Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Bills parted with two firsts, and got one back. Which was used on Sammy.

 

It's virtually the same as trading one first rounder for a player already picked in the first round.

 

??

I'm not following ?

 

Using the Percy Harvin trade as a benchmark --- the Watkins trade would be equivalent to the Bills trading their 2014 1st, 2015 1st and 4th for Harvin.

Posted (edited)

 

??

I'm not following ?

 

Using the Percy Harvin trade as a benchmark --- the Watkins trade would be equivalent to the Bills trading their 2014 1st, 2015 1st and 4th for Harvin.

Wrong. Can't say I'm shocked.

 

Watkins trade, swap firsts, trade 2015 1st and 4th. Use #4 for Watkins. Net traded loss of 1 first rounder and 1 fourth rounder.

 

Harvin trade, already taken #17 I think? Trade next season's first rounder, fourth rounder and seventh rounder. Net traded loss of 1 first rounder, 1 fourth and 1 seventh.

Edited by FireChan
Posted (edited)

Wrong. Can't say I'm shocked.

 

Watkins trade, swap firsts, trade 2015 1st and 4th. Use #4 for Watkins. Net loss of 1 first rounder and 1 fourth rounder.

 

Harvin trade, already taken #17 I think? Trade next season's first rounder, fourth rounder and seventh rounder. Net loss of 1 first rounder, 1 fourth and 1 seventh.

 

 

You're wrong.

 

The Seahawks used 1st, 4th and 7th and end result was they got HARVIN.

The Bills used 1st, 1st and 4th and end result was they got Watkins.

 

The Seahawks never used one of their own draft picks to draft Harvin, he was already drafted in a previous year by the Vikings -- so, Hawks gave up 3 picks to acquire Harvin (1, 4 and 7), Bills gave/used 3 picks to acquire Watkins (1, 1 and 4)

Edited by TXBILLSFAN
Posted (edited)

 

So, the defense of the bad trade is that if we didn't make the trade we would have done something even worse ??

 

Boy, do we need to raise expectations with our fan base !!

Since we would have used only one pick on ebron (if in fact we even drafted him) its not even clear that would have been the worse alternative. If ebron develops into a good TE he'll likely be every bit as valuable a player as Watkins but cost a lot less in draft picks. So they're even wrong on this comparison. (Cue up the cheerleaders who say its too early to judge Watkins, but who've already written ebron off) Edited by JTSP
Posted

Since we would have used only one pick on ebron (if in fact we even drafted him) its not even clear that would have been the worse alternative. If ebron develops into a good TE he'll likely be every bit as valuable a player as Watkins but cost a lot less in draft picks. So they're even wrong on this comparison. (Cue up the cheerleaders who say its too early to judge Watkins, but who've already written ebron off)

What we do know is that Ebron was underwhelming year 1 and Watkins had a very good first year (and could have been much better), showed flashes of greatness and barring injury will be a very good receiver. Ebron showed nothing (and actually was more so a bust).....

 

But keep on posting......

Posted (edited)

 

 

You're wrong.

 

The Seahawks used 1st, 4th and 7th and end result was they got HARVIN.

The Bills used 1st, 1st and 4th and end result was they got Watkins.

 

The Seahawks never used one of their own draft picks to draft Harvin, he was already drafted in a previous year by the Vikings -- so, Hawks gave up 3 picks to acquire Harvin (1, 4 and 7), Bills gave/used 3 picks to acquire Watkins (1, 1 and 4)

And we got a pick back. The nets are the same.

 

We did not net loss a 2014 first rounder.

Edited by FireChan
Posted (edited)

What we do know is that Ebron was underwhelming year 1 and Watkins had a very good first year (and could have been much better), showed flashes of greatness and barring injury will be a very good receiver. Ebron showed nothing (and actually was more so a bust).....

 

But keep on posting......

Yeap.I got it already. In the wacky world of the watkins trade apologists, its not too early to use ebrons rookie #'s to label him a bust, but it is too soon .... several years too soon ....to use ODBs superior #'s in support of him being better than Watkins.

 

Okey doke, no need for you to keep posting. Heard that nonsense too much already

Edited by JTSP
Posted

And we got a pick back. The nets are the same.

 

We did not net loss a 2014 first rounder.

Tomato/Tomahto. If the Browns drafted Watkins then traded him for the same compensation we'd both have ended up in the exact position we're in respectively and it would be factually indisputable that we trwaded two firsts and a 4th for Watkins.

 

 

It's like one guy says a + b = c and the other guy says it's wrong because c - b = a. You can dress it up however you like but it's still the same thing.

Posted

And we got a pick back. The nets are the same.

 

We did not net loss a 2014 first rounder.

 

Are you trolling ?

 

If you are, congrats, you got me. If not, ask someone else to explain it, because I clearly am not getting through to you.

Posted

Since we would have used only one pick on ebron (if in fact we even drafted him) its not even clear that would have been the worse alternative. If ebron develops into a good TE he'll likely be every bit as valuable a player as Watkins but cost a lot less in draft picks. So they're even wrong on this comparison. (Cue up the cheerleaders who say its too early to judge Watkins, but who've already written ebron off)

"If Ebron develops into a nice TE"

 

- Ebron didnt show signs of developing into a TE.....he wasnt an immediate starter......he is going to take some time

 

- Sammy Wakins is a stir and ready starter........like...right away....and had a fine rookie season.

Posted

Yeap.I got it already. In the wacky world of the watkins trade apologists, its not too early to use ebrons rookie #'s to label him a bust, but it is too soon .... several years too soon ....to use ODBs superior #'s in support of him being better than Watkins.

 

Okey doke, no need for you to keep posting. Heard that nonsense too much already

 

:lol: :lol: You're a riot.

Posted

Yeap.I got it already. In the wacky world of the watkins trade apologists, its not too early to use ebrons rookie #'s to label him a bust, but it is too soon .... several years too soon ....to use ODBs superior #'s in support of him being better than Watkins.

 

Okey doke, no need for you to keep posting. Heard that nonsense too much already

In the wacky world of JTSP

 

- Its ok to label ODB better then Sammy Watkins......when all he has truly shown is that he had a better rookie season. ONE season with a better QB and more completion opportunities.

 

But go ahead.....keep going on with your head in the sand while you sound like a total hypocrite

Posted

In the wacky world of JTSP

 

- Its ok to label ODB better then Sammy Watkins......when all he has truly shown is that he had a better rookie season. ONE season with a better QB and more completion opportunities.

 

But go ahead.....keep going on with your head in the sand while you sound like a total hypocrite

 

He doesn't sound like a hypocrite. He sounds like JTSP -- king crusader and troll.

Posted (edited)

Yeap.I got it already. In the wacky world of the watkins trade apologists, its not too early to use ebrons rookie #'s to label him a bust, but it is too soon .... several years too soon ....to use ODBs superior #'s in support of him being better than Watkins.

 

Okey doke, no need for you to keep posting. Heard that nonsense too much already

I take it we're not getting that elusive jump ball analysis I asked for a few pages back (and about 7 times before that as well)...disappointing given that it's the crux of your argument against Watkins now that the "drops too many passes" argument isn't valid.

Oh, also under the column of unanswered questions:

 

What were Eric Moulds' rookie stats, since apparently Watkins needs to improve to get to his level (mind you, Moulds played with Jim Kelly)?

Why did the Giants pick Beckham and get worse, while the Bills picked Watkins and got better?

Edited by thebandit27
Posted

I take it we're not getting that elusive jump ball analysis I asked for a few pages back (and about 7 times before that as well)...disappointing given that it's the crux of your argument against Watkins now that the "drops too many passes" argument isn't valid.

Oh, also under the column of unanswered questions:

 

What were Eric Moulds' rookie stats, since apparently Watkins needs to improve to get to his level (mind you, Moulds played with Jim Kelly)?

Why did the Giants pick Beckham and get worse, while the Bills picked Watkins and got better?

 

Post # 7,777 -- go play lotto. :beer:

Posted

 

:lol: :lol: You're a riot.

 

I hereby grant you license to use "idiot" to describe JTSP.

 

 

It's just too big a job for one person; I could use the backup.

Posted

And we got a pick back. The nets are the same.

 

We did not net loss a 2014 first rounder.

No pal wake up. Hawks drafted Aaron curry in in first round of year when vikes drafted harvin. Via draft/trade hawks used 2 firsts and got 2 players...curry and harvin. Bills used 2 firsts and got 1 player .... Watkins. The "nets" are not the same....except in the minds of the weird, wacky, watkins-trade apologists where as we've seen anything goes
Posted

No pal wake up. Hawks drafted Aaron curry in in first round of year when vikes drafted harvin. Via draft/trade hawks used 2 firsts and got 2 players...curry and harvin. Bills used 2 firsts and got 1 player .... Watkins. The "nets" are not the same....except in the minds of the weird, wacky, watkins-trade apologists where as we've seen anything goes

Apologist for what???? Getting a great pick, who won the Bills two games in 2014 and looks to be a star for years to come (with any passable QB)????? What a bust!!!!

×
×
  • Create New...