Coach Tuesday Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Just now, teef said: they decided to move on from him...that's really the point. they used a draft pick to get him, and still let him walk, only to use another pick to replace him, and give him the same kind of money. if they thought sammy was worth it, i'm sure they would have kept him. Stick to the comedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Just now, Coach Tuesday said: Maybe they wanted injury protections and the Chiefs were more flexible? Maybe they didn’t want to commit the $30 MILLION guaranteed that the Chiefs ponied up? The Rams (and other teams, including I believe the Cowboys) also were bidders. so your saying is there are multiple teams that would have been disappointed with sammy last year? Just now, Coach Tuesday said: Stick to the comedy. what did i say that was wrong? nothing at all. you just can't cope with it for some reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 minute ago, teef said: they decided to move on from him...that's really the point. they used a draft pick to get him, and still let him walk, only to use another pick to replace him, and give him the same kind of money. if they thought sammy was worth it, i'm sure they would have kept him. If I'm not mistaken, they got a third round comp pick when Sammy signed with the Chiefs--not a lot less than what they paid the Bills for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Coach Tuesday said: Maybe they wanted injury protections and the Chiefs were more flexible? Maybe they didn’t want to commit the $30 MILLION guaranteed that the Chiefs ponied up? The Rams (and other teams, including I believe the Cowboys) also were bidders. So you don't know then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said: So you don't know then. I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract. Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed. It’s an incredibly weak take. 5 minutes ago, teef said: so your saying is there are multiple teams that would have been disappointed with sammy last year? what did i say that was wrong? nothing at all. you just can't cope with it for some reason. I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract. Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed. It’s an incredibly weak take. I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.” So the Rams decided to pay Cooks more than Sammy got, and to give up a 1st for the right to do so. Yeah, seems like they were real aggressive going after Sammy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Since Beane in all his brilliance dumped Sammy, going on 3 years later I'm still trying to figure out who on our team can do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qObCK9t0vc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 11 minutes ago, mannc said: If I'm not mistaken, they got a third round comp pick when Sammy signed with the Chiefs--not a lot less than what they paid the Bills for him. but then they still used a first to get another wr. if sammy was their guy, wouldn't it have been easier just to give him the contract and keep the first rounder? 9 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract. Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed. It’s an incredibly weak take. I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.” again, how am i wrong. what's weak about my take. i'd like to hear a real answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, SWATeam said: So the Rams decided to pay Cooks more than Sammy got, and to give up a 1st for the right to do so. Yeah, seems like they were real aggressive going after Sammy... They valued Cooks more. That doesn’t mean they “let Sammy go” because he “sucked.” You people bad argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 Just now, Coach Tuesday said: They valued Cooks more. That doesn’t mean they “let Sammy go” because he “sucked.” You people bad argue. they let sammy go because he wasn't productive enough. they used a pick on sammy, he didn't produce, so they used a first round pick to snag a wr that actually worked out for them. if sammy was their guy, why were they willing to use more capital to grab cooks? they loved cooks so much more? ok. at least cooks is earning his salary. sammy is stealing his. you just don't like what you're hearing, so you're telling us we're bad at arguing. take of the blinders bud. they moved on from sammy for a reason, and it wasn't just because they were so enamored with cooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, teef said: but then they still used a first to get another wr. if sammy was their guy, wouldn't it have been easier just to give him the contract and keep the first rounder? again, how am i wrong. what's weak about my take. i'd like to hear a real answer. By your “logic” Cooks sucks because the Patriots were willing to trade him. 1 minute ago, teef said: they let sammy go because he wasn't productive enough. they used a pick on sammy, he didn't produce, so they used a first round pick to snag a wr that actually worked out for them. if sammy was their guy, why were they willing to use more capital to grab cooks? they loved cooks so much more? ok. at least cooks is earning his salary. sammy is stealing his. you just don't like what you're hearing, so you're telling us we're bad at arguing. take of the blinders bud. they moved on from sammy for a reason, and it wasn't just because they were so enamored with cooks. Stop being so dense. From the horse’s mouth. Sammy was Plan A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) I tried looking up Sammy Watkins so I could best remember how everything played out but all the search results came back talking about injuries. Foot, head, ribs, chest. Etc. My breaks over, I won’t ever find the reason why this guy can’t stick with a team. Edited June 26, 2019 by CommonCents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: By your “logic” Cooks sucks because the Patriots were willing to trade him. no actually. that's not my logic at all. i'm not sure how a person can actually come up with that conclusion. all i'm saying is that if sammy did what he should have with his one (yes only one) year with the rams, i'm sure they would have done what was needed to keep him. sammy didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere. that's the reality. you can turn it into a scenario where the rams where so in love with cooks that they just needed to use a first on him, but that would be trying too hard. Edited June 26, 2019 by teef 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 (edited) I don't care what other teams did or did not do with Sammy. He WAS the best WR we had in a very long time and better than anyone else we've had since. I'd take him for only 8 games over Foster, Zay, Kaelin Clay, Deonte Thompson, Ray Ray McCloud, McKenzie, Kelvin Benjamin, Jordan Matthews ... I like some of the things Beane and McDermott have done, but their handling or lack thereof the WR position is NOT one of them. Especially when one is trying to develop a young QB. Edited June 26, 2019 by reddogblitz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 46 minutes ago, teef said: maybe. i don't care. all i know is sammy hasn't lived up to his athletic ability. Talking that stuff that they don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 28 minutes ago, mannc said: What's your opinion of the decision to decline Watkins's fifth-year option? I think it's a pretty tough decision to defend. I've answered it up thread but I'll say that in addition to all the positives he brings, he also brought his self admitted immaturity and the injuries that limited his availability to a new coach seeking to create his own culture with his own philosophies and his own "process" which is his prerogative as a head coach. And a new coach trying to do that requires total buy in from everyone, especially his best players, and Sammy wasn't about a team first mentality which, again, he admitted to. So while I would have preferred to keep Sammy, I can totally understand why he was traded and even though I didn't like it, I can respect the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract. Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed. It’s an incredibly weak take. There are a lot of things that get widely reported that just aren't true or stretched. I think 3 years/$48 million is a good contract, it's not a monster contract. Since the Rams went after Cooks, we know they had the money to sign Sammy. They could have tagged him as well in which didn't. Is it really a weak take? Sammy's numbers are just slightly better than Chris Hogan's. Not saying they are the same level player but to pay a "monster" contract, you shouldn't have pedestrian numbers. As I pointed out before, you can have two WR on a team with good numbers so that's not a good excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 2 hours ago, teef said: Do you really not understand how foolish this sounds? What exactly did Sammy do to help these fantastic offenses? https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-back-foot-54-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-on-the-run-38-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins these two plays alone are worth 16 mil considering the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 44 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.” If I didn't know any better, I'd interpret this as you calling me unfunny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 25 minutes ago, teef said: no actually. that's not my logic at all. i'm not sure how a person can actually come up with that conclusion. all i'm saying is that if sammy did what he should have with his one (yes only one) year with the rams, i'm sure they would have done what was needed to keep him. sammy didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere. that's the reality. you can turn it into a scenario where the rams where so in love with cooks that they just needed to use a first on him, but that would be trying too hard. Now I know you're just Teefing my Gugny. Read the article I linked. It quotes actual first-hand sources. It's pretty clear what happened. The Rams' Plan A was to keep Sammy. They tried. KC offered him $30M guaranteed and he bolted. They then turned to using their #23 pick to acquire a replacement and reached out to the Patriots about Cooks. At that point their options were more limited and they did what they had to do. Doesn't mean Sammy "didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere." You're pushing a false narrative (a) because you find it fun, and (b) because you don't really follow football too closely. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts