Give us your overall impression of Sammy Watkins

[ctk232]

I am interested in your over all grade 1-10. (10 being the best)Sammy Watkins now has more receptions then Joe Cribbs (52) who held the rookie record.

 

Watkins now has 58

 

I have two gripes, catches EVERYTHING in Practice but appears to give up on game day passes AND an annoying durability problem.

 

Keep in mind, this is a rookie and if this guy continues to improve he will be well worth the drafting price.

 

I give him an overall score of 8

 

 

 

http://www.buffalobi...af-89c49dcf2e09

I agree with this assessment with the exception of your two gripes. Frankly, it is near impossible to truly evaluate Sammy's worth in a fragmented offense with no clear strategy of making the most of our weapons, and without a capable QB to captain and implement the scheme. Given this information, I would actually rate Sammy higher considering the failures of our OC and QB position throughout the season, in addition to the fact he has been playing hurt nearly the entire season - addressing your durability and drop questions.

 

Durability is there, and the drop issues are all with the QB. Orton is severely inaccurate when targetting Sammy over 10 yards. Not to say he hasn't connected on some deep passes, but the majority of drops to Sammy come from throws that were mistimed, underthrown, overthrown, or simply horrendous often causing him to play defense rather that make plays. I've seen a few that were honestly his mistakes, but not enough to ding him as a rookie in one of the leagues' most iffy offenses with little guidance and direction.

 

Diagnosis: Agree with your 8 - plenty of potential to grow and become the player we all hope he is. You can see the ability now. You CANNOT expect immediate star quality production with our current OC/QB situation - FACT. That being said, new OL, OC, QB . . . and potentially HC but I'll defer that one for now.

[Jauronimo]

Done.

 

I want next year's #1 AND I would have been even more disappointed seeing all these rookie WR lighting it up if they took Ebron.

 

None of that makes me feel very good about Whaley BTW.

 

You and Jauron actually made me feel better about the trade "over payment"

 

It sounds like Whaley was saved from his own poor judgement. Imagine Ebron and Kujo as the 1st 2 picks....

The fact that you offered an analogy about buying a house and then followed up with over payment screams to me that you do not understand the draft, value and price. Until you understand value vs. price and how those two ideas relate to the draft then you will not be able to assess the decision.

 

First, hindsight arguments are as lazy as it gets and as foolish as they come after 12 games. Especially so when they include players that "I would've taken instead" since you have no guarantee that people's champ ODB was still going to be on board in this fantasy scenario. Decisions are made based on what is known at the time and they must judged by what is known or knowable at the time they're made. I don't remember anyone talking about Odell Beckham or Zach Martin as once in a generation type talents.

 

Moving on, what it is the value of any draft pick? For that matter, what is the price? The draft isn't a liquid market like the housing market where you have easily observable and accessible metrics like $ per square foot. You don't have a rich transactional history to draw from in the draft like you do in the housing market. And even if you did, comparing players is far more subjective than comparing houses or even comparing stocks. Thats why even the best scouts still miss quite a bit.

 

The value of any one draft pick is a function of the player available at that pick as determined individually by each of the 32 teams and varies widely based on the subjective nature of scouting and synergistic qualities based on team's schemes and their players. Next year's first overall isn't necessarily as valuable as this year's first overall. No one was willing to sell the farm RG3 style for this year's 2nd overall because the right to select Greg Robinson wasn't nearly as valuable to teams as the right to select RG3. The price of a draft pick is what a team is willing to pay. What a team is willing to pay is based largely on the value they place on the player they're trading for. Just like the stock market, there is no such thing as a price which is simply too high. A stock selling for $500 a share is pretty expensive. But if you believe its worth $1,000 a share, then $500 is a bargain compared to a $5 stock which you believe is only worth $3.

 

If your draft board identifies one generational talent in a pool of scrubs, then who gives a **** about giving up your 6 other picks in that same draft? If you trust your assessment and only see one player available in the draft that can help your team whats the value in passing up on that player in favor of 7 guys that you don't expect to dress on Sundays? You can't save your picks for future talent like you can wait on a stock or a house for a more favorable market cycle. They have to be used that day to take players or to trade for future consideration.

 

If you want to tell me that the Bills over paid, then tell me what value you've placed on Sammy, a little background on how you arrived at that conclusion, and then define the price (i.e.,who is available in next year's draft, what is their value, or what is the implicit cost of trading away the right to select an unknown individual in 2015?) using only information available as of April 2014. If you can't do that, then don't tell me how its "obvious" that they over paid.

 

You can disagree with the trading future first round picks to move up in the draft from a philosophical standpoint. As I've laid out above, theres a lot of moving pieces and significant unknown costs in trading away future picks. There's also some history of such transactions which we can view in hindsight and assess how often they work out. In a few years we can all say whether the decision to trade up for Sammy has worked out or not. However, any argument offered which declares that the decision to trade up for Sammy was bad at the time and egregiously, obviously bad at that, which fails to touch on any of the points I've raised is just absurd.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Jauronimo

[BarleyNY]

 

All I've said is that he's a top 20 WR in the NFL today, right this very moment, despite your claim he might one day get there. Actually, you said you believed he'd never be a top 10 WR at any point in his career. Which is absurd on many levels, but to test it I offered up the idea that if there was a redraft in the NFL tomorrow at just the WR position, Sammy would be taken in the top 20.

 

I gave you the list of 7 I'd draft ahead of Watkins today, based on pure talent and production -- future and present:

 

Johnson, Jones, Bryant, Green, Brown, Nelson, Thomas

 

I also said there are probably a few I'm forgetting (like Gordon for example). But even if there are five or six guys I'm overlooking, there's still no way I can reach twenty names before I don't write down Sammy. And I don't think you could either if you did this objectively. Try it, I've asked you to do so now twice. If you are so convinced you're right, let's see your list. I'm genuinely curious.

 

I promise you there isn't a single GM in the league today that wouldn't have Sammy in their top 20 -- if not top 15 -- based on his skill set. That's not something you often say about a rookie, but in Sammy's case it's true.

 

That isn't to disparage this class of WRs either. I know the folks who are anti-Whaley want to hate on the trade (and it's their right to have that opinion) because this class is so deep. They're right in that sense (though wrong in the big picture because Ebron was the pick). This WR class is loaded with talent, there might be one or two names besides Sammy on the top 20 list even. I like Evans. I love ODB. I really like Benjamin... sorta. But I'd still take Sammy over any one of them without hesitation if given the choice.

 

Your eyes deceive you, or you haven't seen him play in person. Because if you have seen him play in person you wouldn't be saying such things.

 

You're making a prediction about the future performance of the guy by holding up 13 games worth of stats... without contextualizing them at all. That's a clown argument, brother. Sammy played the first half of the season with a fractured rib and the second half with a bum wheel. He's played the whole season with two sub-par QBs throwing him the ball while facing the opposing team's best cover man AND safety help nearly every snap.

 

And despite that, he's still won us three games and is in the process of shattering every meaningful rookie WR record in this franchise's history.

 

I honestly don't have time to educate you on logic or looking at things with an unbiased eye, so I am going to make this brief.

 

Right now we don't have much of the disparity in how we view Watkins' play as it stands now. You have him as top 20 and I have him as a top 25 WR. The disparity seems to be strictly and how we view him developing. I think he'll improve and you think he will improve dramatically. The problem is you've done nothing but make excuses for him not having performed better while cutting down other WRs. That shows your bias. Every wide receiver we could talk about has excuses. And on the off chance that you watch as much football as you say, then it's too bad you don't know what you're seeing. Everything seems to be telling you what you already thought you knew - Sammy Watkins is going to be super awesome! Writing stupid things like "Sammy is shattering every meaningful rookie WR record!" but failed to mention that he's not even first on the list of rookie WRs this year in most of those stats. That really doesn't help your credibility.

 

And I like Sammy. I think he's going to be very good. Saying that the guys going to be a top 20 wide receiver is generally thought it was a pretty good complement. You also misrepresented one of my comments about preferring other wide receivers to Sammy. My comment was that I would have rather had one of the other receivers plus our first and fourth round picks rather than Sammy. Are you honestly telling me that you'd rather have Sammy Watkins than one of the other top receivers in this class plus our picks? Now, that really shows bias.

[GrizzlyAdams]

The kid has played thru injuries all year, no durability issues. He is the real deal. Has amazing hands, is strong, and runs NFL routes as a rookie.

 

Amazing hands. Except that he has dropped some pretty easy balls this year. I really like him but I would give him like a 7 right now. This may have already been said by someone in these 200 different comments, but I'm still waiting to see him jump up over someone and catch a ball. Literally all of his catches are uncontested!

 

I worry because he has yet to haul one in when their is a defender all over him. I've been seeing the other rookies doing it all year.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Amazing hands. Except that he has dropped some pretty easy balls this year. I really like him but I would give him like a 7 right now. This may have already been said by someone in these 200 different comments, but I'm still waiting to see him jump up over someone and catch a ball. Literally all of his catches are uncontested!

 

I worry because he has yet to haul one in when their is a defender all over him. I've been seeing the other rookies doing it all year.

That's what's I've been saying all along. He's not as big as an Evans and lacks the vertical and body control of a beckham. Those guys have the "open when covered" quality that he lacks. Player he most reminds me of is not a wr at all. It's former pats DB Ty law. When the was allowed to play physical he was the best. When they called it tighter he was average. Sammy has a powerful upper body he can use to push DBs off him (top wr on bench at combine). He got away with a push last Sunday. He needs that to create separation because he's not a jump ball guy.

Edited December 11, 2014 by JTSP

[Deranged Rhino]

I honestly don't have time to educate you on logic or looking at things with an unbiased eye, so I am going to make this brief.

 

When a post starts like this we know we're in for some fun.

 

Right now we don't have much of the disparity in how we view Watkins' play as it stands now. You have him as top 20 and I have him as a top 25 WR. The disparity seems to be strictly and how we view him developing. I think he'll improve and you think he will improve dramatically. The problem is you've done nothing but make excuses for him not having performed better while cutting down other WRs.

 

Incorrect. I spent plenty of time and page space discussing the virtues of the top WRs in this class and didn't just make excuses. Again, if you want to debate, it helps if you fully read and understand what it is you're debating.

 

That shows your bias. Every wide receiver we could talk about has excuses. And on the off chance that you watch as much football as you say, then it's too bad you don't know what you're seeing. Everything seems to be telling you what you already thought you knew - Sammy Watkins is going to be super awesome!

 

Doubling down on stupid with this point.

 

Writing stupid things like "Sammy is shattering every meaningful rookie WR record!" but failed to mention that he's not even first on the list of rookie WRs this year in most of those stats. That really doesn't help your credibility.

 

You know what would help your credibility? If you keep the conversation on point. I never said "every meaningful rookie WR record" in the NFL -- but every meaningful record for the Bills. Which, you know, he's doing... but since you're either not reading, or cannot comprehend what I write, it makes sense that you'd miss that.

 

And I like Sammy. I think he's going to be very good. Saying that the guys going to be a top 20 wide receiver is generally thought it was a pretty good complement. You also misrepresented one of my comments about preferring other wide receivers to Sammy. My comment was that I would have rather had one of the other receivers plus our first and fourth round picks rather than Sammy. Are you honestly telling me that you'd rather have Sammy Watkins than one of the other top receivers in this class plus our picks? Now, that really shows bias.

 

All your talk and you still won't give us a list of the 20 WRs in the league you'd draft right now ahead of Sammy...

 

So you're either intellectually dishonest here or too scared to give us your list of the 20 guys right now you'd take over Sammy. I regret I took the time to address your questions seriously yesterday, it's clear you're a clown with no desire to contribute to this conversation.

 

That shows your bias.

 

That's what's I've been saying all along. He's not as big as an Evans and lacks the vertical and body control of a beckham. Those guys have the "open when covered" quality that he lacks. Player he most reminds me of is not a wr at all. It's former pats DB Ty law. When the was allowed to play physical he was the best. When they called it tighter he was average. Sammy has a powerful upper body he can use to push DBs off him (top wr on bench at combine). He got away with a push last Sunday. He needs that to create separation because he's not a jump ball guy.

 

The bolded section might be the stupidest comment in the history of TSW... Sammy reminds you not of a WR but of Ty !@#$ing Law? You're blind.

Edited December 11, 2014 by GreggyT

[FireChan]

The fact that you offered an analogy about buying a house and then followed up with over payment screams to me that you do not understand the draft, value and price. Until you understand value vs. price and how those two ideas relate to the draft then you will not be able to assess the decision.

 

First, hindsight arguments are as lazy as it gets and as foolish as they come after 12 games. Especially so when they include players that "I would've taken instead" since you have no guarantee that people's champ ODB was still going to be on board in this fantasy scenario. Decisions are made based on what is known at the time and they must judged by what is known or knowable at the time they're made. I don't remember anyone talking about Odell Beckham or Zach Martin as once in a generation type talents.

 

Moving on, what it is the value of any draft pick? For that matter, what is the price? The draft isn't a liquid market like the housing market where you have easily observable and accessible metrics like $ per square foot. You don't have a rich transactional history to draw from in the draft like you do in the housing market. And even if you did, comparing players is far more subjective than comparing houses or even comparing stocks. Thats why even the best scouts still miss quite a bit.

 

The value of any one draft pick is a function of the player available at that pick as determined individually by each of the 32 teams and varies widely based on the subjective nature of scouting and synergistic qualities based on team's schemes and their players. Next year's first overall isn't necessarily as valuable as this year's first overall. No one was willing to sell the farm RG3 style for this year's 2nd overall because the right to select Greg Robinson wasn't nearly as valuable to teams as the right to select RG3. The price of a draft pick is what a team is willing to pay. What a team is willing to pay is based largely on the value they place on the player they're trading for. Just like the stock market, there is no such thing as a price which is simply too high. A stock selling for $500 a share is pretty expensive. But if you believe its worth $1,000 a share, then $500 is a bargain compared to a $5 stock which you believe is only worth $3.

 

If your draft board identifies one generational talent in a pool of scrubs, then who gives a **** about giving up your 6 other picks in that same draft? If you trust your assessment and only see one player available in the draft that can help your team whats the value in passing up on that player in favor of 7 guys that you don't expect to dress on Sundays? You can't save your picks for future talent like you can wait on a stock or a house for a more favorable market cycle. They have to be used that day to take players or to trade for future consideration.

 

If you want to tell me that the Bills over paid, then tell me what value you've placed on Sammy, a little background on how you arrived at that conclusion, and then define the price (i.e.,who is available in next year's draft, what is their value, or what is the implicit cost of trading away the right to select an unknown individual in 2015?) using only information available as of April 2014. If you can't do that, then don't tell me how its "obvious" that they over paid.

 

You can disagree with the trading future first round picks to move up in the draft from a philosophical standpoint. As I've laid out above, theres a lot of moving pieces and significant unknown costs in trading away future picks. There's also some history of such transactions which we can view in hindsight and assess how often they work out. In a few years we can all say whether the decision to trade up for Sammy has worked out or not. However, any argument offered which declares that the decision to trade up for Sammy was bad at the time and egregiously, obviously bad at that, which fails to touch on any of the points I've raised is just absurd.

 

This was so unnecessary.

[Jauronimo]

This was so unnecessary.

Perhaps for some. I've got 11 pages of evidence to the contrary though.

[Hplarrm]

My sense is:

 

1. Definitely a rookie (remember back to his too early celebration of a TD hic fortunately did not cost us)

 

..2. However, definitely achieved some the highest level accomplishments like already breaking record for rookie receptions, rookie player of the month and other stats that make him easily worthy of a high #1 pick.

 

3. Sill, way too early to reach final conclusions. After year 3 is when rationale conclusions can be made.

 

4. There are issues which can be reasonably debated (were there as productive receivers as Watkins who might have been taken later in the draft and most important w/o giving up the cost to move up, would Watkins have been better with a even marginally better OC than Hackett or even marginally better QB than Orton/Manual

)?

