Sammy V Odell Beckham

[Thurman#1]

 

I feel that it is EXACTLY a "hindsight is 20/20 witch hunt" how can you say that it is not. The Houston Texans just got a pass rusher with the number 1 overall pick and they dont have a FRANCHISE QB......so its not just a bills thing.

 

The draft is a absolute crapshoot.........there have been years that positions were supposed to be deep and they ended up not being deep at all.

 

The one constant here that is undeniable.....Sammy Watkins

 

- Without 2 different QB's throwing at him

- With 3 separate injuries

- Not being targeted near as much as he should have

 

Still put up solid rookie WR numbers

 

That is the one thing that is undeniable....the rest of this is just Mickey Mouse horse crap being thrown at a wall because we dont have a first round pick in a weak draft

Just one question here....how many times was Sammy Watkins targeted compared to those other receivers?

 

Oh, please. In no way is it hindsight, much less a witch hunt. I and a ton of others were critical of this trade the instant we heard about it.

 

Me myself, I thought it was a bad deal. I hoped I was wrong, but suspected I wouldn't be. The rule in these trades is this: you don't trade two firsts unless you're getting a QB. That's the common rule, and when it's broken you're defying well-known strategy and deserve major criticism if you turn out to be wrong. By the data that's come in so far, Whaley was wrong.

 

You know, we hear the draft is a crapshoot, and it's nonsense. If it were a crapshoot, some teams wouldn't consistently be better than others at it. Is it hard to predict? Sure. Are even good GMs often wrong? Yeah. But good teams make a higher percentage of good picks, and as a result their teams get better. That's not what happens in a crapshoot. And that's why you can and should hold your GM responsible for his results. If it were really a crapshoot, you wouldn't fire your GM after four or five years of bad drafting, because after all, its a crapshoot.

 

After years and years of accumulating data, a bunch of best-use rules have been discovered. Things like not picking place-kickers in the top three rounds no matter how good they are. Not picking guards in the top ten or fifteen picks. Not picking RBs in the top ten (this one is recent since the rules have made passing so much easier). I could go on and I'm sure you could too. Break one of those rules and you'd better turn out to have done so for a very good reason. Pick an RB high and you'd better turn out to have gotten an Adrian Peterson.

 

And one of those rules is that you don't trade two firsts unless you're getting a QB. Whaley broke that rule.

 

I wrote at the time (not on this forum that I remember, as I don't come here all that often since they changed the rule so that if two posts come within ten or fifteen minutes of each other, the forum will combine the. That rule immediately seemed fascist to me - they're my posts, I should be able to decide whether they should be combined with others or not - and I haven't come here so often since) that for this trade to be seen as successful, not only would Sammy have to turn out to be a consistent top 3 to 5 in the league type of guy, but also no other WRs in this draft would be particularly close to the same level. I still think that was right.

 

What it wasn't is hindsight. That's nonsense. And there were a ton of people saying the same kind of thing at the time.

 

 

"The one constant here that is undeniable.....Sammy Watkins," you say? What the hell does that mean? Is Odell Beckham deniable? Kelvin Benjamin? The fact that we gave up the 2014 first, the 2015 first and the 2015 4th? Are those deniable? Man, you are visibly reaching on an awful lot of points in this debate. I guess it's understandable, as the trade doesn't look like a good one - at least based on results to date - and that does indeed provide you a hard row to hoe when you support it.

 

 

 

"Just one question here....how many times was Sammy Watkins targeted compared to those other receivers" you ask?

 

If you're going to narrow this down to one question that's already been asked and answered numerous times, let me ask you a question that comes up immediately when your question is asked. When you answer this one, I'll answer yours, though obviously answering yours is a lot easier. How many times was Sammy Watkins open to be targeted compared to those other receivers?

 

Targets aren't purely a result of how good the team thinks the receiver is, or how bad the coaches are. They're also a result of how open the guy is, where the safety is playing, how often the guy has fumbled or dropped balls, which affect how much the QB trusts the guy ... There are a ton more factors, but those are a few. One is how often the QB receives the endorphin rush of seeing passes he throws towards that receiver caught and turned into serious gains and successful plays. Generally if he gets that rush a higher percentage of the time, he's going to automatically be more likely to throw towards that guy.

 

QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Beckham are going to throw more to him than QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Sammy. Beckham was simply better this year. Not that that necessarily continue next year. Nobody knows yet. Sammy could easily be better. But the likelihood of Sammy being better by the margin of the value of a first and a fourth draft pick (over the other WRs of the class also) are miniscule.

[FireChan]

 

Oh, please. In no way is it hindsight, much less a witch hunt. I and a ton of others were critical of this trade the instant we heard about it.

