mannc Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 You asked why Jackson was the #1 WR, and I answered. You didn't ask who was going to be their #1 WR in the future. In all likelihood it'll be Evans, since they're probably moving on from Jackson after this season (there was trade talk all off-season as well). Fair enough, but the original proposition was that Evans projected as a no. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 here we go with the revisionist histories. Here's some more #1 or #2 overalls for you to revise, and just imagine dropping multiple 1st's for: Sam Bradford Jamarcus Russell Robert Gallery Charles Rogers David Carr Robert Griffin ryan leaf having character concerns is hardly revisionist history. and just because a team took the chance, doesnt mean that kirby would have. really, a silly counter argument. Jamarcus Russell was not the type of guy you should bet the house on, sammy watkins is a much safer bet while still having high returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) This is not looking like a strong draft , let's see who cleveland takes and how everyone's career plays out before making knee jerk predictions very true. But I don't think it matters who Cleveland takes with that pick. Bills may not have made same pick. I think the trade is overly dramatized. The Bills have had a mid to high First rd pick for the last 14 yrs and have gone nowhere. They had the ability to get a game changing player. Those are not available in every draft. Outside of QB, whatever they would have taken in the 1st they can buy in FA. The team needs more vets as it is, being a very young team. There would not have been a sure thing QB where they would be drafting in the 1st as it is. Edited November 24, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - C. Hitchens The evidence to the contrary (what would the bills be with Beckham) doesn't exist. It's a silly point to make. Except that I never asserted that the results would be different with Beckham; others did that. I said that we cannot say that the results would be the same. I only ever asserted that which can be supported by evidence: the Bills would not have 3 of their 5 wins without Sammy. Very, very, very simple concept that even the most eloquent of quotes cannot dismiss. If you want to introduce evidence on the Beckham side of the discussion, let's start here (for the 4th or 5th time): what games have the Giants won this year with Beckham that they would not have won without his contributions? Fair enough, but the original proposition was that Evans projected as a no. 2 I believe he meant as a rookie; not certain though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Fair enough, but the original proposition was that Evans projected as a no. 2 its a fact. He was. Whether he succeeds as a #1, if moved into that role, is tbd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigK14094 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Well let's see. Beckham has a quarter back that has some years in the league, has won two super bowls, and is a Manning. Watkins started out with EJ, and now has a qb who wasn't at camp. Edit: I know Eli isn't Peyton, but I'm trying to make a point. Eli has won two Superbowls..........Payton one.....yep, he isn't Payton.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 So again, Did you want Beckham this entire time, going back to before the draft? Receiver wasn't a priority position for me personally with the Bills leading into this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Except that I never asserted that the results would be different with Beckham; others did that. I said that we cannot say that the results would be the same. I only ever asserted that which can be supported by evidence: the Bills would not have 3 of their 5 wins without Sammy. Very, very, very simple concept that even the most eloquent of quotes cannot dismiss. If you want to introduce evidence on the Beckham side of the discussion, let's start here (for the 4th or 5th time): what games have the Giants won this year with Beckham that they would not have won without his contributions? I believe he meant as a rookie; not certain though. my understanding is that is where they saw Evans being most productive in the NFL, beyond his rookie yr. As a #2 WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 You have a gift for conflating rationale...I'll give you that. The point of this entire discussion, at least if I'm reading the original post in the thread correctly, was that moving up for Sammy was a mistake because the team could've just picked Beckham and had the same (or better) results. My point is quite simple: without Sammy, they don't win 3 of the 5 games they've won. Can we say that the results would be the same with Beckham? No, no we cannot (at least not without wild levels of speculation). What is so confusing here? If Sammy isn't there, perhaps the game plans would have been different with the same results. You can say Sammy helped them win, but you can't say they wouldn't have won without him. Butterfly effect. And big picture, even if they lost those games would they be better off long term, with a different young WR or TE, and the chance at another high 1st round pick to get a QB. They're not making the playoffs anyways. The "Sammy will make EJ better" experiment failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) I only ever asserted that which can be supported by evidence: the Bills would not have 3 of their 5 wins without Sammy. Very, very, very simple concept that even the most eloquent of quotes cannot dismiss. Except your assertion can be said about a dozen other players in those wins. Edited November 24, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Except your assertion can be said about a dozen other players in those wins. Who cares? Are we debating the RB's or Sammy Watkins vs ODB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) If Sammy isn't there, perhaps the game plans would have been different with the same results. You can say Sammy helped them win, but you can't say they wouldn't have won without him. Butterfly effect. And big picture, even if they lost those games would they be better off long term, with a different young WR or TE, and the chance at another high 1st round pick to get a QB. They're not making the playoffs anyways. The "Sammy will make EJ better" experiment failed. That facet of the pick definitely fell flat on its face; no question. There was far more to the Sammy pick than that one point though--the guy is going to be a top-end WR for a long time. He'll be a cornerstone of the offense, and will be a QB's best friend. I've always felt that getting a superstar playmaker and finding a franchise QB are mutually exclusive. You need to do both; just because you fail at one doesn't mean that doing the other is misguided. Except your assertion can be said about a dozen other players in those wins. And if this thread were about the other dozen players that might be worth mentioning. Edited November 24, 2014 by thebandit27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 That facet of the pick definitely fell flat on its face; no question. There was far more to the Sammy pick than that one point though--the guy is going to be a top-end WR for a long time. He'll be a cornerstone of the offense, and will be a QB's best friend. I've always felt that getting a superstar playmaker and finding a franchise QB are mutually exclusive. You need to do both; just because you fail at one doesn't mean that doing the other is misguided. And if this thread were about the other dozen players that might be worth mentioning. And sammy doesn't get assigned that "win" without those other players. Sammy didn't win anything. The team did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 That facet of the pick definitely fell flat on its face; no question. There was far more to the Sammy pick than that one point though--the guy is going to be a top-end WR for a long time. He'll be a cornerstone of the offense, and will be a QB's best friend. I've always felt that getting a superstar playmaker and finding a franchise QB are mutually exclusive. You need to do both; just because you fail at one doesn't mean that doing the other is misguided.. If anything it could entice FA QB's or players to come here knowing a player like Watkins is on the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Hindsight. lol. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/167465-peter-king-bills-love-the-odb-jr/page__hl__odell__st__60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 And sammy doesn't get assigned that "win" without those other players. Sammy didn't win anything. The team did. Back to debating semantics I see...cool. I gather from your position in this thread that the players actually don't matter at all. A team is simply a construct; ambiguous and unidentifiable. We can remove Tom Brady from the Patriots and Jamaal Charles from the Chiefs and the teams stay exactly the same. Those guys don't matter--only the logo on the helmet does the winning and losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 If anything it could entice FA QB's or players to come here knowing a player like Watkins is on the roster. Unfortunately teams rarely let a franchise QB get to free agency anymore, so they have to be obtained through the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 It is now clear that accurately predicting the future can still lead to questionable opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 even when we get the best rookie in the entire draft we somehow fail (we gave up too much to get him, others almost as good in this deep WR class) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Here is the way I look at it. Here in Atlanta the Falcons are in first place with a losing record. They do not care, they see their team struggling but all they keep saying is just get in and you never know. In Buffalo they draft what will possibly the best player they have had in a very very long time yet people want to question the decision because there is a guy that has numbers that are close to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts