BringBackOrton Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 The #19 pick in 2015 is what it turned out to be. Yeah, that was unclear, pick at #9 in 2014 and pick at #19 in 2015. That's two firsts, by my reckoning, both used in the trade as reported straight from the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Injury. I said it when they didn't pick up his option. That was the first step in the Bills moving in from Watkins. You're high. Gilmore has been a more producer player than Watkins. Gilmore was a high quality corner that played at a Pro Bowl level the entire time he was playing press zone. Watkins has flashed at a top 5 talent level - which is what enamours so many - but he hasn't produced. His best seasons have been at a good level. That's ridiculous. We gave up two firsts and a fourth to draft him. Everyone understands that. Well, almost everyone. Yes, we gave up two firsts and a fourth but that's not the same as saying we traded away two firsts. We used one. It may sound like semantics, but it isn't. We traded a first for a higher value first but people with agendas never seem to mention that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrivefourfive Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 No one is going to give up a late 1st or early 2nd for Watkins. That was the price for Cooks. Sammy is a bust, and injury nightmare. Cooks is a game changer (like actual game changer...like he really does this, in games). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 No one is going to give up a late 1st or early 2nd for Watkins. That was the price for Cooks. Sammy is a bust, and injury nightmare. Cooks is a game changer (like actual game changer...like he really does this, in games). Funny stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 It also was pick #9, not pick #8 Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseTooth Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 How many games has he actually changed? Some of you are talking like Watkins is the the player that comes in clutch to win us games. Actually, he is the player to hurt his foot every year and almost come back. I am skeptical about any potential trade but Watkins is definitely trade material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Yeah, that was unclear, pick at #9 in 2014 and pick at #19 in 2015. That's two firsts, by my reckoning, both used in the trade as reported straight from the NFL. Again, no mention of acquiring pick #4 in 2014. Intellectual dishonesty suits you. No one is going to give up a late 1st or early 2nd for Watkins. That was the price for Cooks. Sammy is a bust, and injury nightmare. Cooks is a game changer (like actual game changer...like he really does this, in games). Horsecrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Yes, we gave up two firsts and a fourth but that's not the same as saying we traded away two firsts. We used one. It may sound like semantics, but it isn't. We traded a first for a higher value first but people with agendas never seem to mention that. It makes sense to use what was given up for a player. People often omit some part of the total which makes is seem like less was spent on acquiring a player than what really was. That's misleading, usually intentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Fan in LA Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Has anybody bothered to ask Sammy what he wants to do next season ?? It's possible the Bills front Office approached Sammy's agent a week or 2 ago and asked if he'd consider an extension to his current contract. That's what front offices sometimes do.............try to pick up a franchise sort of guy on the cheap after a not so great couple of seasons. And maybe, just maybe the front office was told Sammy wanted to test the waters, as disgruntled franchise players sometimes do after a couple of not so great years. Just saying............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Again, no mention of acquiring pick #4 in 2014. Intellectual dishonesty suits you. Horsecrap. Maybe you should try reading. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/194184-rumor-bills-will-entertain-trade-offers-for-watkins/page-16?do=findComment&comment=4392077 It. Was. Still. Trading. Two. First. Round. Picks. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Has anybody bothered to ask Sammy what he wants to do next season ?? It's possible the Bills front Office approached Sammy's agent a week or 2 ago and asked if he'd consider an extension to his current contract. That's what front offices sometimes do.............try to pick up a franchise sort of guy on the cheap after a not so great couple of seasons. And maybe, just maybe the front office was told Sammy wanted to test the waters, as disgruntled franchise players sometimes do after a couple of not so great years. Just saying............ Seems as if they'll weigh all of their options after the season based upon health and production. Tag, extend, or let him hit the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 edit: never mind, I read it out of context. my bad. we are on a message board with thousands of pages of gibberish...believe me, we've all been there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Maybe you should try reading. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/194184-rumor-bills-will-entertain-trade-offers-for-watkins/page-16?do=findComment&comment=4392077 It. Was. Still. Trading. Two. First. Round. Picks. Period. Not. When. You. Acquire. Another. First. Round. Pick. In. The. Deal. If you want to say we invested two firsts and a fourth in Sammy, fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not the same as saying we traded away two first round picks, especially when you neglect to mention the higher first round pick acquired in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) Not. When. You. Acquire. Another. First. Round. Pick. In. The. Deal. If you want to say we invested two firsts and a fourth in Sammy, fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not the same as saying we traded away two first round picks, especially when you neglect to mention the higher first round pick acquired in the process. How many picks did NE trade for Brandin Cooks? It really is. The trade doesn't occur if we just trade pick #8 or the 2015 1st. We needed both. Two. 2. Edited May 28, 2017 by jmc12290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) How many picks did NE trade for Brandin Cooks? It really is. The trade doesn't occur if we just trade pick #8 or the 2015 1st. We needed both. Two. 2. It is clearly two different mindsets. But realistically we got a better pick than our 2014 9th overall pick. We got 4th. So to get to 4th we traded away 2014 and 2015's 1st and a 4th rounder. Then we used the HIGHER pick that we got to draft Sammy Watkins. You guys both clearly agree that we used 2 1sts and a 4th to draft Sammy Watkins so...... Edited May 28, 2017 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 we are on a message board with thousands of pages of gibberish...believe me, we've all been there ...I find it woefully disconcerting that you have in such a wholesale manner discounted the value of such gibberish, a true insult to the posting brethren..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 It is clearly two different mindsets. But realistically we got a better pick than our 2014 9th overall pick. We got 4th. So to get to 4th we traded away 2014 and 2015's 1st and a 4th rounder. Then we used the HIGHER pick that we got to draft Sammy Watkins. You guys both clearly agree that we used 2 1sts and a 4th to draft Sammy Watkins so...... I think K-9 is projecting when he claims me being intellectually dishonest. No one says that NE didn't trade one first to the Saints for Cooks because he was drafted with a first round pick. If NE traded a single first for Cooks, the Bills could not have also traded a single first for Watkins. It's that simple. Any other semantic argument under the guise of claiming "dishonesty," is clearly a projection of his own spin zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenseWins Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 That "franchise" QB will need someone to throw to.... That so called "stud WR" will need someone to throw the ball TO HIM... and "stud WR's" don't spend all their time on the injury report either - they produce on the field.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 It is clearly two different mindsets. But realistically we got a better pick than our 2014 9th overall pick. We got 4th. So to get to 4th we traded away 2014 and 2015's 1st and a 4th rounder. Then we used the HIGHER pick that we got to draft Sammy Watkins. You guys both clearly agree that we used 2 1sts and a 4th to draft Sammy Watkins so...... Yes. It comes down to gross cost versus net cost. People who don't want to take into account net cost ignore the fact that the Bills still had a first rounder in 2014 (so 3 picks - 1 spent on Watkins in first round = 2 picks). People who don't take into account gross cost ignore the fact that Sammy cost (his original pick in 2014 + 2 picks in 2015 = 3 picks) but ignore the existence of an asset in and of itself. 3+ years later I am incredulous that we have never gotten beyond this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Not. When. You. Acquire. Another. First. Round. Pick. In. The. Deal. If you want to say we invested two firsts and a fourth in Sammy, fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not the same as saying we traded away two first round picks, especially when you neglect to mention the higher first round pick acquired in the process. Both sides are known to play games with this due to the verbiage having variation the can go either way and people liking to splice it up into nonsensical combinations When saying we traded up -- we gave up next year's first to trade up is the obvious. That we are moving up implies there's another pick in that round that we are using a resource to improve When discussing sammys cost it's fair to say 2 firsts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts