Was the trade for Watkins worth it?

[K-9]

If you're going to reply to me please try to say something that at least vaguely addresses something I said.

 

My first post in this thread stated that I'd wait til the end of the season to judge the trade.

 

And this "hindsight" business is getting a bit ridiculous. I stated a truism: you can only judge the accuracy of your evaluations with the benefit of hindsight. Care to explain what part of that you take issue with?

 

And as an aside, to use your criteria, Matt Millen was a great GM because the busts he drafted were thought to be good prospects when he drafted them.

I haven't read all your posts in the thread so if I've missed some prior context, I apologize.

 

I originally responded (post #202) to a post from The Frankish Reich (#201) whereby he suggested that the Bills should have taken Bridgewater. Knowing what I know about player rankings from last year, this was the epitome of using hindsight arguments along with a total disregard for the process involved in establishing those rankings. You directly responded to this in your post (#207), so it was easy to assume that you agreed with the premise established by The Frankish Reich and my first reply to you was, indeed, directly concerning something you said and was not vague at all given the context.

 

Like I said, I didn't read your first post in the thread, only what you chose to post in response to my own response to someone else. I agree, it will take time to fully evaluate the trade. I subscribe to the time-honored rule that we should wait at least three seasons to see how a draft shakes out, especially in today's era with so many underclassmen declaring. Dareus is a good example.

 

I also agree that this hindsight business can be exasperating. But when the only argument people can make against doing something is based on events that transpired long AFTER the fact, I have to question the integrity of the argument. That's why I suggested finding posts from those who disagreed with the Watkins scouting reports BEFORE the deal was ever made. And the idea that we should have taken Bridgewater at 9, given what we knew AT THE TIME, is simply absurd.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

 

I wonder if you'd be saying that had Bridgewater or Carr received the same coaching EJ has...and I thought EJ looked just as good as either of those QBs during his rookie season.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your view that coaching was the main reason why EJ has struggled. Without a doubt it is still early in the assessment process. But in my view he has flaws that are fatal and that no amount of coaching-up can rectify. He is not accurate enough and I have doubts regarding his ability to make the right read and then appropriately react. For me his accuracy level can be improved with better mechanics but in my estimation it will never get to the point of being good enough. EJ Manuel reminds me of Jason Campbell. A long tenured qb who has carved out a respectable and profitable niche as a backup. Not good enough to be a starter but good enough to have on your roster as a reserve qb.

 

I want EJ to succeed. He is a high character person with an impressive work ethic. But I have major doubts about him as our franchise qb. This year you should get a definitive answer as to how the organization views his place within the organization. If Cassell gets the starting nod then that is all you need to know.

 

You have a lot of disdain for Marrone. But that doesn't mean that his evaluation for EJ was wrong. He made a very quick (some would say premature and prejudicial) assessment of EJ's talents and believed that he couldn't win with him. I happen to agree with the unpopular HC on this issue.

 

Cassell is at best an adequate backup qb. Odds are that he is going to be the starter for the new HC because it will give him the best chance to succeed. Ultimately (in my opinion) Rex is going to come to the same conclusion regarding EJ that the former HC that you reviled so much earlier came to.

Edited May 1, 2015 by JohnC

[K-9]

I agree with you about the superiority of Turner over Hackett (obviously), but bear in mind that Turner has always prioritized accuracy on intermediate-to-deep throws for his QBs. My understanding is that he doesn't tolerate QBs that aren't accurate on the deeper stuff given his Coryell/Zampese training and his experience with Aikman and later Rivers. I don't know how much coaching and/or better coordinating can help an inaccurate thrower - or whether a coordinator who prizes accuracy above all else would tolerate an inaccurate intermediate-to-deep thrower at all.

 

My point is that while you raise Turner a lot as an alternative, just because he's a better coordinator doesn't mean that Manuel would have performed better under him. He may have gone to the bench faster for all we know.

Lucky for Aikman that Turner wasn't unduly influenced by his first two seasons ( 53% and 57% completion rates) before he took the job with the Cowboys.

 

I'm hoping Roman can provide a similar design for Manuel. But Aikmen never had the lower body issues that EJ has, so it's a more daunting task.

