Kirby Jackson Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 Evans, woods, mike williams, TJ Graham all ran faster 40's. Try the google it's great for information like that. No offense but if you think that any of those guys is in Watkins league you haven't seen him. P.S. You forgot Goodwin and Watkins is faster than Evans.
D521646 Posted April 18, 2014 Author Posted April 18, 2014 Wow, I honestly didn't think that this would cause this much of a stir. Let me clarify my no player other than those three statement. What I meant was that IMO in a position of real need, I see no other players worth the 9th overall pick. Some like Watkins and Evans (including me at one time) but we picked up Williams who I think solved that particular problem for us. We have depth at WR, depth at TE, and Lewan is not worth the 9th pick, and Gabe Jackson in the 2nd solves that problem for us. There are a slew of talented LB and OT, OG in this draft and I trust that Whaley and Co have solid grades on exactly what they're looking for here. To me it makes perfect sense to trade back as far as reasonably possible and collect value. Tim-
Kipers Hair Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 "If Clowney and or Mack or Robinson are not there at 9, no other player is worth the 9th overall pick, IMO. I think Whaley and Co know this..." Can I ask how you know that they know this?
D521646 Posted April 18, 2014 Author Posted April 18, 2014 See above, I do NOT know it for sure, but in my analysis and breaking down the logic I see it that way. Tim-
SJDK Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) Kirby Jackson: "No offense but if you think that any of those guys is in Watkins league you haven't seen him. P.S. You forgot Goodwin and Watkins is faster than Evans." I've seen him play but picking Evans would be about his size and strength and being a redzone target that we need. I don't think Watkins is bad by any stretch, he's pretty impressive but for our needs, I feel Evans is a better fit on this team. Edited April 18, 2014 by SJDK
mrags Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 There is a difference though in that he is universally considered a top 5 pick. Everyone that does this for a living believes that. There is no debate amongst the experts. I really have seen zero people project him as a disappointment. He's an explosive athlete that is as physical as any WR coming out in a long time. In addition, he has the production to match. Whether or not you want him is different but to say that he wouldn't be good value at 9 is asinine. well. That's your opinion as well as all the "experts" that do this for a living. I personally feel he will be a disappointment. I guess well know in about 10 years for sure or not.
nucci Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 If Clowney and or Mack or Robinson are not there at 9, no other player is worth the 9th overall pick, IMO. I think Whaley and Co know this, and as luck would have it, this draft is indeed deep at the positions we really need to fill. We move back, and maybe even twice, and I think I am coming to like that strategy better. I like Evans, and Ebron, but I don't think they are sure fire hits at 9, and I wonder if others are comfortable with this if it played out this way? Thoughts? Tim- Someone has to pick 9th.
SJDK Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 well. That's your opinion as well as all the "experts" that do this for a living. I personally feel he will be a disappointment. I guess well know in about 10 years for sure or not. Word
Manther Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 Ok. Who wants to move up? And for who? And are they paying what the bills want for the pick? You don't know until the draft starts taking place. It will take players or positions to fall to create value and teams to want to move up.
thebandit27 Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 Evans, woods, mike williams, TJ Graham all ran faster 40's. Try the google it's great for information like that...IMO. I don't think it much matters, Watkins will be on a plane by pick 9 anyway. Watkins ran a 4.37 before his Jr season & an unofficial 4.34 & 4.37 in Indy. Also, Mike Williams' 40 time was 4.49...slower than Watkins official 4.43 (should I also include a snarky comment about Google?). The only WR on Buffalo's roster measurably faster than Watkins is Goodwin, and as I said, nobody on this team can do what Watkins does with his all around game. And if the justification for the Bills not needing him involves TJ Graham, well, that's just not reasonable IMO. And no, you're right, it doesn't matter...he won't make it out of the top 5.
Manther Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 You should read up a little as it's been mentioned more then once by the ppl you would think would know that this is one of the deepest drafts in recent memory Especially for WR and O line thru the entire draft!
