Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Yet the major reason for the trade was right there in the article: >>>>>The current front office knows the team will be sold soon, and if Buffalo fails to break its playoff drought, everyone who doesn't wear cleats will be fired.<<<<< This is such a lazy angle to drum up, and the people who believe there is validity to it are delusional-Bills-downers because every GM, front office and coaching staff are trying to win now for the sake of their jobs. The NFL is a bottom line business, if you don't win, you're shown the door -- regardless of the ownership status. Consider the alternative to your take. Would you rather the Dougs equivocate this year? Would you rather them hedge their bets with theoretical draft picks (because that's what we're talking about, future compensation, not anything tangible) for 2015 and hope they're around to use them or would you rather the Dougs go all-in for the upcoming 2014 season and break the playoff drought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ko12010 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Per TMQB: Buffalo Bills: "Working on this book, yours truly was on the Virginia Tech sideline in 2011 as Sammy Watkins twice destroyed a stacked Hokies secondary that boasted Kyle Fuller, also taken in Thursday's first round; Jayron Hosley, a 2012 third-round pick; and Antone Exum, a sixth-round selection last weekend. Half a dozen times Watkins did things that made me say, "Wow." Virginia Tech defensive coordinator Bud Foster shook his head and said, "Wow is an understatement." Watkins was the special talent of the 2014 draft. He has as much upside as Jadeveon Clowney, but less downside. The last time the Bills made a king's-ransom trade, for Cornelius Bennett in 1987, the arrival of "Biscuit" changed a group of talented underachievers into contenders. Watkins might do the same for the current Bills. To flip 2014 positions with the Browns, Buffalo surrendered only 2015 draft choices. The current front office knows the team will be sold soon, and if Buffalo fails to break its playoff drought, everyone who doesn't wear cleats will be fired. So there's no point in saving for the future. Either Buffalo makes the playoffs this season and all is well, or a new management team inherits a mess with future picks already spent." I don't agree that just because a couple future picks are gone that the situation would be a mess. That's an exaggeration. Whaley has put the team in a good short and long term position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 High risk/high reward. Except Watkins isn't the risk. Manuel is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Trades are cool, especially when you treat the draft like one giant Moroccan bazzar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I don't really believe that at all. I did at first honestly. But the next day when they traded Stevie for a future pick, that made me thinking they weren't selling out the future just to win now. They were doing what they honestly thought was best for the team. Whether they are right or not is a different story. But even with the loss of byrd, this offense and defense are much better than last year. Even with a tough schedule, 8-8 should be realistic. EJ would really have to suck for us not to move forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaninATL Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I have consistently argued that this trade was a good value because Watkins is as much a can't miss prospect as can be. But the reason the pick was worth the trade was because of the make-up of the team. Greg Robinson or Jake Matthews for that trade would have been stupid, IMO. Even Clowney (which would have cost substantially more) would have made the D Line a terror, but too much invested in one position which was already our best. So that would have been much riskier. Everything is in context. The player and person himself, Watkins, the can't miss elite talent, the need for a #1 and playmaker at the position, the QB situation, and the rest of the make-up of the team are all factors that need to be considered when making any prediction of this trade's value. When looked at as a whole, to me, it's a very good risk. I doubt I would have liked the trade for any other player. this is a GREAT analysis. Too many "experts" are critiquing the Watkins solely on the basis of what the Bills had to give up to get him, while conveniently omitting to entire context you have pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) I don't really believe that at all. I don't buy that at all, either. Is losing 1 first round pick really leaving a future GM or coach a mess? It is not as though the roster doesn't have plenty of talent to work with. I just think those critiquing this move have an exaggerated sense of how much value a first round pick automatically has. Its' the player, not the pick. I would bet, knowing what they know now, there are more than a few GM's who would trade their 2013 first round pick for, say, Kiko Alonso. There is "first round talent" to be found throughout the draft, just as there is 2nd-7th talent drafted in the first round every year. If they believe in Watson as much as it appears (and the Bills aren't the only ones who seem to view him as a generational type talent) then a first round and a 4th round pick, IMO, is a pretty modest price to pay. Edited May 13, 2014 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooderson Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I love the first play of this highlight video. 40 yard back shoulder throw, stops on a dime and attacks the ball at it's highest point with great body control. Dude can switch it into second gear in a flash too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kjkh3yV8YA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I don't buy that at all, either. Is losing 1 first round pick really leaving a future GM or coach a mess? It is not as though the roster doesn't have plenty of talent to work with. I just think those critiquing this move have an exaggerated sense of how much value a first round pick automatically has. Its' the player, not the pick. I would bet, knowing what they know now, there are more than a few GM's who would trade their 2013 first round pick for, say, Kiko Alonso. There is "first round talent" to be found throughout the draft, just as there is 2nd-7th talent drafted in the first round every year. If they believe in Watson as much as it appears (and the Bills aren't the only ones who seem to view him as a generational type talent) then a first round and a 4th round pick, IMO, is a pretty modest price to pay. Agreed. But even more so, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the new owner will be a local guy, and will already know as much about the team as we do, and then some. They will have had experience with Whaley, or know a lot about him, and VERY likely will have an extremely high opinion of him, even if they do not necessarily "love" the trade (although most Bills fans, and they would be one, do). They also know what kind of team he has been building and everything about him. It would be way, way different if an outsider were to come in and want to change the whole team. And if it's, say, Trump, this take is probably non-existent. But Whaley has looked good in his job, and unless the team tanks this year, IMO, the new guy, a local guy, is going to already like him and want him. Look at what Pegula did (it's arguable it was wise; in fact in retrospect it was downright stupid. But the point remains he knew a lot about the team beforehand and liked its GM a lot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Yet the major reason for the trade was right there in the article: >>>>>The current front office knows the team will be sold soon, and if Buffalo fails to break its playoff drought, everyone who doesn't wear cleats will be fired.<<<<< This team has been turning over GM/Coaches just about every 3 years for the past 15 years. It's going on year 2, do we really think a new owner has any effect on the trade? If Ralph was still alive, they would still do this trade because in the end if by the end of year 3, which isn't far off, they aren't winning, they will be shown the door. Why wait tip year 3 to make their big splash (Mario Williams signing, TO signing)? Maybe that's were the other GM's got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 To flip 2014 positions with the Browns, Buffalo surrendered only 2015 draft choices. The current front office knows the team will be sold soon, and if Buffalo fails to break its playoff drought, everyone who doesn't wear cleats will be fired. So there's no point in saving for the future. Either Buffalo makes the playoffs this season and all is well, or a new management team inherits a mess with future picks already spent." I don't get the mess comment. We are short 1 1st rd pick for a dynamic play maker who is destined for multiple pro-bowls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Look at the players Whaley brought in...most if not all were on winning teams... Spikes, Williams, Brown, virtually all the drafted players... They repeatedly said they felt it was important to get players who won a lot and were used to winning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) These are the types of players that we have not drafted this century in the first round; these are the players that you need to make moves to get. No Lee Evans is not in the mold. You need to grab these types of players. We didn't mortgage the future with an RGIII type trade, it is just 1 additional first rounder and well worth it for this talent. The only other player in RD 1 worthy of a trade like this is Clowney - no way I would have given up what Houston was looking for with that pick. We already have Mario and as Kelly I believe mentioned above, how much money do you put in the DL and the DE position? Run stopping LBs with our DL and secondary should suffice for now. Sammy gives a legit scoring threat that can make plays when he is covered; we haven't had that since Moulds and Sammy is an Andre YAC type of WR. You Need this type of WR in a pass first league... Edited May 13, 2014 by Reed83HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) I don't get the mess comment. We are short 1 1st rd pick for a dynamic play maker who is destined for multiple pro-bowls So it wasn't a mess when they picked Mayhem Maybin, just a bad pick I guess...lol Amazing...they act like missing one first round pick is going to completely undo everything he has done... Does he even realize that if the pick is 20 or later we "win" the trade in the point system used? Edited May 13, 2014 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Iregardless of the motive behind it, it's their job to put the best team out on the field to win the most games the quickest. So one can debate whether they're doing it out of fear of losing their jobs on the sale, or just because that's their job. Either way I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Except Watkins isn't the risk. Manuel is. That, unfortunately, is one of the elements of the trade-up that makes it a high risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I did at first honestly. But the next day when they traded Stevie for a future pick, that made me thinking they weren't selling out the future just to win now. They were doing what they honestly thought was best for the team. Whether they are right or not is a different story. But even with the loss of byrd, this offense and defense are much better than last year. Even with a tough schedule, 8-8 should be realistic. EJ would really have to suck for us not to move forward I don't believe Marrone was interested in keeping Stevie. Didn't like the antics or his professionalism and it probably was a thought in the draft room that taking a high WR meant Stevie became expendable. As for the offense and defensive improvements, well, I'll believe it when I see it. Not saying it can't happen, but the defense is a new scheme and it'll take time for them to acclimate. Most of the offense is on EJ's shoulders and I'm not especially high on him. Agreed. But even more so, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the new owner will be a local guy, and will already know as much about the team as we do, and then some. They will have had experience with Whaley, or know a lot about him, and VERY likely will have an extremely high opinion of him, even if they do not necessarily "love" the trade (although most Bills fans, and they would be one, do). They also know what kind of team he has been building and everything about him. It would be way, way different if an outsider were to come in and want to change the whole team. And if it's, say, Trump, this take is probably non-existent. But Whaley has looked good in his job, and unless the team tanks this year, IMO, the new guy, a local guy, is going to already like him and want him. A new ownership group that forks over 1B for this team isn't doing so with the mindset of retaining the previous regime's management. It will take at a minimum a playoff team, preferably one that wins a game there for Whaley and Marrone to keep their jobs considering the financial investment and urgency in the NFL to win now. It's also hard to judge Whaley when all they've got to show for 1 season is a 6-10 record and the bottom line is all that matters, on-field and profit margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Mortgage the future to win now by engaging in modest activity in FA and acquiring a 20 year old rookie WR. Something doesn't add up there. If they had traded future draft picks for some veteran WR maybe I could see it, but Watkins is clearly a player acquired with the next 12 years in mind. He's a good 5-7 years away from his physical prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 A new ownership group that forks over 1B for this team isn't doing so with the mindset of retaining the previous regime's management. It will take at a minimum a playoff team, preferably one that wins a game there for Whaley and Marrone to keep their jobs considering the financial investment and urgency in the NFL to win now. It's also hard to judge Whaley when all they've got to show for 1 season is a 6-10 record and the bottom line is all that matters, on-field and profit margin. Right. Like Terry Pegula. The point is, since it's very likely going to be someone local, there is a decent to good chance that he already likes Whaley a helluva lot. And the conventional wisdom or the history says element of this guy is going to want to clean house or hire his own guys is not necessarily the case at all. Most fans and people paying close attention to the team do like him a lot. You may not, or you may have a legitimate "show me the baby" outlook toward him -- and surely, whether you like him or not, if this team doesn't take a major step up this season it doesn't matter if you like him or not, he is likely going to be gone when a new owner comes in. But it does matter that the new guy is close already (unless, of course, it is not a local and that doesn't seem likely at this point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 That nobody was questioning his dynamic playmaking ability. That he was a game changer, THE playmaker of the 2010 draft. I seem to recall those statements being similar between the two. Huh? Anyway, there was an interesting bit in the WSJ citing the Watkins pick. The author claimed the AFCE was breathing a "sigh" of relief that SJ was gone and that Watkins took his place. His reasoning was that Watkins makes his money after the catch and that he wouldn't get by most of the DBs with the ball in the air due to his speed. I thought that was odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts