Turbosrrgood Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Why be afraid to admit what the Bills gave up to get the pick used on Sammy? Before the trade, the Bills had the 9th pick in Rd1, their 4th round pick in that draft and their #1 pick in 2015. After the trade they didn't have any of that. They had Sammy. So, they game up those 3 picks to get Sammy. Not hard to understand and that isn't even looking at the fact that several other WRs in that draft are nearly as good, as good or possibly even better than Sammy. It is possible that the Bills could have actually traded down, got OBJ and extra pick while still keep their 4th rounder in 2014 and their 1st rounder in 2015. Pretty questionable trade, in my opinion. Even if Sammy turns out to be good. I'm not afraid to admit anything, it's simple math...The Bills own 9th pick that turned into a 4th. There is a cost and a return, saying the cost is the net result without factoring in the return is incorrect. I'm not making an argument for or against the trade, just stop trying to make out to be more expensive than it was. Edited February 10, 2015 by Turbosrrgood
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Actually, the way I described is what actually happened. Without any misrepresentation of the cost, it's not semantics there is a difference. Saying the cost was 2 1st round picks for Watkins is factually incorrect. You mean he didn't cost the 2014 4th overall pick AND the 2015 19th overall pick?
Maddog69 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 You are completely overlooking the point that Sammy was the only WR seen as a Sure Thing going into the draft. You can't look at the deal after the fact but should look at it with the information that was available at the time.That's simply not true. And I'm not saying Sammy is not good (potentially great). Look back at the rankings. Sammy was usually in the top 5 players overall. Evans was 7-10, OBJ and others in the teens. I think it is more than fair to look back at the draft and wonder why the Bills fell in love with Watkins when other quality options were available without surrendering additional picks.
Mark80 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 That's simply not true. And I'm not saying Sammy is not good (potentially great). Look back at the rankings. Sammy was usually in the top 5 players overall. Evans was 7-10, OBJ and others in the teens. I think it is more than fair to look back at the draft and wonder why the Bills fell in love with Watkins when other quality options were available without surrendering additional picks. Mike Evans was seen as a poor route runner with only straight line speed and less than stellar hands. OBJ was seen as small and unable to make catches over defenders. Watkins is fast, big, strong, amazing hands, can run routes, can jump, etc. His only knock was one off field incident.
Maddog69 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 You mean he didn't cost the 2014 4th overall pick AND the 2015 19th overall pick?This really is a stupid argument. Let me try to make it easy: Cleveland held the #4 pick and put it up for auction. The Bills have them the #9 pick, the 4th round pick and the #1 pick in 2015. Ergo, the price paid by Buffalo for the #4 pick (and thus for Sammy) Was 2 First round picks and a 4th round pick. There really is no argument. Except for if you want to be silly and try to argue that the cost for Sammy was the pick we acquired from Cleveland and not take into account the cost of acquiring that one pick. So, technically, Sammy cost the Bills the #4 pick. The #4 pick cost them 2 Ones and a Four.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) This really is a stupid argument. Let me try to make it easy: Cleveland held the #4 pick and put it up for auction. The Bills have them the #9 pick, the 4th round pick and the #1 pick in 2015. Ergo, the price paid by Buffalo for the #4 pick (and thus for Sammy) Was 2 First round picks and a 4th round pick. There really is no argument. Except for if you want to be silly and try to argue that the cost for Sammy was the pick we acquired from Cleveland and not take into account the cost of acquiring that one pick. So, technically, Sammy cost the Bills the #4 pick. The #4 pick cost them 2 Ones and a Four. I thought the #4 overall cost us 2 1st's and 2 4th's? Stevie Johnson netted us the 4th we used for Bryce. You say my argument is stupid, but really we're saying the same thing, I just subbed the 4th overall we used for the 9th we traded away... We are both saying Sammy cost more than 1 1st round pick, that was my point in the original post Edited February 10, 2015 by BuffaloHokie13
Kelly the Dog Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Actually, the way I described is what actually happened. Without any misrepresentation of the cost, it's not semantics there is a difference. Saying the cost was 2 1st round picks for Watkins is factually incorrect. That is just flat wrong. The cost of Watkins was precisely and inarguably a 2014 #1, a 2015 #1 and a 2015 #4. That is what they paid for Watkins. That was the true cost.
