WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Now fix up the oline to give ej time and hope he progresses to be able to hit these speedsters. Completely agree.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 It's interesting that anyone who isn't 100% on board with this is questioned as a Bills fan, or is labeled overly pessimistic. Personally, I see this as a high risk, high reward. Two things have to happen for this to work out: - Watkins has to translate to the NFL. This is always a question for a rookie. That's why every year there are gems and busts. Giving up a first and a fourth for him, for any player outside of a Luck caliber QB is a risk. 1) they are all inherently risks. Every Damn pick. Let's get that out of the way first. 2) it would take a hell of a lot more than two extra picks to get an Andrew Luck. Houston was asking for a first this year plus two more, WITHOUT a talent like Luck available at QB. The price was high but fair if you think this kid can be a star receiver.
Dorkington Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 1) they are all inherently risks. Every Damn pick. Let's get that out of the way first. 2) it would take a hell of a lot more than two extra picks to get an Andrew Luck. Houston was asking for a first this year plus two more, WITHOUT a talent like Luck available at QB. The price was high but fair if you think this kid can be a star receiver. To be clear, I said that there's risk with every player. Second, I know you don't get Luck with what we gave up. But there's an increased risk with every pick we give up for someone who depends on another player for him to develop, unlike a QB, who can single handedly change a team. So, imo, it's risky to give up picks for anyone outside a QB. I want to reiterate, I'm not question Watkins's talents. He looks like a stud. Hopefully he's what we need to get the offense over the hump.
papazoid Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 this pick was about Russ and Doug mortgaging our future so they have a shot at keeping their jobs under new ownership. Sammy Watkins is a nice player, but not worth two #1's and a 4th. the bills got fleeced.
simpleman Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) What a stupid move. Then again, Whaley will not be here next year to pay for it. Justice would be if he is unemployed and out of the game for years to come. No intelligent, knowledgeable person would have made such a bonehead move. Assuming the absolute best, and Watkins is Megatron 2.0, lets look at history. Megatron year one with John Kinta throwing 4068 yards. His first year Megatron was the 3rd best receiver on the team, Behind Shaun McDonald 943 yards Roy Williams 838 yards, and just ahead of the “spectacular” Mike Furry with 664 yards. Lions season record 7-8. The next year Kinta was injured, Lions season record 0-16. The Bills have EJ Manuel, an unproven QB with an unspectacular record at QB. If he fails this year they have no #1 or #4 next year to draft his replacement. No chance to draft a Matthew Stafford like the Lions did after a horrible season. No 3 years in a row 4000 yard passer to pass the ball to Megatron 2.0. Trading number 1 picks in the future works so well. Ask Washington who was so bad after their trading away later year number 1 picks that they were the 2nd worse team this year. Nice #2 pick in this this year;s draft wasn't it? Oh yes, I smell playoffs soon in our future, NOT! Edited May 9, 2014 by simpleman
papazoid Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 two #1's is the price you pay for signing a proven FRANCHISE TAGGED PLAYER. they might as well have signed jimmy graham and given the two #1's to new Orleans. the chance of Watkins becoming a franchise tagged WR is about 10%....and his agent is freakin EUGENE PARKER......laffin
Fan in San Diego Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 In his highlight video, even took snaps in the backfield. Now that makes things interesting.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Wow this just amazes me. None of us thought that we would have a shot at Watkins and many of us thought he was one of the most talented and elite players in this draft. I like how Whaley said that the first round pick next year should be a low one. Its time to win now! I think many people do not like this trade because with the old management, they hated trading up and were very conservative. This new management is more bold and are risk takers which I love. I think you get further when you take risks and this is a great move. As far as losing our first round pick next year, I feel this will force them to be more aggressive in free agency and sign a great player. I loved this move so much my voice is raspy from all the cheering I did last night CBF
mead107 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Bill make a move and people are pissed if Bills make no move people are still pissed. if Bills had dropped down and did nothing go after a big name people would still be pissed. no pleasing everyone.. I love the pick
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 EJ has to start throwing darts instead of balloons Wha? Guessing you didn't watch many games in 2013
Dorkington Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 ...and his agent is freakin EUGENE PARKER Well, here's hoping we get him for a 5 year rookie contract
Wayne Cubed Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 two #1's is the price you pay for signing a proven FRANCHISE TAGGED PLAYER. they might as well have signed jimmy graham and given the two #1's to new Orleans. the chance of Watkins becoming a franchise tagged WR is about 10%....and his agent is freakin EUGENE PARKER......laffin Except the Bills didn't give up two 1st's. They would have had to pick a player at 9, switching the 9th pick with the 4th doesn't give up a pick. They gave up one 1st and a 4th.
