Was the trade for Watkins worth it?

[The Frankish Reich]

The way the OP framed this question is what's wrong here. It amounts to this: "If the Bills hadn't traded up for Watkins, had kept their original pick, and had made a poor decision with that pick, would they be better or worse off?" Of course the correct question is this: What if the Bills had not made the trade, had drafted to fill their most obvious glaring need (QB) and had taken Bridgewater; would they be better off going in to 2015 with Bridgewater as the incumbent QB AND a first-round pick? And that's a no-brainer yes. Or try it this way: would the Vikings trade Bridgewater for Watkins right now? Of course not. And that says it all. It was done in an effort to make the playoffs at whatever cost in 2014. Reminder: the Bills did not make the playoffs in 2014. Fail. Period.

[K-9]

The way the OP framed this question is what's wrong here. It amounts to this: "If the Bills hadn't traded up for Watkins, had kept their original pick, and had made a poor decision with that pick, would they be better or worse off?" Of course the correct question is this: What if the Bills had not made the trade, had drafted to fill their most obvious glaring need (QB) and had taken Bridgewater; would they be better off going in to 2015 with Bridgewater as the incumbent QB AND a first-round pick? And that's a no-brainer yes. Or try it this way: would the Vikings trade Bridgewater for Watkins right now? Of course not. And that says it all. It was done in an effort to make the playoffs at whatever cost in 2014. Reminder: the Bills did not make the playoffs in 2014. Fail. Period.

Says nothing other than hindsight is nice and having a total disregard for the scouting process and grade valuations should always guide your selections.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

The way the OP framed this question is what's wrong here. It amounts to this: "If the Bills hadn't traded up for Watkins, had kept their original pick, and had made a poor decision with that pick, would they be better or worse off?" Of course the correct question is this: What if the Bills had not made the trade, had drafted to fill their most obvious glaring need (QB) and had taken Bridgewater; would they be better off going in to 2015 with Bridgewater as the incumbent QB AND a first-round pick? And that's a no-brainer yes. Or try it this way: would the Vikings trade Bridgewater for Watkins right now? Of course not. And that says it all. It was done in an effort to make the playoffs at whatever cost in 2014. Reminder: the Bills did not make the playoffs in 2014. Fail. Period.

Except there is not a GM in the league that would have taken Bridgewater at 9. Every team passed in him. He didn't go to 32 and would have lasted to the second round if the Vikings didn't trade up to get him. And they had already taken Barr at 9, the pick below the Bills, so they wouldn't have taken him either at 8. That's a foolish way to look at it.

[Rob's House]

Yes. Absolutely.

 

When our pick came along, there wasn't anyone I'd rather have. Sammy is better than Ebron + Whoever was left at 19.

 

Even if the Bills had a first round pick, I wish they would have traded back.

But is he better than the worst of Benjamin, Beckham, and Evans + whoever was left at 19? That's the real question.

[Kelly the Dog]

But is he better than the worst of Benjamin, Beckham, and Evans + whoever was left at 19? That's the real question.

Yes. A star player is better and more important and valuable than two good players.

[FireChan]

You're an azzhat!

 

LOL

 

I guess you haven't caught on yet that elite WR talent isn't really useful if the QB sucks.

 

See Watkins' stats for last year.

 

See Watkins' stats for this upcoming year.

 

Maybe you'll catch on eventually.

 

Gunning for 40,000 posts?

Go outside!

 

I've never see anyone use the term "comic gold" on an internet chat forum before.

You are an innovative genius.

So a TE would've also sucked. And an O-lineman. Who care if our QB has time to throw if he sucks.

 

That tears it, don't draft any more offensive players until they prove they're good.

[Rob's House]

Says nothing other than hindsight is nice and having a total disregard for the scouting process and grade valuations should always guide your selections.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Hindsight's the only way of auditing your evaluations.

[FireChan]

Let's say you bought a house for $400K and you are proud of your new house, but the market value is only $250K. Does that mean you have a bad house? No, of course not. You just overpaid unnecessarily. I am convinced this is what Whaley did last year. He overpaid! This is a short term strategy that usually backfires in the long run. Remember it was Whaley who was instrumental in drafting Manuel. The subsequent trade to draft Watkins was an attempt to save the Manuel selection as being a total waste. His first mistake made him reach for his second mistake.

 

The Bills justified the trade to provide weapons for EJ Manuel. They could have acquired other WR's to accomplish the same thing and kept their 1st and 4th round picks this year. IMO, they would have received more value taking one of the other WR's available last year and drafting a top offensive lineman in the 1st round this year.

 

The idea that the trade was made to help Manuel was rejected by the Bills themselves when they benched him for the rest of the season. If your premise is faulty, so will be your conclusion.

That analogy would work better if the dollar crashed and would be next to worthless the next year. Which top O-line guy is good this year? That the Bills could've picked. Tell me. The amount of backtracking here is insane. I haven't heard one 2015 1st round prospect worth it yet.

[Rob's House]

Yes. A star player is better and more important and valuable than two good players.

I don't disagree. I just find this business of using Ebron as the measuring stick to be absolutely idiotic. It wouldn't be as frustrating if it were only morons saying it, but when otherwise intelligent people say that stupid **** it's maddening.

[Virgil]

But is he better than the worst of Benjamin, Beckham, and Evans + whoever was left at 19? That's the real question.

 

That's not the question. I'm not going to play the hindsight game there as it's not debatable yet. They still have years to grow. Right now, I'd say it's a push.

 

But it's been said that they would have taken Ebron. Either way, Sammy was the best WR projected, he won us at least 2 games, and we got him. So yeah, for as much as you can analyze a trade and picks in the NFL within the first year, the Bills did just fine

[K-9]

Hindsight's the only way of auditing your evaluations.

This is beyond my ability to even respond. I gotta share this with some folks who actually do this for a living.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rob's House]

This is beyond my ability to even respond. I gotta share this with some folks who actually do this for a living.

 

GO BILLS!!!

They think their assessment is right and the results on the field are wrong?

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't disagree. I just find this business of using Ebron as the measuring stick to be absolutely idiotic. It wouldn't be as frustrating if it were only morons saying it, but when otherwise intelligent people say that stupid **** it's maddening.

It's not the only way to look at it. It's one of ten ways to look at it. But a legitimate one of ten IMO.

[Rob's House]

 

That's not the question. I'm not going to play the hindsight game there as it's not debatable yet. They still have years to grow. Right now, I'd say it's a push.

 

But it's been said that they would have taken Ebron. Either way, Sammy was the best WR projected, he won us at least 2 games, and we got him. So yeah, for as much as you can analyze a trade and picks in the NFL within the first year, the Bills did just fine

It's the question of you're trying to guage the value of the deal by any kind of objective standard. Otherwise you're just saying it is better (by an unquantified margin) than something that is very bad.

It's not the only way to look at it. It's one of ten ways to look at it. But a legitimate one of ten IMO.

I agree with you. But if you look through this and countless other threads it is repeatedly held up as the sole criteria upon which the value of the pick should be judged. It's like saying Spiller was a great pick because otherwise they'd have drafted Jahvid Best (assuming that were true).

[Kelly the Dog]

It's the question of you're trying to guage the value of the deal by any kind of objective standard. Otherwise you're just saying it is better (by an unquantified margin) than something that is very bad.

 

I agree with you. But if you look through this and countless other threads it is repeatedly held up as the sole criteria upon which the value of the pick should be judged. It's like saying Spiller was a great pick because otherwise they'd have drafted Jahvid Best (assuming that were true).

Maybe. I think this was a unique situation for a few different reasons. The biggest of which is, the person who made the actual pick, said pretty much definitively, and said it to my face in person, that this guy was going to be the pick. We never have that certainty. So a lot of people make that leap that they wouldn't make before because before it would have been rumor or speculation.

[The Frankish Reich]

It's the question of you're trying to guage the value of the deal by any kind of objective standard. Otherwise you're just saying it is better (by an unquantified margin) than something that is very bad.

Exactly. In my baseball fan life I'm a Colorado Rockies fan. (I enjoy suffering) The Rockies whiffed in a colossal fashion in the 2006 draft, passing on Evan Longoria for a Stanford pitcher named Greg Reynolds (there's a reason you've never heard of him). The Rockies did this because they thought they had a great 3B prospect named Ian Stewart already in their minor league system. When people point out what a huge mistake drafting Reynolds was, I've had many Rockies fans tell me that it wasn't, since even if they passed on Reynolds they would have drafted some other guy and not Longoria since he would have been blocked by Ian Stewart. I have a hard time impressing on these people exactly how illogical this argument is. It amounts to "but if they hadn't failed by picking Greg Reynolds, they would have failed by picking some other player also not named Evan Longoria." It is so stupid an argument that I can't even see how someone could make it. Yet people do. All the time ...

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly. In my baseball fan life I'm a Colorado Rockies fan. (I enjoy suffering) The Rockies whiffed in a colossal fashion in the 2006 draft, passing on Evan Longoria for a Stanford pitcher named Greg Reynolds (there's a reason you've never heard of him). The Rockies did this because they thought they had a great 3B prospect named Ian Stewart already in their minor league system. When people point out what a huge mistake drafting Reynolds was, I've had many Rockies fans tell me that it wasn't, since even if they passed on Reynolds they would have drafted some other guy and not Longoria since he would have been blocked by Ian Stewart. I have a hard time impressing on these people exactly how illogical this argument is. It amounts to "but if they hadn't failed by picking Greg Reynolds, they would have failed by picking some other player also not named Evan Longoria." It is so stupid an argument that I can't even see how someone could make it. Yet people do. All the time ...

I have this argument all of the time with people. No one ever just picks BPA. Ever. Every single pick in every single round by every single team in every single year in every single sport is the exact same process. BPA on your board, compared to BPA at position(s) of need, which could be anywhere from 1 position to 10.

 

Then you compare how much better the BPA is compared to the 4-5 positions of need. If he is way better, you consider him strongly. But 90-99% of the time it's a tough choice, and almost always a team will take one of the BPA at one of the positions of need.

 

Sometimes after going through that entire process they will decide on the BPA and take him. But that doesn't happen all that often either.

 

Very, very, very few teams will think or draft using your reasoning, including the very best drafters and evaluators. Ozzie Newsome and the Steelers do not take players in the first couple rounds when they have stars at those positions unless they can both play side by side.

[FireChan]

I have this argument all of the time with people. No one ever just picks BPA. Ever. Every single pick in every single round by every single team in every single year in every single sport is the exact same process. BPA on your board, compared to BPA at position(s) of need, which could be anywhere from 1 position to 10.

 

Then you compare how much better the BPA is compared to the 4-5 positions of need. If he is way better, you consider him strongly. But 90-99% of the time it's a tough choice, and almost always a team will take one of the BPA at one of the positions of need.

 

Sometimes after going through that entire process they will decide on the BPA and take him. But that doesn't happen all that often either.

 

Very, very, very few teams will think or draft using your reasoning, including the very best drafters and evaluators. Ozzie Newsome and the Steelers do not take players in the first couple rounds when they have stars at those positions unless they can both play side by side.

YES.

 

Using arbitrary variables, if the Packers have Petty as the BPA in the second round, but someone close at DT, who do you think they are taking?

Edited May 1, 2015 by FireChan

[Rob's House]

Maybe. I think this was a unique situation for a few different reasons. The biggest of which is, the person who made the actual pick, said pretty much definitively, and said it to my face in person, that this guy was going to be the pick. We never have that certainty. So a lot of people make that leap that they wouldn't make before because before it would have been rumor or speculation.

I get that. I just don't understand why so many people fail to see the distinction between an objective analysis of the trade as it relates to the overall value of the assets in play and the subjective analysis based on the value relative to what a particular GM would have done with it.

 

Let me illustrate with an analogy:

 

If you invested $100k into a low risk investment with a high minimum buy in that gives you a 3% annual return, it's okay, but that's not a great investment. The fact that your 2nd option was to put 2/3 of that money into a high risk stock that plummeted doesn't make your investment great, it just means you made the better of two less than ideal moves that you yourself decided were your best two options. If there were plenty of popular mutual funds with lower minimum buy ins that you could have invested in that got a 7%-10% return and you passed on them for the other then your investment was a poor one despite being better than the other ****ty investment you were going to make.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Sammy is the football equivalent of the 3% return in this analogy, just illustrating how measuring one choice by another without considering the other alternatives can paint a false picture of the wisdom and value of that choice.

[K-9]

They think their assessment is right and the results on the field are wrong?

They think their assessments, after 13 months of compiling and re-compiling data and reports, interviewing and re-interviewing every key figure in a player's career, along with the nearly 200 man-years of experience in player evaluation among them, serves to provide the best foundation to base their projections on AT THE TIME. They know when these reports are compared to others in the arena and consensuses are reached, grades unanimously assigned, and these grades point to an elite talent level that far surpasses others in the same class, regardless of position, they know just how rare a particular player is compared to the thousands they've evaluated over the decades. There were two such players last year. Sammy Watkins was one of them.

 

They don't "audition their evaluations" in hindsight. They don't have that luxury. And that's the point. They auditioned their evaluations all throughout their high-school and college careers and those "auditions" served to inform the scouting assessment. NOTHING about these evaluations was wrong based on the results, on the field, AT THE TIME. Far from it. Everything they did on the field PRECLUDED the evaluation in the first place.

 

Now you and others are free to pronounce successes and failures in those assessments after one year in the league all you want. It's utterly short-sighted, even unwise, but certainly your prerogative.

 

But I find the contempt for the process around here interesting.

 

GO BILLS!!!