 

However, though these issues can be reasonably debated, any conclusion is premature.

 

Watkins has failings for sure but also has demonstrated some top notch accomplishments for sure as well.

 

The botomline:

 

1. Keep training and demanding more of Watkins (and also praise him for breaking Cibbs mark being player of month, etc) to not recognize bot renders n opinion stupid.

 

2 Get a credible OC as Hackett has not cut it.

 

3. Get a better starting QB. I like Orton as a player but he is .500 QB who is not going to be better than adequate. Manual is not as good as Orton right now but clearly has more. upside

[birdog1960]

The fact that you offered an analogy about buying a house and then followed up with over payment screams to me that you do not understand the draft, value and price. Until you understand value vs. price and how those two ideas relate to the draft then you will not be able to assess the decision.

 

First, hindsight arguments are as lazy as it gets and as foolish as they come after 12 games. Especially so when they include players that "I would've taken instead" since you have no guarantee that people's champ ODB was still going to be on board in this fantasy scenario. Decisions are made based on what is known at the time and they must judged by what is known or knowable at the time they're made. I don't remember anyone talking about Odell Beckham or Zach Martin as once in a generation type talents.

 

Moving on, what it is the value of any draft pick? For that matter, what is the price? The draft isn't a liquid market like the housing market where you have easily observable and accessible metrics like $ per square foot. You don't have a rich transactional history to draw from in the draft like you do in the housing market. And even if you did, comparing players is far more subjective than comparing houses or even comparing stocks. Thats why even the best scouts still miss quite a bit.

 

The value of any one draft pick is a function of the player available at that pick as determined individually by each of the 32 teams and varies widely based on the subjective nature of scouting and synergistic qualities based on team's schemes and their players. Next year's first overall isn't necessarily as valuable as this year's first overall. No one was willing to sell the farm RG3 style for this year's 2nd overall because the right to select Greg Robinson wasn't nearly as valuable to teams as the right to select RG3. The price of a draft pick is what a team is willing to pay. What a team is willing to pay is based largely on the value they place on the player they're trading for. Just like the stock market, there is no such thing as a price which is simply too high. A stock selling for $500 a share is pretty expensive. But if you believe its worth $1,000 a share, then $500 is a bargain compared to a $5 stock which you believe is only worth $3.

 

If your draft board identifies one generational talent in a pool of scrubs, then who gives a **** about giving up your 6 other picks in that same draft? If you trust your assessment and only see one player available in the draft that can help your team whats the value in passing up on that player in favor of 7 guys that you don't expect to dress on Sundays? You can't save your picks for future talent like you can wait on a stock or a house for a more favorable market cycle. They have to be used that day to take players or to trade for future consideration.

 

If you want to tell me that the Bills over paid, then tell me what value you've placed on Sammy, a little background on how you arrived at that conclusion, and then define the price (i.e.,who is available in next year's draft, what is their value, or what is the implicit cost of trading away the right to select an unknown individual in 2015?) using only information available as of April 2014. If you can't do that, then don't tell me how its "obvious" that they over paid.

 

You can disagree with the trading future first round picks to move up in the draft from a philosophical standpoint. As I've laid out above, theres a lot of moving pieces and significant unknown costs in trading away future picks. There's also some history of such transactions which we can view in hindsight and assess how often they work out. In a few years we can all say whether the decision to trade up for Sammy has worked out or not. However, any argument offered which declares that the decision to trade up for Sammy was bad at the time and egregiously, obviously bad at that, which fails to touch on any of the points I've raised is just absurd.

since there are so many unknowns, statistically it would make sense to use as many picks as possible in order to best optimize your chances to obtain the highest number of top players for any given team during any given draft or series of drafts, non? the only exception would be if you were absolutely certain (or near about) of the future dominance of a certain player. after almost a year, i don't think even many here with an obvious bias are absolutely certain of that with watkins.

[Jauronimo]

since there are so many unknowns, statistically it would make sense to use as many picks as possible in order to best optimize your chances to obtain the highest number of top players for any given team during any given draft or series of drafts, non? the only exception would be if you were absolutely certain (or near about) of the future dominance of a certain player. after almost a year, i don't think even many here with an obvious bias are absolutely certain of that with watkins.

That would be the philosophical argument I alluded to. Thats a valid argument, in my opinion, that trading future first round picks for one first rounder now is never a good idea. Given the history of such trades and the relative hit rate of supposed once in a generation type players, how much should a GM trust their board? But thats a topic for another thread.

[FireChan]

since there are so many unknowns, statistically it would make sense to use as many picks as possible in order to best optimize your chances to obtain the highest number of top players for any given team during any given draft or series of drafts, non? the only exception would be if you were absolutely certain (or near about) of the future dominance of a certain player. after almost a year, i don't think even many here with an obvious bias are absolutely certain of that with watkins.

 

You're wrong. That's what every talent evaluator knew about Watkins, that's the whole freaking point. He was going to be a superstar. They were as certain as they possibly could be. That's why he went 4th overall, that's why he was the best offensive player ranked in the draft. He was the best WR prospect by a country mile.

Edited December 11, 2014 by FireChan

[K-9]

That's what's I've been saying all along. He's not as big as an Evans and lacks the vertical and body control of a beckham. Those guys have the "open when covered" quality that he lacks. Player he most reminds me of is not a wr at all. It's former pats DB Ty law. When the was allowed to play physical he was the best. When they called it tighter he was average. Sammy has a powerful upper body he can use to push DBs off him (top wr on bench at combine). He got away with a push last Sunday. He needs that to create separation because he's not a jump ball guy.

 

This is funny. A complete 180 from the scouting consensus on Sammy Watkins.

 

But I gotta give you credit for the most original observation ever: Sammy Watkins is another Ty Law. That is rare insight indeed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited December 11, 2014 by K-9

[birdog1960]

You're wrong. That's what every talent evaluator knew about Watkins, that's the whole freaking point. He was going to be a superstar. They were as certain as they possibly could be. That's why he went 4th overall, that's why he was the best offensive player ranked in the draft. He was the best WR prospect by a country mile.

almost every talent evaluator thought that about ryan leaf as well. remember when there was serious debate over whether he or peyton was the better choice? if i'm not mistaken it was so hotly debated that there was an SI cover on it. there's no such thing as a sure thing.

[K-9]

almost every talent evaluator thought that about ryan leaf as well. remember when there was serious debate over whether he or peyton was the better choice? if i'm not mistaken it was so hotly debated that there was an SI cover on it. there's no such thing as a sure thing.

 

That is a myth, actually. Nobody in the scouting community had Leaf going before Manning. And certainly not Polian. Manning was considered generational talent. Leaf, a very good prospect. But like any other year, that didn't stop the pundits in the media from coming up with things to talk about.

 

But are you trying to say that because scouts have been wrong in the past, they are wrong about Watkins, too?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

almost every talent evaluator thought that about ryan leaf as well. remember when there was serious debate over whether he or peyton was the better choice? if i'm not mistaken it was so hotly debated that there was an SI cover on it. there's no such thing as a sure thing.

That's not really true. Both were great prospects but neither was a sure thing. That's why there was a debate. There was no debate over Watkins. Everyone I ever saw or heard or read thought he was a star and sure thing. That's why you make the trade,the risk is taken out. He was the only sure thing in this entire draft. Some drafts don't have any. The only QB who was a sure thing in the last 20 years was Andrew Luck.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Having a stud receiver that can break #83's records gives you a better shot at winning a Superbowl.

 

The guy is a rookie so he's not a finished product yet but if games like last week against the Broncos doesn't make you a believer then nothing will. 13 games in and he already owns several key Bills rookie records. The kid just has it, think back to how Eric Moulds did in his rookie year and how great he turned out to be. This team is on the rise.

 

Odell Beckham looks scary good and is only a rookie too. The point is the Bills would have upgraded the WR position with Beckham, could have traded down to do it, and come out ahead in the exchange.

 

My example was not about Watkins because no one has any idea what his future will turn out to be in fact.

 

Instead it is a cautionary tale. RG3 looked like a superstar at one time too and his failure, given what it cost the Redskins, means that franchise swings even more to the negative pole of this zero-sum game (3-10 is very bad and the trade will continue to affect people in the business in the future).

[3rdand12]

Needs to cut his hair.. Hippy

This.

But maybe it's a Samson thing

 

That's a dreadful thing to say.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I just saw what you did there lol

[TheFunPolice]

 

The fact that you offered an analogy about buying a house and then followed up with over payment screams to me that you do not understand the draft, value and price. Until you understand value vs. price and how those two ideas relate to the draft then you will not be able to assess the decision.

 

First, hindsight arguments are as lazy as it gets and as foolish as they come after 12 games. Especially so when they include players that "I would've taken instead" since you have no guarantee that people's champ ODB was still going to be on board in this fantasy scenario. Decisions are made based on what is known at the time and they must judged by what is known or knowable at the time they're made. I don't remember anyone talking about Odell Beckham or Zach Martin as once in a generation type talents.

 

Moving on, what it is the value of any draft pick? For that matter, what is the price? The draft isn't a liquid market like the housing market where you have easily observable and accessible metrics like $ per square foot. You don't have a rich transactional history to draw from in the draft like you do in the housing market. And even if you did, comparing players is far more subjective than comparing houses or even comparing stocks. Thats why even the best scouts still miss quite a bit.

 

The value of any one draft pick is a function of the player available at that pick as determined individually by each of the 32 teams and varies widely based on the subjective nature of scouting and synergistic qualities based on team's schemes and their players. Next year's first overall isn't necessarily as valuable as this year's first overall. No one was willing to sell the farm RG3 style for this year's 2nd overall because the right to select Greg Robinson wasn't nearly as valuable to teams as the right to select RG3. The price of a draft pick is what a team is willing to pay. What a team is willing to pay is based largely on the value they place on the player they're trading for. Just like the stock market, there is no such thing as a price which is simply too high. A stock selling for $500 a share is pretty expensive. But if you believe its worth $1,000 a share, then $500 is a bargain compared to a $5 stock which you believe is only worth $3.

 

If your draft board identifies one generational talent in a pool of scrubs, then who gives a **** about giving up your 6 other picks in that same draft? If you trust your assessment and only see one player available in the draft that can help your team whats the value in passing up on that player in favor of 7 guys that you don't expect to dress on Sundays? You can't save your picks for future talent like you can wait on a stock or a house for a more favorable market cycle. They have to be used that day to take players or to trade for future consideration.

 

If you want to tell me that the Bills over paid, then tell me what value you've placed on Sammy, a little background on how you arrived at that conclusion, and then define the price (i.e.,who is available in next year's draft, what is their value, or what is the implicit cost of trading away the right to select an unknown individual in 2015?) using only information available as of April 2014. If you can't do that, then don't tell me how its "obvious" that they over paid.

 

You can disagree with the trading future first round picks to move up in the draft from a philosophical standpoint. As I've laid out above, theres a lot of moving pieces and significant unknown costs in trading away future picks. There's also some history of such transactions which we can view in hindsight and assess how often they work out. In a few years we can all say whether the decision to trade up for Sammy has worked out or not. However, any argument offered which declares that the decision to trade up for Sammy was bad at the time and egregiously, obviously bad at that, which fails to touch on any of the points I've raised is just absurd.

 

I guess that after further thought the house analogy was not a good one. I will give you that.

 

I also did not say I would have drafted someone else in particular. I don't follow college football so I had no real opinion on any of the players.

 

It's also not my job to get it right.

 

I'm just a guy who watches football on Sundays and sees all of these rookie wide receivers making plays all day long and their teams spent one pick while the Bills spent double on theirs.

Edited December 11, 2014 by TheFunPolice

[3rdand12]

Give Sammy Watkins a better chance to succeed as some of the other early WR picks have had and i wonder what might have been this year?

But as mentioned its just too soon to call.