SJDK Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) Watkins ran a 4.37 before his Jr season & an unofficial 4.34 & 4.37 in Indy. Also, Mike Williams' 40 time was 4.49...slower than Watkins official 4.43 (should I also include a snarky comment about Google?). The only WR on Buffalo's roster measurably faster than Watkins is Goodwin, and as I said, nobody on this team can do what Watkins does with his all around game. And if the justification for the Bills not needing him involves TJ Graham, well, that's just not reasonable IMO. And no, you're right, it doesn't matter...he won't make it out of the top 5. I'll concede he's 6 hundredths of a second faster than mike williams, but that still means that woods(4.41 combine), Goodwin (4.27 combine), TJ (4.39 combine). So I was very wrong and actually only already have 3 receivers faster than this exceptionally fast man. Not 1. IMO Edited April 18, 2014 by SJDK
TPS Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 I think that is possible. I was driving in Cleveland today listening to sports talk and they were debating Watkins and Manziel at 4. Whether or not people want Watkins at 9 is different than if he would be value at 9. I don't think that you will find 1 expert that doesn't think that he is value at 9. I've posted elsewhere this possibility: Cleveland picks Watkins at 4, then trades the 26, 35, 83 to bills for 9 and 109 to get their QB at 9.That gives the bills 26, 35, and 41 to meet their serious needs, and 2 thirds to fill in anything else.
SJDK Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) I've posted elsewhere this possibility: Cleveland picks Watkins at 4, then trades the 26, 35, 83 to bills for 9 and 109 to get their QB at 9. That gives the bills 26, 35, and 41 to meet their serious needs, and 2 thirds to fill in anything else. That makes sense TPS and I'd love it if it happened Edited April 18, 2014 by SJDK
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 I'll concede he's 6 hundredths of a second faster than mike williams, but that still means that woods(4.41 combine), Goodwin (4.27 combine), TJ (4.39 combine). So I was very wrong and actually only already have 3 receivers faster than this exceptionally fast man. Not 1. IMO AJ green ran a 4.5... He's not bad... Dez, Julio, you don't need a 4.30 40 to play WR
1billsfan Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 That makes sense TPS and I'd love it if it happened I see the Rams picking Watkins with an eye towards trading up for Matthews using their #13 and 2nd round pick. I see the first three picks solidifying with Texans/Clowney, Rams/Watkins, Jaguars/Mack, and the draft craziness starting with the Browns pick. The Browns may be forced to pick their QB at #4 if the guy they want is rising on draft boards and they can't trade out.
thebandit27 Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) I'll concede he's 6 hundredths of a second faster than mike williams, but that still means that woods(4.41 combine), Goodwin (4.27 combine), TJ (4.39 combine). So I was very wrong and actually only already have 3 receivers faster than this exceptionally fast man. Not 1. IMO And you're still missing the forest for the trees...IMO Edited April 18, 2014 by thebandit27
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 Doesn't trading up or down depend on your needs, and who's available? If the QBs drop then it changes things for the Bills. Some of the blue chip guys at the top will get scarfed up, and you start to ask yourself if anybody left really gives you value at 9. That doesn't mean they aren't great players who are left, but you could get them down a little bit further and an extra pick. The opposite choice would be to trade up and get a guy who you believe will help you over the mountain. I'm not so sure the Bills don't have multiple needs that can't be filled without trading down. I guess it depends how far along you think our roster is at this point. The question is one guy who makes a huge difference, or getting more quantity/quality value down the draft.
SJDK Posted April 19, 2014 Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) And you're still missing the forest for the trees...IMO I really don't think so, it's the guys with a similar frame as Watkins that don't know when to go down that make some plays, no doubt but in the NFL, I feel like it's a recipe for an injury marked career, IMO. I think we don't need him. AJ green ran a 4.5... He's not bad... Dez, Julio, you don't need a 4.30 40 to play WR You are correct, but I will take 6'5" /4.5 over 6'1" /4.43 all day Edited April 19, 2014 by SJDK
Section242 Posted April 19, 2014 Posted April 19, 2014 If a guy the Bills want falls and they've gotta move up a couple spots i'd be for it. Just as if the guy they want is expected to be available a few picks down. I wouldn't trade down too far. I look at the Julio Jones trade where Cleveland got Weeden, and then had to trade back up to get the guy they wanted in the 2011 draft in Phil Taylor.
Recommended Posts