Kirby Jackson Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Google "Matt Bowen Bleacher Report Sammy Watkins" for a nice breakdown. I cannot post the link, but Bowen does a great job with the film review. If you have any doubt about Sammy Watkins and his ability to translate his game to the NFL, it's well worth the read. No one has any doubt about his game translating. He was the number 1 overall player (in a good draft) on numerous draft boards. He is probably as safe a draft pick as the Bills have made since Bruce. One poster admittedly likes to be antagonistic.
K-9 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Google "Matt Bowen Bleacher Report Sammy Watkins" for a nice breakdown. I cannot post the link, but Bowen does a great job with the film review. If you have any doubt about Sammy Watkins and his ability to translate his game to the NFL, it's well worth the read. Good read, thanks for the link. Bowen mentions his footwork which is not surprising as I know a couple grown men who waxed poetic about this kid's feet. Not in a Rex Ryan way, but I'd never heard that from them before. And then I read the article in SI about his work ethic and his solo workouts designed to improve his footwork; like the kid is obsessed about it. He sets his feet while catching the ball and putting himself in a position to run unlike anyone I've seen, kinda like an outfielder positioning his feet to make a throw while setting up to catch the ball. I thought that was interesting. GO BILLS!!!
Big Turk Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Moulds was a good WR too many people consider great.
Buftex Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) No offense, as you are just one of many people that use that overly simplistic barometer, but that is the worst argument to make for/against a singular player's abilities. You can say Reed is the more accomplished player, but that is more of a function of the team he was on...specifically a certain #12 throwing him the ball. But on pure talent, Moulds was clearly better. I don't typically like to get in these arguments, because when you say one guy is better than the other, it comes off as, one guy sucks (or sucked in this case) and the other was so clearly better. I like both Reed and Moulds a lot..I think they are both worthy of "best Bills receive of all time" status, consideration. But honestly, while Moulds may have been a better athlete, I don't think he was near as versatile as Reed was. It amazes me, to this day, HOF and all, how little some appreciate how truly great Andre Reed was. Reed may not have been as fast as Moulds, as strong as Moulds, but Reed was every bit as tough... in one of those HOF threads on TBD, somebody claimed that Reed doesn't belong in the HOF, because he was "afraid to go over the middle"... not saying this is true of you, but that made it clear to me that some people either have horrible memories, they are too young to have seen Reed play, or they simply didn't comprehend what they saw. Moulds was a good WR too many people consider great. Again, I like the guy, and he was great...perhaps the greatest physicall talent the Bills have had at the position in the last 25-30 years..but not the best receiver. Who knows what he might have done on better teams. But he wasn't on a lot of the Bills truly awful teams, and was on some pretty good offensive Bills squads. By that I mean, the argument that Reed had a great career, simply because there was more talent on the Bills during his time, just doesn't necessarily ring true for me. Flutie and Bledsoe, while not Jim Kelly, were better than average NFL starting QB's. I would also argue that Rob Johnson, when healthy, was a pretty decent passer as well... they also had a good running game, during most of Moulds tenure...and Peerless Price, the first time around, was a pretty decent complimentary receiver for about 4 years... they had guys like Larry Centers...the cupboard wasn't as bare as some paint it out to be. As talented as he was, I was always frustrated (particularly when Bledsoe came to Buffalo, and through the rest of his time in Buffalo) that Eric had a propensity for being as concerned about drawing pass interference flags as he was with trying to catch the ball. Edited June 19, 2014 by Buftex
QB Bills Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I don't typically like to get in these arguments, because when you say one guy is better than the other, it comes off as, one guy sucks (or sucked in this case) and the other was so clearly better. I like both Reed and Moulds a lot..I think they are both worthy of "best Bills receive of all time" status, consideration. But honestly, while Moulds may have been a better athlete, I don't think he was near as versatile as Reed was. It amazes me, to this day, HOF and all, how little some appreciate how truly great Andre Reed was. Reed may not have been as fast as Moulds, as strong as Moulds, but Reed was every bit as tough... in one of those HOF threads on TBD, somebody claimed that Reed doesn't belong in the HOF, because he was "afraid to go over the middle"... not saying this is true of you, but that made it clear to me that some people either have horrible memories, they are too young to have seen Reed play, or they simply didn't comprehend what they saw. Andre Reed is a hall of famer, and deservedly so. It's not a slight against him in the least. As for being afraid to go over the middle? That's actually what he was known for, so anyone who says that obviously didn't watch him play much. I'm just saying that I believe Moulds had more talent. In my opinion, if you placed Moulds with Jim Kelly for most of his career, and Reed with the likes of Kelly Holcomb and Rob Johnson, there wouldn't even be a discussion as to who the best receiver in Bills history was.