 

GO BILLS

[JohnC]

 

I also agree that this hindsight business can be exasperating. But when the only argument people can make against doing something is based on events that transpired long AFTER the fact, I have to question the integrity of the argument. That's why I suggested finding posts from those who disagreed with the Watkins scouting reports BEFORE the deal was ever made. And the idea that we should have taken Bridgewater at 9, given what we knew AT THE TIME, is simply absurd.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I very much agree with your commentary. I have defended the Watkins deal. Giving the situation at the time you make decisions on real time knowledge. But that doesn't mean that one can't in hindsight go back and take a "what if" view.

 

As I have stated and you have also often stated many times Watkins is a special top shelf talent. However, from a longer view perspective wouldn't there be a greater impact on a franchise if a qb such as Carr or Bridgewater were taken instead of a dynamic receiver. The next issue is are Carr and Bridgewater franchise qbs? I think they will be. If that is the case then it is not unreasonable to take the position that it would have been better to draft one of the lesser rated qbs instead of the more highly rated player at the receiver position because of the impact and importance of the position.

 

Let's understand what I'm stating here. I'm not denigrating the pick because I very much supported it. All I'm saying is that in looking back would an alternative approach have been a better approach for this franchise?

[K-9]

I very much agree with your commentary. I have defended the Watkins deal. Giving the situation at the time you make decisions on real time knowledge. But that doesn't mean that one can't in hindsight go back and take a "what if" view.

 

As I have stated and you have also often stated many times Watkins is a special top shelf talent. However, from a longer view perspective wouldn't there be a greater impact on a franchise if a qb such as Carr or Bridgewater were taken instead of a dynamic receiver. The next issue is are Carr and Bridgewater franchise qbs? I think they will be. If that is the case then it is not unreasonable to take the position that it would have been better to draft one of the lesser rated qbs instead of the more highly rated player at the receiver position because of the impact and importance of the position.

 

Let's understand what I'm stating here. I'm not denigrating the pick because I very much supported it. All I'm saying is that in looking back would an alternative approach have been a better approach for this franchise?

Not in my opinion. Because chances to get players as special as Watkins are far and few between. Players like Watkins are rarer than players like Carr and Bridgewater and I find no fault at all in people like Whaley and others with long tenures in the player-evaluation arena who recognize that rarity and are willing to put themselves on the line and do what it takes to acquire that kind of elite talent.

 

I appreciate the balanced tone of your post though, even as I gird for the inevitable "we coulda had OBJ, Evans, or Benjamin who are just as good" responses. But they will have been missing the point as they have all along.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

Not in my opinion. Because chances to get players as special as Watkins are far and few between. Players like Watkins are rarer than players like Carr and Bridgewater and I find no fault at all in people like Whaley and others with long tenures in the player-evaluation arena who recognize that rarity and are willing to put themselves on the line and do what it takes to acquire that kind of elite talent.

 

I appreciate the balanced tone of your post though, even as I gird for the inevitable "we coulda had OBJ, Evans, or Benjamin who are just as good" responses. But they will have been missing the point as they have all along.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I'm not going to take the other receiver route argument. Regardless of the other high quality receivers abailable I believe that Watkins is the best of that groupings. I would still take him ahead of the others then and now. But a factor relating to Watkins's exceptional talent level is that it will not be maximized until there is a capable qb making the throws. In my view there isn't a qb on our current roster who will allow Watkins (or any other high end receiver) to come close to utilizing their abundant talent level.

 

In my opinion the Bills will not be a serious contending team until there is an above average franchise qb taking the snaps. With our current stable of qbs we are very far from that requirement. Until that issue is addressed the Bills will be a border line playoff team. Would Carr or Bridgewater have been adequate enough qbs for the team to take the next forward step? In my view: Yes.

[dave mcbride]

Lucky for Aikman that Turner wasn't unduly influenced by his first two seasons ( 53% and 57% completion rates) before he took the job with the Cowboys.

 

I'm hoping Roman can provide a similar design for Manuel. But Aikmen never had the lower body issues that EJ has, so it's a more daunting task.

 

GO BILLS

I think you're focusing too much on raw numbers without looking at the larger context. The Cowboys were a really bad team in his first season. All along, though, Aikman was without a doubt a highly accurate qb on the deeper stuff. Indeed, that was his calling card throughout his entire career, and in years 3-8 of his career he had ridiculously high completion rates for a QB in a non-west coast offense (for that era). He struggled early on, but not because he wasn't accurate on deeper balls. The potential was always there. Incidentally, David Carr completed 58.1 percent of his passes this year, which is OK but not great. But it's clear that he can regularly throw with accuracy on deeper balls.

