. Was that the same week he was covered by Josh Norman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan2313 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Sammy Watch. The week in which Sammy did something. Yes. Another clueless football fan who doesn't think Sammy is good, because the greatest franchise in football got rid of him. See Peters and Lynch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Yes. Another clueless football fan who doesn't think Sammy is good, because the greatest franchise in football got rid of him. See Peters and Lynch. good when he was on the field, yes. I think some are having an issue with beane and his plan, which didn't include sammy watkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 I am going to post something i copied from somewhere else only to make myself look like i can actually know something. What I past will totally reaffirm everything I say; authority of Twitter confirms my power! @4RealPresident 46s Watkins is a great WR, walks on water and can flip an omelet perfectly every time. #dontdoiteric http://www.nfl.com/gobblygook/ctrlv/mindless/watkins.html Isn't the word on the street he wasn't going to re-sign here after some bad blood last season? yes, but depends on which street you're on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Isn't the word on the street he wasn't going to re-sign here after some bad blood last season? Even if it's true, the Bills controlled his rights for the next three seasons with the option and tag (four if they tagged him twice). The boon for the Bills if they really thought he was too high maintenance is he'd be playing for a contract in each of those seasons - which usually assures the player gives maximum effort. If he played in Buffalo this season, produced well and stayed healthy, his trade value would be double what it was when they traded him - and they could have moved him in a draft day deal if they were really desperate to move on. Sammy plus two first round picks might get them up into the top 3 (assuming one of the top three isn't looking for a QB of their own). The front office bought high and sold low on Sammy for no apparent reason other than a rush to churn over the roster. Not buying that. It was a completely new regime that had 100% control of the situation for as long as four years including this season with the 5th year option and the franchise tag if necessary. Beat me too it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Even if it's true, the Bills controlled his rights for the next three seasons with the option and tag (four if they tagged him twice). The boon for the Bills if they really thought he was too high maintenance is he'd be playing for a contract in each of those seasons - which usually assures the player gives maximum effort. If he played in Buffalo this season, produced well and stayed healthy, his trade value would be double what it was when they traded him - and they could have moved him in a draft day deal if they were really desperate to move on. Sammy plus two first round picks might get them up into the top 3 (assuming one of the top three isn't looking for a QB of their own). The front office bought high and sold low on Sammy for no apparent reason other than a rush to churn over the roster. Beat me too it. Just wondering if an entirely new staff, first time HC and GM, wouldn't have just said screw the headache and cut bait right there and then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Anyone have theory for why the Bills were unable to get more than a second round pick for Watkins? The Saints got a first for Cooks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Just wondering if an entirely new staff, first time HC and GM, wouldn't have just said screw the headache and cut bait right there and then... I'm assuming that's pretty much how it went down. Which is understandable to some degree if you're taking a short term view of the situation. But GM's are usually hired and paid not to take the short term view of personnel issues. That the trade was one of Beane's first moves doesn't fill me with hope that he's going to balance the short term vs long term needs of the team well. They literally traded Sammy when his value was the lowest. We have an early bye this year, we could have gotten more from the deal if Beane let Sammy play 6 games and prove he's healthy. It's the timing and strategy of this move that irks me, especially since they are clearly preparing to spend a lot of capital in drafting a QB this year. Anyone have theory for why the Bills were unable to get more than a second round pick for Watkins? The Saints got a first for Cooks... The league had no idea if he was healthy. That's why trading him when they did was so surprising to me (and I'm sure others). Think about it another way, mannc, Sammy - who the rest of the league isn't even sure was healthy - generated a 2nd round pick and another starter. Imagine what they'd get if the league was sure he was healthy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Just watching the Rams highlights. Goff was making throws that Tyrod doesn't. Any WR would do better. Note - I'm not a Tyrod hater. I've always felt he was good enough, but I'm starting to rethink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 I'm assuming that's pretty much how it went down. Which is understandable