BigBuff423 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 You presume incorrectly. The style is a neccesary component. Without it, the objective can't be acheived. I suppose I might say, one has to lift the rock, if one seeks to exterminate the critters that hide under them. EDIT: I'm trying to exterminate a premise largely espoused by a specific type of critter. This critter won't respond without....the style. That's because it was preachy, and please, only "a bit"? I'm hurt. We shall agree to disagree. You reduce yourself to someone else's base level when you begin hurling insults and name-calling. It diminishes the merit of your argument and only brings your character into focus, rather than the content of your argument, IMO.
K-9 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 OC, your thread is about this one specific premise. Do you mind if I broaden it just a bit? The possibility of injury makes the trade one that is dangerous. If Watkins goes down, we are a team with qb issues, without Watkins, and no first round pick in 2015. I hate trades like this but Watkins DOES look fantastic. He has a very unique style. I think that Fear The Losing sums it up well in another thread. The Bills need to make the playoffs this year, next year or both. I just can't buy into the thinking that I can't/won't make a trade based on the CHANCE the player I trade for will get injured. And I don't want my GM afraid to pull the trigger on that basis, either. Every player is one play away from never playing again, but you can't make that prevent you from running your organization. GO BILLS!!! The ONLY way to get a "cant miss QB" in this upcoming draft is by selecting FIRST. Marriota is the best QB since Luck. ... That's not what I've heard from the early buzz in the community. At the moment, Marriota is not as good a prospect as Bortles was when he came out. That's not to say the Jags didn't draft him too high as many feel they did, but when you like your guy and have a chance, then you pull the trigger, so I can't blame them. Somebody will like Mariotta and will commit to taking him, but make no mistake, he's NOT regarded as a franchise QB at the moment. GO BILLS!!! After sifting through this thread, I honestly feel many of us don't realize just how highly regarded Watkins was coming out. One of the best pro prospects, regardless of position, in years. Screw the future ramifications, when you see a talent like that and you have the desire to get him, you do it and don't look back. Reminds me of the Bennett trade. While nobody will admit it now, half the city thought Polian sold the store for what he gave up to get him. Took balls then, took balls now. I'm glad our GM was willing to go all in on the courage of his convictions. Hindsight takes no guts at all. GO BILLS!!!
Kirby Jackson Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I just can't buy into the thinking that I can't/won't make a trade based on the CHANCE the player I trade for will get injured. And I don't want my GM afraid to pull the trigger on that basis, either. Every player is one play away from never playing again, but you can't make that prevent you from running your organization. GO BILLS!!! That's not what I've heard from the early buzz in the community. At the moment, Marriota is not as good a prospect as Bortles was when he came out. That's not to say the Jags didn't draft him too high as many feel they did, but when you like your guy and have a chance, then you pull the trigger, so I can't blame them. Somebody will like Mariotta and will commit to taking him, but make no mistake, he's NOT regarded as a franchise QB at the moment. GO BILLS!!! After sifting through this thread, I honestly feel many of us don't realize just how highly regarded Watkins was coming out. One of the best pro prospects, regardless of position, in years. Screw the future ramifications, when you see a talent like that and you have the desire to get him, you do it and don't look back. Reminds me of the Bennett trade. While nobody will admit it now, half the city thought Polian sold the store for what he gave up to get him. Took balls then, took balls now. I'm glad our GM was willing to go all in on the courage of his convictions. Hindsight takes no guts at all. GO BILLS!!! Great stuff as always k-9. That's interessting on Mariota. I have said that he is a rich man's Alex Smith to me. In terms of people not knowing what kind of prospect Watkins is it kind of speaks to the lack of interest in college football in WNY. In WNY people casually watch football on Saturdays. It is like that throughout the northeast. In parts of the country (like where I ask in Louisiana) college football is even bigger than pro. People know the players, follow recruiting, and have a really good sense of the player before his name is called on draft weekend. They are aware of their strengths, weaknesses and how they have showed out in big games. It's a little less scary to invest in Watkins if you followed him prior to the lead up to the draft. This guy was dominant and can't miss.
BillsVet Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Sitting at 9 meant Ebron though. The Bills have been forthcoming with that. Perhaps Ebron would have been the pick. And if EE was picked and then doesn't pan out in the NFL, Brandon would have chimed in to say Buddy told them to take Ebron though.
Manther Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 If you have a mid-range 1st round pick (say 16) you can trade up into the top 10 somewhat easily (package 1st and 2nd like St Louis gave us). Without that 1st rounder, it's almost impossible to get into the top 10 without trading your entire draft away for the next 2 years. And forget about getting into the top 5. Just delete this post, it sounds like a drunken rant to be honest. It makes sense and always did. And, because you disagree with Watkins (closer to a sure thing than most top 10 picks) it is a drunken rant? Would you prefer to have Stephen Gilmore and EJ Manuel on your team or Sammy Watkins? Gilmore was a #9 overall pick (I think) and EJ was #16. Those would be where we approx chose last year and the upcoming year if we didn't trade for Watkins. So, do you want two questions marks with upside or one of the top 5 game changing receivers in the last 10 years with little risk? Even if you disagree, how is it a drunken rant. Draft picks are draft picks. Or consider them like stock. However, if you pick with your draft picks and miss, your stock is worth less. Watkins was closer to a can't miss than other players in this draft and other drafts, so, it was a well calculated risk. It sounds like the only rant is you wanting to hear yourself complain because Watkins is doing well and the Bills are above .500! Did you have a tough childhood and enjoy being miserable!? Perhaps you should reread my post. I said it's easily possible to move up into the top 10 from 16. Possibly top 5. Move to the top 5? That is what we did to get Sammy and you thought it was terrible and we gave up too much in a first round pick! Make up your mind and use it !
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I was. I like OC, even if he is obnoxious and self-aggrandizing on occasion. That is called a blowhard in some places.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 That is called a blowhard in some places. Correction. All places. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blowhard
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Correction. All places. http://www.merriam-w...ionary/blowhard I think windbag fits well.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I think windbag fits well. :lol: Yup. Actually, "O.C. Windbag" has a nice ring to it, and kind of a Dickensonian air. But unfortunately, you can't even make this dude up. No one would believe it, even in fiction.
What a Tuel Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) #1- lots of good QB's have been picked after the 16th overall slot. Rodgers, brady, bress, Wilson, flacco, romo, foles, Dalton and kaepernick all say hi. #2- Sammy will need to become a pro bowl player in order to justify two #1's. Brady - We will just get him with our 6th. Brees - We will just get him with our 2nd Wilson - We will just get him with our 3rd Romo - We will just get him in free agency Foles - We will just get him with our 3rd Dalton - We will just get him with our 2nd Kaepernick - We will just get him with our 2nd We should easily be able to stockpile franchise QBs without a single first round pick! This is too easy! I should be a GM! We will just ignore the hordes of QB's drafted in the later rounds that haven't been franchise QBs. Edit: On a side note, what did people see in Brees that pushed him to the second? His college highlights look phenomenal. Edited October 22, 2014 by What a Tuel
Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Brady - We will just get him with our 6th. Brees - We will just get him with our 2nd Wilson - We will just get him with our 3rd Romo - We will just get him in free agency Foles - We will just get him with our 3rd Dalton - We will just get him with our 2nd Kaepernick - We will just get him with our 2nd We should easily be able to stockpile franchise QBs without a single first round pick! This is too easy! I should be a GM! We will just ignore the hordes of QB's drafted in the later rounds that haven't been franchise QBs. Edit: On a side note, what did people see in Brees that pushed him to the second? His college highlights look phenomenal. Because he was considered too small, or at the very least his short height for a QB dropped him significantly just for that simple fact. Plus, this is somewhat picky but true, there were only 30 teams then. He was the 31st pick. He would have been a #1 pick today.
What a Tuel Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Because he was considered too small, or at the very least his short height for a QB dropped him significantly just for that simple fact. Plus, this is somewhat picky but true, there were only 30 teams then. He was the 31st pick. He would have been a #1 pick today. He was the (Edit 1st pick) 2nd pick of the 2nd round. Mind boggling, but I guess he wasn't too phenomenal in San Diego for those first few years, so there's that. He really took off when he went to NO, just fit better there I guess. Edited October 22, 2014 by What a Tuel
Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 He was the (Edit 1st pick) 2nd pick of the 2nd round. Mind boggling, but I guess he wasn't too phenomenal in San Diego for those first few years, so there's that. He really took off when he went to NO, just fit better there I guess. Yeah, first pick of second round. I thought there were 30 teams then but there were 31. But the point is, that's a #1 pick today. He took a little while, and he basically had one good season with the Chargers. He was beaten out by post-Bills 58 year old Doug Flutie as a rookie, was decent in his second year, pretty damn good in his third year, but the Chargers drafted Eli (and then traded for Rivers) even though they had Brees. He was still pretty good in his fourth year but got hurt late. Actually, Nick Saban (according to him) wanted him for the Dolphins but the trainers and management overruled him, and thought his shoulder was worse than it was, and worse than the injury to Dante Culpepper, so the Fins signed Culpepper and that left Brees for the Saints. Ha.
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Yeah I'm pretty sure people will still call him "basically a rookie" next year. I'd bet a month's worth of chicken wings on it. Yup till he hits that magic 16 game level. Then it will be well his rookie year was interrupted - he needs 16 consecutive games. So on and on. Forever. Beauty of it is that I don't care. Orton is the QB and Orton is winning.
BADOLBILZ Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) If you have a QB you always make the Watkins trade. One Watkins is worth a whole sack of the Bills usual first round pick at #11. On this end you are right. The first time I saw him as a freshman I knew this guy was going to be a potential #1 overall pick and a guy that the perenially mediocre Bills would have no shot at without a trade-up. That said, I also believe that if you take the best available QB in every draft that you will end up the better organization for that strategy. Yes, even better than a team that has a star WR and no QB. To me, the draft is an ongoing process and not just an annual event. And as much as I love me some Watkins that means drafting a QB #1 EVERY year until you get your man. Because nobody does that I can't give you statistical evidence but had the Bills taken the QB taken immediately after their first round pick from 2000 on they would have had Brees, Rodgers, and Flacco....guys who went on to win SB's.... as well as some other pretty good QB's. Of course they probably don't get that same shot every year because those good QB's would have elevated this franchise but the fact remains that those players were there and they were passed on for a host of forgettable players who seemed special to someone AT THE TIME. And years from now when Sammy is retiring there will be QB's drafted from the past few seasons who will just be hitting their peak with many years ahead of them. That's a fact of life when evaluating the value of a position in the NFL. So in short, while they made a good deal at that moment for Watkins.....they still have no answer at the only position that sets you up for long term success. Right now that QB situation is BLEAK. Yeah, they are 4-3, but they've played well just once this season(Miami). Your premise that the Bills were never going to be a bottom 10 team is complete garbage though. Truthfully, without Watkins they may be 0-7 which would have put them on the path to a very high first round pick well inside the top 10. Edited October 22, 2014 by BADOLBEELZ
GunnerBill Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) To me, the draft is an ongoing process and not just an annual event. And as much as I love me some Watkins that means drafting a QB #1 EVERY year until you get your man. I'm sorry but I think that is nonsense. Quarterback is the most important position on the field but it is not the only important position on the field. And how do you judge when you have got your man? If you bring a rookie in year 1 of that strategy I'm guessing he plays straight away.... say he does ok, kind of middle of the road so you draft another in round 1 in year 2. Then your 2nd year guy wins the job in camp, has a better command of the system and the offense etc and he plays better than he did in year 1 but is not yet proven as the answer (think an early years Matt Ryan maybe). You now have a promising QB who has played 2 years and 1st rounder on the bench.... do you draft another? Take a year off and focus on maybe one of the other key positions? I just think it is bonkers, because ultimately unless you find a guy who is truly elite through this strategy then he will never be able to inspire the lack of talent you put around him to be genuinely competitive in the NFL straight away....a Luck might or a Manning.... but otherwise you are judging each QB in a poor team. That isn't to say I favour the Buddy Nix "get the team first then find the QB" approach. I just think that the relentless churn of 1st round QBs every year until you get your man is nonsensical and I severely doubt it helps you win. Edited October 22, 2014 by GunnerBill
JohnC Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 If you have a QB you always make the Watkins trade. One Watkins is worth a whole sack of the Bills usual first round pick at #11. On this end you are right. The first time I saw him as a freshman I knew this guy was going to be a potential #1 overall pick and a guy that the perenially mediocre Bills would have no shot at without a trade-up. That said, I also believe that if you take the best available QB in every draft that you will end up the better organization for that strategy. Yes, even better than a team that has a star WR and no QB. To me, the draft is an ongoing process and not just an annual event. And as much as I love me some Watkins that means drafting a QB #1 EVERY year until you get your man. Because nobody does that I can't give you statistical evidence but had the Bills taken the QB taken immediately after their first round pick from 2000 on they would have had Brees, Rodgers, and Flacco....guys who went on to win SB's.... as well as some other pretty good QB's. Of course they probably don't get that same shot every year because those good QB's would have elevated this franchise but the fact remains that those players were there and they were passed on for a host of forgettable players who seemed special to someone AT THE TIME. And years from now when Sammy is retiring there will be QB's drafted from the past few seasons who will just be hitting their peak with many years ahead of them. That's a fact of life when evaluating the value of a position in the NFL. So in short, while they made a good deal at that moment for Watkins.....they still have no answer at the only position that sets you up for long term success. Right now that QB situation is BLEAK. Yeah, they are 4-3, but they've played well just once this season(Miami). Your premise that the Bills were never going to be a bottom 10 team is complete garbage though. Truthfully, without Watkins they may be 0-7 which would have put them on the path to a very high first round pick well inside the top 10. New Orleans got Brees in the free agent market. Denver got Manning in the free agent market. KC got Alex Smith in a trade with the 49ers. Arizona got Palmer from the Raiders in a low scale trade. Although he is on his downside he helped stabilize that position. Wilson was a third round draft selection for the Seahawks. He has done fairly well in his short tenure in the league. Kaepernick was a second round draft choice for the 49ers who already had Alex Smith. Hoyer is far from being an elite qb but he is a competent qb who so far has helped a dismal team be competitive. Maybe he is simply a place holder until Johnny Football is ready but at least he is a reasonable short term answer. The point I am making with the above examples is that if you can't get a franchise qb with a high draft choice in the short term that doesn't mean that you can't find a credible qb who will stabilize the position and quite possibly play above expectations. How many people would have thought that Kurt Warner was going to play at a HOF level during his short stint of excellence with the Rams and Cardinals? Most people will agree that Orton is at best a pedestrian starter. Yet he has clearly put Watkins in a better position to exhibit his special talents than with the prior starter. Sometimes it is more fruitful to seek the best alternative option when the best option isn't available rather than sit on your hands and lament about your difficult plight. Watkins is the type of player who is going to be at the top or near the top of the draft in any year. If you have an opportunity to get such a dynamic player you do so and continue to upgrade wherever you can. Passing on that type of player because you are not in the best position to accommodate that unique talent is the type of thinking that Buddy Nix used as a GM. Being cautious isn't always being smart.
Rocky Landing Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) The entire premise of this thread is a straw-man argument. And, the ensuing debate seems to go along with some bizarre assumption that the primary value of a first round draft pick is for the purpose of drafting a "franchise quarterback." Since when? Our disfunction at qb contributed to the risk of paying such a high price for Watkins in other ways. EJ's inaccuracy lowered Watkins value on the field. I don't believe the main concern in Watkins high price was that "now we don't get to draft a franchise qb in the first round in 2015." Especially since we were so "all in on EJ" at the time. The question was, and still is: was Watkins worth our 9th pick (Ebron, apparently), 4th round pick, and whomever we would have drafted in the first round in 2015 (whichever position that might be) combined. It wasn't a low-risk move. But, considering Ebrons so-far underwhelming rookie season, and how good Watkins is proving to be, I think most of us, at this point, think it was worth it. Edited October 22, 2014 by Rocky Landing
Bills Fan of St Augustine Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 That is called a blowhard in some places. OC is entitled to his opinion. He may be a bit obsessive in his compulsive need to argue, but the man is entitled to his opinion. Perhaps its a disorder and he goes with "OCD"?
Rocky Landing Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I just can't buy into the thinking that I can't/won't make a trade based on the CHANCE the player I trade for will get injured. And I don't want my GM afraid to pull the trigger on that basis, either. Every player is one play away from never playing again, but you can't make that prevent you from running your organization. GO BILLS!!! I don't think that's really the point. A GM must always consider all the risks vs. rewards in a given trade, and the possibility of a Watkins injury is more significant in terms of risk when you are assessing whether that one player is worth the three players you would have acquired otherwise.
Recommended Posts