Rams will not tag Watkins

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

That has nothing to do with the comment that I am taking issue with. These are your EXACT words, “It doesn't matter how great a receiver is when his talents can't be fulfilled because of the caliber of qb/s he is playing with.” You either believe that to be the case or you don’t.

 

If you believe that Gordon and Hopkins were derailed by bad QB play (while leading the league in receiving) than you should give anything for those guys. I think deep down you would admit that they excelled despite poor QB play. That flies right in the face of your quote though which is why we keep going round and round. I would say that “their talents were fulfilled” despite having atrocious QBs. Therefore I disagree with your quote. A great player is a great player regardless of the players around them.

I will say the same thing to you that I said to Hokie. You are taking my comment out of context. The discussion was over Watkins and the giving up of two first round picks for him in a draft that included other good receivers. In the Buffalo situation Watkins performance was diminished because of the caliber of qbs he was playing with. If you disagree with that assessment then we have a disagreement that won't be reconciled. Did the Bills get the full value with their trade up for him? I say no. And one of the primary reasons (besides injuries) was the qb he was playing with. 

 

If you want to include Gordon and Hopkins in the discussion as it relates to the Watkins discussion I will make the same point that I wouldn't give up two first round picks for either player. I wouldn't do it as draft prospects or even as accomplished pros. You might but I wouldn't. Both players are very good players who garnered impressive stats. How did it impact on their respective teams? 

[Da webster guy]

On 3/6/2018 at 8:57 AM, thebandit27 said:

 

Did we?  We got a 2nd round pick and a cornerback that played 59% of the team's defensive snaps, and looks unlikely to be retained.

 

The Rams got a WR1 that played 75% of the team's offensive snaps  and lead them in yards/catch, yards/target, and receiving TDs...he also appears to be likely to be retained.

 

We may not have lost the trade, but I don't see how we won it.  Now, maybe if the 2nd round pick we got from LA will turn into a great player, and then we can say that we won the trade, but until then, the jury's out.

well the trade is over now.  Gaines and Watkins had decent years for their teams, are free agents, neither team won a superbowl and here we stand with the Rams 2nd round pick. 

Unless we botch the pick, we win by a lot. 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I will say the same thing to you that I said to Hokie. You are taking my comment out of context. The discussion was over Watkins and the giving up of two first round picks for him in a draft that included other good receivers. In the Buffalo situation Watkins performance was diminished because of the caliber of qbs he was playing with. If you disagree with that assessment then we have a disagreement that won't be reconciled. Did the Bills get the full value with their trade up for him? I say no. And one of the primary reasons (besides injuries) was the qb he was playing with. 

 

If you want to include Gordon and Hopkins in the discussion as it relates to the Watkins discussion I will make the same point that I wouldn't give up two first round picks for either player. I wouldn't do it as draft prospects or even as accomplished pros. You might but I wouldn't. Both players are very good players who garnered impressive stats. How did it impact on their respective teams? 

Hopkins dragged his team to the playoffs. 

 

The point that I am disagreeing with has nothing to do with the context of the trade. It has to do with how a receiver will perform with sub-par QB play. If you say “that is an expensive price to pay for a WR when you have questions at QB” we agree. If you say “It doesn't matter how great a receiver is when his talents can't be fulfilled because of the caliber of qb/s he is playing with” then we don’t. Those 2 do not mean the same thing.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[thebandit27]

10 minutes ago, SoFFacet said:

 

Dead wrong. You can always cherry pick a few stats that Watkins led his team in. He was not a significant player on their team this year. I'm not saying he played bad, but he was not some critical cog that unlocked everything else in the offense, as you seem to believe. That doesn't change just because you think it does. I didn't go into the season believing that Woods and Kupp would be more important. But rational people take into account new information. The past season speaks for itself. 

 

You are having a great deal of difficulty isolating the trade from irrelevant tangential issues. The trade was 1 guaranteed year of Watkins for 1 guaranteed year of Gaines + a 2nd round pick. Both players are about to become free agents, so their value to their teams is close to zero atm. The most valuable piece of the deal on either side, today, is the 2nd round pick, by far. It's that simple. 

 

Anyway, signing Gaines just to try to win the trade more (in some fans minds) is a sunk cost fallacy. Finding a better option than re-signing our own player does not decrease the grade of the trade in any way. And even if Watkins signs with the Rams as a FA, that doesn't affect the trade either. It's outside the scope of the trade, and it's not even necessarily a great thing for the Rams depending on what the contract is and on what they actually get out of Watkins going forward. Even if somehow Watkins signs with the Bills, that doesn't affect the grade of the trade either, for the exact same reasons. Outside the scope. Not necessarily great for the team. Totally unrelated to the events that came before it. 

 

As a matter of fact, there's basically nothing that can happen henceforth that affects the grade of the trade. The Watkins and Gaines free agencies are up to the contracts that the entire league can offer, and are ultimately their own decision. The 2nd round pick is a matter of proper scouting and coaching development. So the trade is a wrap and we're holding the only asset that has any value. Easy evaluation. 

 

Actually, every single thing that I posted was factually correct.

 

He lead the team in receiving TDs; somehow scoring touchdowns is a cherry-picked stat to you?  No offense, but that's absurd.  33 of his 70 targets (39 receptions) went for first downs--by contrast, 36 of Woods' 85 targets (56 receptions) went for first downs, as did 42 of Kupp's 95 targets (62 receptions).  Ask yourself: who was a more effective chain-mover?

 

It's not cherry-picking to look at who scores the most, who converts more of his opportunities into first downs, who draws the majority of the coverage, and who plays the most snaps.  That's simple analysis, and I realize that it's easier to read box scores, but it's also less informative.

 

I actually have zero difficulty looking at the trade factors.  It's really quite simple: I've seen more than one person on this board declare that Buffalo "won" the trade.  That's a point that is simply indefensible IMO.  The only argument that even slightly supports the notion is that the team's record was better with Gaines on the field than it was when he didn't play.  Well, the team can't feel that strongly about him being the deciding factor in their playoff appearance if they already signed a guy that appears to be his replacement, can they?  Furthermore, how can Buffalo have "won" a trade that involved moving a WR1 off their roster and resulted in them having the worst receiving corps in professional football?

 

As I've said in this thread multiple times: I'd like for someone to tell me how Gaines was more valuable to Buffalo than Watkins was to LA.  All I've seen is some folks taking issue with the idea that Watkins was their WR1.  Well, his snap share, number of scoring plays, first-down conversion rate, tight-coverage reception rate, and coverage type drawn from opposing defenses all indicate that he was indeed their WR1.  That he operates in an offense where the QB doesn't like to throw deep balls or into tight coverage is reflected in the target differential between he and the possession guys on the team.

 

Now, I'm certain that many folks will simply read this and erroneously assume it's all a blind defense of Watkins out of some misplaced loyalty.  As some other folks know, I'm not beholden to players; I'm beholden to facts and critical analysis of the hard data.  The hard data don't show me that Buffalo "won" this trade--note that I haven't said that they "lost" it either.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I will bet his value is higher. There just aren’t receivers out there and the teams with the money need them. I think that he is looking at 4 years $56M with $32M guarantee (something like that). 

 

Woods was 5 years 34m with 15 guaranteed.  That's a top end contract for a #2 WR.  Sanu was 5 32 with 14 guaranteed the year prior.  So the top end #2 value would probably cap out around 36-40 over 5 years.  Garcon is that #1/#2 guy and he got 5 years 47.5 and 20 guaranteed from SF.  

 

Doug Baldwin got 4 years 46 mil in 2016 with about 24 mil guaranteed.  Davante Adams got 4 years 58 million with 30 guaranteed in 2017.  

 

If he can avoid injury concerns, and can convince teams to value him as a true #1, i could see him surpassing the Adams deal.  Depends on his Agent, and if he's willing to go to a team like the jets, or bears.  SF has spent a fair amount on receivers, but I think theyd be better suited beefing up the line and upgrading the RB and defense.  

 

If he's willing to take a little less money, i could see him doing really well as sort of a co-#1 in Oakland if they were to cut/trade crabtree.

Edited March 7, 2018 by dneveu

[teef]

38 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

It's also amazing how many people forget that if the Bills picked up his option it wouldn't have been 1 year of Sammy Watkins.

