OCinBuffalo Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) We spent 2 first round picks on one player, this is without question. We gave up one first round pick. Semantics aside, you are a bit high-strung my friend, maybe you need to spend a couple of days in Boulder? Hmmm....and what was the other "spending" option with the 5th overall pick we got, for our 9th overall, besides drafting a player? Were we going to spend it on....a new stadium? Private security to follow Mike Williams around? Nope. We were going to spend 1(one) 1st round draft pick, whether we stayed at 9, or moved 5. How do we know that? Well, what is the normal difference between 1...and 1? What is 1-1? That's right: 0. Thus, there is 0 difference between staying at 9, and going to 5, in terms of drafting one player: both cost you 1(one) 1st round draft pick. However, moving to 5, ALSO costs you 1 2015 1st, and 1 2015 4th. Otherwise known as: 2 picks. Therefore, this has nothing to do with semantics. This has to do with bastardization of arithmetic. You can't pretend that "we spent 2 first round picks" is accurate, when we were going to "spend" 1 first round pick no matter what. EDIT: This is not distinction, without difference. This is both distinction and real difference, hence, not semantic. Edited May 9, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Win. Watkins is a TRUE offensive weapon unlike anything we've seen in Buffalo since Eric Moulds. IT'S ABOUT DAMNED TIME.
bobobonators Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Win. Watkins is a TRUE offensive weapon unlike anything we've seen in Buffalo since Eric Moulds. IT'S ABOUT DAMNED TIME. Agreed.
papazoid Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 winning.... calvin Johnson, andre Johnson, Brandon marshall, Antonio brown, dez Bryant, larry fitgerald, josh Gordon. what do all the pro bowl recievers have in common ? none got their teams to the playoffs.
Dorkington Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Jesus... this got nasty Even if I think it's risky, I'm still excited to see what a combination the following can do: Watkins Johnson Williams Woods Goodwin Graham That's a lot of play making potential there. Hopefully we grab a solid OL with our next couple picks, give EJ some time to throw the ball, and make some stuff happen.
Doc Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 winning.... calvin Johnson, andre Johnson, Brandon marshall, Antonio brown, dez Bryant, larry fitgerald, josh Gordon. what do all the pro bowl recievers have in common ? none got their teams to the playoffs. Ever.
Acantha Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Watkins Johnson Williams Woods Goodwin Graham Graham has to be gone. I've given the guy a lot of slack, but he's shown nothing since he's been here. He may have better luck elsewhere, but he needs to go. I think Easley sticks around due to his ST play.
Big C Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Hmmm....and what was the other "spending" option with the 5th overall pick we got, for our 9th overall, besides drafting a player? Were we going to spend it on....a new stadium? Private security to follow Mike Williams around? Nope. We were going to spend 1(one) 1st round draft pick, whether we stayed at 9, or moved 5. How do we know that? Well, what is the normal difference between 1...and 1? What is 1-1? That's right: 0. Thus, there is 0 difference between staying at 9, and going to 5, in terms of drafting one player: both cost you 1(one) 1st round draft pick. However, moving to 5, ALSO costs you 1 2015 1st, and 1 2015 4th. Otherwise known as: 2 picks. Therefore, this has nothing to do with semantics. This has to do with bastardization of arithmetic. You can't pretend that "we spent 2 first round picks" is accurate, when we were going to "spend" 1 first round pick no matter what. EDIT: This is not distinction, without difference. This is both distinction and real difference, hence, not semantic. We spent 2 firsts, we gained a first. So the net loss was one first. That's all there is to it. I can't believe this is still going on.
st pete gogolak Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 When I saw JAX pick Bortles, I thought someone I really wanted (Evans or Matthews) might have a chance to slid to 9. I HATED the trade when I saw the Bills move up to 4. Bad teams should never give up next year's #1. But look how the draft played out. Evans and Matthews gone. Look who was actually picked at 9 - one trick pony Anthony Barr. What would this board have looked like if we stuck at 9 and picked Taylor Lewan or Zack Martin? Face it. At 9, the Bills were stuck in no man's land. Too low to get a true blue chip and too high to get a "value" pick. Trade back you say? With whom? For whom? Maybe St. Louis trades up to get Donald. But what do you get? An extra 3? I still don't love the trade but I don't hate it either. Whaley was aggressive in going after the consensus #2 player in the draft. They are now in a position to trade Stevie for a #4 or #5 and recoup the 2015 #4. As long as they are not a bottom ten team next year, they make out ok with the trade. Of course, it all comes down to Manuel, but that would have been true no matter who they picked.
GG Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Jesus... this got nasty Even if I think it's risky, I'm still excited to see what a combination the following can do: Watkins Johnson Williams Woods Goodwin Graham That's a lot of play making potential there. Hopefully we grab a solid OL with our next couple picks, give EJ some time to throw the ball, and make some stuff happen. Definitely a logjam in the middle. There is no room for both Stevie and Williams in the game plan. Too many bodies to spread the ball to.
