mannc Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 they paid him 3x MAR 1 2004Signed a 6 year $26.1 million contract with Carolina (CAR) MAY 8 2007Signed a 6 year $43.2 million contract with Carolina (CAR) APR 10 2012Signed a 4 year $30 million contract extension with Carolina (CAR) http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/baltimore-ravens/steve-smith-1250/ He was released in 2014 at age 35. and went on to play very well for the Ravens.
Johnny Hammersticks Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Just so long as we don't lose sight of the fact that Sammy Watkins is infinitely a better prospect as an NFL player than Vanek ever was as an NHLer. Truth. Wasabi!!
BringBackOrton Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) I think the real sticking point I have with this whole situation is are we really gonna let Sammy go if he doesn't play 10+ games? I get it if that's what they wanna do but man. I think I'd have rather exercised the option and given him another year to figure it out. Keeping him on the roster doesn't preclude us from looking for or finding a replacement, IMO. We have maybe 2 years of TT rebuilding. If the unthinkable happens and TT is starting opening day 2018 for any reason, why not give Watkins another year where SB isn't on the table realistically to figure it out? It's not like him or his one year cap hit is gonna be the reason we don't win the Lombardi. Besides, you gotta figure 8 games of Watkins is better than 0 games, no? Edited June 1, 2017 by jmc12290
GG Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Just so long as we don't lose sight of the fact that Sammy Watkins is infinitely a better prospect as an NFL player than Vanek ever was as an NHLer. Is Watkins' value to the Bills greater as a WR catching passes from Tyrod Taylor or as the final piece of the puzzle to get a franchise QB?
YoloinOhio Posted June 1, 2017 Author Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) and went on to play very well for the Ravens.he had a couple years left but they were actually more successful without him ...the point remains, they paid him when they had the opportunity not once, not twice, but three times. They cut him when he was one of the older WRs in the NFL and a huge cap hit. Most teams do the same. And cutting Smith at age 35 has little relevancy to what the Bills would do with Watkins at age 24. Edited June 1, 2017 by YoloinOhio
NoSaint Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Ha ha, if you are trying to accuse me of not supporting my arguments with stats I think that you have the wrong guy. I have been accused of a lot of things here but not using facts to support my argument is probably last on the list of valid accusations. I'd like to see stats on that, sir. Could I get a ruling on stats used per post? Maybe some advanced metrics.
Augie Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 I'd like to see stats on that, sir. Could I get a ruling on stats used per post? Maybe some advanced metrics. We need robust analytics to determine who is applying the process in the optimum manner. That should be clear to everyone!
NewEra Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) Almost 50 pages about this?? Glad I decided I'd avoid this thread. So who's gone postal in this one? Let me guess what this thread is about.... Sammy sucks? Edited June 1, 2017 by NewEra
What a Tuel Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Almost 50 pages about this?? Glad I decided I'd avoid this thread. So who's gone postal in this one? Let me guess what this thread is about.... Sammy sucks? Eh about 48% "Sammy is a draft bust" and 48% "we used 4th overall AND traded away 9th overall and 2015 1st and 4th to draft him" and about 4% reasonable discussion. But what else are we to do in May of the offseason?
Thurman#1 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Can you post the Aaron Maybin Bills highlights? I'd like to watch them again... You do realize that only 3 players have more receiving yards before turning 24 right? I think realizing that can be put in perspective by pointing out that age just doesn't mean much in terms of productivity. What means much more is receiving yards and seasons on the roster and how those two go together. Have only 3 players had as many receiving yards as Sammy after three years in the NFL? Beckham, picked later in the same draft, has averaged around 500 yards per year more in those same three years. I can name six receivers who've gotten more yards in their first three years ... wait for it ... from the same draft. Beckham, Matthews, Evans, Cooks, Robinson and Landry. And John Brown isn't far behind. It was an awful trade, particularly in a draft that even at the time was seen as one of the best WR drafts of all time. An awful trade. But yeah, he isn't a bust yet. Yeah, the result of an awful trade, but not yet a bust. And it's not like the Bills can't keep him if he does well this year, by force if necessary with the tag.
Thurman#1 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) Childish sarcasm only makes you look childish and highlights your issues with use of language. When I give something up, it is gone. I get nothing in return for it. No, that is simply not true. Find a dictionary definition somewhere that lists "get nothing in return" as a requirement for using the word "give up." You won't. It's not part of the meaning of that word. You give up something if you get nothing in return. However, you also give up something if you get three draft picks in return. Or a kumquat. Or anything. Sure, I gave up a watermelon, but I got a squash and a lemon in trade. Perfectly grammatical and acceptable. "Give up" only means relinquish. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not you get anything in return. Doubt it? Fine. Find me a dictionary definition that includes the part about getting nothing in return. I do have issues with language. It should be used correctly. And you're not doing so, in this case. And yeah, it was sarcastic, but it wasn't childish sarcasm. It was mature sarcasm. Now onto Sammy. We did not "give up" a first round pick in 2014. If we had, we would not have had a first round pick and thus would have not picked Sammy. The pick we had was a different pick, #4 instead of #9. What we "gave up", i.e. picks we did not use for players as the draft is designed for, were the 2015#1 and the #4. Thus, we "gave up" two picks, not three to get Sammy. We were using the first round pick to select a player in 2014, whether it was at the original #9 or as it turned out at #4. Again, you're assigning "give up" a meaning it simply doesn't have. Yes, we did give something up. Three things in fact. The 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Yeah, we recieved something in return, but that does not make it even slightly wrong to say that we gave those three picks up to receive the #4 pick. That's what we did. Edited June 1, 2017 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Saw this piece yesterday and the part that is simply not true is this "when he has been on the field, he’s struggled a bit – particularly this past season." He's been anything but a bust when he plays. I'd argue what they said was right on. He has struggled during large parts of his career even when he was on the field. Now, yeah, he had that one nine-game streak when he was insanely cleaning up. But he's also had a lot of pretty meh games, and it's arguable that for a #4 pick a lot of meh games amounts to struggling. Here's his 2016 games: four catches on six targets for 43 yards two catches on five targets for 20 yards three catches on three targets for 80 yards, a very very good game three catches on nine targets for 38 yards four catches on six targets for 54 yards and a TD, a pretty good game one catch on four targets for 10 yards seven catches on 10 targets for 154 yards and a TD, a terrific game four catches on nine targets for 31 yards For a #4 pick, I think you could call that struggling a bit. 28 catches on 52 targets for 430 yards and 2 TDs in eight games? Yeah, it's not unreasonable to call that struggling. Now, you can't take that wildly productive purple patch in 2015 away from him. But it hasn't just been when he's here he's produced. He's struggled plenty. Probably injuries were a large part of that, but they're part of the picture so far with Sammy. Again, I'm not arguing he's a bust. It's not reasonable to say that yet.
reddogblitz Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Steve Smith, Jr. Who in the hell is Steve Smith Jr.?
Bill from NYC Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Fair points Bill, here is how I would counter/answer them. While taking into account what you just said, you also have to take into account the state of the team at the time of Sammy acquisition. We had a talented defensive roster and our biggest achilles heal was offense. We also had a young first round QB who showed some promise his rookie year. No matter what anyone thinks of EJ now, its undeniable there were some flashes on potential in him that first year. Obviously, it was never reached, but at the time of the Sammy draft, we had a young QB who needed weapons in order to have a chance to succeed. Going into that draft, a playmaker in the receiving game was one of our biggest holes and a massive need and we were mostly mocked to take a WR or Ebron that draft had we stayed at our original pick. Bills saw an opportunity to grab what was by far the highest graded offensive prospect in that draft, and was even seen as the best overall prospect in the draft by many. So at the time, trading up to get him wasn't obscene and looked like it could be the potential missing piece to turn the offense around to match the defense. And looking at it out now...Watkins was exactly that piece in terms of talent. Unfortunately injuries have prevented him from being able to stay on the field, however, there is no denying the impact he has on this offense when on the field AND healthy (not just a hobbled decoy). You asked will he win you games...my answer is yes, and here is why I come to that conclusion: 1. Tyrod Taylor led Bills teams have a winning record, 1 game over .500 in the games TT has started the last 2 years. Watkins has essentially only been healthy for less than 1/3 of those games (about 10 out of 32 possible starts). 2. He was hurt and hobbled before the bye week in 2015 and really only healthy the final 9 games. In the 9 healthy games, Tyrod and Watkins had a great connection and Watkins was one of the most productive WR's in the NFL during that stretch. 3. In 2016 he was hobbled almost the whole year until the final 2 weeks where he was able to manage the injury better and at least get as close to healthy as we was gonna get under the circumstances. And that final game Tyrod didn't even play, so really Sammy had one relatively healthy game with Tyrod in 2016 and went off in that game for 150+ yards and a TD. 4. In 2016, Tyrod led Bills lost 8 games, and 6 of those losses came by six points or less. 5. In 2016, outside the NE fluke shoutout with no Brady, the Bills were 26th in the NFL in points allowed on defense during the other 15 games. At the same time, the offense was 3rd in the NFL in Touchdowns scored during the 15 games TT started. Conclusion: Looking at the above data, I think its reasonable to conclude that with a healthy Sammy on the field we could certainly see the potential to win more of those close games. Factor in an expected improvement to our pathetic defense the last 2 years, and having Sammy anchor a more effective passing game to go with a dominant rushing attack and its not hard to see how he could significantly improve our chances of winning week to week when healthy based on the balance he brings to the offense thats been seriously missing when he was out or playing as a shell of himself. If Sammy can stay healthy for 16 games this year, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1400+ yard season and double digit TD's...he is that good and no matter what anyone thinks of Tyrod overall, he clearly has a good connection with Sammy who is able to be highly productive when he isn't hurt. Good post and I grudgingly admit that there was some hope that EJ would develop into a good quarterback, but I think that there is one more consideration when deciding whether or not Sammy was a good draft pick for the Bills. Please remember that this is what I am talking about, NOT whether or not Sammy is a good player. He IS. When the Bills made that trade, it should have been obvious to Whaley and everybody else that we were not "one player away" from being a winning franchise. I brought up the possibility of Sammy getting injured and leaving a void because of the picks we traded away. I was shouted down and that's cool. Message boards are for discussion. What I was getting at back then was simply that had we not made the trade, there would have been 3 players in lieu of 1, and 2 of them would have been first round picks. Chances are there would have been a decent amount of contribution from these players. It turned out that I my point did have some merit. Now, not to confuse this proposed trade with the old days, I generally oppose trading Sammy because I really don't know what he is worth to GMs around the league, AND because he is a very talented kid. But as I said, if they were able to snag a middle to early first round pick, I would be fine with it. The thought of the Buffalo Bills entering a football season with 3 first round picks would be thrilling. Jmo.
What a Tuel Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) No, that is simply not true. Find a dictionary definition somewhere that lists "get nothing in return" as a requirement for using the word "give up." You won't. It's not part of the meaning of that word. You give up something if you get nothing in return. However, you also give up something if you get three draft picks in return. Or a kumquat. Or anything. Sure, I gave up a watermelon, but I got a squash and a lemon in trade. Perfectly grammatical and acceptable. "Give up" only means relinquish. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not you get anything in return. Doubt it? Fine. Find me a dictionary definition that includes the part about getting nothing in return. I do have issues with language. It should be used correctly. And you're not doing so, in this case. And yeah, it was sarcastic, but it wasn't childish sarcasm. It was mature sarcasm. Again, you're assigning "give up" a meaning it simply doesn't have. Yes, we did give something up. Three things in fact. The 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. Yeah, we recieved something in return, but that does not make it even slightly wrong to say that we gave those three picks up to receive the #4 pick. That's what we did. Why are we still arguing this? No one is arguing against the fact that Sammy Watkins cost 2 first round picks (and a 4th). We all agree on this. The entire argument is that we did ONE or the OTHER: Used 9th Overall and 2015 1st and 4th to draft Sammy Watkins OR Used 4th Overall to draft Sammy Watkins (Which had the same cost) My example of swapping 1st round picks was trying to illustrate the net effect of swapping picks through the mindset of the GM's. The Bills want to move up to #4. Moving down to #9 is a net loss for the Browns. To compensate for that net loss, the Bills offer the Browns 1st and 4th round picks in 2015. On the other hand, the Browns want to trade down. Trading down is a net loss for the Browns still. To compensate for that net loss, they asked the Bills for additional picks. The swapping of the 1st round picks sets the price the Bills have to pay to move up to counter the deficit with the Browns. But yes, it is technically "one" transaction, and you aren't wrong there. We paid 2 1sts and a 4th to draft Sammy Watkins. Like I said though. Its one side of the transaction or the other. You don't get change for a $20 bill and complain that you lost $40 when you spend the change. We did not use #4, #9, and 2015 1st and 4th rounders to draft Sammy Watkins and that's all that anyone is trying to argue against. Edited June 1, 2017 by What a Tuel
4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 I think realizing that can be put in perspective by pointing out that age just doesn't mean much in terms of productivity. What means much more is receiving yards and seasons on the roster and how those two go together. Have only 3 players had as many receiving yards as Sammy after three years in the NFL? Beckham, picked later in the same draft, has averaged around 500 yards per year more in those same three years. I can name six receivers who've gotten more yards in their first three years ... wait for it ... from the same draft. Beckham, Matthews, Evans, Cooks, Robinson and Landry. And John Brown isn't far behind. It was an awful trade, particularly in a draft that even at the time was seen as one of the best WR drafts of all time. An awful trade. But yeah, he isn't a bust yet. Yeah, the result of an awful trade, but not yet a bust. And it's not like the Bills can't keep him if he does well this year, by force if necessary with the tag. If you watch football in general hand then watch Sammy play and the best thing you can say is that he is "not a bust yet" you either have some irrational animus toward him or you need to get more interested in curling or darts because football is something you are not grasping.
Thurman#1 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) If you watch football in general hand then watch Sammy play and the best thing you can say is that he is "not a bust yet" you either have some irrational animus toward him or you need to get more interested in curling or darts because football is something you are not grasping. Did I somewhere agree to say the best thing I could say? Is this even the best thing I actually said in that post about him? No. It appears to just be that you needed to say something negative, and I was there. Edited June 1, 2017 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) t Why are we still arguing this? No one is arguing against the fact that Sammy Watkins cost 2 first round picks (and a 4th). We all agree on this. The entire argument is that we did ONE or the OTHER: Used 9th Overall and 2015 1st and 4th to draft Sammy Watkins OR Used 4th Overall to draft Sammy Watkins (Which had the same cost) I honestly have no idea why you're saying all of this to me. Have you mistaken me for someone else you're having a different argument with? My example of swapping 1st round picks was trying to illustrate the net effect of swapping picks through the mindset of the GM's. The Bills want to move up to #4. Moving down to #9 is a net loss for the Browns. To compensate for that net loss, the Bills offer the Browns 1st and 4th round picks in 2015. On the other hand, the Browns want to trade down. Trading down is a net loss for the Browns still. To compensate for that net loss, they asked the Bills for additional picks. The swapping of the 1st round picks sets the price the Bills have to pay to move up to counter the deficit with the Browns. But yes, it is technically "one" transaction, and you aren't wrong there. We paid 2 1sts and a 4th to draft Sammy Watkins. Like I said though. Its one side of the transaction or the other. You don't get change for a $20 bill and complain that you lost $40 when you spend the change. We did not use #4, #9, and 2015 1st and 4th rounders to draft Sammy Watkins and that's all that anyone is trying to argue against. That trade isn't "technically" one transaction. It's one transaction. There is no other way to look at it. We received the 2014 #4 in exchange for giving up three picks, the 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115. That's the trade. Wanna use the word "swap" instead? Fine, they swapped the 2014 #9, the 2015 #19 and the 2015 #115 for the 2014 #4. But you're trying again to separate one trade into two or three separate mini-transactions. What the GMs mindsets are like here doesn't really interest me beyond that they both wanted something and so they had to give up something to get it. It's what trades are. As for the rest of what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're saying it to me. Or really exactly what you're saying. I think this has gone as far as it's worth taking it, personally. Edited June 1, 2017 by Thurman#1
4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Did I somewhere agree to say the best thing I could say? Or is this something you decided I should do without telling me, or me being interested in what you think anyway? Yup, you've done it again. Sorry Mr. Word Parser rather than "best thing", I should have typed "most informed thing". I hope you now understand.
26CornerBlitz Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 I'd argue what they said was right on. He has struggled during large parts of his career even when he was on the field. Now, yeah, he had that one nine-game streak when he was insanely cleaning up. But he's also had a lot of pretty meh games, and it's arguable that for a #4 pick a lot of meh games amounts to struggling. Here's his 2016 games: four catches on six targets for 43 yards two catches on five targets for 20 yards three catches on three targets for 80 yards, a very very good game three catches on nine targets for 38 yards four catches on six targets for 54 yards and a TD, a pretty good game one catch on four targets for 10 yards seven catches on 10 targets for 154 yards and a TD, a terrific game four catches on nine targets for 31 yards For a #4 pick, I think you could call that struggling a bit. 28 catches on 52 targets for 430 yards and 2 TDs in eight games? Yeah, it's not unreasonable to call that struggling. Now, you can't take that wildly productive purple patch in 2015 away from him. But it hasn't just been when he's here he's produced. He's struggled plenty. Probably injuries were a large part of that, but they're part of the picture so far with Sammy. Again, I'm not arguing he's a bust. It's not reasonable to say that yet. It's called playing with an injury. When healthy and given targets that a number one WR should get the production has been there.
Recommended Posts