Edited May 1, 2015 by dave mcbride

[eball]

In my opinion the Bills will not be a serious contending team until there is an above average franchise qb taking the snaps. With our current stable of qbs we are very far from that requirement. Until that issue is addressed the Bills will be a border line playoff team. Would Carr or Bridgewater have been adequate enough qbs for the team to take the next forward step? In my view: Yes.

 

I think this is where you and I differ most. Carr and Bridgewater are just as unproven (and risky) to me as EJ. I think the new coaching staff can put one of our three guys in position to do enough to win games.

[dave mcbride]

I very much agree with your commentary. I have defended the Watkins deal. Giving the situation at the time you make decisions on real time knowledge. But that doesn't mean that one can't in hindsight go back and take a "what if" view.

 

As I have stated and you have also often stated many times Watkins is a special top shelf talent. However, from a longer view perspective wouldn't there be a greater impact on a franchise if a qb such as Carr or Bridgewater were taken instead of a dynamic receiver. The next issue is are Carr and Bridgewater franchise qbs? I think they will be. If that is the case then it is not unreasonable to take the position that it would have been better to draft one of the lesser rated qbs instead of the more highly rated player at the receiver position because of the impact and importance of the position.

 

Let's understand what I'm stating here. I'm not denigrating the pick because I very much supported it. All I'm saying is that in looking back would an alternative approach have been a better approach for this franchise?

I think Carr has potential. I don't know about Bridgewater though. He reminds of Pennington, who was to be honest quite good before his debilitating shoulder injuries. So maybe.

I'm not going to take the other receiver route argument. Regardless of the other high quality receivers abailable I believe that Watkins is the best of that groupings. I would still take him ahead of the others then and now. But a factor relating to Watkins's exceptional talent level is that it will not be maximized until there is a capable qb making the throws. In my view there isn't a qb on our current roster who will allow Watkins (or any other high end receiver) to come close to utilizing their abundant talent level.

 

In my opinion the Bills will not be a serious contending team until there is an above average franchise qb taking the snaps. With our current stable of qbs we are very far from that requirement. Until that issue is addressed the Bills will be a border line playoff team. Would Carr or Bridgewater have been adequate enough qbs for the team to take the next forward step? In my view: Yes.

Which is why I think they'll take Petty at #50 if a) they truly have faith in him and b) if he's available. If (a) and (b) are both true, they will take him. If either isn't true, then they won't.

[mattsox]

I've seen articles about the subject, but was not able to find a thread. But the articles raise the question of whether the Bills trade for Sammy Watkins was worth it. They obviously gave their first last year and now the #19 this year. So here's my take on the subject.

 

I want to first get something very straight. The Bills had only two wide receivers that they would have taken at #9 last year, and that's Sammy Watkins and Mike Evans. There's no way anyone could convince me that Sammy wouldn't have gone early had the Bills not traded up to get him, nor that Tampa Bay had their sites set firmly on Mike Evans.

 

Given that fact set, the Bills wouldn't have reached for the third best WR on the board in Odell Beckham, Jr. over the unilateral best TE in the draft class. So instead of Sammy Watkins, they would have likely picked Eric Ebron. You might say they would have taken a tackle at that point, but that would be based on hindsight that our offensive line wasn't good last year and that Chris Williams didn't turn out as good as expected.

 

So what would that have meant for this year assuming everything else is a constant? First, there would be zero reason to go get Clay in free agency. After all, Ebron is your guy of the future. He can't block worth a damn, but he looks like a decent TE at times. So at #19, they probably would have been looking at the 4th or 5th best WR in this years draft class. Best case scenario Green-Beckham slides to them and worst (and more likely) scenario is they have to reach for a Phillip Dorsett or Nelson Agholor. Personally, I would rather have Watkins/Clay than the alternative. The Bills in free agency have effectively rendered the 19th pick useless to them by virtue of the trade last year for Sammy. Thoughts?

 

Nope. Not unless your getting Manning/Luck talent in exchange. The move was costly to the Bills. Giving 2 first rounders is BIG currency in the NFL.

That being said Watkins is a good player, but has already been outplayed by Odell Beckham. WR wasn't a position of need going into last season as well. TE was the need position.