Dorkington Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Definitely a logjam in the middle. There is no room for both Stevie and Williams in the game plan. Too many bodies to spread the ball to. The awesome thing is, we have a lot of talent to choose from. Training camp and pre-season will have these guys putting forth their absolute best to get playing time.
Lurker Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 But to me, the essential element is, it's easier to find two very good players than it is to find one star player. I would trade two very good players for a star or stud any day. That's the fundamental calculus that makes this a winning move, IMO.
CountDorkula Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Love it, It is bold, something the BIlls have not been for awhile. I would love it this scenario played out ater the day is over. Rd 1 - Watkins Rd 2 - Kunadijo (sp?) Rd 3 - Taj Boyd/ Aaron Murray/Zac Mettenberger
dayman Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 When I saw JAX pick Bortles, I thought someone I really wanted (Evans or Matthews) might have a chance to slid to 9. I HATED the trade when I saw the Bills move up to 4. Bad teams should never give up next year's #1. But look how the draft played out. Evans and Matthews gone. Look who was actually picked at 9 - one trick pony Anthony Barr. What would this board have looked like if we stuck at 9 and picked Taylor Lewan or Zack Martin? Face it. At 9, the Bills were stuck in no man's land. Too low to get a true blue chip and too high to get a "value" pick. Trade back you say? With whom? For whom? Maybe St. Louis trades up to get Donald. But what do you get? An extra 3? I still don't love the trade but I don't hate it either. Whaley was aggressive in going after the consensus #2 player in the draft. They are now in a position to trade Stevie for a #4 or #5 and recoup the 2015 #4. As long as they are not a bottom ten team next year, they make out ok with the trade. Of course, it all comes down to Manuel, but that would have been true no matter who they picked. Agreed. This is exactly as I see it. In the end, we got Watkins...and the way the draft played out...that was huge. We'll get the 4 back, the key is not to suck next year and have traded a top 10 pick.
truth on hold Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Definitely a logjam in the middle. There is no room for both Stevie and Williams in the game plan. Too many bodies to spread the ball to. I don't know why people keep assuming this spells a quick exit for SJ. For one thing who would trade any decent pick for an oft-injured, high priced WR with lingering head case issues? For another Williams has far greater head case issues and he's not even lock to make it out of camp. Woods had a nice start but started to fizzle toward the end. And Goodwin has not proven anything yet other than he can be an occasional deep play novelty. So why in the world would we trade SJ for nothing right now?
Campy Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Win. Watkins is a TRUE offensive weapon unlike anything we've seen in Buffalo since Eric Moulds Andre Reed. IT'S ABOUT DAMNED TIME. Fixed.
Dorkington Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 I don't know why people keep assuming this spells a quick exit for SJ. For one thing who would trade any decent pick for an oft-injured, high priced WR with lingering head case issues? For another Williams has far greater head case issues and he's not even lock to make it out of camp. Woods had a nice start but started to fizzle toward the end. And Goodwin has not proven anything yet other than he can be an occasional deep play novelty. So why in the world would we trade SJ for nothing right now? Ding ding ding. Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, the most likely scenario is that we have Watkins, SJ, and Woods as our "starters". It's possible that Williams pushes one of them out, but it really depends on how he shows up in pre-season. At worst, we have 3 guys who are starting caliber, which is better than last year. At best we have 5 or 6, depending on improvements Woods/Goodwin/Graham make, and depending on how Williams shows.
Bills of Boston Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 I don't understand the reasoning that if EJ plays well it is a good trade and if he doesn't it may not be. Yes, we lose our #1 next year but almost every high first round QB gets three years to prove if they are the man or not. We likely aren't taking a QB high in the first round next year even if EJ tanks. There are a couple at the top but chances are, with this defense and this offense, it will not at all be an obvious choice whether he is "very" good or not. But the bigger and more important point is, it's all about Sammy, not EJ. We have him for five and maybe six years. If he is a star player, and only a star player, it will be a good trade. Stars are tough to find. If, after three years or four, regardless of whether EJ is our guy, Watkins is a stud/star, it will be a good trade. A championship team, in any year, in any sport, needs a couple stars at any position, and several very good players at various positions. But to me, the essential element is, it's easier to find two very good players than it is to find one star player. I would trade two very good players for a star or stud any day. The Bills have one star now and that is Mario. Watkins is really a stud talent. B
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Fixed. Oh come on now Campy, you and I BOTH know that Moulds was a HELL of a player. Remember that playoff game in Miami that Doug Flutie blew? He had what, 200 yards receiving in that game? I loved Eric Moulds. Guy was a stone-cold DB killer.
Recommended Posts