BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) 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. First of all, I was and still am for the trade. But you can't say Hogan would be the best WR on our roster. If we spent what we did on Clay on a receiver our situation to compare would likely be Torrey Smith/Ebron/Cam Erving vs. Watkins/Clay Edited May 1, 2015 by BuffaloHokie13
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 It's a numbers game though -- what are the percentages? Even an inaccurate QB is going to hit some deep throws -- it's the law of averages. The throw to Woods shouldn't count, btw - he was completely wide open and you yourself could probably have made that throw. Bridgewater completed 38 passes of 20+ yards (9%) and 7 of 40 yards (2%) in 402 attempts. In his rookie year, EJ completed 28 passes of 20+ yards (9%) and 4 of 40 (1%) yards in 306 attempts. He was actually up to 10% of his passes going for 20 yards this year. IMO, no highly drafted rookie QB in the last 5 years has had a worse set of offensive coaches to learn under. Luck got Arians. Bridgewater got Turner. KAep got Harbaugh and Roman. Wilson got Bevell. Coaching does matter, especially at the QB position. I've remained consistent. If EJ can't prove it under Roman, then turn the page. But sorry. I think Marrone/ Hackett were bad at their jobs and too many offensive palyers regressed under their watch. I'm giving EJ this year.
eball Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 First of all, I was and still am for the trade. But you can't say Hogan would be the best WR on our roster. If we spent what we did on Clay on a receiver our situation to compare would likely be Torrey Smith/Ebron/Cam Erving vs. Watkins/Clay I'm not. The Bills would have had Woods and Goodwin regardless, so they cancel each other out on both sides of the equation. The Bills don't go after Clay if they get Ebron, and it's actually debatable if they get Harvin to sign. So really, the equation might be Watkins/Harvin/Clay vs. Hogan/Ebron/FA WR -- it's still not close in my opinion.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 I'm not. The Bills would have had Woods and Goodwin regardless, so they cancel each other out on both sides of the equation. The Bills don't go after Clay if they get Ebron, and it's actually debatable if they get Harvin to sign. So really, the equation might be Watkins/Harvin/Clay vs. Hogan/Ebron/FA WR -- it's still not close in my opinion. You're still leaving out the 19th (or higher without Sammy) selection in your comparison, and I still don't understand why Hogan is being brought up
JohnC Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 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!!! When I made the reference to Carr and Bridgewater I was not putting them in the category of elite. I am projecting them to be good middle of the pack franchise qbs. The question I am putting on the table is: Is it better to have a quality franchise qb without an elite receiver or is it better to have an elite receiver and have a game manager type of qb taking the snaps? If you assess the teams that make the playoffs and are serious contenders their level of qbing is substantially higher. We possess AA minor league qbs in a league where teams with major league qbs succeed. For a generation we have not even had a Dalton caliber qb (functional and average) leading the offense. The Bills have an elite defense. With a little more patchwork on the OL it can be ugraded to a respectable level. The organization acquired a big time back this offseason. When all is said and done you get nowhere without a good (not great) qb. We are still in searching.to fill the deficit that has a spill over affect for the whole franchise.
K-9 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 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? Which one will have a very good rookie season? I don't know, why don't you tell me. As to their being Sammy Watkins types available every year, yes, there are wideouts available to draft every year. As to the rest of it, never mind. GO BILLS!!!
eball Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 You're still leaving out the 19th (or higher without Sammy) selection in your comparison, and I still don't understand why Hogan is being brought up Because without Sammy, Hogan would be the next best receiver on the roster after Woods and Goodwin. So do you want a WR trio of Woods/Goodwin/Hogan (w/ Ebron at TE) or Watkins/Woods/Goodwin (w/ Clay at TE)? Yes, I'm excluding the 19th pick from that analysis. It could have been a WR.
K-9 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) When I made the reference to Carr and Bridgewater I was not putting them in the category of elite. I am projecting them to be good middle of the pack franchise qbs. The question I am putting on the table is: Is it better to have a quality franchise qb without an elite receiver or is it better to have an elite receiver and have a game manager type of qb taking the snaps? If you assess the teams that make the playoffs and are serious contenders their level of qbing is substantially higher. We possess AA minor league qbs in a league where teams with major league qbs succeed. For a generation we have not even had a Dalton caliber qb (functional and average) leading the offense. The Bills have an elite defense. With a little more patchwork on the OL it can be ugraded to a respectable level. The organization acquired a big time back this offseason. When all is said and done you get nowhere without a good (not great) qb. We are still in searching.to fill the deficit that has a spill over affect for the whole franchise. Obviously, it's always better to have a franchise QB vs. any other position on the team. Period. If I have a choice between a Luck or a Watkins, it's Luck every day of the week. End of story. But this seems to be trending into the idea that team building is a linear process and nothing is farther from the truth. So, in looking at the reality of our situation last year, is it better to have a Watkins and our stable of less than mediocre QBs than the alternatives at the time? Yes, absolutely. Again, there is a lack of understanding for just how highly respected Watkins was in the community. I don't know how many ways I can say "rare" and how important it is to acquire that kind of rare talent. And as I suspected, it took little time for someone to suggest that there is a Sammy Watkins available every year. It's ridiculous. No offense to you JohnC, as you've been reasonable in your discussion, but I am out of this argument. There's just nothing left to say. Again. GO BILLS!!! Edited May 1, 2015 by K-9
Rob's House Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 I admit I have not read everything you posted on it, so I don't know. I do, however, very much respect you as a poster, and thinker, so I am not dismissing your stance. When I have time I will go back and see if I can figure out what you mean. Thanks, man. The feeling's mutual. 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!!! I can see how it could be interpreted that way.
Recommended Posts