to some degree if you're taking a short term view of the situation. But GM's are usually hired and paid not to take the short term view of personnel issues. That the trade was one of Beane's first moves doesn't fill me with hope that he's going to balance the short term vs long term needs of the team well. They literally traded Sammy when his value was the lowest. We have an early bye this year, we could have gotten more from the deal if Beane let Sammy play 6 games and prove he's healthy. It's the timing and strategy of this move that irks me, especially since they are clearly preparing to spend a lot of capital in drafting a QB this year. The league had no idea if he was healthy. That's why trading him when they did was so surprising to me (and I'm sure others). Think about it another way, mannc, Sammy - who the rest of the league isn't even sure was healthy - generated a 2nd round pick and another starter. Imagine what they'd get if the league was sure he was healthy... You are correct. We traded him at his lowest value. Brilliant move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 I'm assuming that's pretty much how it went down. Which is understandable to some degree if you're taking a short term view of the situation. But GM's are usually hired and paid not to take the short term view of personnel issues. That the trade was one of Beane's first moves doesn't fill me with hope that he's going to balance the short term vs long term needs of the team well. They literally traded Sammy when his value was the lowest. We have an early bye this year, we could have gotten more from the deal if Beane let Sammy play 6 games and prove he's healthy. It's the timing and strategy of this move that irks me, especially since they are clearly preparing to spend a lot of capital in drafting a QB this year. The league had no idea if he was healthy. That's why trading him when they did was so surprising to me (and I'm sure others). Think about it another way, mannc, Sammy - who the rest of the league isn't even sure was healthy - generated a 2nd round pick and another starter. Imagine what they'd get if the league was sure he was healthy... I'm not sure I agree about the Watkins trade being short-term thinking...if it's true they're drafting a QB and aren't enamored of Taylor going forward (and all signs point to that being the case), then they probably concluded that showcasing Watkins for a season in a Taylor-led offense wasn't likely to improve his value trade-wise. You combine that with his apparent reticence to commit to being in Buffalo going forward, I can see where they could decide on pulling the trigger. I guess I can see their rationale, even if I don't agree with all the logic...Jones' development and their belief in him will be a real factor in how this trade is viewed down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 You are correct. We traded him at his lowest value. Brilliant move. Though, to be fair you guys don't KNOW that is the case. With our luck, he would have broke his foot off in the second Bills game and he would have had no trade value... Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 I'm not sure I agree about the Watkins trade being short-term thinking...if it's true they're drafting a QB and aren't enamored of Taylor going forward (and all signs point to that being the case), then they probably concluded that showcasing Watkins for a season in a Taylor-led offense wasn't likely to improve his value trade-wise. You combine that with his apparent reticence to commit to being in Buffalo going forward, I can see where they could decide on pulling the trigger. I guess I can see their rationale, even if I don't agree with all the logic...Jones' development and their belief in him will be a real factor in how this trade is viewed down the road. Once again, the Bills had 100% control of the situation even if he expressed any reluctance to signing an extension which nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Though, to be fair you guys don't KNOW that is the case. With our luck, he would have broke his foot off in the second Bills game and he would have had no trade value... Just sayin'. Or gotten concussed after 3 games. Hopefully he recovers quickly though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 The week he didn't do something was the week he got 2 targets. Imagine that. In the two previous week's he had seven targets and caught all seven. Last night he caught six of seven. I was yelling at the TV to "throw 12 the ball! He'll catch it!" The same way I used to yell "throw 14 the ball!" They started to and he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Once again, the Bills had 100% control of the situation even if he expressed any reluctance to signing an extension which nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor. And once again, again, I'm not sure I can blame a rookie staff for not wanting the headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBonhamRocks Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Is anyone not cool with changing the thread name to "Sammy Watch-kins"? Mods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 And once again, again, I'm not sure I can blame a rookie staff for not wanting the headache. That means you accept the scuttlebutt as the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts