Rocky Landing

I think I often come off as being an EJ hater. I'm not. My point in my doom and gloom scenario (not the one where Watkins gets hit by a train, but the one where EJ plays below expectations) isn't that I think it's going to happen, or that I am against the Watkins trade. (For the record, I didn't like it wham it happened, but I'm excited by it, and looking forward to see how it pans out.) My point is that it was a high risk/high return investment. Everyone knows what the potential return is-- and I'm certainly not ignoring that. But, I think a lot of fans with the rose colored glasses are utterly denying the level of risk. I think you're right that a lot of people who were against the trade have no faith in EJ. I think others are simply unconvinced, and wary of the cost.

Your arguments are becoming utterly semantic. For one thing, there is not a single person on this thread who has attempted to "quantify" anything. Quantification and valuation are two afferent things. The discussion is the value of the Watkins trade. For some reason, you are dismissing any discussion of the cost of Watkins, because you assert that the cost cannot be "quantified." But, you are more that wiling to tout the product of the trade (presumably, because Watkins lives ,and breathes, he can be "quantified"), even though the product results are equally speculative. But, then, you go on to make a value statement regarding next year's draft class! I suppose that's OK because your valuation doesn't contain any quantification?... or something? Just talking in circles, now. Here's a point I would like to make regarding the VALUE of the trade for Watkins: The VALUE of Watkins is not simply a measure of his ability, but of his production, as well. His production will be affected not only by his own ability, but by the performance of those around him, especially EJ. In other words, if EJ doesn't perform, Watkins value drops, and visa versa. So there are two plausible scenarios on which I and others have speculated on this thread that have opposite outcomes, vis a vis the value of the Watkins trade: 1) EJ perform great, Watkins performs great, and our pass production skyrockets. We win games. If at this point we don't end the season with dire needs, the value of next year's 1st rounder drops considerably, and we have made a great investment in Watkins. = Low Cost/High Return. 2) EJ is a bust. Watkins' talents are underutilized. His production is not enough to bring us up in the division. We end the season with a dire need at quarterback. In this scenario the value of our 2015 picks are much higher, and the investment in Watkins = High Cost/Low Return. These are both plausible scenarios, and one of these two things will happen to some degree. This is the nature of a High Risk/High Return investment. And, you'll notice, I didn't try to "quantify" anything.

Unfortunately, yeah. I remember a similar story regarding Tim Tebow, and we all know how that turned out. Edit: Just so we're straight, I'm NOT comparing EJ to Tebow. In fact, I'm sorta starting to drink the EJ kool-aide.

Wouldn't that be more of a libertarian agenda?

This is an absolutely silly post. Of course we can (and should) speculate on the future value of our two 2015 picks that we invested. The "value begins and ends with Sammy Watkins...(?)" I don't even know what that means. But, the assertion that you can't speculate on the value of anything until all of the "known values in the equation" are... er, "known" or something, is worthy of a face palm-- Look, here's a handy Draft Pick Value Chart: http://harvardsports...draftvalue1.jpg I'm not sure what any of that means, but I think it's pretty funny that it even exists. So, no, I can't tell you the precise value of the 2015 #1 pick we traded to Cleveland. It would be silly to try. No one can say exactly what the ROI will be on Watkins until it happens. If we did, there would be nothing to debate! But there is plenty of information, and various scenarios that make it worthy of discussion and speculation. Future values are always based on speculation-- even investments with guaranteed returns.

It's not that slippery. How many NFL players drink in their off-time?

I suppose that depends on the definition of "enhancement." I can say, with 100% certainty, that my performance in bed, and on the ski slopes is much better with a little weed. My performance on an aptitude test?... not so much.

That's not exactly true. There was quite a bit of speculation, right up until Kolb's injury (I'm not even sure which one!), as to who would be the starting QB last season. I would say that a clear majority of people on this forum argued adamantly that EJ should start right away, and anything else would be a waste of time. You might have been one of them. I was not-- and I felt distinctly in the minority.

That's really not true. We can easily place a value on future picks. (And the FO better be doing just that!) And, we can certainly discus how our current situation, and other likely scenarios will affect the value of our future picks. It's an interesting discussion. This thread is all about the perceived value of our trade-up for Watkins. How can we discus that trade, if we don't discus the potential value of what we invested?

I think this is a fair point, at least strictly in terms of numbers. But, watching the games (at least by my recollection), Tuel mostly stunk up the field. Lewis, i believe, played higher than expectations, and had clearly done his homework leading up to his performance. But, I think there was a definite difference in style, and it's easier to imagine EJ having a higher ceiling from what we saw, and Lewis less so. That's just my gut feeling, and my gut feelings are often wrong. Cute, but transparent.

That post pretty much qualifies you as a "hater."

Your post should have, "I conjectured," in quotation marks. It would still be wrong, however. I conjecture that Jauronimo was speaking in the present tense.

I agree with this. I wasn't at all happy with the trade when it went down, but it's exciting as hell. ALL IN!

In the simplest terms, the risk is that we won't get an adequate return on our investment. Our first, and fourth round picks in the next draft is our investment, which will be compounded if we have a dire need, say, at quarterback. The absolute worst case scenario is that Watkins gets hit by a train, and we get absolutely nothing for our investment. But, a more plausible scenario is that EJ plays below expectations, or gets injured again, we don't see a significant increase in our passing game, we miss out on a quality, first-round quarterback selection in the 2015 draft, and we start the 2015 season with very poor options at quarterback. That is a very real risk.

^^^You two should get a room.^^^

Training camp hasn't even begun, and already we are building the foundations for... excuses.

GMs are also looking to sell tickets, merchandise, and product sponsorship. And, considering that Sam has the #2 top selling jersey, (as a 7th round pick!), I would guess that will give him a leg up on making the final roster, IMO. The NFL is, after all, a business.

Is that not what sports journalists do in the offseason?

As a professional set-lighting technician in Los Angeles, I will take exception to your overgeneralization of the media. In fact, I've actually worked quite a bit for Fox Sports. The media are certainly whores, in that they sell themselves for money, but doesn't that just make them another business? Whores are just trying to make a living like everybody else. And, it's not entirely accurate to say, "they earn their keep by shilling for teams, coaches, and players." They're simply selling stories and opinions. The more interesting, compelling, (and yes, accurate), those stories are, the more people will watch/listen-to/read them, and the more they will be worth. They're not shilling for teams, players, and coaches. They're shilling for Coors, Budweiser, Old Spice, and, now with the newer LGBT-friendly NFL, maybe some nice designer fashions. But, don't think for a moment that these sports-media whores don't take the accuracy of their reporting seriously.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but CJ has pretty exceptional hands for a RB, no? I remember Gailey playing him for a while as a WR. EJ's going to have a lot of options out there. We didn't just draft Watkins to be an elite WR. We also drafted him because we are "all in" on EJ.

I think you are looking at it too narrowly. Speaking in terms of the thread subject, the value of Watkins should not just be confined simply to his ability, but to the impact he has on the team, and its overall value thereof. Suffice to say, if he's all he's cracked up to be, Watkins could probably make a play if Kevin Kolb were throwing to him from his hospital bed. But, would that get us to the playoffs? Not likely. Like it, or not, Watkins' effectiveness, like ALL receivers, will be inextricably linked to the person throwing to him. The debate here isn't whether or not we have drafted an elite player, but whether the value of his addition will equal, or exceed the price we paid for him. And, the tricky part is: if EJ is not up to the task, we have undermined Watkins' elitism for next season, as well as this one.

That, unfortunately, is one of the elements of the trade-up that makes it a high risk.

"Ain't," would've been more apropos. Can we get back to football, now? If it was Sam's idea to plaster their embrace all over the media (an event which lasted all of three seconds), I hope he is getting residuals.

High risk/high reward.

Trading up for Watkins was a high risk/high reward move. That term, "high risk/high reward," means that there is the potential for high net gains, as well as the potential for high net losses. (In this context, I am talking about net gains and losses in very general terms.) What the analysts are seeing (and it certainly is debatable), is that the likelihood of net losses outweighs the likelihood of net gains. It's hard for Bills fans, especially during the offseason, to take off the rose-colored glasses. But, to just look at the potential rewards, while ignoring the risks is short-sighted. And, at any rate, regardless of how Watkins pans out, it's going to be very frustrating a year from now to spend the entire first round of the draft twiddling our thumbs.