Cost of Watkins = Typical Media Bias against Buffalo

[Rocky Landing]

I'd be interested in hearing about what I have speculated concerning Sammy Watkins' career. I haven't. Watkins is simply the only tangible asset regarding the trade.

 

Next year's first round pick simply can't be quantified at this point.

 

Here is some speculation for you though: given all I've heard about Sammy Watkins from a couple guys I really trust, there won't be a receiver available in next year's draft that comes close to approaching him in terms of ability, both demonstrated on the college level and in his potential as a pro. Indeed, there may not a player at ANY position, who will enter next year's draft with as high a grade as Watkins garnered this year. Such is what the scouting community thought of Watkins coming out.

 

Please understand that I fully appreciate the very subjective nature of the scouting business. But even given all his hoopla, I think Watkins is UNDER-valued by a fair portion of the fanbase simply BECAUSE of the trade and what we invested in the pick vs. his actual ability.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Your arguments are becoming utterly semantic. For one thing, there is not a single person on this thread who has attempted to "quantify" anything. Quantification and valuation are two afferent things. The discussion is the value of the Watkins trade. For some reason, you are dismissing any discussion of the cost of Watkins, because you assert that the cost cannot be "quantified." But, you are more that wiling to tout the product of the trade (presumably, because Watkins lives ,and breathes, he can be "quantified"), even though the product results are equally speculative.

 

But, then, you go on to make a value statement regarding next year's draft class! I suppose that's OK because your valuation doesn't contain any quantification?... or something? Just talking in circles, now.

 

Here's a point I would like to make regarding the VALUE of the trade for Watkins:

The VALUE of Watkins is not simply a measure of his ability, but of his production, as well. His production will be affected not only by his own ability, but by the performance of those around him, especially EJ. In other words, if EJ doesn't perform, Watkins value drops, and visa versa. So there are two plausible scenarios on which I and others have speculated on this thread that have opposite outcomes, vis a vis the value of the Watkins trade:

1) EJ perform great, Watkins performs great, and our pass production skyrockets. We win games. If at this point we don't end the season with dire needs, the value of next year's 1st rounder drops considerably, and we have made a great investment in Watkins. = Low Cost/High Return.

2) EJ is a bust. Watkins' talents are underutilized. His production is not enough to bring us up in the division. We end the season with a dire need at quarterback. In this scenario the value of our 2015 picks are much higher, and the investment in Watkins = High Cost/Low Return.

 

These are both plausible scenarios, and one of these two things will happen to some degree. This is the nature of a High Risk/High Return investment. And, you'll notice, I didn't try to "quantify" anything.

[K-9]

Your arguments are becoming utterly semantic. For one thing, there is not a single person on this thread who has attempted to "quantify" anything. Quantification and valuation are two afferent things. The discussion is the value of the Watkins trade. For some reason, you are dismissing any discussion of the cost of Watkins, because you assert that the cost cannot be "quantified." But, you are more that wiling to tout the product of the trade (presumably, because Watkins lives ,and breathes, he can be "quantified"), even though the product results are equally speculative.

 

But, then, you go on to make a value statement regarding next year's draft class! I suppose that's OK because your valuation doesn't contain any quantification?... or something? Just talking in circles, now.

 

Here's a point I would like to make regarding the VALUE of the trade for Watkins:

The VALUE of Watkins is not simply a measure of his ability, but of his production, as well. His production will be affected not only by his own ability, but by the performance of those around him, especially EJ. In other words, if EJ doesn't perform, Watkins value drops, and visa versa. So there are two plausible scenarios on which I and others have speculated on this thread that have opposite outcomes, vis a vis the value of the Watkins trade:

1) EJ perform great, Watkins performs great, and our pass production skyrockets. We win games. If at this point we don't end the season with dire needs, the value of next year's 1st rounder drops considerably, and we have made a great investment in Watkins. = Low Cost/High Return.

2) EJ is a bust. Watkins' talents are underutilized. His production is not enough to bring us up in the division. We end the season with a dire need at quarterback. In this scenario the value of our 2015 picks are much higher, and the investment in Watkins = High Cost/Low Return.

 

These are both plausible scenarios, and one of these two things will happen to some degree. This is the nature of a High Risk/High Return investment. And, you'll notice, I didn't try to "quantify" anything.

 

Semantics indeed.

 

I agree entirely that the success of Watkins depends on the relative success of those around him. I don't know anyone that would argue that point. It's football, after all. I don't share in the idea that you don't acquire elite WR talent because you're not sure of your QB and it's a waste of that elite WR talent. That's letting fear determine your personnel moves and you can't operate that way. Like it or not, we are committed to Manuel most likely through 2015. He and everyone else understands that Watkins and the rest of the team are only going as far as his play merits.

 

Regarding the value judgement of next year's class, I was careful to note that it's indeed a subjective undertaking, especially at this point, when the work on next year's draft is in its infancy. And the two guys that inform me of that opinion were also very quick to point that out. But it's also a very real factor in why the Bills pulled the trigger on the deal THIS YEAR.

 

Let me pose the question I posed in another thread: if we simply exchanged picks with the Browns without any other consideration and we picked Watkins at #4, would that be a good pick? If so, why?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rocky Landing]

Semantics indeed.

 

I agree entirely that the success of Watkins depends on the relative success of those around him. I don't know anyone that would argue that point. It's football, after all. I don't share in the idea that you don't acquire elite WR talent because you're not sure of your QB and it's a waste of that elite WR talent. That's letting fear determine your personnel moves and you can't operate that way. Like it or not, we are committed to Manuel most likely through 2015. He and everyone else understands that Watkins and the rest of the team are only going as far as his play merits.

 

Regarding the value judgement of next year's class, I was careful to note that it's indeed a subjective undertaking, especially at this point, when the work on next year's draft is in its infancy. And the two guys that inform me of that opinion were also very quick to point that out. But it's also a very real factor in why the Bills pulled the trigger on the deal THIS YEAR.

 

Let me pose the question I posed in another thread: if we simply exchanged picks with the Browns without any other consideration and we picked Watkins at #4, would that be a good pick? If so, why?

 

GO BILLS!!!

If we were able to trade our #9 for Cleveland's #4, there would not be a person on the face of the planet criticizing us for it, because it would be a zero risk trade with a high potential return-- far from what we got. Of course (and I'm assuming this is your point), Watkins would still be Watkins.

[K-9]

If we were able to trade our #9 for Cleveland's #4, there would not be a person on the face of the planet criticizing us for it, because it would be a zero risk trade with a high potential return-- far from what we got. Of course (and I'm assuming this is your point), Watkins would still be Watkins.

 

With all due respect, you avoided the question. Let's not concern ourselves with

criticism from external sources. They simply don't matter and are not germane

to football decisions. Why would selecting Watkins, no strings attached, be

such a good pick?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rocky Landing]

With all due respect, you avoided the question. Let's not concern ourselves with

criticism from external sources. They simply don't matter and are not germane

to football decisions. Why would selecting Watkins, no strings attached, be

such a good pick?

 

GO BILLS!!!

I did answer the question: It would be a zero risk trade with a high potential return. (As opposed to what we got: A high risk trade with a high potential return.)

 

And, why are external sources not germane to football decisions?

[K-9]

I did answer the question: It would be a zero risk trade with a high potential return. (As opposed to what we got: A high risk trade with a high potential return.)

 

And, why are external sources not germane to football decisions?

 

External criticism is not germane to the decision making process of an NFL team when it comes to drafting players. Not sure what you mean by sources. I realize now that we are looking at this from two completely different perspectives. Let's just agree that Sammy would still be Sammy, regardless.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

Here's a point I would like to make regarding the VALUE of the trade for Watkins:

The VALUE of Watkins is not simply a measure of his ability, but of his production, as well. His production will be affected not only by his own ability, but by the performance of those around him, especially EJ. In other words, if EJ doesn't perform, Watkins value drops, and visa versa. So there are two plausible scenarios on which I and others have speculated on this thread that have opposite outcomes, vis a vis the value of the Watkins trade:

1) EJ perform great, Watkins performs great, and our pass production skyrockets. We win games. If at this point we don't end the season with dire needs, the value of next year's 1st rounder drops considerably, and we have made a great investment in Watkins. = Low Cost/High Return.

2) EJ is a bust. Watkins' talents are underutilized. His production is not enough to bring us up in the division. We end the season with a dire need at quarterback. In this scenario the value of our 2015 picks are much higher, and the investment in Watkins = High Cost/Low Return.

 

These are both plausible scenarios, and one of these two things will happen to some degree. This is the nature of a High Risk/High Return investment. And, you'll notice, I didn't try to "quantify" anything.

 

You make a good point that the risk of the Watkins deal is directly related to how the qb plays. But to be fair you have to extend your reasoning (as you appear to do) that how EJ performs has implications not only on how his receivers perform but also on how the OL and the running backs perform. You can even extend the EJ performance repercussions on to the defense. If he can't convert plays the defense will be on the field a disproportionate period of time.

 

Doug Whaley gave up a lot to move up to draft arguably one of the top two or three rated players in this year's draft. It would not have made much sense to make that upward maneuver unless the player you were enthralled with was a playmaker who can impact a game. In other words it would have made little sense to give up next year's first round draft pick to select an OT or inside LB.

 

The success of the Watkins deal is predicated on EJ. No one is disputing that. Whaley is banking on EJ taking a quantum leap forward in his second year. He is also counting on an upgraded OL and a dyamic rookie receiver to put EJ in a more favorable position that will make his draft day deal pay off. Whaley believes that next year the Bills will be in a lower drafting position in which he wouldn't be in a position to take a top three player like Watkins in the next draft. For me I am not going to criticize someone who is willing to take a risk on a potential elite talent when the opportunity arises. This staid organization has a history of being cautious and unimaginative. Taking a calcularted risk to improve the team's chances for immediate success is a refreshing change.

[Kelly the Dog]

I really don't get that the whole trade is tied to EJ this year. We are going to have Watkins for 5-10+ years. The whole trade is tied to Sammy Watkins only.

 

If EJ totally tanks, which is highly unlikely, we will very likely trade for a starter or sign one in FA. Just because we don't have a #1 draft pick doesn't at all mean we are not going to get a new QB if EJ craps the bed.

 

He's just not going to crap the bed.

 

He may not be great. In fact, chances are IMO he's going to be a tease. Too good to give up on and not good enough to say "He's arrived, we have our franchise QB."

 

But the trade is ONLY about Watkins, even if the impetus was to surround the QB, whomever he is, with weapons.

 

If Fitz were here, Whaley would have done and said the same thing, "We want to surround Fitz with weapons."

[Doc]

I really don't get that the whole trade is tied to EJ this year. We are going to have Watkins for 5-10+ years. The whole trade is tied to Sammy Watkins only.

 

If EJ totally tanks, which is highly unlikely, we will very likely trade for a starter or sign one in FA. Just because we don't have a #1 draft pick doesn't at all mean we are not going to get a new QB if EJ craps the bed.

 

He's just not going to crap the bed.

 

He may not be great. In fact, chances are IMO he's going to be a tease. Too good to give up on and not good enough to say "He's arrived, we have our franchise QB."

 

But the trade is ONLY about Watkins, even if the impetus was to surround the QB, whomever he is, with weapons.

 

If Fitz were here, Whaley would have done and said the same thing, "We want to surround Fitz with weapons."

At worst, Watkins will be a great target for Guitton.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

. . . The success of the Watkins deal is predicated on EJ. No one is disputing that. . . .

I really don't get that the whole trade is tied to EJ this year. We are going to have Watkins for 5-10+ years. The whole trade is tied to Sammy Watkins only. . . .

World would be a dull place if everybody had the exact same opinions!

[Buftex]

I watched a few shows on NFL network about past drafts the other day and they covered 1994. That's the year Kiper ripped the Colts for not drafting Heath Shuler or Trent Dilfer in the top 8 picks. Whoops.

 

Not that it means much, all these years later, but Kiper was mostly right in criticizing the Colts that year. They didn't have a legit starting QB. As I recall, they signed Harbaugh after the draft...and he had been pretty bad up to that point in his NFL career.

 

The basis of Kipers' criticism was (and it was the word going around the NFL at that time) was that the Colts weren't picking a QB in the first round (Shuler and Dilfer were the top QB prospects that year), not because they didn't like either guy, but solely because they didin't want to pay a 1st round QB salary. The Colts were known as a thrifty, cheap team back then... now, the fact that Dilfer was never more than functionally adequate as a QB, and Shuler was just flat out awful, in retrospect, makes Kiper look stupid...but Trev Alberts was worse than both. It is like the Colts were not even trying to get better, only trying to save money.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Buftex

[thewildrabbit]

Not that it means much, all these years later, but Kiper was mostly right in criticizing the Colts that year. They didn't have a legit starting QB. As I recall, they signed Harbaugh after the draft...and he had been pretty bad up to that point in his NFL career.

 

The basis of Kipers' criticism was (and it was the word going around the NFL at that time) was that the Colts weren't picking a QB in the first round (Shuler and Dilfer were the top QB prospects that year), not because they didn't like either guy, but solely because they didin't want to pay a 1st round QB salary. The Colts were known as a thrifty, cheap team back then... now, the fact that Dilfer was never more than functionally adequate as a QB, and Shuler was just flat out awful, in retrospect, makes Kiper look stupid...but Trev Alberts was worse than both. It is like the Colts were not even trying to get better, only trying to save money.

Man, thrifty, cheap team is being way to kind in describing that owner, and the way he ran things.

 

Wanna know the reason why John Elway was going to play baseball after being drafted #1 overall by the Colts. Elway had stated that his favorite QB while growing up was Bert Jones of the Baltimore Colts, and when Bert signed with the Colts part of his singing bonus he was given a house in Baltimore. When they eventually released Jones after nine years they took his house back, and told him he needed to read the fine print of the contract. Needless to say after Elway heard this there was no way he was going to play for Robert Irsay.

 

Let's not forget that Irsay packed up and moved the team out of Baltimore because he couldn't come to an agreement with the city on a new stadium. I would be hard pressed to find a bigger prick in the history of the NFL as an owner. It wasn't just the move, as it was more of the way he treated his players while playing for him, and after they left the team. The thing with Jones was typical of how Irsay treated his players.

 

The only man that comes close to being hated by a fan base as much as Robert Irsay was is former Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell, and only for moving the team. The difference is Modell loved his players and they loved him. Modell was forced to move the team or be forced to sell it.

[YoloinOhio]

Chris Trapasso ‏@ChrisTrapasso 11m

For the afternoon crowd: I think I covered everything regarding the Buffalo #Bills trade up for WR Sammy Watkins ---> http://bit.ly/1o773Cm

[CodeMonkey]

Chris Trapasso ‏@ChrisTrapasso 11m

For the afternoon crowd: I think I covered everything regarding the Buffalo #Bills trade up for WR Sammy Watkins ---> http://bit.ly/1o773Cm

Really interesting and not what I would call "typical media bias".

I really can't find fault in his logic at all.

[Koufax]

If the Bills liked Watkins more than Mack, I don't have a big issue with them giving up the #18ish pick in the 2015 draft to move up and get him. That seems like reasonable value. If our year goes badly and our pick is a top 10 pick that proves to be a bad gamble.

 

The biggest issue for me is the idea that this is a win now move. If this is a win now move, I just don't see how Watkins as a rookie WR can have more of an impact than Stevie + Mack.

 

When Stevie is healthy and plays 16, it is reasonable to think of him as a 1000yd, 8TD, 13YPC receiver. Of Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, Dez Bryant, Julio Jones, nobody did better than that as a rookie, so it is suspect that in real production we can expect more from Watkins than Stevie in 2014.

 

What this does is start a core of development with EJ that increases his chances of making it, and if he does means a serious combo for years to come. Having a young talent on the upswing to go with your QB and develop chemistry might be a lot more valuable than having a slow aging performer on the downswing, even if that player has the experience to produce better right now.

 

If Sammy is as talented as the Bills think he is, and if we end up a #18 or #23 pick next year, it is a great pickup and deal for us even if he underperforms Stevie in 2014 at an individual level.

[bbb]

Chris Trapasso ‏@ChrisTrapasso 11m

For the afternoon crowd: I think I covered everything regarding the Buffalo #Bills trade up for WR Sammy Watkins ---> http://bit.ly/1o773Cm

 

I hate this trade more every day:

 

Beckham has 5 more inches on his vertical jump.

 

And, this:

 

I’ll summarize by writing this: Watkins is an exquisite fit for the Bills’ offensive scheme / philosophy—West Coast-based, some up-tempo spread / packaged plays, emphasis on speed at WR—but Evans is the type of WR they’re missing, unless they truly believe Mike Williams will be their big, “go-up-and-get it” pass-catcher.

[Dawgg]

I hate this trade more every day:

 

Beckham has 5 more inches on his vertical jump.

 

And, this:

 

I’ll summarize by writing this: Watkins is an exquisite fit for the Bills’ offensive scheme / philosophy—West Coast-based, some up-tempo spread / packaged plays, emphasis on speed at WR—but Evans is the type of WR they’re missing, unless they truly believe Mike Williams will be their big, “go-up-and-get it” pass-catcher.

I absolutely love the trade... if I'm the CLEVELAND BROWNS.

 

Otherwise, it was a reckless move made by a front office gasping for straws facing job insecurity amindst an uncertain ownership situation.

 

If Sammy is as talented as the Bills think he is, and if we end up a #18 or #23 pick next year, it is a great pickup and deal for us even if he underperforms Stevie in 2014 at an individual level.

 

Let me complete the thought. If the season goes South (like most seasons have) or if EJ gets injured and we see Thad Lewis or Jeff Tuel in there, that first round pick could become a top 10 selection making it an atrocious move by our (former) GM.

[bbb]

Yup

[aristocrat]

What if he puts up 1300 yards and we make the playoffs?

[KD in CA]

What if he puts up 1300 yards and we make the playoffs?

 

I'll still be embarrassed that a thread with this title went on for 8 9 pages.

 

 

Fixed!

Edited May 19, 2014 by KD in CT