 

Me myself, I thought it was a bad deal. I hoped I was wrong, but suspected I wouldn't be. The rule in these trades is this: you don't trade two firsts unless you're getting a QB. That's the common rule, and when it's broken you're defying well-known strategy and deserve major criticism if you turn out to be wrong. By the data that's come in so far, Whaley was wrong.

 

You know, we hear the draft is a crapshoot, and it's nonsense. If it were a crapshoot, some teams wouldn't consistently be better than others at it. Is it hard to predict? Sure. Are even good GMs often wrong? Yeah. But good teams make a higher percentage of good picks, and as a result their teams get better. That's not what happens in a crapshoot. And that's why you can and should hold your GM responsible for his results. If it were really a crapshoot, you wouldn't fire your GM after four or five years of bad drafting, because after all, its a crapshoot.

 

After years and years of accumulating data, a bunch of best-use rules have been discovered. Things like not picking place-kickers in the top three rounds no matter how good they are. Not picking guards in the top ten or fifteen picks. Not picking RBs in the top ten (this one is recent since the rules have made passing so much easier). I could go on and I'm sure you could too. Break one of those rules and you'd better turn out to have done so for a very good reason. Pick an RB high and you'd better turn out to have gotten an Adrian Peterson.

 

And one of those rules is that you don't trade two firsts unless you're getting a QB. Whaley broke that rule.

 

I wrote at the time (not on this forum that I remember, as I don't come here all that often since they changed the rule so that if two posts come within ten or fifteen minutes of each other, the forum will combine the. That rule immediately seemed fascist to me - they're my posts, I should be able to decide whether they should be combined with others or not - and I haven't come here so often since) that for this trade to be seen as successful, not only would Sammy have to turn out to be a consistent top 3 to 5 in the league type of guy, but also no other WRs in this draft would be particularly close to the same level. I still think that was right.

 

What it wasn't is hindsight. That's nonsense. And there were a ton of people saying the same kind of thing at the time.

 

 

"The one constant here that is undeniable.....Sammy Watkins," you say? What the hell does that mean? Is Odell Beckham deniable? Kelvin Benjamin? The fact that we gave up the 2014 first, the 2015 first and the 2015 4th? Are those deniable? Man, you are visibly reaching on an awful lot of points in this debate. I guess it's understandable, as the trade doesn't look like a good one - at least based on results to date - and that does indeed provide you a hard row to hoe when you support it.

 

 

 

"Just one question here....how many times was Sammy Watkins targeted compared to those other receivers" you ask?

 

If you're going to narrow this down to one question that's already been asked and answered numerous times, let me ask you a question that comes up immediately when your question is asked. When you answer this one, I'll answer yours, though obviously answering yours is a lot easier. How many times was Sammy Watkins open to be targeted compared to those other receivers?

 

Targets aren't purely a result of how good the team thinks the receiver is, or how bad the coaches are. They're also a result of how open the guy is, where the safety is playing, how often the guy has fumbled or dropped balls, which affect how much the QB trusts the guy ... There are a ton more factors, but those are a few. One is how often the QB receives the endorphin rush of seeing passes he throws towards that receiver caught and turned into serious gains and successful plays. Generally if he gets that rush a higher percentage of the time, he's going to automatically be more likely to throw towards that guy.

 

QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Beckham are going to throw more to him than QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Sammy. Beckham was simply better this year. Not that that necessarily continue next year. Nobody knows yet. Sammy could easily be better. But the likelihood of Sammy being better by the margin of the value of a first and a fourth draft pick (over the other WRs of the class also) are miniscule.

You know, we hear the draft is a crapshoot, and it's nonsense. If it were a crapshoot, some teams wouldn't consistently be better than others at it. Is it hard to predict? Sure. Are even good GMs often wrong? Yeah. But good teams make a higher percentage of good picks, and as a result their teams get better. That's not what happens in a crapshoot. And that's why you can and should hold your GM responsible for his results. If it were really a crapshoot, you wouldn't fire your GM after four or five years of bad drafting, because after all, its a crapshoot.

 

I'd like to respond to this whole thing, piece by piece, but I don't have the time right now. I'm just gonna ask you about the bolded.

 

What teams are consistently better than others in the draft? Can you share some examples? What are your parameters for being better? More role-players and starters? How do you quantify one superstar over 3 role-players and STers? Would ODB be better than Sammy, Preston Brown, and Seantrel? Or the opposite? Are you quantifying how good they are based on wins?

 

Edit: One more actually.

 

If you're going to narrow this down to one question that's already been asked and answered numerous times, let me ask you a question that comes up immediately when your question is asked. When you answer this one, I'll answer yours, though obviously answering yours is a lot easier. How many times was Sammy Watkins open to be targeted compared to those other receivers?

 

Targets aren't purely a result of how good the team thinks the receiver is, or how bad the coaches are. They're also a result of how open the guy is, where the safety is playing, how often the guy has fumbled or dropped balls, which affect how much the QB trusts the guy ... There are a ton more factors, but those are a few. One is how often the QB receives the endorphin rush of seeing passes he throws towards that receiver caught and turned into serious gains and successful plays. Generally if he gets that rush a higher percentage of the time, he's going to automatically be more likely to throw towards that guy.

 

QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Beckham are going to throw more to him than QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Sammy. Beckham was simply better this year. Not that that necessarily continue next year. Nobody knows yet. Sammy could easily be better. But the likelihood of Sammy being better by the margin of the value of a first and a fourth draft pick (over the other WRs of the class also) are miniscule.

 

How do you grade the qualities of the WR? Does ODB run better routes? Is he faster? Is he better at breaking the press off the line? Is he better at cutting and losing defenders? Better hands? Lower drop percentage? I mean, are you really confident in saying that the reason ODB is better than Sammy is because ODB is "trusted" more by his QB? How would you even quantify that? Have you watched all of their snaps and their All-22's? Are you basing it on just the numbers of targets? Can you compare how many of their snaps they got open? How many times they got double- and triple-teamed? What about quality of CB? Are the defensive backs they both saw equal in ability?

 

ODB was more productive this year. But you need more to convince me that he's better.

Edited January 28, 2015 by FireChan

[John from Riverside]

 

Oh, please. In no way is it hindsight, much less a witch hunt. I and a ton of others were critical of this trade the instant we heard about it.

 

Me myself, I thought it was a bad deal. I hoped I was wrong, but suspected I wouldn't be. The rule in these trades is this: you don't trade two firsts unless you're getting a QB. That's the common rule, and when it's broken you're defying well-known strategy and deserve major criticism if you turn out to be wrong. By the data that's come in so far, Whaley was wrong.

 

You know, we hear the draft is a crapshoot, and it's nonsense. If it were a crapshoot, some teams wouldn't consistently be better than others at it. Is it hard to predict? Sure. Are even good GMs often wrong? Yeah. But good teams make a higher percentage of good picks, and as a result their teams get better. That's not what happens in a crapshoot. And that's why you can and should hold your GM responsible for his results. If it were really a crapshoot, you wouldn't fire your GM after four or five years of bad drafting, because after all, its a crapshoot.

 

After years and years of accumulating data, a bunch of best-use rules have been discovered. Things like not picking place-kickers in the top three rounds no matter how good they are. Not picking guards in the top ten or fifteen picks. Not picking RBs in the top ten (this one is recent since the rules have made passing so much easier). I could go on and I'm sure you could too. Break one of those rules and you'd better turn out to have done so for a very good reason. Pick an RB high and you'd better turn out to have gotten an Adrian Peterson.

 

And one of those rules is that you don't trade two firsts unless you're getting a QB. Whaley broke that rule.

 

I wrote at the time (not on this forum that I remember, as I don't come here all that often since they changed the rule so that if two posts come within ten or fifteen minutes of each other, the forum will combine the. That rule immediately seemed fascist to me - they're my posts, I should be able to decide whether they should be combined with others or not - and I haven't come here so often since) that for this trade to be seen as successful, not only would Sammy have to turn out to be a consistent top 3 to 5 in the league type of guy, but also no other WRs in this draft would be particularly close to the same level. I still think that was right.

 

What it wasn't is hindsight. That's nonsense. And there were a ton of people saying the same kind of thing at the time.

 

 

"The one constant here that is undeniable.....Sammy Watkins," you say? What the hell does that mean? Is Odell Beckham deniable? Kelvin Benjamin? The fact that we gave up the 2014 first, the 2015 first and the 2015 4th? Are those deniable? Man, you are visibly reaching on an awful lot of points in this debate. I guess it's understandable, as the trade doesn't look like a good one - at least based on results to date - and that does indeed provide you a hard row to hoe when you support it.

 

 

 

"Just one question here....how many times was Sammy Watkins targeted compared to those other receivers" you ask?

 

If you're going to narrow this down to one question that's already been asked and answered numerous times, let me ask you a question that comes up immediately when your question is asked. When you answer this one, I'll answer yours, though obviously answering yours is a lot easier. How many times was Sammy Watkins open to be targeted compared to those other receivers?

 

Targets aren't purely a result of how good the team thinks the receiver is, or how bad the coaches are. They're also a result of how open the guy is, where the safety is playing, how often the guy has fumbled or dropped balls, which affect how much the QB trusts the guy ... There are a ton more factors, but those are a few. One is how often the QB receives the endorphin rush of seeing passes he throws towards that receiver caught and turned into serious gains and successful plays. Generally if he gets that rush a higher percentage of the time, he's going to automatically be more likely to throw towards that guy.

 

QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Beckham are going to throw more to him than QBs throwing to a guy who gets results like Sammy. Beckham was simply better this year. Not that that necessarily continue next year. Nobody knows yet. Sammy could easily be better. But the likelihood of Sammy being better by the margin of the value of a first and a fourth draft pick (over the other WRs of the class also) are miniscule.

Look Sue.....

 

I am really not going to true to out debate you......your much better at that then I

 

Bottom line......you cannot tell if this was a good or bad trade after one year. Nobody is gonna care about compensation if Sammy Watkins turns into a multi pro bowler......

[What a Tuel]

I'd like to know who we expect to draft at 19 this year. Good or bad it should be on the table so when the next jj watt or whoever becomes evident based on their rookie season we don't have 1000 threads saying "we could have had odell beckham and x player"

 

I think that is the 20/20 hindsight people hate.

 

Obviously it's a little early but yeah that would be nice to know before the end of the 2015 season.

[Rob's House]

I dont really think Im changing the subject.....the hindsight witch hunt is happening because people are upset that the bills used extra resources to draft a WR in what looks like a WR strong draft.

 

My point is....we really dont know that yet....you cannot really grade a draft for about 3 years after the draft.

 

But lets say for argument sake that the witch hunters are correct and this ends up being a strong WR draft?

 

So what?

 

- IMO you have to give a front office kudos for taking the shot that Sammy Watkins is gonna be a difference making player for the bills REGARDLESS of how other teams did in the draft.

 

- We have drafted players like Aaron Maybin in the first round......guys that never lived up to their billing (part of the reason why we have been bad so long) swinging for the fences on Sammy Watkins is a refreshing change to the Same old Bills.

 

- What are we actually losing by doing what we did? A difference making QB? HE ISNT THERE

What we actually lost is a 1st and a 4th round pick. Your speculation on the value that could be derived from those resources is just that; sspeculation.

 

But the value of those picks really isn't the point now, is it. Nor is whether it was a good move, which as you've stated we likely won't know for a few years.

 

The point is that you said that the criticism is easy to make with the benefit of hindsight. This implies that a situation in which the value of the resources sacrificed to move up outweighed the upgrade in talent from a player that would be available otherwise was wholly unforeseeable. To that I offered a reply which I'll now expound upon.

 

I pointed out that many Bills fans (most actually, and it wasn't close) were dead set against trading up, especially if it meant trading away the following year's first round pick. A frequently stated reason was that it was very deep draft and it made no sense to trade up in such a draft. With respect to the WR class, it was nearly universally touted as the deepest WR class in years. Therefore, when you say this criticism is made purely through the benefit of hindsight you are incorrect. The exact same arguments being advanced by those skeptical of the trade were being made before the trade ever took place.

 

You argue that 1 year is not enough time to judge, but I never said it was. In fact I said quite the opposite. However, as I stated earlier, the idea that it is somehow wrong headed to grade a draft with the benefit of hindsight is absurd. Hindsight is absolutely necessary to grade a draft with any degree of accuracy. It is not humanly possible to do so otherwise.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Rob's House

[FireChan]

What we actually lost is a 1st and a 4th round pick. Your speculation on the value that could be derived from those resources is just that; sspeculation.

 

But the value of those picks really isn't the point now, is it. Nor is whether it was a good move, which as you've stated we likely won't know for a few years.

 

The point is that you said that the criticism is easy to make with the benefit of hindsight. This implies that a situation in which the value of the resources sacrificed to move up outweighed the upgrade in talent from a player that would be available otherwise was wholly unforeseeable. To that I offered a reply which I'll now expound upon.

 

I pointed out that many Bills fans (most actually, and it wasn't close) were dead set against trading up, especially if it meant trading away the following year's first round pick. A frequently stated reason was that it was very deep draft and it made no sense to trade up in such a draft. With respect to the WR class, it was nearly universally touted as the deepest WR class in years. Therefore, when you say this criticism is made purely through the benefit of hindsight you are wrongincorrect. The exact same arguments being advanced by those skeptical of the trade were being made before the trade ever took place.

 

You argue that 1 year is not enough time to judge, but I never said it was. In fact I said quite the opposite. However, as I stated earlier, the idea that it is somehow wrong headed to grade a draft with the benefit of hindsight is absurd. Hindsight is absolutely necessary to grade a draft with any degree of accuracy. It is not humanly possible to do so otherwise.

Deep doesn't mean equal in ability Rob.

[Rob's House]

You expect me to follow you around or something?

 

The price still would not be too high because we had the most assurance at the position. That's what we paid for. That's like saying is the price for world class insurance too much over the bare-minumum because you and some other guy never used it?

 

And seeing as Evans would've cost something similar, and KB would've been ridiculously overdrafted for someone of his skill level, I don't see how you can make that argument. In truth, the only person you can reasonably compare Sammy + price-tag to is ODB, not the pack. Without going into crazy, "trade back for pick number #25, get two second rounders vs. Sammy," at least.

 

Because only the Giants knew that he would have one of the best rookie seasons ever and that he would be available at their pick. That's how winning franchises roll.

Is that too much to ask?

[John from Riverside]

What we actually lost is a 1st and a 4th round pick. Your speculation on the value that could be derived from those resources is just that; sspeculation.

 

But the value of those picks really isn't the point now, is it. Nor is whether it was a good move, which as you've stated we likely won't know for a few years.

 

The point is that you said that the criticism is easy to make with the benefit of hindsight. This implies that a situation in which the value of the resources sacrificed to move up outweighed the upgrade in talent from a player that would be available otherwise was wholly unforeseeable. To that I offered a reply which I'll now expound upon.

 

I pointed out that many Bills fans (most actually, and it wasn't close) were dead set against trading up, especially if it meant trading away the following year's first round pick. A frequently stated reason was that it was very deep draft and it made no sense to trade up in such a draft. With respect to the WR class, it was nearly universally touted as the deepest WR class in years. Therefore, when you say this criticism is made purely through the benefit of hindsight you are wrongincorrect. The exact same arguments being advanced by those skeptical of the trade were being made before the trade ever took place.

 

You argue that 1 year is not enough time to judge, but I never said it was. In fact I said quite the opposite. However, as I stated earlier, the idea that it is somehow wrong headed to grade a draft with the benefit of hindsight is absurd. Hindsight is absolutely necessary to grade a draft with any degree of accuracy. It is not humanly possible to do so otherwise.

 

Rob....

 

But you cannot grade a draft after 1 year.....so all this talk is frankly pre mature

A couple of more points

 

- It was also stated by those that were against the trade that we needed that following 1st round pick because a. They expected it to be a low pick and b. They needed it to draft a QB

 

It was at 19 and there ended up being no franchise QB to to drafted in this next draft.

 

Also

 

This is a little off topic....but when you grade how a team does in the draft I feel that you have to do it as a whole......yes...lots of resources were used to get Sammy Watkins....but they did in fact pull Preston Brown and Seantrel Henderson out of the draft as well. Both look like pretty good players.

[Thurman#1]

Clearly, you need hindsight to grade a draft. However, you can use hindsight to be unfair in your grading. Like Russell Wilson, Tom Brady etc. You can say, "clearly the Bills screwed up by not grabbing those guys who have 4 Superbowls between them, how could they not know!" but that's unfair.

 

First and sometimes second rounders are really the only the picks that can be fair in a hindsight argument. However, if you redrafted the 2014 draft tomorrow, would ODB go higher? Maybe. Does that make TB idiots for taking Evans? Or Cleveland for taking Gilbert? Or Detroit for taking Ebron? It might. Will we know until any of those guys have more than, at most, 16 games? Absolutely not. Gilbert may become the next Revis. Ebron could blossom into a Gronk clone. ODB may slump and turn into a Stevie Johnson. We don't know yet.

 

Bottom-line is that while ODB looked like he could be a great WR (hence his draft position), he was less of a prospect than Sammy. Period. Sammy was as sure of a thing as any draft pick gets. ODB was not. Until we have more time with their careers, we know nothing. If Sammy goes for 1k the next 5 years, and ODB goes for 2k, will I be a little miffed at the trade? Sure. Will I hold it against this FO for making a risky move on the best offensive prospect in the draft? No.

Neither of those things have happened. You should go back to using pictures to argue on PPP. It had more success.

 

 

Well, you're right about one thing here, anyone claiming that they already know this trade will in the long-term be considered a failure or a success is kidding himself. It'll take a lot more time. It's too early to know.

 

But should that stop us from saying, "From what we've seen so far, it looks like ..."? Of course not.

 

You're right about another thing here, Sammy was pretty much universally considered the best WR prospect. So if an even switch for Beckham had somehow been accomplished, nobody could have said that at the time it seemed like a stupid move.

 

But I'm sure you noticed it wasn't an even switch. Buffalo took a huge risk. Immediately there were doubts, and frankly the majority of the media was negative even at the time, saying we'd paid too much. Buffalo fans came back saying we wouldn't have gotten Sammy for less, and that also is correct but beside the point. Just because we couldn't have gotten Sammy for less doesn't mean it was a good trade.

 

It's a simple thing ... did we pay too much? Putting it mathematically, is Sammy Watkins equal to or greater than ((Odell Beckham Jr. or Kelvin Benjamin or any of the other top five or six guys, not including Evans) plus one 2015 1st round pick and one 2015 4th round pick).

 

And there is no way on God's green earth that - based on the information we've seen so far - you can say that that that equation represents reality. Watkins isn't worth that.

 

Could that change as time passes? Sure. Is it likely to change enough that that equation ever becomes true? The odds are very low. MIniscule.

 

And that's what will have to happen for this trade to look good.

 

I see people saying, "At least they took a shot." I don't care. I don't think most fans care. Taking a shot doesn't get you points. Taking a successful shot, that's what gets you points. Hell, Donahoe took a lot of shot, picking McGahee in the first, or bringing in an untried Gregg Williams as a head coach, for instance. Donahoe's not the GM here anymore for a reason. His shots didn't work out. And that's what matters.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Thurman#1

[K-9]

Deep doesn't mean equal in ability Rob.

That's the issue. As deep as the position was, EVERY OTHER PROSPECT WAS A DISTANT SECOND to SW. It really wasn't close. At all. Not even a little. Every talking head pundit is indeed using 20/20 hindsight to suggest it was. I would wager Whaley has seen only a handful of higher rated prospects, regardless of position,in all his years of perusing scouting reports and watching game tape. This really isn't surprising considering SW had an unprecedented college career as a wide out.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited January 28, 2015 by K-9

[John from Riverside]

 

 

Well, you're right about one thing here, anyone claiming that they already know this trade will in the long-term be considered a failure or a success is kidding himself. It'll take a lot more time. It's too early to know.

 

But should that stop us from saying, "From what we've seen so far, it looks like ..."? Of course not.

 

You're right about another thing here, Sammy was pretty much universally considered the best WR prospect. So if an even switch for Beckham had somehow been accomplished, nobody could have said that at the time it seemed like a stupid move.

 

But I'm sure you noticed it wasn't an even switch. Buffalo took a huge risk. Immediately there were doubts, and frankly the majority of the media was negative even at the time, saying we'd paid too much. Buffalo fans came back saying we wouldn't have gotten Sammy for less, and that also is correct but beside the point. Just because we couldn't have gotten Sammy for less doesn't mean it was a good trade.

 

It's a simple thing ... did we pay too much? Putting it mathematically, is Sammy Watkins equal to or greater than ((Odell Beckham Jr. or Kelvin Benjamin or any of the other top five or six guys, not including Evans) plus one 2015 1st round pick and one 2015 4th round pick).

 

And there is no way on God's green earth that - based on the information we've seen so far - you can say that that that equation represents reality. Watkins isn't worth that.

 

Could that change as time passes? Sure. Is it likely to change enough that that equation ever becomes true? The odds are very low. MIniscule.

 

And that's what will have to happen for this trade to look good.

 

I see people saying, "At least they took a shot." I don't care. I don't think most fans care. Taking a shot doesn't get you points. Taking a successful shot, that's what gets you points. Hell, Donahoe took a lot of shot, picking McGahee in the first, or bringing in an untried Gregg Williams as a head coach, for instance. Donahoe's not the GM here anymore for a reason. His shots didn't work out. And that's what matters.

So what you are saying is (I just want to make sure I understand this correctly)

 

Lets say Sammy Watkins ends up being great for us.....say multiple pro bowls...say he ends up being the greatest bill....ever

 

Now lets say Odel Beckum doesnt get tore in half by some linebacker and also has a great career

 

We lost because we gave up more for Sammy?

[truth on hold]

Same traded net loss in draft picks. I was correct.

You really are dumb, no point trying to explain it to you any further

[FireChan]

That's the issue. As deep as the position was, EVERY OTHER PROSPECT WAS A DISTANT SECOND to SW. It really wasn't close. At all. Not even a little. Every talking head pundit is indeed using 20/20 hindsight to suggest it was. I would wager Whaley has seen only a handful of higher rated prospects, regardless of position,in all his years of perusing scouting reports and watching game tape. This really isn't surprising considering SW had an unprecedented college career as a wide out.

 

GO BILLS!!!