rstencel Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Think a lot of that opinion on Reed comes from the fact he rarely got a lot of separation. He was a master of positioning and had great hands, so if put the ball in the right spot he would use his body and hands to make the play. If he had the QB's that Molds had I don't think he would have put up the great numbers he had because few QB's could get away with throwing into coverage as well as Kelly could, because of his arm strength/accuracy combo. Their strengths matched up perfect, which is why both are in hall now probably. Not trying to take anything away from Reed, as he was perfect receiver for the situation.
K-9 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Andre Reed is a hall of famer, and deservedly so. It's not a slight against him in the least. As for being afraid to go over the middle? That's actually what he was known for, so anyone who says that obviously didn't watch him play much. I'm just saying that I believe Moulds had more talent. In my opinion, if you placed Moulds with Jim Kelly for most of his career, and Reed with the likes of Kelly Holcomb and Rob Johnson, there wouldn't even be a discussion as to who the best receiver in Bills history was. You're right. That honor goes to Elbert Dubenion. GO BILLS!!!
hondo in seattle Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 so much of a receiver's career is based on who is throwing to him, the quality of the offensive line, the opponents they play against, other wideouts on their team, effectiveness of the running game, even the defense (are they playing from behind and in obvious passing situations more frequently?), coordinators etc. keep that in mind when you compare andre reed to eric moulds. Levy didn't even play Eric at WR his rookie season if I remember correctly. interestingly, Moulds still hold the NFL all time single playoff game receiving record for that wild card game against Miami. 240 yards. total domination. i still remember that game. The record for most receptions in a single NFL playoff game is 13, held by Thurman Thomas (tied with a few other dudes). It's safe to say Reed and Moulds were both dominant receivers who worked hard in the offseason and kept themselves in peak shape (unlike stevie aka "the magic groin") And they were both game changers who were fun to watch. Eric made training camp fun to watch as well because of his unbelievable catches. We used to call him the thoroughbred because he looked so much bigger and faster than everyone else out there. It remains to be seen what Sammy Watkins pro game will look like. It's harder to run some of those Clemson bubble screens and quick-outs in the NFL until you get respected for the deep ball. Otherwise you're jammed and played short and every catch you get is 2 or 3 yards and you are more susceptible to the INT. It will be fun to watch for sure, but EJ is going to need to be sharp for Sammy to be productive. I'm more worried about that than anything. Hackett and EJ have been given the offensive weapons, now they need to get tuned up and ready to use them. I'm more excited for this season than ever. And that's saying something............. Great post.
Kemp2Warlick Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Retweeted by Buffalo Bills Adam Rank @adamrank 1h Reason No. 77 to be excited for the @NFL season: Sammy Watkins. Doing this. http://ow.ly/y5odX @buffalobills
YoloinOhio Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 45] Retweeted by Buffalo Bills 45] Adam Rank @ adamrank 1h Reason No. 77 to be excited for the @ NFL season: Sammy Watkins. Doing this. http:// ow.ly/y5odX @ buffalobills Meh - that was only against the SEC def ....oh. <off to watch on a loop>
Snorom Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 IMO, Eric Moulds was and is probably the best WR of the bills in the 2000's(21st century). I Know some people have compared him to Eric Moulds. The way he goes up for the Balls and His speed after the catch, He Looks like Eric Moulds. Any thoughts on this? Would you like Sammy to be like Eric Moulds? Sammy can be more explosive after the catch
pi2000 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Moulds was big guy who could break tackles. Watkins seems more of a speed guy, his explosiveness after the catch is what makes him special. I see him more like a Peerless Price or Don Beebe.
Ronin Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Gee, and there I was thinking that several analysts, teams & scouts had him as the #1 best prospect in the draft. Oh well, I guess Sammy is gonna be crap then. Again, no facts or data, just opinions. He was the #1 best prospect in the draft, just like Ryan Leaf, Jamarcu Russell, Drew Bledsoe, Jeff George, and Tim Couch were at one time too. Your point? What, that draft analysts are never or even often wrong? I'll beg to differ. If that's your sole counterargument ... Its funny.....I keep hearing these "once a generation" type quotes from analysts, coaches, etc on Sammy.... Then I see Tasker's posts Then I thank god that fans are fans and there are people that know how to evaluate talent doing their jobs for our team Yeah, the experts under Whaley for 5 seasons have done such a remarkable job. They've pretty much whiffed completely on 3rd rounders and later picks. We all know that this season will be different, it always is. My post was fact. If you weren't as lazy as those draft "analysts" you describe, you'd have already watched a wide spectrum of his games over his three years, all of which were All American years (that's a fact, too), and you'd know that, before he embarrassed defenses on bubble screens and slants, he was making CBs look silly when they tried playing him close. You'd also see the direct impact he had on DCs and their coverage schemes. This is all observable and is the reason why he was rated as high as he was by GMs, scouts, and others. Not sure how Watkins' ability as a return specialist and how that compares to Spiller is germane to anything. Has nothing at all to do with the discussion. GO BILLS!!! Nothing reckless about it. Quite the opposite in fact. He's the definition of a targeted acquisition. GO BILLS!!! So was Manuel. No one has any doubt about his game translating. He was the number 1 overall player (in a good draft) on numerous draft boards. He is probably as safe a draft pick as the Bills have made since Bruce. One poster admittedly likes to be antagonistic. It has absolutely nothing to do with being antagonistic. I told you, when rumors about the Bills drafting Watkins were flying, I was the first to say what a terrible pick that would be, and that was without trading up. Whaley has now put all of his eggs into one basket with Manuel's and Watkins' names on it. Does that make sense to you? Otherwise I'm analyzing while trying to marry-up the facts and data on Watkins. Draft "experts" are wrong just as often as they are right. No one ever provides post-draft success rates in calling 100 players for any draft expert for reasons. All they and you do is cite them prior to those players ever having hit the field. Remember when Bill Walsh told us all how great Trent Edwards would be in the annuls of football history? He was right as he was in predicting that Rick Mirer would do the same. What, Bill Walsh was a moron? Hardly. But clearly there was much more than just collegiate film review in projecting how well players translate to the NFL. One of them is terribly discounted here, and that's the nature of the competition faced by prospects, and the system in which they played in. It's routine that players in certain systems and not having faced top-notch competition very often don't translate well to the NFL level. Naturally we know that just because everyone discounts that here that it's all meaningless. Also, this childish notion that somehow I or any other Bills fan will be happy when our draftees flop merely insults those trying to engage in decent conversation on the topic. I'll bookmark this thread and we'll come back to it in November. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm going to stand on every word that I've said about Watkins. I expect him to struggle given his status as you guys all here insist will carry him into the NFL, and for the very reasons I've cited. Not sure what your excuse will be if that happens, and again, hopefully it doesn't, but you won't be able to use anything that I've cited to explain it if it does.
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Moulds was big guy who could break tackles. Watkins seems more of a speed guy, his explosiveness after the catch is what makes him special. I see him more like a Peerless Price or Don Beebe. No offense, but that is a really bad comparison. Price and Beebe were purely speed guys who's best routes were just going deep. Watkins catches screens and breaks tackles. Watkins couldn't be more different than those 2.
John from Riverside Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Moulds was big guy who could break tackles. Watkins seems more of a speed guy, his explosiveness after the catch is what makes him special. I see him more like a Peerless Price or Don Beebe. OMG......I guess your missing the plays where he is flat running over players....he is like a RUNNING BACK playing WIDE RECIVER Where do these noobs come up with this crap.......deep breaths....deep breaths
Ronin Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Google "Matt Bowen Bleacher Report Sammy Watkins" for a nice breakdown. I cannot post the link, but Bowen does a great job with the film review. If you have any doubt about Sammy Watkins and his ability to translate his game to the NFL, it's well worth the read. LOL He uses Ohio State film as the example? Did you bother to look at how good OSU's passing D was prior to boasting this? It makes my point perfectly. OSU's pass D sucked elephant balls. They were ranked 6th from worst in all of college. Everyone had a heyday passing performance against them. Bowens says this: While I do believe Watkins will earn his money early in 2014 as a vertical threat, there is no question he can produce within the entire route tree. That may be fine, but he didn't produce using the entire route tree at Clemson. So not sure about this "no question" stuff. Talk is cheap. But more importantly, can Manuel deliver it? Here's another good piece; http://www.sbnation....ceiver-rankings I will agree with two points in this guy's piece about Watkins