 

If I had it to do over again, I would have taken Ebron and let the cards fall where ever they did this year. If it was for the Center the Browns got, I'd take him. We need OL help. You could move Wood to Guard anyways. Gives you the flexibility.

[dave mcbride]

 

Nope. Not unless your getting Manning/Luck talent in exchange. The move was costly to the Bills. Giving 2 first rounders is BIG currency in the NFL.

That being said Watkins is a good player, but has already been outplayed by Odell Beckham. WR wasn't a position of need going into last season as well. TE was the need position.

 

If I had it to do over again, I would have taken Ebron and let the cards fall where ever they did this year. If it was for the Center the Browns got, I'd take him. We need OL help. You could move Wood to Guard anyways. Gives you the flexibility.

If Odell Beckham was on the Bills last season and Sammy Watkins was on the Giants and healthy instead of playing with a broken rib and hip that required surgery for the last 12 games of the season, what sort of numbers do you think the two would have put up, respectively?

[K-9]

I'm not going to take the other receiver route argument. Regardless of the other high quality receivers abailable I believe that Watkins is the best of that groupings. I would still take him ahead of the others then and now. But a factor relating to Watkins's exceptional talent level is that it will not be maximized until there is a capable qb making the throws. In my view there isn't a qb on our current roster who will allow Watkins (or any other high end receiver) to come close to utilizing their abundant talent level.

 

In my opinion the Bills will not be a serious contending team until there is an above average franchise qb taking the snaps. With our current stable of qbs we are very far from that requirement. Until that issue is addressed the Bills will be a border line playoff team. Would Carr or Bridgewater have been adequate enough qbs for the team to take the next forward step? In my view: Yes.

I agree an elite QB makes receivers better along with everyone else. When I say elite, I mean pre-draft and assigned grades elite; Sammy Watkins elite. No QB in the last several drafts, outside of Luck and RG3 (again, PRE-draft) comes close to that status.

 

But building a team and acquiring elite talent is never a linear process. While it would be great to have an elite QB sitting there waiting for Sammy to throw to, again, because players of his stature are so rare and GMs know just how rare, I'm totally of the mindset that if you have an opportunity to acquire elite talent, you jump on it, regardless of position. Star players are just too rare to pass up. Truly star players, I mean.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I think you're focusing too much on raw numbers without looking at the larger context. The Cowboys were a really bad team in his first season. All along, though, Aikman was without a doubt a highly accurate qb on the deeper stuff. Indeed, that was his calling card throughout his entire career, and in years 3-8 of his career he had ridiculously high completion rates for a QB in a non-west coast offense (for that era). He struggled early on, but not because he wasn't accurate on deeper balls. The potential was always there. Incidentally, David Carr completed 58.1 percent of his passes this year, which is OK but not great. But it's clear that he can regularly throw with accuracy on deeper balls.

I was just trying to indicate that I agree with you that accuracy can be improved.

 

As for accuracy on deep balls, I assume you mean passes of 20 yards or more in the air? I haven't looked at those stats in a while so I'd be interested to see what is truly an acceptable completion percentage for those attempts.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

I think Carr has potential. I don't know about Bridgewater though. He reminds of Pennington, who was to be honest quite good before his debilitating shoulder injuries. So maybe.

Which is why I think they'll take Petty at #50 if a) they truly have faith in him and b) if he's available. If (a) and (b) are both true, they will take him. If either isn't true, then they won't.

I will be very surprised if the Bills take Petty at #50. In my opinion the more conservative approach of selecting the best offensive lineman is the wisest approach to take and continuing to do their best to upgrade the OL. This team has a stellar defense and they have invested heavily in a prime time back with their trade with Philly.

 

I just don't believe that they will draft a qb with their first pick when the front office and owner desperately want to qualify for the playoffs this year in order to break the ignomineous non-playoff streak. If this team could have made a deal for a qb such as Foles or Bradford this team this year as it is presently constituted would be a team to be reckoned with.

[eball]

 

Nope. Not unless your getting Manning/Luck talent in exchange. The move was costly to the Bills. Giving 2 first rounders is BIG currency in the NFL.

That being said Watkins is a good player, but has already been outplayed by Odell Beckham. WR wasn't a position of need going into last season as well. TE was the need position.

 

If I had it to do over again, I would have taken Ebron and let the cards fall where ever they did this year. If it was for the Center the Browns got, I'd take him. We need OL help. You could move Wood to Guard anyways. Gives you the flexibility.

 

The Bills gave ONE first rounder -- they also SWAPPED first rounders with the Browns.

 

So you're also on record that you believe Hogan/Ebron > Watkins/Clay. Got it.

[dave mcbride]

I was just trying to indicate that I agree with you that accuracy can be improved.

 

As for accuracy on deep balls, I assume you mean passes of 20 yards or more in the air? I haven't looked at those stats in a while so I'd be interested to see what is truly an acceptable completion percentage for those attempts.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Gotcha. I don't recall Manuel's offhand, but his completion pct for such passes was really, really low compared to other QBs in the league after four games this past season. A bunch was written about it after the Houston game.

[Stitus8388]

I woke up this morning really happy we have Watkins vs two other players. And I am not even 100% sold that if last years draft was done over, Sammy wouldn't still be the #1 WR drafted ahead of OBJr. I know the stats were different so some will call me crazy. However, if you watch Sammy run routes, he is awesome! And imagine if he gets better. From what I hear, he's a really hard worker, dedicated to football and keeping his body in shape and oh by the way, I hear he's a great person....caring and humble! You look back at last year and let's say Buffalo ended up with Det TE. Then we wouldn't have Clay. What if we ended up with Clev CB? Everyone assumes we would have still went WR and that is not 100% we would have. The fact that we traded up tells me we didn't have those WRs that close on our board! And even if we did land OB, Evans or Benjamin (which is not likely), I would much rather have Sammy. I don't know....I might be a little crazy however I am still very happy with that trade up last year. Did I miss not picking in round 1? Well, it's always good to add talent however honestly, I would say No. I enjoy having Sammy and we wouldn't have him! And probably would have had Det. TE and then maybe not Clay. Anyway, I am not sure I have been this excited for the upcoming season since 1990s......the most talent I can remember in a long time. GO BILLS

[San-O]

Not in my opinion. Because chances to get players as special as Watkins are far and few between. Players like Watkins are rarer than players like Carr and Bridgewater and I find no fault at all in people like Whaley and others with long tenures in the player-evaluation arena who recognize that rarity and are willing to put themselves on the line and do what it takes to acquire that kind of elite talent.

 

I appreciate the balanced tone of your post though, even as I gird for the inevitable "we coulda had OBJ, Evans, or Benjamin who are just as good" responses. But they will have been missing the point as they have all along.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

There are WR taken EVERY year that are Watkins, every year. Possibly several.

 

1

Buccaneers

Jameis Winston

QB

2

Titans

Marcus Mariota

QB

3

Jaguars

Dante Fowler

DL

4

Raiders

Amari Cooper

WR

5

Redskins

Brandon Scherff

OL

6

Jets

Leonard Williams

DE

7

Bears

Kevin White

WR

 

Which of these WR guys will have a very good rookie season?

[Direhard Fan]

Boy we sure have sold out on our QB's. Seems like everyone forgets you need quality at every position to go to the SB. QB is just one of many. EJ might surprise everyone and Cassel has had great games. Give it a chance.

[mattsox]

 

The Bills gave ONE first rounder -- they also SWAPPED first rounders with the Browns.

 

So you're also on record that you believe Hogan/Ebron > Watkins/Clay. Got it.

 

I'm on record saying it's a bad trade. You don't move up that high unless you're getting a franchise QB. So I would not made the trade last years draft. I would have taken Ebron last year. Bills still had Stevie Johnson, Mike Williams, Robert Woods and Chris Hogan to play WR.

[dave mcbride]

I will be very surprised if the Bills take Petty at #50. In my opinion the more conservative approach of selecting the best offensive lineman is the wisest approach to take and continuing to do their best to upgrade the OL. This team has a stellar defense and they have invested heavily in a prime time back with their trade with Philly.

 

I just don't believe that they will draft a qb with their first pick when the front office and owner desperately want to qualify for the playoffs this year in order to break the ignomineous non-playoff streak. If this team could have made a deal for a qb such as Foles or Bradford this team this year as it is presently constituted would be a team to be reckoned with.

 

I think they were thinking short term last season. I don't think that now. Whaley seems secure and Rex is here for the long haul. Of all people, Rex knows a bad QB situation can doom an otherwise talented team for years on end.