thebandit27 Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 It's the same thing IMO, not being able to stay on the field = not good enough. Except that he's started over 70% of the games that the team has played since he's been in the league, so "can't stay on the field" is simply incorrect.
jeffismagic Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) I know a lot of people here take great pleasure in bashing the local media, but here is a good and very informative overview by Jay Skurski of what has happened when teams have declined to pick up options: http://buffalonews.com/2017/05/03/analysis-history-suggests-sammy-watkins-time-bills-short/ . Thanks, great read. So only 4 of 27 recently stayed. So Sammy has an 86% chance to no longer be a Buffalo Bill based on recent data. Edited May 4, 2017 by jeffismagic
thebandit27 Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Thanks, great read. So only 4 of 27 recently stayed. So Sammy has an 86% chance to no longer be a Buffalo Bill based on recent data. No. What other teams did or didn't do has zero impact on Buffalo's situation with Watkins.
jeffismagic Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) No. What other teams did or didn't do has zero impact on Buffalo's situation with Watkins. Yes and no. You are correct that what other teams do doesn't force a decision to the Bills specifically. But the data illustrates that very few players who don't get the 5th year option remain with their original team. Ultimately, it depends on the real reason the Bills are doing this. If this is caution over an injury that they are not certain of, that does not bode well. If this is just bravado and Sean McDermott "making a statement" then perhaps this is much concern over nothing. Edited May 4, 2017 by jeffismagic
oldmanfan Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Yes and no. You are correct that what other teams do doesn't force a decision to the Bills specifically. But the data illustrates that very few players who don't get the 5th year option remain with their original team. Ultimately, it depends on the real reason the Bills are doing this. If this is caution over an injury that they are not certain of, that does not bode well. If this is just bravado and Sean McDermott "making a statement" then perhaps this is much concern over nothing. We do know he has an injury and has not been cleared to pratice yet. And I think we all know that your latter scenario has no basis in fact and is your attempt to spew more negativity.
SoFFacet Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) Thanks, great read. So only 4 of 27 recently stayed. So Sammy has an 86% chance to no longer be a Buffalo Bill based on recent data. Yes and no. You are correct that what other teams do doesn't force a decision to the Bills specifically. But the data illustrates that very few players who don't get the 5th year option remain with their original team. Ultimately, it depends on the real reason the Bills are doing this. If this is caution over an injury that they are not certain of, that does not bode well. If this is just bravado and Sean McDermott "making a statement" then perhaps this is much concern over nothing. It's a totally inappropriate use of "data" that only serves to demonstrate that statistics can be manipulated to support anything and that TBN has total contempt for the critical analysis skills of their readership. The 27 events in question are not identical random events, which renders invalid the entire supposition that together they form a probabilistic distribution from which to draw statistically supported conclusions. This flaw can sometimes be overcome by a sample size large enough to average out individualized situations. Perhaps n=10k would suffice. n=27 is not "data." In any case, the article makes no attempt to distinguish between players that clubs readily let go on a rational basis, and players that clubs genuinely wanted to keep but could not. Obviously, a distinction that Bills fans ought to care about. Edited May 4, 2017 by SoFFacet
dave mcbride Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 It's a totally inappropriate use of "data" that only serves to demonstrate that statistics can be manipulated to support anything and that TBN has total contempt for the critical analysis skills of their readership. The 27 events in question are not identical random events, which renders invalid the entire supposition that together they form a probabilistic distribution from which to draw statistically supported conclusions. This flaw can sometimes be overcome by a sample size large enough to average out individualized situations. Perhaps n=10k would suffice. n=27 is not "data." In any case, the article makes no attempt to distinguish between players that clubs readily let go on a rational basis, and players that clubs genuinely wanted to keep but could not. Obviously, a distinction that Bills fans ought to care about. If you read the piece, Skurski doesn't predict what the Bills will do. He simply lays out what has happened since this rule came into effect. It is useful, interesting information. Are we really going to bash TBN over a piece like this? Sheesh.
K-9 Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 If you read the piece, Skurski doesn't predict what the Bills will do. He simply lays out what has happened since this rule came into effect. It is useful, interesting information. Are we really going to bash TBN over a piece like this? Sheesh. I agree it's interesting but how, exactly, is it useful? It has no relevance to the Bills situation with Watkins.
T-Bomb Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Except that he's started over 70% of the games that the team has played since he's been in the league, so "can't stay on the field" is simply incorrect. You can't be elite 4th pick overall and only play 70% Sorry.
thebandit27 Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 You can't be elite 4th pick overall and only play 70% Sorry. First, I didn't say he was de facto elite; I said that when he's on the field he performs at an elite clip on a per-target basis. I've said repeatedly that the largest impediment to his success on the field is lack of targets, followed pretty closely by availability issues. As to the 70% number, well, it's higher than the percent of games played by Julio Jones and Antonio Brown through their first 3 seasons, so perhaps we can hold off on that talk for a second.
oldmanfan Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 First, I didn't say he was de facto elite; I said that when he's on the field he performs at an elite clip on a per-target basis. I've said repeatedly that the largest impediment to his success on the field is lack of targets, followed pretty closely by availability issues. As to the 70% number, well, it's higher than the percent of games played by Julio Jones and Antonio Brown through their first 3 seasons, so perhaps we can hold off on that talk for a second. I would hope Dennison structures his passing offense around Sammy. If Sammy is healthy then, he will have a great year, he'll love that he's the guy in the offense, we give him a big deal, he signs it, and move on from there.
thebandit27 Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 I would hope Dennison structures his passing offense around Sammy. If Sammy is healthy then, he will have a great year, he'll love that he's the guy in the offense, we give him a big deal, he signs it, and move on from there. If he doesn't, then it can only mean one of 3 things: 1) Sammy is injured and can't play at all this year 2) Dennison is wholly unqualified to design a passing offense 3) The team has no plans to offer Sammy a 2nd contract
mjt328 Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 I think the Bills have legitimate concern that Sammy Watkins' foot will never fully recover. If the Bills were to pickup his 5th Year Option, that would fully guarantee him $13 million in 2018. Imagine if Watkins foot gives out again this year. Maybe it requires another surgery, or severely hampers his ability to perform on the field (just like it did last season). That option would be giving Watkins Top 5-10 Wide Receiver money for a guy that misses half the season and is hurting every time he's actually suited up. We aren't talking about a cheap rookie contract. The 5th Year Option is cheaper than Unrestricted Free Agency, but it's not cheap. By declining the 5th Year Option, the Bills would STILL have the ability to franchise Watkins for around $16 million (for up to two years, keeping him in Buffalo for 2018-2019). They don't need to let him walk next year. Their decision in no way stops them from retaining Watkins rights for at least the next 3 seasons, if they truly believe he is worth the money. And nothing is stopping them from working out a long-term deal at any point along the way. It's basically a $13 million risk versus a $3 million risk. If Watkins proves his foot can withstand 16 games, I believe the Bills will make every effort to give him a long-term extension. But if he has another setback with that foot, it's time to start considering him damaged goods. A Wide Receiver with foot problems is never going to reach his potential, and things will only get worse as he gets older.
thebandit27 Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 I think the Bills have legitimate concern that Sammy Watkins' foot will never fully recover. Based on what?
26CornerBlitz Posted May 5, 2017 Author Posted May 5, 2017 I think the Bills have legitimate concern that Sammy Watkins' foot will never fully recover. If the Bills were to pickup his 5th Year Option, that would fully guarantee him $13 million in 2018. Imagine if Watkins foot gives out again this year. Maybe it requires another surgery, or severely hampers his ability to perform on the field (just like it did last season). That option would be giving Watkins Top 5-10 Wide Receiver money for a guy that misses half the season and is hurting every time he's actually suited up. We aren't talking about a cheap rookie contract. The 5th Year Option is cheaper than Unrestricted Free Agency, but it's not cheap. By declining the 5th Year Option, the Bills would STILL have the ability to franchise Watkins for around $16 million (for up to two years, keeping him in Buffalo for 2018-2019). They don't need to let him walk next year. Their decision in no way stops them from retaining Watkins rights for at least the next 3 seasons, if they truly believe he is worth the money. And nothing is stopping them from working out a long-term deal at any point along the way. It's basically a $13 million risk versus a $3 million risk. If Watkins proves his foot can withstand 16 games, I believe the Bills will make every effort to give him a long-term extension. But if he has another setback with that foot, it's time to start considering him damaged goods. A Wide Receiver with foot problems is never going to reach his potential, and things will only get worse as he gets older. The history of WRs and other elite professional athletes who have recovered from the same surgery suggests they shouldn't be very worried about this.
T-Bomb Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 I think we all need to face facts, Whaley destroyed that draft, picked the wrong player after trading up (should have been Mack), and now the franchise is suffering for it. So many of us at the time berated the move as idiotic, especially in a deep WR draft. Trading up for Watkins to help out the previous draft's reach of a QB, it's so very plain to see why the Bills have sucked for so long... Watkins will go down as another Buffalo Bills draft bust unfortunately. I'm glad McNoggin has the guts to not pick up the option and to move on from the frail player that Watkins is.
thebandit27 Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) I think we all need to face facts, Whaley destroyed that draft, picked the wrong player after trading up (should have been Mack), and now the franchise is suffering for it. So many of us at the time berated the move as idiotic, especially in a deep WR draft. Trading up for Watkins to help out the previous draft's reach of a QB, it's so very plain to see why the Bills have sucked for so long... Watkins will go down as another Buffalo Bills draft bust unfortunately. I'm glad McNoggin has the guts to not pick up the option and to move on from the frail player that Watkins is. It's fine to say that you didn't support the trade-up. It's patently incorrect, however, to call Watkins a bust. He has over 2,000 receiving yards and 17 TDs in his young career; he will turn 24 years old next month. For context: Sammy Watkins ranks 5th all time in receiving yards accumulated before age 23. Go ahead and opine that Whaley gave up too much in that trade; there's an argument for that. There is no argument, however, for calling Watkins a bust. Edited May 5, 2017 by thebandit27
jeffismagic Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 It's fine to say that you didn't support the trade-up. It's patently incorrect, however, to call Watkins a bust. He has over 2,000 receiving yards and 17 TDs in his young career; he will turn 24 years old next month. For context: Sammy Watkins ranks 5th all time in receiving yards accumulated before age 23. Go ahead and opine that Whaley gave up too much in that trade; there's an argument for that. There is no argument, however, for calling Watkins a bust. I never felt that strongly about the trade. I know the data says not to do things like this. But as a Bills fan I also liked the idea of having an elite weapon on the team. You can't blame Whaley for Watkins being injured. He had no injury history in college. That's just bad luck.
H2o Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 http://buffalonews.com/2017/05/05/vic-caruccis-bills-mailbag-watkins-adding-ownerships-voice-backfield-depth-questions/ This is what I figured and a typical Bills-esque move. I know it has not happened yet and we are dealing in hypotheticals, but just look at what happened with Gilmore this year. Next year it will be Sammy. Mark my words, if they let Watkins walk then he is going to be an All Pro WR on his next team because he will go somewhere there is a viable starting QB.
Recommended Posts