dave mcbride Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) two #1's is the price you pay for signing a proven FRANCHISE TAGGED PLAYER. they might as well have signed jimmy graham and given the two #1's to new Orleans. the chance of Watkins becoming a franchise tagged WR is about 10%....and his agent is freakin EUGENE PARKER......laffin He's extremely good -- better than you apparently think he is. Enjoy it for a moment. The Bills went out and got themselves a bona fide five-star stud -- a likely difference maker. Edited May 9, 2014 by dave mcbride
truth on hold Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The "Big 3" in this draft are Clowney, Robinson, and Watkins ... the order is almost irrelevant. Just pick the one your team needs. And we got one of them. That's all I need to know. What does concern me however is our QB. Is he the type that will be able to use all these weapons?
T master Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Sammy Watkins Now if we can pick up Taj Boyd in the 5th that would be great !!
Tenhigh Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The only people upset about this trade are ones who stuggle with logic! Summarized: There is a perhaps a 20% chance we are picking in the top 10 next year. You need to be picking in the top 5 to get elite QB. Therefore, the notion that we gave away our #1 next year, which represents the QB we would need to select because EJ is bad....is a tenuous conclusion at best. It's a calculation to be sure. But, you don't make decisions based on 20% chances(which means 80% against). The chance that we gave away an opportunity to select a stud QB next year is simply too small when weighed against the probability of the other outcomes = 1. EJ good/>21st overall 2. EJ mediocre/>15th overall 3. EJ bad/>10th overall Thus, the team would have to completely implode for the pick we gave away to be capable of picking us a stud QB. Great post and right on the money....
T master Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The "Big 3" in this draft are Clowney, Robinson, and Watkins ... the order is almost irrelevant. Just pick the one your team needs. And we got one of them. That's all I need to know. What does concern me however is our QB. Is he the type that will be able to use all these weapons? He won't if he's laying on his back or running for his life ! But if he can't do it now with these weapons the EJ faithful will know he's not the guy & will know it sooner rather than later !!
nucci Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 this pick was about Russ and Doug mortgaging our future so they have a shot at keeping their jobs under new ownership. Sammy Watkins is a nice player, but not worth two #1's and a 4th. the bills got fleeced.
Brandon Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Except the Bills didn't give up two 1st's. They would have had to pick a player at 9, switching the 9th pick with the 4th doesn't give up a pick. They gave up one 1st and a 4th. I'm going to have to agree with him on that point. Any way you look at it, they have two first round picks invested in Sammy Watkins. That said, I don't think its an awful trade. A little steep, yes, but that's the price you pay if you want to keep the rest of your picks this year. Obviously, we won't know how good it actually was for a couple of years, but as I said last night, regardless of trade value, I'm pretty sure they got the right player. I like it well enough.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 I think you're getting caught up in semantics here, as is everyone. The Bills used 3 of their picks to acquire Watkins. That's a fact. They had to divest themselves of three picks to get the kid when usually it only takes one. So if one wants to say they "gave up" 2 picks then I suppose they could since it's 2 more than it usually takes but the bottom line is they needed three picks to land him. I'm not sure why people are arguing this point anyway. Was it too much? Maybe. I'm generally not in favor of giving away picks as I think you take the shotgun approach to the draft (i.e. the more pics you have the more likely you are to hit something) but my line of thinking going into this draft was that sitting pat was a mistake because the QBs weren't going to get taken in mass before the Bills picked at 9. They needed to move up and grab a dynamic player or move back and pick up some picks. They chose the former, let's hope it works out. That being said I love Watkins. He was the guy I coveted in this draft and a guy who can help Manuel develop. Read my post again. Never mind, let's try another format: The ONLY way we could not have spent 1(one) 1st round pick yesterday? Draft NOBODY. This is NOT semantics, this is about "we gave up 2 1sts" being illogical, nevermind an affront to arithmetic. 3-1 = 2. With 1(one) being the pick we were going to use no matter what...because we were not drafting: NOBODY @9. Right? Difference. Hence, minus sign. Or, "The difference between 3 and 1, is 2". The difference between taking Sammy Watkins, and staying put, is also: 2 QED It cost us 2 additional draft picks to take Watkins. We therefore "Gave Up" 2, not 3, picks to take Watkins. Once again, you cannot have your draft pick, and your player. You can have one or the other. When you pick your player in the 1st round, you give up 1(one) 1st round pick 100% of the time. We gave up 2 picks, not 3, to get to Watkins @ 5. If this continues, perhaps the next format I try should be in crayon?
Recommended Posts