CardinalScotts Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 this is a guy who couldnt lock down the #3 with the 49ers...now bounced over to San Diego. He had a great 3 year run with Fitz, not going to recreate anything- the trade happened at the perfect time
Buffalo_Stampede Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Â The thing is, it's not really genuine to use hindsight to criticize the decision at the time they made it. Â There was no question at all that Watkins was the best offensive player in that draft, and they did what they had to do to get him. Â Now, you're correct that very few people would choose Sammy over Beckham plus a 1st (though I'll tell you that--from my perspective--it's a whole lot closer than you might expect). That doesn't mean that it was a bad move. Â You move up because you fall in love with a prospect and don't want to miss out. They got their guy, it was a definite hit, and he's poised to be a great player for them for a long time. Â As far as the two players being compared, I watch both guys intently, and they're both open nearly all the time. The biggest difference I've seen is that Beckham really struggles when he's pressed at the line, which too many teams are afraid to do because of his deep speed. I cant criticize the trade, I would have done the trade at the time. I supported the trade. I have changed my view towards the draft in a lot of ways since then. That particular move is not one that should haunt Whaley or Bills fans. They got a great player and the pick they gave up was 19th in a poor draft. They also hit on a stud with their 2nd that year. As it turned out the trade doesn't hurt the Bills, but I think Whaley would gladly stay put and take Beckham today.
GunnerBill Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) I'm positive zero fans would do the trade again. So many good Wrs in that draft. Â I would. Â EDIT: Again knowing only what was know then. Watkins was bona fide blue chip, as was Evans (who was actually my guy that year and I do wonder if the Bills had been one pick higher ahead of Tampa if they'd just have stood pat and picked Evans). OBJ has special traits but was not as sure fire, not as polished. Would I trade a first round pick plus Sammy for OBJ today? Yes I would, but at draft time one was a risk the other was safer. Edited July 13, 2016 by GunnerBill
CommonCents Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Sammy was a better college player than Odell, Whaley made a power move to acquire the best weapon available in the draft. No way anyone could have known how well OBJ was going transition to the NFL, I'm an LSU guy and I didn't even want OBJ. The whole argument has been beat to death, Sammy is a talent but the trade goes to show why it's always dangerous to trade up in a draft while paying a premium price. Rarely do the best college prospects end up being the best pro's out of the bunch, so don't over invest in one player.
GunnerBill Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Rarely do the best college prospects end up being the best pro's out of the bunch, so don't over invest in one player. Â We don't know yet who will "end up" the best pro. I repeat my prediction - by the end of the rookie deals it will be Sammy.
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Stevie was the only receiver that had chemistry with Fitztragic. He literally bombed out once he left Buffalo. I think his shelf-life was exactly 4 decent years. Whaley traded him right when there was a little value. I truly don't think he'd still even be on the team this year. I think it was more of a gailey thing than a fitz thing
jester43 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Can't wait to see Woodsy shut a lot of people up this year. i wish he'd hurry up and shut me up. he's almost invisible.
3rdand12 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 Just bought my Tyrod GAMEDAY jersey. We shall see... I am gonna trust your judgement on this one ! Â Liked Stevie for the most part. He did seem to put the effort in. His lack of success after moving on could be from a number of reasons though. Some one her mentioned his groin troubles. I had forgotten about that as i had him kinda. Never wished him ill though even after those clutch drops.
BADOLBILZ Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 I am gonna trust your judgement on this one ! Â Liked Stevie for the most part. He did seem to put the effort in. His lack of success after moving on could be from a number of reasons though. Some one her mentioned his groin troubles. I had forgotten about that as i had him kinda. Never wished him ill though even after those clutch drops. Â Stevie wasn't much for training so not sure where the revision on his work ethic originated.
3rdand12 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Â Stevie wasn't much for training so not sure where the revision on his work ethic originated. You mean his basketball regimen? Or his embarrassing statements blown up by the media we so love? Â Boy played hard and through injury. and hell he was all we had honestly
Steve Billieve Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 I like Stevie but I don't think he can compete with woods especially in this run first offense. expensive for a number three. Reminds me of mckelvin, sucks to lose them but theyre just casualties of our strength at the position.
BADOLBILZ Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 You mean his basketball regimen? Or his embarrassing statements blown up by the media we so love?  Boy played hard and through injury. and hell he was all we had honestly   Who in that WR corps didn't play hard? Really if that's a defense then answer that.  And other than putting more money in his pocket......how would he being "all we had" relevant?  His act was weak......from the damaging on field decisions usually designed to draw attention to himself.......and the game killing mistakes brought on by pressure he created by acting a fool......and the gimping histrionics as he dealt with self-inflicted-by-poor-preparation soft tissue injuries.
3rdand12 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Â Â Who in that WR corps didn't play hard? Really if that's a defense then answer that. Â And other than putting more money in his pocket......how would he being "all we had" relevant? Â His act was weak......from the damaging on field decisions usually designed to draw attention to himself.......and the game killing mistakes brought on by pressure he created by acting a fool......and the gimping histrionics as he dealt with self-inflicted-by-poor-preparation soft tissue injuries. This sounds aggressive to me. I thought this was light dialogue?
BADOLBILZ Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 This sounds aggressive to me. I thought this was light dialogue? Â It's not. Â Just laughing at the fluff job you were attempting to perpetrate. Â Instead of trying to assign extra credit for achieving the same minimum standards expected of everyone on the roster you could have just said.........he had three 1,000 yard seasons, made some big plays and was fun to watch. Â Those are all true. Â Unfortunately.......his run was very short-lived. Â And guys with personality issues that stop producing are top-graded off with a quickness.......hence Stevie being on 3 teams over the past 3 seasons.
That's No Moon Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Â You realize it's just a sport and the players are simply entertainers, right? Â Do you break stuff when a movie you're watching takes an unexpected twist? Didn't say I was proud of it, just said it happened.
Gugny Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 To be honest, it was kind of min boggling to me that they ever thought that it was okay to use him so little? They gave up a lot to get him, he has a great skill set and they would throw him 3 balls. I'm glad that he spoke up. Maybe he was beat up to start the year but I know that if I had a receiver with his talents I would be finding ways to get him the ball. He still lags behind other great receivers in "number of targets" but that comes from the run first offense. The chart above clearly shows that when you throw him the ball good things happen. Even the Bills can see that -can't they? My theory is simple. Roman doesn't think Tyrod is that good. I can't see any other logical explanation.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 My theory is simple. Roman doesn't think Tyrod is that good. I can't see any other logical explanation.Tyrod is probably the best pro QB that Roman has ever had. He just believes in an offense that is run first. Sammy is certainly the best receiver that he has ever had. He didn't really know how to use him in the 1st half. The 2nd half he was prominently featured and flourished. The progress of Tyrod this offseason will lead to more opportunities for Sammy. I think that he has a realistic shot (if healthy) of breaking the franchise receiving record this year (and for about the next 8 years).
John from Riverside Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 My theory is simple. Roman doesn't think Tyrod is that good. I can't see any other logical explanation. Unfortunately Gug...you and logical just do not mix
reddogblitz Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 SJ did some good things but he was a loser who singlehandedly lost several games for us due to drops. We haven't had a losing season since he left town. Coincidence? I think not.
Recommended Posts