Beef Jerky Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I thought there would be an update but just bickering on picks... + 1 Honestly, I don't see how Whaley could have managed the 2014 draft re: O linemen any worse.... The thing that I just CAN't get over, is with a line THAT BAD, your 2nd round lick can't even get on the field. That's just horrible. The Pats first round d pick never saw the field... You act like teams need all 7 picks to see the field... He hit on Watkins and Brown. That's pretty good. Hell Jets had 13+ picks last year and picked 3 WRs and all of them were busts.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I thought there would be an update but just bickering on picks... At least the bickering is about something, an actual disagreement, with both sides making their points -- you just B word for no reason and add less than zero.
Green Lightning Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 At least the bickering is about something, an actual disagreement, with both sides making their points -- you just B word for no reason and add less than zero. +1
CardinalScotts Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Not really: I'm one of those that hated the pick, having to give up 2 first rounders. Not the way to build a team. When was the last time ANYBODY gave a 2 1st round picks for a WR? are you kidding?......our first round pick to cleveland they gave us theirs -1 then +1...........to move up it cost 2015's first round pick +1 so 2-1 = 1 not 2
Big C Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 The Pats first round d pick never saw the field... He saw it a few times. are you kidding?......our first round pick to cleveland they gave us theirs -1 then +1...........to move up it cost 2015's first round pick +1 so 2-1 = 1 not 2 The language is maybe the issue. We gave Cleveland two, they gave us one. Net loss = 1 first round pick. Did we "give up" the 4th pick when we took Sammy? I don't think that's the correct word choice.
White Linen Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Not really: I'm one of those that hated the pick, having to give up 2 first rounders. Not the way to build a team. When was the last time ANYBODY gave a 2 1st round picks for a WR? I'd give up 2 for 1 every other year until the end of time if it meant you end up with a player like Watkins.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Justin Blalock may be available? AJC saying Kyle Shanahan is bringing zone blocking scheme and Blalock may not be the kind of player to run it. Owed 7+m and sat out with back injury last year after never missing a game for years. He would be another good mauler. http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/falcons-oc-shanahan-brings-zone-scheme-o-line/nj8Bj/ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution admits Falcons LG Justin Blalock may not be a fit for new OC Kyle Shanahan's offense. Shanahan is heavily-reliant on the zone-blocking system, which needs athletic linemen to function. Blalock tips the scales at 6-foot-4 and 326 pounds. Bigger linemen are fine, but big linemen that can't get out in space and move don't work for Shanahan. Blalock battled a back injury this past season and had poor agility scores coming out of Texas in 2007. He carries a $7.91 million cap number. From roto Edited February 11, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
NastyNateSoldiers Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) So because Joe B says this you are going to be upset with Whaley right now? I read they are going to draft more linemen and sign a couple of FAs.... Feel better now?I'm not saying Joe B is the end all be all of Bills news but he makes a few points in discussing this subject. DW likes that bum C Williams and has talked up Kujo & Cyril this off season. This is definitely a Whaley move just like when he signed Tony Moeaki and said "we have guys". Those words make me cringe "we have guys" well Doug I'm gonna let u in on something, everyone has guys!. But can those guys play I think is the question. We seen this the last 2 yrs with Doug waiting for Unga & McClain to develop, waiting for Tony Moeaki to fix our Te situation even waiting on a undersized Chris Gragg. Well boys get ready to wait some more. Its Kujo & Cyril turn. Part 3 of the interior line dilemma. I'm hoping DW has learned from the past and goes out and signs another guard banking on only RI when he hasn't played in almost 2 yrs is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong I like the fact that we have young players to develop on the line but counting on them to play at a high level next season is wrong. Let those guys sit next season and develop properly. RI will be off the books and either Cyril or Kujo can take over when there ready. Edited February 11, 2015 by NastyNateSoldiers