That's all I've heard about Sammy as a prospect. It was a no-brainer as a pick over every other WR out there. It's disingenuous to consider ODB as another viable option, it was just luck or chance or what have you,

[John from Riverside]

You really are dumb, no point trying to explain it to you any further

JTSP

 

The adults are talking.....go back to the kiddie pool

That's all I've heard about Sammy as a prospect. It was a no-brainer as a pick over every other WR out there. It's disingenuous to consider ODB as another viable option, it was just luck or chance or what have you,

This is what I heard as well....and to take it further there was a lot of talk that there were THREE blue chip prospects (buys actually worthy of being drafted in the top picks.....

 

THe pass rusher that went to Houston and busted (or had the very bad year)

 

Mack that went to the Raiders

 

and Sammy Watkins

[FireChan]

 

 

Well, you're right about one thing here, anyone claiming that they already know this trade will in the long-term be considered a failure or a success is kidding himself. It'll take a lot more time. It's too early to know.

 

But should that stop us from saying, "From what we've seen so far, it looks like ..."? Of course not.

 

You're right about another thing here, Sammy was pretty much universally considered the best WR prospect. So if an even switch for Beckham had somehow been accomplished, nobody could have said that at the time it seemed like a stupid move.

 

But I'm sure you noticed it wasn't an even switch. Buffalo took a huge risk. Immediately there were doubts, and frankly the majority of the media was negative even at the time, saying we'd paid too much. Buffalo fans came back saying we wouldn't have gotten Sammy for less, and that also is correct but beside the point. Just because we couldn't have gotten Sammy for less doesn't mean it was a good trade.

 

It's a simple thing ... did we pay too much? Putting it mathematically, is Sammy Watkins equal to or greater than ((Odell Beckham Jr. or Kelvin Benjamin or any of the other top five or six guys, not including Evans) plus one 2015 1st round pick and one 2015 4th round pick).

 

And there is no way on God's green earth that - based on the information we've seen so far - you can say that that that equation represents reality. Watkins isn't worth that.

 

Could that change as time passes? Sure. Is it likely to change enough that that equation ever becomes true? The odds are very low. MIniscule.

 

And that's what will have to happen for this trade to look good.

 

I see people saying, "At least they took a shot." I don't care. I don't think most fans care. Taking a shot doesn't get you points. Taking a successful shot, that's what gets you points. Hell, Donahoe took a lot of shot, picking McGahee in the first, or bringing in an untried Gregg Williams as a head coach, for instance. Donahoe's not the GM here anymore for a reason. His shots didn't work out. And that's what matters.

Why does the trade make a difference? Let's say ODB turns out to be a HoFer and Sammy is the best Bill WR ever. We got Sammy at our original pick and ODB went after. Sammy is really good, and ODB is historic. You're telling me that taking Sammy over ODB on the draft isn't a conversation? You're telling me that the trade is what is driving this conversation?

 

No chance. It gives one side, the "Sammy isn't as good as ODB" side to sling more dirt. Trade or no trade, the same folks would be saying that taking Sammy over ODB was a bad move, the FO sucks, huge mistake, etc.

 

And this is where the argument gets cyclical. At the time of the trade, Watkins was definitely worth more than ODB as a prospect, and there was a strong case for the extra first and fourth. And if you're going to diagnose a snap-shot trade based on something no one expected, it is not really fair. You can disagree with the idea, you can disagree with the philosophy, but you cannot say that at the time the decision was made, it was not worth it when comparing the prospects.

Edited January 28, 2015 by FireChan

[John from Riverside]

Why does the trade make a difference? Let's say ODB turns out to be a HoFer and Sammy is the best Bill WR ever. We got Sammy at our original pick and ODB went after. Sammy is really good, and ODB is historic. You're telling me that taking Sammy over ODB on the draft isn't a conversation? You're telling me that the trade is what is driving this conversation?

 

No chance. It gives one side, the "Sammy isn't as good as ODB" side to sling more dirt. Trade or no trade, the same folks would be saying that taking Sammy over ODB was a bad move, the FO sucks, huge mistake, etc.

 

You know....completely unrelated.

 

I was watching the pro bowl this past weekend and ODB goes and makes that excellent grab for a catch over the middle......

 

I was thinking to myself.....Sammy Watkins would be absolutely owning this game with these QBs throwing to him

[Thurman#1]

Look Sue.....

 

I am really not going to true to out debate you......your much better at that then I

 

Bottom line......you cannot tell if this was a good or bad trade after one year. Nobody is gonna care about compensation if Sammy Watkins turns into a multi pro bowler......

 

 

Thanks for the reply, Agnes.

 

And yeah, I'm, going to win this debate. But not because you're not as good a debater.

 

It's because there really isn't a good logical counter to what I'm saying here.

