C.Biscuit97 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 What that means is that Stevie is in pretty darn good company for a 6th round pick.......putting up similar stats to Eric Moulds and Andre Reed (both considered top receivers of their times) I will take that...... 7th round Slight correction - I'm guessing you know secondhand... Fair enough. I know a few of the guys. SJ is without a doubt the guy the young receivers look up too. He might be more positive about Buffalo than peopel who grew up here. It won't go over well. It's a business. They all know that. None of them are mad at Byrd. Byrd left for money reasons and didn't want to be here. Stevie LOVES it here and doesn't want to leave. huge difference.
dave mcbride Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 We're coming at this from different angles. I'm not trying to say who the best receiver is. I was a big fan of Evans and Moulds and Reed favorite player of all time. I'm saying that SJ is one of the most productive players in history, is entering the prime of his career, isn't making a ton of money this year, doesn't have legal issues, so why trade him? Also, let's rank the talent around SJ, Evans, Reed, and Moulds. Receiver is the most dependent position in the NFL. do you really not believe SJ played with the least talented group of the 4? I think that Evans played with very little talent and with QBs who were significantly worse than Fitz. Reed played for a team that led the league in rushing every year in its peak years (which cuts into production). Having said all of this, I think Johnson is a solid player who certainly has the capability to remain productive for a couple more seasons provided the leg injuries don't persist. I'm in favor of keeping him unless trading him would result in the Bills getting Sammy Watkins. I don't that's very likely, as you can probably gather from my earlier post. In any event, I suspect that Watkins will be an absolute stud - a real difference maker. Fair point. But what's the rush to get rid of him this year? Whether people here believe it or not, I know firsthand SJ is one of the most popular players in that lockerroom. A SJ trade would go over really, really bad there. I like him too, and I don't think he's tradeable because of the contract.
FireChan Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) 7th round Fair enough. I know a few of the guys. SJ is without a doubt the guy the young receivers look up too. He might be more positive about Buffalo than peopel who grew up here. It won't go over well. Byrd left for money reasons and didn't want to be here. Stevie LOVES it here and doesn't want to leave. huge difference. But we'd be trading Stevie for money/pick reasons. The players don't get it both ways. They can't give up team loyalty for cash and then cry when the team isn't loyal to them. Edited April 24, 2014 by FireChan
Kirby Jackson Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Fair point. But what's the rush to get rid of him this year? Whether people here believe it or not, I know firsthand SJ is one of the most popular players in that lockerroom. A SJ trade would go over really, really bad there. I don't think that anyone is rushing to get rid of SJ (or CJ for that matter) but if they can be used to upgrade the team than go for it. If anyone is advocating cutting Stevie, that is a bad idea. If you can use him to move up for Watkins, that is a good idea. You would be getting a better player (IMO) and freeing up cap space to work on extending Dareus and Hughes. Edited April 24, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I don't think that anyone is rushing to get rid of SJ (or CJ for that matter) but if they can be used to upgrade the team than go for it. If anyone is advocating cutting Stevie, that is a bad idea. If you can use him to move up for Watkins, that is a good idea. You would be getting a better player (IMO) and freeing up cap space to work on extending Dareus and Hughes. I get that. I think people are assuming way too much on unproven college players. My whole philosophy is let's see who productive players do with more talented players around them. I loved Fitz' attitude but he didn't open things up for SJ and CJ. 3 first year QBs didn't either.
Buftex Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 If the Bills are talking about dealing Stevie I would imagine that they are trying to get Watkins or Evans. Maybe it would be something like Stevie & 9 to his hometown Raiders for the 5th pick? I mentioned it in another thread but McShay was saying that the Raiders love Lewan. There would still be a good chance that he would be there at 9. The Bills could get 1 of the elite players (if Stevie is going its probably WR) & the Raiders would get a good WR & the OT that they want. Its' hard to say this, without sounding like a Steve Johnson "hater", but don't you think the Raiders could get more than that for the #5 pick in the draft. I know, it is only moving up 4 spots, but guys like Stevie are not going to garner a ton of trade value, IMO. If the Bills were to trade him, straight up, for a draft pick, I would be surprised if they got more than a 5th rounder for him...and I like the guy. I could see that trade with the Raiders, possibly, but I would bet the Raiders would want another pick as well...say a third rounder.
Kirby Jackson Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I get that. I think people are assuming way too much on unproven college players. My whole philosophy is let's see who productive players do with more talented players around them. I loved Fitz' attitude but he didn't open things up for SJ and CJ. 3 first year QBs didn't either. Watkins is kind of an exception though. Andrew Luck was unproven too but everyone would have been very surprised if he didn't end up being a good pro. Watkins is better than Stevie right now IMO. He is more explosive, had better hands and is more physical. He is not quite the route runner yet but he is polished. Watkins is very safe. Evans is a little different. He has a high ceiling but is a little raw. I could see him being a red zone weapon early but a year or so from being a consistent contributor. The point is that you can't just lump college players together. It will be shocking if Jake Mathews isn't a good pro. He may not have the upside of Robinson or Lewan but his floor is a solid starter for 10 years. Its' hard to say this, without sounding like a Steve Johnson "hater", but don't you think the Raiders could get more than that for the #5 pick in the draft. I know, it is only moving up 4 spots, but guys like Stevie are not going to garner a ton of trade value, IMO. If the Bills were to trade him, straight up, for a draft pick, I would be surprised if they got more than a 5th rounder for him...and I like the guy. I could see that trade with the Raiders, possibly, but I would bet the Raiders would want another pick as well...say a third rounder. I think that they may be able to get more. I would think that the 9th pick and a 3rd rounder could get you from 9 to 5 based on why Miami spent last year to move up. I think that the depth of the draft has teams more willing to move back so the cost to go up will be less. If Lewan is their guy and they can still get him plus a good WR they may do it. I am not saying that it is likely but on the surface it makes some sense.
GunnerBill Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I tried to say this earlier, but I don't think it posted so I'll repeat it and apologies if it did post earlier in the thread... This comes down to - Are the Bills in "win now" mode? Does the front office and the Head Coach honestly believe that EJ can play well enough and the defense can improve sufficiently against the run to get us to the play-offs this year? Because if they do then it would be madness to trade Stevie Johnson this off-season. As has already been stated rookie wide receivers rarely post huge numbers in year 1. If they don't think those two things are ready to happen and they thing that 8-8 would be ok for this year then they could think about trading Stevie if they think they can get up for Watkins or Evans and they honestly believe that one of those guys is going to be elite down the road. I'd be just about ok with it in those circumstances, although I'd be wary about trading Johnson unless I'm 100% convinced Williams can behave. Because if he can't all of a sudden you have your rookie, Woods, Goodwin and TJ Graham, which is a downgrade on last year.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 But we'd be trading Stevie for money/pick reasons. The players don't get it both ways. They can't give up team loyalty for cash and then cry when the team isn't loyal to them. There is no loyalty in the game.... They may maintain an appearance of loyalty for specific players because there is an acute understanding of how important it is to fan perception. You don't get to be an elite businessmen in this world by letting loyalty trump your judgments, unfortunately.
thebandit27 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 There is no loyalty in the game.... They may maintain an appearance of loyalty for specific players because there is an acute understanding of how important it is to fan perception. You don't get to be an elite businessmen in this world by letting loyalty trump your judgments, unfortunately. My experience has been the exact opposite. I'm not personally among the business elite, but I have face-to-face interaction with those that are...and they're nothing like this...at all.
The Voice of Truth Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Until EJ proves he can consistently deliver the ball, it doesn't matter who our receivers are. We could have a lineup of Watkins, Stevie, Woods, Williams and Goodwin, but if EJ doesn't prove he is at least a good NFL passer, we'll just end up a team with a bunch of frustrated receivers and a below average offense.
BobChalmers Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Why would anyone expect a WR/QB to have developed chemistry in 10 games? I think the disconnect between EJ and Stevie was glaring when compared with Woods especially and the other young WRs to a lesser degree. There were just a whole pile of plays where it was clear the two weren't on the same page in ways we didn't see with Woods. Now - it's possible that's all on EJ but it's clear they were struggling to get on the same page. Until EJ proves he can consistently deliver the ball, it doesn't matter who our receivers are. We could have a lineup of Watkins, Stevie, Woods, Williams and Goodwin, but if EJ doesn't prove he is at least a good NFL passer, we'll just end up a team with a bunch of frustrated receivers and a below average offense. No doubt EJ still needs to improve (a fair bit) BUT Did Woods look frustrated to you last season? Edited April 24, 2014 by BobChalmers
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I think the disconnect between EJ and Stevie was glaring when compared with Woods especially and the other young WRs to a lesser degree. There were just a whole pile of plays where it was clear the two weren't on the same page in ways we didn't see with Woods. Now - it's possible that's all on EJ but it's clear they were struggling to get on the same page. No doubt EJ still needs to improve (a fair bit) BUT Did Woods look frustrated to you last season? No offense but this completely false. After his first 3 games, SJ was on pace for the best season of his career. 14 catches for like 237 and 2 tds.
Maury Ballstein Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Let's trade him to the pats with that bum CJ spiller as well so I can step my troll game up exponentially.
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Let's trade him to the pats with that bum CJ spiller as well so I can step my troll game up exponentially. Haha. After all the studs SJ has played with, it'd be a major step down to Tommy boy. Plus with that scrub Brady, CJ would probably have to face 11 guys in the box. They both would suck there.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) My experience has been the exact opposite. I'm not personally among the business elite, but I have face-to-face interaction with those that are...and they're nothing like this...at all. Sure they are. They are also good at masking it. I've now played in this world interacting with the c suite for 5ish years. I've had several discussions with collegeues in M&A on the topic who mix in even bigger/higher circles, as I was coming to realize it on my own. It's more ruthless than I'd ever imagined. Not to a man, but most often by far. It's just bad business to let emotions cloud judgement. Loyalty is an emotion and therefore unless providing the perception of loyalty is important to the product, it's not a factor. And mind you it's not should I be loyal... It's should I act like I am loyal? If you want to ignore me, start reading bios of the mega biz icons. Welch, immelt, Jobs, Gates... If you want loyalty get a dog, don't look at your CEO.... Edited April 24, 2014 by over 20 years of fanhood
thebandit27 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Sure they are. They are also good at masking it. I've now played in this world for 5ish years. I've had several discussions with collegeues in M&A on the topic who mix in even bigger circles, as I was coming to realize it on my own. It's more ruthless than I'd ever imagined. Not 100% but most often by far. It's just bad business to let loyalty cloud judgement unless providing the perception of loyalty is important to the product. If you want to ignore me, start reading bios of the mega biz icons. Welch, immelt, Jobs, Gates... If you want loyalty get a dog, don't look at your CEO.... CEOs and business elite are not one in the same...and as I said, the vast majority of the multi-millionaire business people with whom I deal are nothing like that. In fact, it's been my experience that they bend over backwards to help the people around them become successful. I'm sorry if your experiences have shown you differently. I do think that you're incorrect in painting the majority that way, and as a side note, I've read MANY bios (and autobios) of the Forbes 400...they don't speak to any of that. Anyway, we're well outside the bounds of the discussion topic at hand, so if you want to discuss further, feel free to PM...I'm gonna leave my comments at this...
BillsBytheBay Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Again, if the objective is winning, you don't let your best Safety walk, and then draft a replacement for him in the 1st round, and you don't get rid of your best receiver, and draft a replacement for him in the 1st round. All you're doing is spinning the wheels. It makes absolutely no sense for the Bills to trade Stevie Johnson and then look to draft someone to replace him. this has been my response to the steve trade talk for a while. I would rather he be out played by another player on the team, than discarded for a pick (witch really is a Crap shoot).
Rubes Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 People always seem to overestimate the trade value of their own team's players. At this point in his career, with his history of antics and injuries, we'd be lucky to get a 5th for him. Maybe, maybe, a 4th. But I doubt that. Even considering trading our #9 + Stevie to move up is foolish. It would take our #9, Stevie, and considerably more. But we're not trading him anyway.
Recommended Posts