and Evans. First, that Watkins is the type of receiver that can be brought in, start straight away and become a star. Expecting him to have the same type of impact Green did for the Bengals should be the expectation. I agree that that not only should, but has to be the expectation given the way that the team acquired him now. Green's rookie season was 65, 1,057, 7. So let's just say that Watkins needs to post 60+ catches, 1,000+ yards, and 6+ TDs or his draft status will have been too much. Can we agree on that at least? Secondly, I agree with the guy on this: Evans grades out as one of the ten best players in the draft on our latest big board. He's the type of receiver who instantly makes his quarterback better. The skills he used to make plays in college all translate to the NFL. He already learned how to win when he wasn't the fastest player on the field. That's only going to help him as he transitions to the NFL and learns how to use his physical tools to out-muscle defensive backs for passes. I don't necessarily view Watkins as making his QB better. I view Watkins as posing a potential job challenging issue for a QB like Manuel though. Think about it, if Manuel doesn't automatically become far more accurate, and consistently so, and he keeps overthrowing Watkins like he did so many WRs last year on the relatively limited number of "deep" balls that he threw, or even medium balls, then they're going to be pointing the finger at Manuel initially and calling for his head. The one thing that I've not read anywhere by any credible analyst, is how Watkins' skills used in college translate well to the NFL. That has been conspicuously absent from draf previews. Mike Evans also didn't make a living out of beating up on B-rate talented teams, he absolutely lit up both Alabama and Auburn more than any other WR in recent years. Edited June 19, 2014 by TaskersGhost
thebandit27 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Again, no facts or data, just opinions. He was the #1 best prospect in the draft, just like Ryan Leaf, Jamarcu Russell, Drew Bledsoe, Jeff George, and Tim Couch were at one time too. Your point? What, that draft analysts are never or even often wrong? I'll beg to differ. If that's your sole counterargument ... Yeah, the experts under Whaley for 5 seasons have done such a remarkable job. They've pretty much whiffed completely on 3rd rounders and later picks. We all know that this season will be different, it always is. So was Manuel. It has absolutely nothing to do with being antagonistic. I told you, when rumors about the Bills drafting Watkins were flying, I was the first to say what a terrible pick that would be, and that was without trading up. Whaley has now put all of his eggs into one basket with Manuel's and Watkins' names on it. Does that make sense to you? Otherwise I'm analyzing while trying to marry-up the facts and data on Watkins. Draft "experts" are wrong just as often as they are right. No one ever provides post-draft success rates in calling 100 players for any draft expert for reasons. All they and you do is cite them prior to those players ever having hit the field. Remember when Bill Walsh told us all how great Trent Edwards would be in the annuls of football history? He was right as he was in predicting that Rick Mirer would do the same. What, Bill Walsh was a moron? Hardly. But clearly there was much more than just collegiate film review in projecting how well players translate to the NFL. One of them is terribly discounted here, and that's the nature of the competition faced by prospects, and the system in which they played in. It's routine that players in certain systems and not having faced top-notch competition very often don't translate well to the NFL level. Naturally we know that just because everyone discounts that here that it's all meaningless. Also, this childish notion that somehow I or any other Bills fan will be happy when our draftees flop merely insults those trying to engage in decent conversation on the topic. I'll bookmark this thread and we'll come back to it in November. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm going to stand on every word that I've said about Watkins. I expect him to struggle given his status as you guys all here insist will carry him into the NFL, and for the very reasons I've cited. Not sure what your excuse will be if that happens, and again, hopefully it doesn't, but you won't be able to use anything that I've cited to explain it if it does. A very easy Google search can show you the film breakdown on Watkins and why your concerns with him may, in fact, be largely misguided. That said, you're straw-manning a bit with the "experts are wrong" talk. Watkins was dominant in college, has a great blend of size/speed, and showed that he's anything but a one-trick pony. If you could provide any facts that speak to the contrary, then your opinion may be taken more seriously. Instead, you've cited a statistic about catches behind the LOS (without any regard to the fact that he did far more than just catch the ball behind the LOS at Clemson). You also cite a lack of ability to win contested catches, which tells me you really haven't watched him play. There are clips on top of clips of him fighting for catches (and winning); they aren't hard to find. Here's a small sampling of his variety of skills: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-draft/0ap2000000347625/Film-Study-Sammy-Watkins http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000281906/article/film-room-clemsons-sammy-watkins-a-bigtime-playmaker http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/3/28/5521124/2014-nfl-draft-sammy-watkins-video-scouting-report And of course feel free to Google the Bleacher Report breakdown from Matt Bowen, which is my personal favorite. Lastly, if you want to dispel the notion that you'll be happy if the team (or its draftees) go in the tank, perhaps you could try not being overtly negative about literally everything that happens with this team. Yes, I know, 14 years...that doesn't mean nothing good ever happens with the team.
Ronin Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) OMG......I guess your missing the plays where he is flat running over players....he is like a RUNNING BACK playing WIDE RECIVER Where do these noobs come up with this crap.......deep breaths....deep breaths Find me some footage of good defensive teams against which Watkins had good games? Particularly pass defense. Edited June 19, 2014 by TaskersGhost
thebandit27 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 LOL He uses Ohio State film as the example? Did you bother to look at how good OSU's passing D was prior to boasting this? It makes my point perfectly. OSU's pass D sucked elephant balls. They were ranked 6th from worst in all of college. Everyone had a heyday passing performance against them. Bowens says this: While I do believe Watkins will earn his money early in 2014 as a vertical threat, there is no question he can produce within the entire route tree. That may be fine, but he didn't produce using the entire route tree at Clemson. So not sure about this "no question" stuff. Talk is cheap. But more importantly, can Manuel deliver it? Here's another good piece; http://www.sbnation....ceiver-rankings I will agree with two points in this guy's piece about Watkins and Evans. First, that Watkins is the type of receiver that can be brought in, start straight away and become a star. Expecting him to have the same type of impact Green did for the Bengals should be the expectation. I agree that that not only should, but has to be the expectation given the way that the team acquired him now. Green's rookie season was 65, 1,057, 7. So let's just say that Watkins needs to post 60+ catches, 1,000+ yards, and 6+ TDs or his draft status will have been too much. Can we agree on that at least? Secondly, I agree with the guy on this: Evans grades out as one of the ten best players in the draft on our latest big board. He's the type of receiver who instantly makes his quarterback better. The skills he used to make plays in college all translate to the NFL. He already learned how to win when he wasn't the fastest player on the field. That's only going to help him as he transitions to the NFL and learns how to use his physical tools to out-muscle defensive backs for passes. I don't necessarily view Watkins as making his QB better. I view Watkins as posing a potential job challenging issue for a QB like Manuel though. Think about it, if Manuel doesn't automatically become far more accurate, and consistently so, and he keeps overthrowing Watkins like he did so many WRs last year on the relatively limited number of "deep" balls that he threw, or even medium balls, then they're going to be pointing the finger at Manuel initially and calling for his head. The one thing that I've not read anywhere by any credible analyst, is how Watkins' skills used in college translate well to the NFL. That has been conspicuously absent from draf previews. Mike Evans also didn't make a living out of beating up on B-rate talented teams, he absolutely lit up both Alabama and Auburn more than any other WR in recent years. So Bowen's entire analysis is tossed aside because he diagrammed one play from Watkins' best game as a Junior? Nice cherry-picking. And I'm sorry, but if Manuel cannot get the ball to Watkins then the finger should indeed be pointed at him...if your contention is that having a great WR is damaging to the QB because it exposes him as not being good enough, then my response is this: get a better QB, don't hide him by not surrounding him with talent. What sense does that make? Find me some footage of good defensive teams against which Watkins had good games? Particularly pass defense. FSU was #1 in pass defense - Sammy had 8 rec, 68 yds and a TD He also had 7 catches for 93 yards against South Carolina's #12 ranked pass defense And just as a sidenote, Mike Evans got owned by the #82 pass defense in college football (Duke), so that method of analysis has errors that don't quite fit what you're saying.
Buftex Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Think a lot of that opinion on Reed comes from the fact he rarely got a lot of separation. He was a master of positioning and had great hands, so if put the ball in the right spot he would use his body and hands to make the play. If he had the QB's that Molds had I don't think he would have put up the great numbers he had because few QB's could get away with throwing into coverage as well as Kelly could, because of his arm strength/accuracy combo. Their strengths matched up perfect, which is why both are in hall now probably. Not trying to take anything away from Reed, as he was perfect receiver for the situation. I get your point, but again, I think you are minimizing how fantastic Reed was in traffic. He may not have had quite the same career with the guys throwing passes to Moulds, but I honestly think he might have helped those guys look better. You can't really judge guys on what they might have been able to do if circumstances had been different... did anybody ever stop to ponder that, perhaps, Reed made Kelly look good from time to time too? Edited June 19, 2014 by Buftex
Recommended Posts