 

 

 

To repeat:

 

It's a simple thing ... did we pay too much? Putting it mathematically, is Sammy Watkins equal to or greater than ((Odell Beckham Jr. or Kelvin Benjamin or any of the other top five or six guys, not including Evans) plus one 2015 1st round pick and one 2015 4th round pick).

And there is no way on God's green earth that - based on the information we've seen so far - you can say that that that equation represents reality. Watkins isn't worth that.

Could that change as time passes? Sure. Is it likely to change enough that that equation ever becomes true? The odds are very low. MIniscule.

[Rob's House]

 

Rob....

 

But you cannot grade a draft after 1 year.....so all this talk is frankly pre mature

 

A couple of more points

 

- It was also stated by those that were against the trade that we needed that following 1st round pick because a. They expected it to be a low pick and b. They needed it to draft a QB

 

It was at 19 and there ended up being no franchise QB to to drafted in this next draft.

 

Also

 

This is a little off topic....but when you grade how a team does in the draft I feel that you have to do it as a whole......yes...lots of resources were used to get Sammy Watkins....but they did in fact pull Preston Brown and Seantrel Henderson out of the draft as well. Both look like pretty good players.

I'm not arguing that it was a poor draft. I'm not even necessarily saying it was a bad trade, although I don't think it was a particularly good one either, but we'll see. I'm saying this isn't a purely hindsight argument.

 

As far as the trade I'll put it this way: If I could stand here today and choose to have just Sammy Watkins or a probable bust and the 1st and 4th back I'd take Watkins. But if I can have one of Beckam, Mike Evans, or K Benjamin and the 1st & 4th I take that. Maybe in 5 years I'd regret it but I'll take those odds.

 

To piggyback on what Thurman said about only trading up for a QB, when the trade happened I said he'd have to be the next Randy Moss to really make it a good move. If he's a solid no 1 WR who maybe goes to a few pro-bowls but never really dominates and lights up the league then I still think it was ok, but just ok - you're hitting on 50% of your first rounders (and busting on a 4th) which is about average - but if you drafted a Roddy White one year and then took Maybin the next, wouldn't you feel like you should have done better?

[FireChan]

 

 

Thanks for the reply, Agnes.

 

And yeah, I'm, going to win this debate. But not because you're not as good a debater.

 

It's because there really isn't a good logical counter to what I'm saying here.

 

 

 

To repeat:

 

It's a simple thing ... did we pay too much? Putting it mathematically, is Sammy Watkins equal to or greater than ((Odell Beckham Jr. or Kelvin Benjamin or any of the other top five or six guys, not including Evans) plus one 2015 1st round pick and one 2015 4th round pick).

And there is no way on God's green earth that - based on the information we've seen so far - you can say that that that equation represents reality. Watkins isn't worth that.

Could that change as time passes? Sure. Is it likely to change enough that that equation ever becomes true? The odds are very low. MIniscule.

Post #202.

 

Also, if we single out 2014, the argument can be made that we overpaid for Sammy. That does not make the decision to trade for him a bad one, however.

I'm not arguing that it was a poor draft. I'm not even necessarily saying it was a bad trade, although I don't think it was a particularly good one either, but we'll see. I'm saying this isn't a purely hindsight argument.

 

As far as the trade I'll put it this way: If I could stand here today and choose to have just Sammy Watkins or a probable bust and the 1st and 4th back I'd take Watkins. But if I can have one of Beckam, Mike Evans, or K Benjamin and the 1st & 4th I take that. Maybe in 5 years I'd regret it but I'll take those odds.

 

To piggyback on what Thurman said about only trading up for a QB, when the trade happened I said he'd have to be the next Randy Moss to really make it a good move. If he's a solid no 1 WR who maybe goes to a few pro-bowls but never really dominates and lights up the league then I still think it was ok, but just ok - you're hitting on 50% of your first rounders (and busting on a 4th) which is about average - but if you drafted a Roddy White one year and then took Maybin the next, wouldn't you feel like you should have done better?

KB shouldn't even be in that conversation, Rob. He's not even close to the other 3.

[Rob's House]

That's the issue. As deep as the position was, EVERY OTHER PROSPECT WAS A DISTANT SECOND to SW. It really wasn't close. At all. Not even a little. Every talking head pundit is indeed using 20/20 hindsight to suggest it was. I would wager Whaley has seen only a handful of higher rated prospects, regardless of position,in all his years of perusing scouting reports and watching game tape. This really isn't surprising considering SW had an unprecedented college career as a wide out.

 

GO BILLS!!!

If we're using that as a measuring stick then Ryan Leaf was a great pick because pundits thought he was great. The only question was whether he was better than Peyton Manning and Manning was already off the board. And no other QB was close.