BringBackOrton

Incredibly, I've said 2 firsts this entire time and I'm getting the most pushback.

I was referring to the 2018 first as the "extra" first. Don't you consider the 2018 #1 "extra?" My argument was that I view the Mahomes trade as the Bills trading back, getting #27 and the 2018 #1. I'd say we got two first in the trade. Yes, it was offset from losing #10, but that's a given IMO. And I'm just applying that logic to the Watkins trade.

Look at all the intellectually dishonest posters who clearly just hate Sammy!

No, they couldn't have netted two. Let's check your equation. So they got one first. Even though KC traded both #27 and and first in 2018, we only got one first? You actually answered the exact question you quoted with a question, instead of an answer. The banter is less cute and impressive when you're wrong.

It matters because posters like yourself make stupid leaps that because I'm honest about what Sammy cost, you immediately paint me as a Sammy hater. I like Sammy the player on the Bills, I think he's super talented, and I respected the thought behind the trade at the time. And I don't want him traded. So instead of you making an ass out of yourself, why don't you go stay in your lane in the UFO topics and be quiet?

How many picks did the Bills get from trading out of #10 this year? Have you been running around calling folks "intellectually dishonest" for saying we netted an extra first and pick #27?

A non answer is the white flag. How many picks did the Browns get from the trade? 2 right? No one says the Browns traded pick #4 for ONE first round pick. Tell me the Browns traded pick #4 for one first round pick K-9. Please. Do it. Be that intellectually bankrupt.

It's laborious and boring because your argument is so bizarre. How many picks did the Browns get from the trade? 2 right? No one says the Browns traded pick #4 for ONE first round pick. I clearly applied your fever dream of an argument to analogous situation to demonstrate how absurd you were acting. Like I said, can't get through to some people.

I get what you're saying. I think you understand what I'm saying. K-9 is arguing that Sammy and Cooks cost the same amount of draft picks. There's no getting to some people who need to tie themselves in mental knots to defend the Bills.

Wow, so the Sammy and Cooks trades cost the same amount. What a deal. If the Browns had drafted Watkins at #4, then called the Bills right after and traded his rights for the exact same terms, would what we "traded" change? It shouldn't right? It shouldn't make a lick of difference, because the end result is the same. No pick #9, no pick #19 no 4th rounder and Sammy Watkins as a Bill.

I think about it like this. If the Browns had drafted Watkins at #4, then called the Bills right after and traded his rights for the exact same terms, would what we "traded" change? It shouldn't right? It shouldn't make a lick of difference, because the end result is the same. No pick #9, no pick #19 no 4th rounder and Sammy Watkins as a Bill.

I think K-9 is projecting when he claims me being intellectually dishonest. No one says that NE didn't trade one first to the Saints for Cooks because he was drafted with a first round pick. If NE traded a single first for Cooks, the Bills could not have also traded a single first for Watkins. It's that simple. Any other semantic argument under the guise of claiming "dishonesty," is clearly a projection of his own spin zone.

How many picks did NE trade for Brandin Cooks? It really is. The trade doesn't occur if we just trade pick #8 or the 2015 1st. We needed both. Two. 2.

Maybe you should try reading. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/194184-rumor-bills-will-entertain-trade-offers-for-watkins/page-16?do=findComment&comment=4392077 It. Was. Still. Trading. Two. First. Round. Picks. Period.

Yeah, that was unclear, pick at #9 in 2014 and pick at #19 in 2015. That's two firsts, by my reckoning, both used in the trade as reported straight from the NFL.

EJ was pick #16, right? You're blowing my mind.

Nothing convenient about it. The trade was 2 firsts to move up to #4. A net loss of one first. But if we traded "1" first round pick to get to #4, why didn't we have a pick at #8 or in 2015? No way! Crunch the numbers and let us know! Cite or go home, remember?

Dez posted 1320 yards and 16 TD's with 136 targets. Sambo got 128 targets in his only full year and posted 982 yards and 6 TD's. Flies in the "just get him as many targets!" argument, doesn't it? I suppose 8 more targets could've been all TD catches for 100 yards each.

Maybe Sammy could've gotten more targets if he could stay on the field. Around and around it goes. Dez didn't miss a single game in that 3 year stretch. Sammy hasn't played 16 games since he was a rookie.

Sure, he has. But not as bad as Swat. Sammy Watkins snap count in 2016? 35%. Dez in his worst year in 2015? 43%. And we all know it's oranges to orangutans because Dez posted three straight seasons of 1300~ yards and 12+ TD's just a year before. Shocking that he gets more slack than the kid who broke 1000 yards once.

They are your links, link man. Now they aren't good enough, I see. They used to "prove" how available Sammy is. Uh oh.

Well, no. It was 79% in both. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BryaDe01/fantasy/

Well that's a false choice.

Not sure why you're getting your back up. You asked me to cite games, now you're getting salty. Not to the extent of Swat, I'm afraid. Julio in his third year. Snap percentage 86%. Sammy in his third year. Snap percentage 75%. Dez has never had his season-long snap percentage be less than 79%.

For those who love Julio Jones comps. Julio in his third year. Snap percentage 86%. Sammy in his third year. Snap percentage 75%.