What a Tuel

I read somewhere that gambling addiction affects the hamstring. Something about sweating the bet out and getting dehydrated.

Bc we have invested in players that may be able to compensate for those losses. Front 4 are mostly the same in Hughes, K. Williams, Dareus, and now we have Shaq Lawson. You've got Reggie Ragland coming back from an unfortunate injury last year. We have Lorenzo Alexander. Darby to replace Gilmore (McKelvin was #2 CB in 2014). Tre'Davious White is coming in as a rookie, so we will see. I see weakness at safety, but they tried to address in Micah Hyde, but otherwise we have a decent unit in my opinion. Let's see them play in the right system before we say they can't be good.

Maybe you went through all this already, but Bortles targeted Robinson a ton last year and simply missed. Had to be a very frustrating year for Robinson. Looking at the stats you can see a clear difference between good Bortles and bad Bortles, and it makes a world of difference. So I don't think simply targeting a player more offsets the quality of the targets (12 Bortles targets surpasses 8 Brady Targets). I do agree that quantity and quality have some correlation with each other (so maybe we agree), but I think quality has a more far-reaching impact than even that ratio. 2015 Bortles to Robinson - 153 targets 1,400 yards 14 tds 2016 Bortles to Robinson - 151 targets 883 yards 6 tds

Has anyone ever kept any of these probability calculations honest and checked their accuracy post season?

All of this talk about being .500 after 10 games is kind of weird. You guys wouldn't put the following schedule in Tyrod's hands at 5-5 in week 12? @ Chiefs vs Pats vs Colts vs Dolphins @ Pats @ Dolphins I think Tyrod gets 4 out of 6 there wayyy more likely than our rookie. Who cares about seeing what he's got at that point? Playoffs are still alive. We have to do worse than .500 for them to put Peterman in.

I'd disagree with that. Too many times we see elite QB ball placement maximize what a WR gets out of the play. Robinson is a perfect example of (edit: not) that.

While I agree he failed on the QB front, I think he'd still be GM if he didn't fail on that aspect. That may be obvious to some, but I think it is a testament of the talent he brought to the roster outside of QB.

To be fair we signed Clay in the same month we signed Tyrod. I don't think the team was aware Tyrod would struggle to utilize the middle of the field. Maybe they should have been, I don't know, but Whaley was getting putting pieces together for a good offense.

I should have corrected that but I figured youd get my point since I clarified it further in the rest of the post. "Noone is saying we didn't give up 3 picks to draft Watkins" Don't lock the thread Yolo! I'll leave it alone now!

Good stuff. Cover 1 has been doing some good breakdowns. See them a lot. I made the Julio comparisons last year. People simply say "Sammy has to earn being compared to Julio". I just don't get the need or desire of Bills fans to want get rid of a good player like Watkins. Its like an inferiority complex. "We spent too much so quick ditch him before someone laughs at us". The Bills patience will be rewarded with him. The only problem I see is if his foot is messed up beyond anything.

And I honestly have no idea why you are still arguing with me but then acting as if you aren't arguing with everyone about this. One last time, no one is arguing that we gave up 3 picks to draft Sammy. NO ONE. Stop acting like we are arguing that case. Lastly if you don't care about the method in which the GM's made the trade then fine, I do. The Bills wanted to move up. That matters. It sets the terms of the trade. What is the cost of moving up? Well Cleveland says "obviously we want your first round pick, but obviously that isn't enough because that wouldn't make sense. So...what would make it worth it for us to move back 5 spots? Eureka! Your 2015 1st and 4th!" All in all in a nutshell the Bills paid Cleveland a 2015 1st and 4th for the trouble of moving back 5 spots. If you want to say the Bills paid Cleveland a 2014 1st, and 2015 1st and 4th to draft Sammy Watkins that's fine too. It's perfectly acceptable to say either of those things. What isn't acceptable is to say the Bills traded away 2 1st round picks and used a 4th overall to draft Sammy Watkins. It is just flat out silly to say it like that because it implies that we paid for both sides of the transaction.

Why are we still arguing this? No one is arguing against the fact that Sammy Watkins cost 2 first round picks (and a 4th). We all agree on this. The entire argument is that we did ONE or the OTHER: Used 9th Overall and 2015 1st and 4th to draft Sammy Watkins OR Used 4th Overall to draft Sammy Watkins (Which had the same cost) My example of swapping 1st round picks was trying to illustrate the net effect of swapping picks through the mindset of the GM's. The Bills want to move up to #4. Moving down to #9 is a net loss for the Browns. To compensate for that net loss, the Bills offer the Browns 1st and 4th round picks in 2015. On the other hand, the Browns want to trade down. Trading down is a net loss for the Browns still. To compensate for that net loss, they asked the Bills for additional picks. The swapping of the 1st round picks sets the price the Bills have to pay to move up to counter the deficit with the Browns. But yes, it is technically "one" transaction, and you aren't wrong there. We paid 2 1sts and a 4th to draft Sammy Watkins. Like I said though. Its one side of the transaction or the other. You don't get change for a $20 bill and complain that you lost $40 when you spend the change. We did not use #4, #9, and 2015 1st and 4th rounders to draft Sammy Watkins and that's all that anyone is trying to argue against.

Eh about 48% "Sammy is a draft bust" and 48% "we used 4th overall AND traded away 9th overall and 2015 1st and 4th to draft him" and about 4% reasonable discussion. But what else are we to do in May of the offseason?

Yes. Its like you guys want to say "This guy asked me for change for a $20, and I gave him two $5s and a $10 and he gave me $20. Then I spent the $20, so now I am out $40" I don't necessarily disagree with you, its just phrasing. We used EITHER #4 overall, OR #9, and a 2015 1st and 4th rounder but not both of those.

Guys, maybe you are poking fun, but honestly it isn't that hard: Packers fan: How well do you think the Bills would do if you played in the NFC North? If you had to play us, Chicago, Minnesota and Detroit? You think you would sweep us? On topic, I'm with the rest that answered, I think we would split with 1-2 teams and sweep the other 2. So between 4-6 wins out of 8 games. On the other side, the Packers would probably make out better in the AFC East despite the Patriots. Bills have been mediocre, and the Jets/Dolphins are trash.

Its all about the language used. You switch back and forth which is part of the problem. We swapped first rounders (getting a MUCH better 1st round pick, mind you which was the point) and gave Cleveland a 2015 1st and 4th rounder. That is the best way to say it. To say we traded away 2 1st round picks to get a pick to use on Sammy Watkins sounds very much like we used 3 first round picks drafting Sammy, which isn't the case. "Swapped first rounders and gave up a 2015 1st and 4th" Can we end this discussion now?

See this is the type of stuff I can believe. If his foot was fine, they would say "where do we sign?" for him. He is a fantastic player and yes he is great. He has just been cursed with unfortunate injuries. I still think they should have rolled the dice and pick up the option though but they have more information than us.

Not to mention there are consistently subsidies being handed out to all kinds of for profit businesses. http://buffalonews.com/2013/12/19/yahoo-to-save-200-million-in-sales-tax-on-lockport-center/ For 205-390 jobs. But a football team is where we cross the line! They don't employ anyone at all.

Ok lets lay it out one more time because people are still arguing and this is more fun than doing laundry. Scenario 1: If we were to pick Sammy Watkins at #9, he would have cost us one 1st round pick. Scenario 2: If we were to swap picks with Cleveland (their 4th for our 9th) then picking Sammy Watkins, still would have cost us JUST ONE 1st round pick even though we traded our pick. Scenario 3 (reality): We swapped picks with Cleveland (thus still costing us 1 pick to pick Sammy Watkins as in scenario 2), and we gave Cleveland a 2015 1st, and 4th for their troubles. The idea that swapping 2014 1st rounders with Cleveland was "trading away a 1st round pick" is silly and misleading because we got a BETTER pick in return for swapping and that is the point of being a stickler about phrasing in this entire argument.

I wonder how many people on Kansas City's board are arguing that they traded 2 first round picks for Mahomes .

Yeah that has been my point as well. At that point if we traded away 2 1st rounders and selected Sammy Watkins then we used 3 first picks on Sammy Watkins. But that isn't how that works. We don't say that we got 2 1st rounders from Kansas City for the Mahomes deal, so why would we say we traded away 2 1st rounders in the Watkins deal? It is semantics but it matters.

I haven't seen the whole argument but as far as I saw so was K-9. K-9, on 28 May 2017 - 4:07 PM, said: Yes, we gave up two firsts and a fourth but that's not the same as saying we traded away two firsts. We used one. It may sound like semantics, but it isn't. We traded a first for a higher value first but people with agendas never seem to mention that.

Its actually the perfect way to explain the different perceptions and why people argue about it. Yes, it is simply 2 firsts and a fourth = Sammy Watkins. Plain as day. However phrase it a certain way and "the bills traded away 2 1st round picks to get a 1st round pick to use for Sammy Watkins" Sounds like a lot of picks specifically 3 1st rounders. Or phrase it another way and "the bills swapped 1st round picks, and traded 1 1st round pick to draft Sammy Watkins" Sounds like a lot less, and maybe 1 1st rounder and then 1 to draft him. Different people will apply their mindset of the trade to make it look good or bad and that doesn't sit right with the people looking at it from the other way. Exactly!

It isn't intellectually dishonest but it leaves it open to say we used 3 1st round picks on Sammy Watkins which simply isn't true. And believe me, since you say "traded away 2 1st round picks", people actually do say we used 3 1st rounders.

It is clearly two different mindsets. But realistically we got a better pick than our 2014 9th overall pick. We got 4th. So to get to 4th we traded away 2014 and 2015's 1st and a 4th rounder. Then we used the HIGHER pick that we got to draft Sammy Watkins. You guys both clearly agree that we used 2 1sts and a 4th to draft Sammy Watkins so......