 

And if that's the case the measuring stick will be that 2nd round WR pick vs Sammy Watkins. I'll bet a lot of money he won't be as good as Sammy.

i think you're trying very hard to justify the hours and hours of complaining you put us through.  

Edited March 7, 2018 by teef

[thebandit27]

2 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Woods was 5 years 34m with 15 guaranteed.  That's a top end contract for a #2 WR.  Sanu was 5 32 with 14 guaranteed the year prior.  So the top end #2 value would probably cap out around 36-40 over 5 years.  Garcon is that #1/#2 guy and he got 5 years 47.5 and 20 guaranteed from SF.  

 

Doug Baldwin got 4 years 46 mil in 2016 with about 24 mil guaranteed.  Davante Adams got 4 years 58 million with 30 guaranteed in 2017.  

 

If he can avoid injury concerns, and can convince teams to value him as a true #1, i could see him surpassing the Adams deal.  Depends on his Agent, and if he's willing to go to a team like the jets, or bears.  SF has spent a fair amount on receivers, but I think theyd be better suited beefing up the line and upgrading the RB and defense.  

 

If he's willing to take a little less money, i could see him doing really well as sort of a co-#1 in Oakland if they were to cut/trade crabtree.

 

Interesting comparison that I'm sure Sammy's agent will use in negotiations:

 

D. Adams - 4 seasons, 59 games played, 237 receptions on 397 targets (59.7% rec rate), 2,811 yards (11.9 YPR and 7.08 YPT), 26 TDs, 133 first downs, 2 fumbles (1 lost)

S. Watkins - 4 seasons, 52 games played, 192 receptions on 345 targets (55.7% rec rate), 3,052 yards (15.9 YPR and 8.84 YPT), 25 TDs, 141 first downs, 1 fumble (1 lost)

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, thebandit27 said:

 

Interesting comparison that I'm sure Sammy's agent will use in negotiations:

 

D. Adams - 4 seasons, 59 games played, 237 receptions on 397 targets (59.7% rec rate), 2,811 yards (11.9 YPR and 7.08 YPT), 26 TDs, 133 first downs, 2 fumbles (1 lost)

S. Watkins - 4 seasons, 52 games played, 192 receptions on 345 targets (55.7% rec rate), 3,052 yards (15.9 YPR and 8.84 YPT), 25 TDs, 141 first downs, 1 fumble (1 lost)

 

Cap went up 10 million too, so i assume he'd negotiate for more money.  

 

[HappyDays]

45 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

It's also amazing how many people forget that if the Bills picked up his option it wouldn't have been 1 year of Sammy Watkins.

 

And if that's the case the measuring stick will be that 2nd round WR pick vs Sammy Watkins. I'll bet a lot of money he won't be as good as Sammy.

 

If you're looking at it like that, the question isn't if the 2nd round pick is better than Sammy, it's if he is better than one year of Sammy. We didn't trade away the rights to have Sammy on the team for his whole career. We could sign him this off-season if we wanted too. All we gave up was a one year rental.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

Nah.

 

Just pointing out some ridiculous takes that the Bills, without question, won the trade when they haven't even used the draft pick yet and their recieving corps was an absolute joke last season due to the trade. 

 

And I'm sure there will be tons of shocked fans when Sammy gets paid this offseason and a lot of misguided "he doesn't deserve that" takes. 

 

there will also be those fans that don't give a **** what watkins gets paid. but hey, you keep an eye on that former bill and what he gets paid.

[thebandit27]

2 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

 

And I'm sure there will be tons of shocked fans when Sammy gets paid this offseason and a lot of misguided "he doesn't deserve that" takes. 

 

If Sammy gets a D. Adams-like contract, I imagine the reaction from many fans will be quite similar to Gilmore getting paid last offseason.

Just now, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

there will also be those fans that don't give a **** what watkins gets paid. but hey, you keep an eye on that former bill and what he gets paid.

 

I'm sure that's true...I'm always watching the market because it has an impact on the whole league.  The D. Adams contract is a great example: paying $14.5M AAV for a guy that's never had 1,000 yards or come anywhere near to elite status was quite surprising to me, and I think it's going to have a ripple effect on the WR market.

[teef]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Nah.

 

Just pointing out some ridiculous takes that the Bills, without question, won the trade when they haven't even used the draft pick yet and their recieving corps was an absolute joke last season due to the trade. 

 

And I'm sure there will be tons of shocked fans when Sammy gets paid this offseason and a lot of misguided "he doesn't deserve that" takes. 

nah.  it's not a matter of win or lose, but rather was the trade worth it.  it's my opinion, but i think there was zero chance sammy was coming back.  the bills felt the same, so they got something of worth for him instead of just letting him walk.  the bills got a second.  there's value there no matter what.  you, like some other posters cried and beat their chest like it would destroy the bills season.  it didn't.  the bills made the playoffs without him.  were the wrs great?  not at all, but losing sammy just wasn't that damaging.

 

and who cares what sammy is paid by another team?  there's always a team that will overpay for services.  it doesn't make sammy an all star.  he's been under productive and unimpressive during his time in the league.  his new salary doesn't change this.

 

you made us listen to cry about the losses of sammy, mike gillislee, and even kouandjio.  how about in the future, you take a step back, curb the bitching, and just see how everything plays out.  we heard you mention time and time again about how this staff doesn't know what their doing, about how the pegulas are clueless, etc. this team went to the playoffs. you were wrong, and you're not big enough to admit it.

Edited March 7, 2018 by teef

[teef]

30 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

It's a message board, lol. 

 

Sammy had a very good year in 2015 in which he was tops in the league in yards and TDs in the second half of that season. He was derailed by an injury in 2016. Losing him in 2017 cost the Bills at least one and probably two games, IMO.

 

The Bills made the playoffs thanks to playing conservative, Jauronesque football, a bend but don't break defense and the guy everyone loves to hate in Tyrod not turning the ball over on offense.

 

I believe I said the front office(McDermott/Beane) doesn't know what they are doing. And the jury is still wayyy out. I'd take MG over Mike Tolbert any day of the week.?

 

They won 9 games and backed into the playoffs thanks to a weak AFC conference.

McDermott did a fine job preparing the team on MOST Sundays this year despite some stinkers and head scratching decisions at times(Peterman for Tyrod in SD). Still it's ONE year. There are numerous examples of coaches/GMs looking like great hires after one year only to flame out the next few seasons. Let's see how they rebuild the talent they sent packing. 

 

And I am still sold the Pegulas are clueless when it comes to football. 

Most likely. 

 

Hes a better player than Adams. Hands down, IMO.

none of this still justifies how much unnecessary complaining you did.  it funny that you want to see how mcd pans out at as a coach , yet you want to bash every move this team makes the moment it happens.  bit of a double standard.  

[HappyDays]

25 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

I'd take MG over Mike Tolbert any day of the week

 

This is a good example of how you're approaching the problem wrong.

 

First of all, Gillislee had a $4 million cap hit last year. Tolbert had a $700,000 cap hit. And guess what? They had the exact same YPA last year. That alone makes it a no-brainer.

 

But it goes even further than that! See, we got a 5th round pick for Gillislee which we turned into Matt Milano. So what you just said is you'd rather pay a RB $4 million for 3.7 YPA, than pay a RB $700,000 for the same efficiency AND get a promising starter at LB on a rookie deal.

 

There is absolutely no argument to be made that the Bills made the wrong choice here. To put it bluntly - the guys currently in charge at OBD are smarter than you.

 

You're still caught up in the old Bills mindset, that we're jettisoning good players to save money. That is absolutely not the case anymore. When we let good players go we're getting picks back, and we're still spending money on players like Poyer, Hyde, or Vontae Davis. How about you let the year play out and see how it all turns out?

[GoBills808]

16 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is a good example of how you're approaching the problem wrong.

 

First of all, Gillislee had a $4 million cap hit last year. Tolbert had a $700,000 cap hit. And guess what? They had the exact same YPA last year. That alone makes it a no-brainer.

 

But it goes even further than that! See, we got a 5th round pick for Gillislee which we turned into Matt Milano. So what you just said is you'd rather pay a RB $4 million for 3.7 YPA, than pay a RB $700,000 for the same efficiency AND get a promising starter at LB on a rookie deal.

 

There is absolutely no argument to be made that the Bills made the wrong choice here. To put it bluntly - the guys currently in charge at OBD are smarter than you.

 

You're still caught up in the old Bills mindset, that we're jettisoning good players to save money. That is absolutely not the case anymore. When we let good players go we're getting picks back, and we're still spending money on players like Poyer, Hyde, or Vontae Davis. How about you let the year play out and see how it all turns out?

If last season didn't convince people that the FO knows what they're doing nothing will.

[teef]

29 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is a good example of how you're approaching the problem wrong.

 

First of all, Gillislee had a $4 million cap hit last year. Tolbert had a $700,000 cap hit. And guess what? They had the exact same YPA last year. That alone makes it a no-brainer.

 

But it goes even further than that! See, we got a 5th round pick for Gillislee which we turned into Matt Milano. So what you just said is you'd rather pay a RB $4 million for 3.7 YPA, than pay a RB $700,000 for the same efficiency AND get a promising starter at LB on a rookie deal.

 

There is absolutely no argument to be made that the Bills made the wrong choice here. To put it bluntly - the guys currently in charge at OBD are smarter than you.

 

You're still caught up in the old Bills mindset, that we're jettisoning good players to save money. That is absolutely not the case anymore. When we let good players go we're getting picks back, and we're still spending money on players like Poyer, Hyde, or Vontae Davis. How about you let the year play out and see how it all turns out?

i think you and i know that's not how our scotty works.  why wait when you can complain right now!

[GoBills808]

22 minutes ago, teef said:

i think you and i know that's not how our scotty works.  why wait when you can complain right now!

[Magox]

2 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

 

If Sammy gets a D. Adams-like contract, I imagine the reaction from many fans will be quite similar to Gilmore getting paid last offseason.

 

I'm sure that's true...I'm always watching the market because it has an impact on the whole league.  The D. Adams contract is a great example: paying $14.5M AAV for a guy that's never had 1,000 yards or come anywhere near to elite status was quite surprising to me, and I think it's going to have a ripple effect on the WR market.

It's plausible, and all it takes is one idiot GM.

 

It's hard to predict what will happen because as I mentioned, it just takes one team to set the value.

 

I'd bet my bottom dollar that if you surveyed all 32 GM's, the average salary they'd estimate his worth would be South of $10m.

 

Heck even sporttrac has him around $6-$7m. I think that is a tad low but just goes to show you there is a growing belief that he has become a disappointment relative to where he was projected to be at this stage of his career.

[teef]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Had they merely tendered MG as a 2nd round pick and paid him around $1 mil for that tender then you aren't even put in that position to match the $4 mil he got from the Patriots last year.

 

To put in bluntly, It was very convenient of you to leave all of that out of your post.?

 

Tolbert was a train wreck. MG was the best 3rd down back in the game and a very strong YPC back WITH THE BILLS.They mishandled the back up RB situation badly last year. I'm glad they are aware of that. Why do you think they just signed Ivory? 

 

Lmao.

 

What complaining? I said the Watkins trade is not even close to being established as a win for the Bills and some of you get your panties in a bunch. 

 

Let the things play out first with the 2nd round pick they got before you jump all over me for not praising McBeane up and down.

really scott?  really?

 

also, i don't need to wait to see what happens with the second.  they got a high pick for a guy that would have likely walked.  that's a win.  if watkins went to another team this offseason, and the bills were left empty handed, you wouldn't have been able to stop talking about it.  

Edited March 7, 2018 by teef

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is a good example of how you're approaching the problem wrong.

 

First of all, Gillislee had a $4 million cap hit last year. Tolbert had a $700,000 cap hit. And guess what? They had the exact same YPA last year. That alone makes it a no-brainer.

 

But it goes even further than that! See, we got a 5th round pick for Gillislee which we turned into Matt Milano. So what you just said is you'd rather pay a RB $4 million for 3.7 YPA, than pay a RB $700,000 for the same efficiency AND get a promising starter at LB on a rookie deal.

 

There is absolutely no argument to be made that the Bills made the wrong choice here. To put it bluntly - the guys currently in charge at OBD are smarter than you.

 

You're still caught up in the old Bills mindset, that we're jettisoning good players to save money. That is absolutely not the case anymore. When we let good players go we're getting picks back, and we're still spending money on players like Poyer, Hyde, or Vontae Davis. How about you let the year play out and see how it all turns out?

Don't sugar coat it Happy!