d_wag Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Justin Blalock may be available? AJC saying Kyle Shanahan is bringing zone blocking scheme and Blalock may not be the kind of player to run it. Owed 7+m and sat out with back injury last year after never missing a game for years. He would be another good mauler. http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/falcons-oc-shanahan-brings-zone-scheme-o-line/nj8Bj/ From roto assuming the back is a non-issue this looks like a great scheme fit. at 31 not looking at a huge deal and a good vet stopgap who can help now and make richardson/kujo earn it
eball Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I'm not saying Joe B is the end all be all of Bills news but he makes a few points in discussing this subject. DW likes that bum C Williams and has talked up Kujo & Cyril this off season. This is definitely a Whaley move just like when he signed Tony Moeaki and said "we have guys". Those words make me cringe "we have guys" well Doug I'm gonna let u in on something, everyone has guys!. But can those guys play I think is the question. We seen this the last 2 yrs with Doug waiting for Unga & McClain to develop, waiting for Tony Moeaki to fix our Te situation even waiting on a undersized Chris Gragg. Well boys get ready to wait some more. Its Kujo & Cyril turn. Part 3 of the interior line dilemma. I'm hoping DW has learned from the past and goes out and signs another guard banking on only RI when he hasn't played in almost 2 yrs is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong I like the fact that we have young players to develop on the line but counting on them to play at a high level next season is wrong. Let those guys sit next season and develop properly. RI will be off the books and either Cyril or Kujo can take over when there ready. Putting any stock into what Doug Whaley says is the ultimate in naivete. Have we as fans learned nothing? Comments made by GMs in public are not, under any circumstances, to be taken at face value.
NastyNateSoldiers Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Putting any stock into what Doug Whaley says is the ultimate in naivete. Have we as fans learned nothing? Comments made by GMs in public are not, under any circumstances, to be taken at face value. Last season he said he was happy with Te situation, What did he do?Bkup QBS what did he do? Guards What did he do? These were all spots on our team that if u would have polled this forum the majority would had said more changes needed to be made. So far Whaley usually lives by his word. I'm hoping Rex & Roman have enough pull to sway DW into beefing up this line. If we truly want to become a power running machine more changes need to be made. RI wasn't very good the last season he played in he gave up 6 sks in 8 gms. I hope I'm wrong bout this but I don't see Whaley making any more impact full changes to this line.
Turbosrrgood Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) That is just flat wrong. The cost of Watkins was precisely and inarguably a 2014 #1, a 2015 #1 and a 2015 #4. That is what they paid for Watkins. That was the true cost. Yes this I left too much room to interpret that incorrectly, I meant to say the cost of the TRADE to get Watkins was a 1st and a 4th, NOT 2 first round picks. 2-1 = 1, not 2. Representing it as otherwise, which has been done here many times is misconstruing what really happened. Again, my original point. People love to mention the cost of the trade, without mentioning the return. If people don't like the trade, I get that. I just find it comical that people want to try and word it in a way that makes it sound different than it actually was, as if people don't know what really happened. it makes any argument they are making against the trade sound petty. Edited February 11, 2015 by Turbosrrgood
Maury Ballstein Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 You're a bit delusional. With a lick of ability as an "offensive guru" Marrone should have had this team in the playoffs. The only reason we are 9 and 7 is because of the defense -- the one thing Marrone didn't have anything to do with. Bunch formations, three tight end sets and a incredible inability to get the ball to our playmakers is directly hung around St. Doug's neck. Good riddance. This ^^. Baffled by those with the pro marrone sentiments.
Recommended Posts