Beerball Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 But I dont think that point matters since I dont think Woods will command big money. & neither may Alonso.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 & neither may Alonso. True, but if he doesnt then that means something has gone horribly wrong in his career, and we made out on the trade, as Im sure you were implying
Beerball Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I suspect that the poll results would have been quite different if the poll had been conducted prior to the trade / the Bills brass' decision to trade Kiko instead of Woods. Why? Trade a player who missed the last season and only has one in the NFL where he showed flashes, but equally faded down the stretch? A player who has a home as the #2 receiver or a player who may not have an ideal position in Rex' defense? Trade an offensive play maker or a defensive play maker? Trade from your strength or trade from your weakness?
Manther Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Would have traded Alonso and Woods plus a mid to low round pick for Shady and Foles Hmmmm, maybe get a Mathis thrown in the deal? Blockbuster?
NoSaint Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 True, but if he doesnt then that means something has gone horribly wrong in his career, and we made out on the trade, as Im sure you were implying with alonso we couldve milked an extra year with the RFA status we got with his injury last year. i think they made the right choice with kiko, but ill agree with the person above that said a tiny bit of the reaction is supporting the guy we have in house vs the guy in philly.
Talley56 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) i guess I look at it differently. Though I think he has talent, the defense was better without Kiko than with him. The offense would be worse without woods imo. They would need to use a draft pick to replace him. Harvin is essentially on a one year deal and really isn't a similar type of WR. I don't think you get rid of talent at the WR position if you don't have an elite QB. I think you need better talent at that position to boost the chance of success in the passing game. Those passes he caught in the Jets game were far from perfect throws from Orton. Agreed Woods definitely baled out Orton on some bad throws. I guess useless isn't the right word but I still think great wide receivers are limited without a good enough QB. Linebackers are not As for Kiko, the defense was better without him but I think a lot of that had to do with Schwartz picking up where Pettine left off and the unit as a whole improving from 2013. Have you seen some of the catches he has made? He has made some great catches, yes, but you can't deny that not having a good enough QB greatly limits what a WR can do no matter how good he is. As I mentioned above useless probably isn't the right word but he is definitely limited severely by poor QBs. Kiko is not limited by anyone on defense. Edited March 25, 2015 by Talley56
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Seriously, what kind of question is that? Everyone is taking the situation as it is now, with both going into their third year, on this specific Bills team. I understand and use hypotheticals all the time, but simply don't understand why you would ask that. Hey, don't fight the hypo! I think it is a reasonable consideration. I viewed a guy like Kiko as a future star-- someone we drafted, we would re-sign for big dollars as our star LB, and who would be here for 10+ years. (Maybe that would work out, maybe it wouldn't). I view Woods as a very good #2 WR, but one that we would likely not afford to re-sign, because teams don't typically tie up big money in 2 WR's, and we probably are going to pay Watkins over Woods. So, consider Woods as a guy who will be here another 2 years (or whenever his contract is up). Knowing this, going into the trade, I would have kept Kiko, not the WR2 who probably won't be on this team in 3 years.
Packerland Bills Fan Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 More than anything else it was the emergence of Preston Brown and Nigel Bradham that made Kiko expendable. The defense was elite without him. I hated to see him go, but it was a case of dealing away from a position of strength.
Drreef2 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) To get McCoy, we needed to send something of value. If he was cut, there was nothing to say we could have signed him. So we were forced to send an asset. As for Woods and Kiko, at the time of the trade Kiko was more expendable. What makes our defense works is the D-line. The linebackers aren't as good without the D-line. We need offensive playmakers that can make plays with our qb situation. And that is why Woods was kept. If they knew they would get Harvin and Clay, I think Woods is expendable. Harvin deal is for 3 years if they want and will relieve pressure off Watkins. And Roman plays mostly 2 wide receiver sets with multiple tight ends/fullbacks so it will be hard to get them all on the field. But they can't predict the future and there was no guarantee those guys would sign with us. It would have been more interesting if they didn't leak the trade until league year started. They would have had the free agent visit window before the year started. If they knew they might land Harvin, they could have switched up the trade to Woods. Not sure Philly would have waited but makes you wonder if leak may have prevented any possible switch last minute. Edited March 25, 2015 by Drreef2
Agent 91 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 If they knew they were going to end up getting Percy, they would've dealt Woods. But they didn't know. Knowing that the Eagles were interested in Woods and/or picks, though, they could solve the OL issue real quick by offering Woods for Mathis. Absolutely not! !!! That's is a future 1 2 punch. Sammy and woods is the best since the myth of moulds and price. There is nothing that could persuade me that woods being traded is ever a good thing I honestly believe Woods is currently a better receiver than Watkins. I'm not at all happy with the Percy Harvin signing as it will take Woods off the field. In a ball control offense, Woods is the kind of tough nose guy you want out there. Am I the only one who thinks Sammy gos down too easily after first contact? I would have hated losing Woods for McCoy. When I heard about Kiko I didn't even blink. We smoked the Eagles on this deal. SMOKED 'em!!! He doesnt... by nature. But i think the rib deal spooked him... the thing that kills me is the people who say ej got him killed. It was a low impact play he got kicked or whatever. At Clemson he ran people over. And thats what i expect from him this year. I mean of course he wont get whatever he wants on every play. But this is the same crowd who said Mario stole our money the first year when he had a MERE 10+sacks. Let it all play out. Sammy and Woods have serious hands and woods is a world more polished. But when watkins settles i seriously think he has Eric Moulds written. All over him.