SlamnSam Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 I am surprised they are not picking this up (if they don't). They must think Sammy is just way too injury prone. He is injury prone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_with_it Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 My assumption is that there isn't a mitigating factor. If there isn't, this decision makes zero sense. Hes still not cleared for practice and wont be until July at the earliest (if everything goes to a tee) yet your confident in saying there isnt a mitigating factor.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 I am in the exact opposite point of view. i think it is a very cold, financial move based on probabilities and uncertainty regarding his foot. If the doctors had said he is 100% good to go and highly unlikely to break down again, then we wouldnt be having this conversation. Regarding the bolded part: That is only true if the Bills are acting rationally. If they are taking some sort of "prove it" mentality despite positive medicals, then they have undeniably made a big mistake and have hurt themselves more than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) Regarding the bolded part: That is only true if the Bills are acting rationally. If they are taking some sort of "prove it" mentality despite positive medicals, then they have undeniably made a big mistake and have hurt themselves more than anyone else. Okay, I am going to flip this. In what specific ways do you think the Bills hurt themselves with this decision ? I think the value of this decision is no more than $2-$3 MM/yr if all goes well with his health. Chump change if Watkins is fully healed and plays to his immense potential. Edited May 3, 2017 by Fan in Chicago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 My main issue is you insisting McD is making some kind of emotional decision when he is not. Look at those sands shift. Still no foundation. I'll repeat: UNLESS the Bills KNOW that there is an ongoing medical concern with the foot, then McDermott made an emotional decision. If he is chalking it up to anything else, the decision was incorrect. If: The doctors are saying "This typically take x months to heal and he is in month x-3, but on track" then it was a bad decision. McDermott is confident in the foot but thinks of Sammy as injury prone in general, then it was a bad decision. McDermott just likes to get rid of guys with non-traditional hair like Gilmore, Whaley and now Sammy, then it was a bad decision. ANYTHING else was a bad decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) Okay, I am going to flip this. In what specific ways do you think the Bills hurt themselves with this decision ? I think the value of this decision is no more than $2-$3 MM/yr if all goes well with his health. Chump change if Watkins is fully healed and plays to his immense potential. Yes, but they lose a year of control. Instead of being able to franchise him two seasons from now, they have to do it next year. I strongly believe that they will not franchise twice in a row given the big cost increase from year one to year two under the franchise and the probability that they'll lose him afterward. They could franchise him three years in a row, but that's not likely: it entails a 44 percent salary increase over the already very steep year 2 franchise cost. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/28/10-things-to-know-about-the-franchise-tag/ Edited May 3, 2017 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Okay, I am going to flip this. In what specific ways do you think the Bills hurt themselves with this decision ? I think the value of this decision is no more than $2-$3 MM/yr if all goes well with his health. Chump change if Watkins is fully healed and plays to his immense potential. Let me first say that you, unlike others, are using logic in your argument. Thank you. Again, assuming the foot is not seen by doctors as some sort of unfixable issue: If the Bills picked up the option they are only saving 2-3M in 2018 but: Franchising two years in a row, although allowed, has not traditionally worked well for anyone...see Cousins vs. Redskins.....so the Bills realistically lose a year of control over Sammy. Any team that sought Sammy in a trade either now or a year from now would see him as more valuable with the option picked up than without. This would in part be due to the $, but more due to the extended control. Extending Sammy, is not really impacted too much in either scenario but this will force the process to happen sooner. None of the above delves into the psychological impact the decision could have on Sammy or others, but that landscape could change too. It might not change, but it might. Why mess with it? So either the foot is a known ongoing problem, or the Bills move made no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuklz2594 Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 rip denny green...you can't make the club from the tub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Which is exactly why this could be smart play. If (and this is a big if) his medicals are unfavorable, it may be that the bills don't want to commit massive long term money to a guy who literally is a step away from a career altering injury. a big year this year coupled with a tag might allow the bills to both get something back for Sammy through a trade a year before his first round class hits the market and to avoid the risk inherent in a long term deal.If they picked up option they would have this year AND next to find out if he's worth 100m. Now it's just one. Yes they can tag him but he can force his way out. If they picked up option he couldn't. Bad move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Look at those sands shift. Still no foundation. I'll repeat: UNLESS the Bills KNOW that there is an ongoing medical concern with the foot, then McDermott made an emotional decision. If he is chalking it up to anything else, the decision was incorrect. If: The doctors are saying "This typically take x months to heal and he is in month x-3, but on track" then it was a bad decision. McDermott is confident in the foot but thinks of Sammy as injury prone in general, then it was a bad decision. McDermott just likes to get rid of guys with non-traditional hair like Gilmore, Whaley and now Sammy, then it was a bad decision. ANYTHING else was a bad decision. You do not understand medicine if you think the Bills docs can give a definitive word right now. He is not cleared to practice, which should suggest to you his foot at minimum is still affected to a degree. Here and above you claim the Bills and/or McD are irrational. A number of media outlets and others her have reviewed why this makes sense not just for the team but the player. If Sammy lights it up and they choose to tag him it is a couple million more in 2018 when they have more cap space and can easily absorb that. Perhaps you should reconsider your position and who is rational va. irrational here. If they picked up option they would have this year AND next to find out if he's worth 100m. Now it's just one. Yes they can tag him but he can force his way out. If they picked up option he couldn't. Bad move.. Or pay 13 million for a guy who can't play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Yes, but they lose a year of control. Instead of being able to franchise him two seasons from now, they have to do it next year. I strongly believe that they will not franchise twice in a row given the big cost increase from year one to year two under the franchise and the probability that they'll lose him afterward. They could franchise him three years in a row, but that's not likely: it entails a 44 percent salary increase over the already very steep year 2 franchise cost. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/28/10-things-to-know-about-the-franchise-tag/ I think the control thing may be overblown. It will come down to a financial decision. I do agree with you that franchising two years in a row is highly unlikely. The Bills haven't done it as far as I can remember. But the basic issue is that if the foot is not healed fully or if the docs are not very sure about the permanance of the fix, then committing to the fifth year doesn't make sense for the Bills. They may end up paying for a season's worth of premium salary for, say, half the number of games. Also, the uncertainty around his in-season availability hurts game and season planning, as you are well aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) You do not understand medicine if you think the Bills docs can give a definitive word right now. He is not cleared to practice, which should suggest to you his foot at minimum is still affected to a degree. Here and above you claim the Bills and/or McD are irrational. A number of media outlets and others her have reviewed why this makes sense not just for the team but the player. If Sammy lights it up and they choose to tag him it is a couple million more in 2018 when they have more cap space and can easily absorb that. Perhaps you should reconsider your position and who is rational va. irrational here. Are you really saying that every affliction that anyone has is totally unique and doctors are completely clueless as to healing timelines? They can't observe the healing process and get a reliable prognosis? In 2017? I can assure you they have a prognosis. If it is that the foot is healing properly then the Bills made a bad decision and based it on emotion. If the foot is not healing properly then the Bills made the right decision. Time to add some more sand to your argument. How about throwing in something irrelevant like his rib injury? Edited May 3, 2017 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) or he will ball out to get better offers in FA. I he stays healthy and balls out for 2017, the Bills will tag him for 2018 and go from there. Picking up the option also only locks him up for 2018, but you must bet on it NOW, vs the franchise tag for 2018 (a bit pricer, but worth the cost in order to see if he can stay healthy or not), which you can decide on next year. Absolutely the right decision. Really the only decision they could make. Bills are acting like a real football operation; lets see if it continues and they can rebuild the personnel/administration piece without stepping on themselves. Edited May 3, 2017 by jmcraig44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Are you really saying that every affliction that anyone has is totally unique and doctors are completely clueless as to healing timelines? They can't observe the healing process and get a reliable prognosis? In 2017? I can assure you they have a prognosis. If it is that the foot is healing properly then the Bills made a bad decision and based it on emotion. If the foot is not healing properly then the Bills made the right decision. Time to add some more snd to your argument. How about throwing in something irrelevant like his rib injury? . I work in the medical field , and in fact they can have a prognosis that they are unsure right now as to how his foot will hold up several months from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Hes still not cleared for practice and wont be until July at the earliest (if everything goes to a tee) yet your confident in saying there isnt a mitigating factor.... WTF is wrong with everyone this morning? For the last time, I said IF, IF there is a mitigating factor, then it makes sense. I haven't come anywhere NEAR saying there ISN'T a mitigating factor. If he is still hurt it makes total sense. Which, AGAIN, is what I've been saying all along here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Are you really saying that every affliction that anyone has is totally unique and doctors are completely clueless as to healing timelines? They can't observe the healing process and get a reliable prognosis? In 2017? I can assure you they have a prognosis. If it is that the foot is healing properly then the Bills made a bad decision and based it on emotion. If the foot is not healing properly then the Bills made the right decision. Time to add some more snd to your argument. How about throwing in something irrelevant like his rib injury? Continuing to say a business decision is an emotional decision is just emotional on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 . I work in the medical field , and in fact they can have a prognosis that they are unsure right now as to how his foot will hold up several months from now. That's the only thing that would make sense. That the recovery is not going as hoped or expected. But everything reported so far by everyone, even as late as yesterday, has been he's right on schedule and will be ready for camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 WTF is wrong with everyone this morning? For the last time, I said IF, IF there is a mitigating factor, then it makes sense. I haven't come anywhere NEAR saying there ISN'T a mitigating factor. If he is still hurt it makes total sense. Which, AGAIN, is what I've been saying all along here. It is simply that he is still hurt as evidenced by him not participating in OTAs. So why throw that hypothetical out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Got you. What I would hope is McD and Sammy had a conversation along the lines of this: we are concerned about the injury, but assuimg it heals up and you play as great as we know you can we'll be ready to give you a new deal where you make top WR money before the 2017 season ends. But if your injury proves bad you can understand we can't commit 13 million if you can't play. I think Sammy and his agent would see the logic. It protects both sides. Me, too. But I do wonder about those reports from a few weeks ago that said Sammy was playing pickup basketball. Bottom line is that when he's healthy and targeted, Sammy Watkins plays at an elite level and we have to find ways to keep guys like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 That's the only thing that would make sense. That the recovery is not going as hoped or expected. But everything reported so far by everyone, even as late as yesterday, has been he's right on schedule and will be ready for camp. Hopefully he stays on track. If I were OBD and he lights up training camp I either extend him a year for the 13 nil or do a new multiyear deal. Wanting to be sure he's OK is not a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts