Kelly the Dog

And lose twenty million in dead money?

Actively wanting to captain The Love Boat.

I'm pretty sure it's with the idea that he is going to be the starter. No way he signed a two year extension a week before the contract season unless it's for starter money.

Just on GR.

If this is just a few minutes late for a team meeting, which is likely is considering the time it happened, I'm fine with this. No chance for injury. Sets a precedent for no nonsense. Shows team they are not kidding. Not sure anything will help Dareus but maybe. I also wonder, and we will never know this, if they would have done the same thing if it were week one, or just fined or sat him a quarter or half.

This never ever ever gets old... Nsfw

It's pretty clear from both sides, if you can believe them, that the trade was agreed to before the game. It was a done deal. All that remained was convincing Pegula and McD. The particulars of the trade were agreed to, and Beane knew it was going through.

Andre used to run by and run away from defenders all the time. He was a 4.5-4.6 guy. I don't really remember him getting caught from behind. I assume it happened but surely rarely if ever.

If Beane knew the trade was going through before the game, why are they having Tyrod throw the ball to someone who isn't going to be there? How about throwing to Zay Jones or Streater or Holmes or Clay?

Good post and exactly correct.

Beane actually said today in the last minute of his GR interview that momentum for the trades picked up a couple days before the game - "and through the game" - which easily could mean that the Rams decided after seeing him that they were pulling the trigger. That is an unknown, of course. He could have been saying that in a more general sense, but it sounded to me as if he said he was talking to them during the game.

It's possible, sure. That's why I asked people if they believed he was telling the truth. If I HAD to guess I think that McD knew the trade was likely happening and that the Rams wanted to see Sammy play. If that was the case then I think he was lying and I was trying to figure out why he would say that; he surely didn't have to. That's if I HAD to guess. It's also possible but unlikely IMO that there was no showcasing going on and McD did not know at all that Sammy was about to be traded. That's weird you think that because I don't. Creepy even. I do think good, spirited conversation with varying POVs about Bills football is a good thing on a Bills message board. Frankly, it almost feels like it's something that is organic and wanted.

Yeah, I didn't think for a second while watching that they were showcasing him. But when the trade was made early the next morning after the four straight passes one could easily come to that conclusion.

McDermott looks a lot like Ron Howard.

Yeah, it's possible. It just doesn't seem likely. The truth is, like it often is, somewhere in the middle. Surely McD knew about the trade talk. Surely he knew Sammy may not be in their long term plans. MAYBE he didn't know of the Rams latest offer and the fact that Beane was trading him to the Rams early in the morning. MAYBE the four passes in a row were just a combination of wanting to get Sammy involved and Tyrod just choosing him on random plays and it had nothing whatsoever to do about showcasing. That all just seems odd. If I'm not mistaken, I would have to go back and listen, but I think Beane may have said that the trade talks with LA increased "during the game." That could explain that they saw enough and were pulling the trigger or even upping their offer.

Peter King is an excellent reporter. When he makes opinions about stuff I can take or leave him and more often find him wrong from my POV. When he just reports on things, like this, it comes from somewhere, he is not just making it up. He could be wrong of course. He obviously didn't ask each veteran what they thought of Watkins. But there is no real reason to believe this isn't true from King.

This is what Peter King said about it this morning... "Interestingly, Beane didn’t tell McDermott about his tentative deal with the Rams before their game against Minnesota. Imagine the Rams’ shock when, on the first four plays of the game on offense for Buffalo, Tyrod Taylor threw to Watkins. Beane wanted McDermott, in his first game as coach, not to be shackled but rather to be able to use his 90 players the way he saw fit. They didn’t discuss the chance for the trade until after the game."

I agree with all of that. But that's why I wanted to start the thread. I like Beane. I had believed him. He didn't need to say what I think he said, he went out of his way to. And combined with another statement it looked like it was deceitful when it didn't need to be. This could be all semantics. I am not against Beane. I actually liked everything he said in this morning's GR interview even though I hated the trades. Ha. Good point. But I wouldn't give up a second round pick and my 3 CB if I thought the guy was hurt for the fourth year in a row, no.

One of the reasons that the foot injury hurts Watkins a little more than other WRs is how quick and hard he makes his stops, cuts and his breaks. They are noticeably different than everyone else on the team. It's the reason he can get wide open on a seven yard out pass, and one of the many reasons why he is unstoppable when healthy. If I were the Rams and about to make that trade I think those four plays would seal the deal for me that he is 100% healthy.

Yeah, I think the four passes is possible but highly unlikely. Even if he was trying to do that I doubt it would be done that way. And it's possible that it just was part Tyrod looking over the defense and deciding that the go-to guy on that call vs that defense was Sammy. It just seemed to me impossible that McD didn't know about the LA offer before the game and there was no showcasing. It's possible. That's why I started the thread to discuss the disparate sides and to see what people thought. Like you, I think the whole thing was depressing. I liked Beane until the trade. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I understood the other side and why he did it I just violently disagreed with it. But then I thought he was not being forthright about how it happened for no reason and it made me distrust him a little more when I don't want to. That was the idea of the thread. I actually want smart posters to convince me that he wasn't being dishonest. Humans on Earth? That's an interesting thought. I have no idea if that would have mattered either way. But it's a great point to ponder. I guess I believe they still would have made the trade, or else one of the other teams interested, after seeing that, could have upped the ante and we got more for him. One of the many bad ideas IMO about the trade is that we didn't get nearly enough for him. But Beane came right out and said he didn't discuss it with McD. That is the point of the thread. Beane said he told McD about it after the game.

Yeah, I mentioned that in the "And Sammy even says he thinks it was" part.

I could be wrong but I thought he may have been aware that there were four teams that had called and asked about Watkins, and that McD knew about that. But he didn't know about LA's recent offer or that any trade was imminent and that Sammy's action in the game had zero to do with any trade offer, meaning McD didn't know of the LA offer so there was no showcasing whatsoever.

The old man? Please just respond to the post. You believe it was just coincidence and that McD had no idea Beane was about to trade the HC's star player?

No. Not at all. He wouldn't have told TT and not McD.

I thought this concept deserves its own thread. Perhaps MODS don't. You decide. Brandon Beane, who for the most part I very much like, even though I hated the trades, said on WGR I believe that he never discussed the trade possibilities with Opie until AFTER the game against the Vikings. He never brought it up. That means they weren't auditioning Sammy for the Rams or the other three teams that expressed interest by the first four plays all going to Watkins. Frankly, I find that very hard to believe on both counts. That he hadn't discussed the trade with McDermott, and that it was just coincidence that four plays in a row out of a possible four went to SW. Now granted, everyone knows that what GMs say to the press and public have to be taken with grain of salt. But he didn't at all have to say it this way, and went out of his way, AFTER the trade, to say that Opie knew nothing about it, and it wasn't an audition. And Sammy even says he thinks it was. That really makes me, personally, not believe Beane for the first time, early in his tenure. And it will take some time to make me believe he is being forthright with the press and the fans. Not a good way to start, and it seems like it was an unforced error. So, do you believe Beane that he never discussed the trade before the Vikes game AND the four straight passes to Sammy were just coincidence? Or that Beane lied about it? And can you think of a good reason why he would lie about this particular thing.