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 I voted for Woods and don't remember if I explained myself. I think that Robert Woods is the perfect Robin. His career to me will look like that of Torrey Smith. That is a really good player. He has the perfect skillset for a number 2 (consistent, good route runner, good hands) but his upside is limited in that he is already polished. I feel that Kiko has a lot more risk but has a chance to be great. His nose for the football is what separates him from good players (like Bradham). I guess that I think that it is a lot easier to find playmakers on offense now than on defense. If you lost Woods (and it would be a loss) you could have replaced him with someone like Jalen Strong in the draft and not had too much drop off. While Woods comes with less risk I think that Kiko's upside is higher. Jmo
eball Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Seriously, what kind of question is that? Everyone is taking the situation as it is now, with both going into their third year, on this specific Bills team. I understand and use hypotheticals all the time, but simply don't understand why you would ask that. It's the question of a guy who is trying as hard as he can to find people who share his angst over this trade.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 It's the question of a guy who is trying as hard as he can to find people who share his angst over this trade. I am not angst-ridden, just disappointed. I just think very highly of Kiko. But my hypo isn't out of whack. I would look at the short-term and long-term effects of a trade like this, and am thinking we would have been more likely to have kept Kiko here In the long run that Woods.
Agent 91 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I don't get the star linebacker part. Kiko was showing signs that he could become a great backer but other than a handful of games kiko was average. Yes he made a lot of tackles but that's not a good way to decide greatness. Pettine didn't really use him many different ways. Almost every play was fake a blitz and drop into coverage in the flat. Once teams figured this out he wasn't really heard from anymore. I would say he is a good linebacker that has good coverage skills but not a star. I think woods has a bigger impact on games than kiko did. Kiko had the best defensive line in the league in front of him. Woods has QBs that are described as "meh" and produces. Nothing to get. He was not a star
Agent 91 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 This is surprising to me that so many people picked trading Kiko over woods. For those who hold that view, would it change at all if you were to know that hypothetically woods would not be Re-signed when his contract came up but that Kiko would? Honestly no. I dont see kiko beating bradham out. And he cant play middle. You know mario and hughes are basically the outside guys so. Where does kiko fall? I just think kiko was a man without a home in Rex ball.
FireChan Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Honestly no. I dont see kiko beating bradham out. And he cant play middle. You know mario and hughes are basically the outside guys so. Where does kiko fall? I just think kiko was a man without a home in Rex ball. I actually disagree with that, but Kiko just made sense as trade bait. A young, cheap commodity with a little risk, but also with good upside. Chip wanted Kiko, and Rex and Whaley thought they could live without him. He would've fit in fine here.
Agent 91 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 also find it very interesting that both players kelly requested were pac12 guys he'd played against/with for several years at the college level. i don't disagree, i voted for kiko. i more meant that i think people are hoping on the woods bandwagon and off the kiko bandwagon to align their opinions with that of the professionals (our FO). before the trade, most people on the boards still considered kiko a sort of untouchable legend and woods a better-than-average starter, but after hearing that the bills chose to trade kiko over woods, suddenly everyone is hyping woods. *edited: voted for kiko not woods, misunderstood whether the question was rather keep or rather trade. Yeah thats valid. I know me personally, i never bought into this legend of Kiko crap. I thought he looked much smaller than he was and wasnt physical enough at the point of attack. I didnt see him fighting off blocks and going to get the ball.. he seemed almost like a Bryan Scott type of player. A tweener in the box safety linebacker hybrid. I really dont know what he was. In the right system he fits... i think he is perfect for a pass defense first team. He can blitz and play the pass but gives you nothing in run support.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Yeah thats valid. I know me personally, i never bought into this legend of Kiko crap. I thought he looked much smaller than he was and wasnt physical enough at the point of attack. I didnt see him fighting off blocks and going to get the ball.. he seemed almost like a Bryan Scott type of player. A tweener in the box safety linebacker hybrid. I really dont know what he was. In the right system he fits... i think he is perfect for a pass defense first team. He can blitz and play the pass but gives you nothing in run support. He seems like a tweener, but Kiko is actually about the same size as Nigel Bradham. I also think Kiko can play the run better than folks remember. I think everyone remembers those plays where he gambled and didn't fill the right gap, leading to big runs. But the guy was also all over the field (had 160 tackles!). In any event, I think he will excel in Philly. I just hope Shady and Woods both do too.
billsfan89 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Kiko, the defense was really good without Kiko and while it would have been nice to have him back he was more of a luxery. Woods was a pretty big part of the offense last season and has improved from his rookie to his second year. Without Woods the team would be one injury to Harvin away from having no real second receiving option.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 lets see a solid WR or top level LB? Yep trade the LB This pisses me off even more knowing they could have traded Woods.
Recommended Posts