BringBackOrton Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) A shame that the entire second half of 2015 TT and Watkins were one of the best duos in the NFL which may have continued into 2016 had Watkins not played injured and also missed many games. No credit to TT for this hot stretch. I see. All Watkins. What a time to be alive folks, is right.This is a Watkins thread my dude. I'm glad they were good for a half of a season together. I'd love to see them do it for a full season. But they haven't. If everyone agrees that Watkins is a great talent, only availability and his QB can be holding him back. Edited June 3, 2017 by jmc12290
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) 1. Sammy is a Bill for 2017. 2. Bills did not exercise 5th year option because his long term health prognosis is an unknown. 3. If he is successful and healthy in 2017, tag is available for 2018. 4. Based on the health uncertainty picture, what GM who values his job trades high pick(s) to inherit the same uncertainty? 5. If 2017 is highly healthy and successful, as a UFA he can test the market at which time prudent GM(s) can react. Bills still have tag as a fall back. ....don't think I missed anything ...if so, post it...... Edited June 4, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 1. Sammy is a Bill for 2017. 2. Bills did not exercise 5th year option because his long term health prognosis is an unknown. 3. If he is successful and healthy in 2017, tag is available for 2018. 4. Based on the health uncertainty picture, what GM who values his job trades high pick(s) to inherent the same uncertainty? 5. If 2017 is highly healthy and successful, as a UFA he can test the market at which time prudent GM(s) can react. Bills still have tag as a fall back. ....don't think I missed anything ...if so, post it...... 56 pages of BS for what.....this post sums it up 100%
Guest NeckBeard Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) 56 pages of BS for what.....this post sums it up 100% This thread has had it all, tho. You have to admit it! Everything you had quoted from OldTimeAFLGuy, plus Whaley hate, a debate of how many picks the Bills had "traded" for Watkins, TT's value, what value could be had by trading Watkins, how he's a bust, and all that. We didn't mention nuclear fears, global warming or whatever else yet. Now I know that somebody is going to flame me for adding no value to this thread, but my first question is to ask you if you've read this entire thread yourself. BOOM! I don't feel nearly as bad about being a TBD refugee after having seen what seems like everyone chiming in for (what's now) 56 pages. Edited June 3, 2017 by NeckBeard
BringBackOrton Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) Strictly looking at the historical correlation between targets and production, and taking into account the respective passers involved, it appears to be far more dependent upon quantity than quality. That's why guys like Allen Robinson and Brandon Marshall show well. Didn't I just demonstrate 8/10 highest targeted receivers last year almost all had franchise QB's or soon-to-be's at the helm? I just don't know about that. Sammy playing with the Bills QB that threw the most in recent memory hit 8 targets a game. That was good for 29th. The top 10 WR's in targets per game in 2016 had QB's like: Jameis Big Ben Brady Eli Dalton Luck Bortles Brocketship Palmer Rodgers Now the only 2 QB's TT compares to on that list is Bortles and Brocketship. Maybe he can be one of those 2/10 next year, but I just don't think so. Edited June 3, 2017 by jmc12290
thebandit27 Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 Didn't I just demonstrate 8/10 highest targeted receivers last year almost all had franchise QB's or soon-to-be's at the helm? A fact that misses the point. The correlation with production for WRs is quantity of targets, as evidenced by Hopkins and Robinson from your post. It's also been evident from Watkins and Taylor's performance in 2015. Watkins' targets increased dramatically in the final 9 weeks, and his numbers were arguably best in the NFL over that span.
Crusher Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 Watkins played injured in 2016 and missed many games. Looked to me in that second Miami game that they had that connection going good again. That's right-all Watkins, not TT, until it's scrub WRs than it's all on TT. SMH. Wait a minute-11 games is a small sample size? I should've known better than to even engage you...as pointless an exercise as can be. You want to say the sample size is not small, but then you'll cite one game over the course of last season...laughable stuff. If anything, this once again proves that it's not sustainable to think Taylor and Watkins can hook up on primarily deep balls consistantly over the course of a season to the tune of 100 catches, over 1,000 yards, and double digit TD's. Watkins needs to see more targets besides the high volume of deep shots if he and the offense is to take the passing game to the next level.
BringBackOrton Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) A fact that misses the point. The correlation with production for WRs is quantity of targets, as evidenced by Hopkins and Robinson from your post. It's also been evident from Watkins and Taylor's performance in 2015. Watkins' targets increased dramatically in the final 9 weeks, and his numbers were arguably best in the NFL over that span. 2/10 is a larger correlation than 8/10? Huh? I realize the facts don't support your point, but that might be a problem with your point, not the facts. Edited June 3, 2017 by jmc12290
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 56 pages of BS for what.....this post sums it up 100% ...only other option was watching a can of Benjamin Williams dry on your front porch.....what's your preference??....
Figster Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 ...only other option was watching a can of Benjamin Williams dry on your front porch.....what's your preference??.... moore? but you are Italian so...
BarleyNY Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 1. Sammy is a Bill for 2017. 2. Bills did not exercise 5th year option because his long term health prognosis is an unknown. 3. If he is successful and healthy in 2017, tag is available for 2018. 4. Based on the health uncertainty picture, what GM who values his job trades high pick(s) to inherent the same uncertainty? 5. If 2017 is highly healthy and successful, as a UFA he can test the market at which time prudent GM(s) can react. Bills still have tag as a fall back. ....don't think I missed anything ...if so, post it...... It's possible, but unlikely. This is the 4th season for 5th options. In the previous 3 seasons only one player (Melvin Ingram) who had his option declined remained with his team in year 5. What I'm seeing is this: - The 5th year option was guaranteed for injury only until the first day of the 2018 league year (in March). - The Bills didn't pick it up either because they were worried about his injury history or didn't think he was worth paying a large contract to (the option year dollar amount would be a starting point in negotiations). - Taylor will be under center in a run oriented offense this season. To get that tag Watkins will have to stay healthy, get enough targets to be highly productive and perform. I think he'd do the last one of those if the first two happened, but I don't know that he stays healthy or gets enough targets. And then there's the long term contract issue. If this regime didn't think his option was worth picking up, I have a tough time believing that they'll shell out a huge contract with a bunch of guaranteed money. They're gun shy of him, probably because of his injuries, and I don't think they're planning on keeping him beyond 2017. It'd be nice if it all worked out and they did, but that doesn't appear to be happening.
thebandit27 Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 2/10 is a larger correlation than 8/10? Huh? I realize the facts don't support your point, but that might be a problem with your point, not the facts. What??? You posted the 10 highest targeted players. The correlation I speak of is between target quantity and productivity. You debated that point with a tangential correlation between target quantity and presence of a franchise QB. Yes, obviously teams with better QBs will throw the ball more. This was never in question, nor does it address the discussion point in any way whatsoever. The better counterpoint to make would be to illustrate that the WRs without a franchise QB that DO receive more targets do not accumulate more statistical output than those with a franchise QB that have fewer targets. Of course, I don't think that's the case, so perhaps my issue isn't with the facts at all, yes?
JM2009 Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 I should've known better than to even engage you...as pointless an exercise as can be. You want to say the sample size is not small, but then you'll cite one game over the course of last season...laughable stuff. If anything, this once again proves that it's not sustainable to think Taylor and Watkins can hook up on primarily deep balls consistantly over the course of a season to the tune of 100 catches, over 1,000 yards, and double digit TD's. Watkins needs to see more targets besides the high volume of deep shots if he and the offense is to take the passing game to the next level. Waykins played injured and missed a few games in 2016.
Augie Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 56 pages of BS for what.....this post sums it up 100% But we don't have to settle....we can squeeze another thousand posts out of this easily. It's what we do!
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 moore? but you are Italian so... ...Sherwin Moore...paint marriage...........
Figster Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 ...Sherwin Moore...paint marriage........... ...Dutch Boy on the way...
BringBackOrton Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 What??? You posted the 10 highest targeted players. The correlation I speak of is between target quantity and productivity. You debated that point with a tangential correlation between target quantity and presence of a franchise QB. Yes, obviously teams with better QBs will throw the ball more. This was never in question, nor does it address the discussion point in any way whatsoever. The better counterpoint to make would be to illustrate that the WRs without a franchise QB that DO receive more targets do not accumulate more statistical output than those with a franchise QB that have fewer targets. Of course, I don't think that's the case, so perhaps my issue isn't with the facts at all, yes? Perhaps we're speaking past each other. Here's my argument. -Sammy Watkins needs 10 targets a game to reach 1400 yards -10 targets a game average is a feat only achieved by 5 WR's last year -the top WR's in targets per game almost all had franchise QBs, with the exception of Osweiler and Bortles. -thus, I doubt Sammy Watkins will get the 10 targets a game necessary to reach 1400 yards. I think you actually agree with me here.
thebandit27 Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 Perhaps we're speaking past each other. Here's my argument. -Sammy Watkins needs 10 targets a game to reach 1400 yards -10 targets a game average is a feat only achieved by 5 WR's last year -the top WR's in targets per game almost all had franchise QBs, with the exception of Osweiler and Bortles. -thus, I doubt Sammy Watkins will get the 10 targets a game necessary to reach 1400 yards. I think you actually agree with me here. Basically, yes. The only thing we disagreed about was whether quality or quantity of targets governs
Fan in Chicago Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 Basically, yes. The only thing we disagreed about was whether quality or quantity of targets governs Just felt like making a general comment here - Love your posts, man !
BringBackOrton Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 Basically, yes. The only thing we disagreed about was whether quality or quantity of targets governs I think it's both. Brady targeting you 8 times may be as good as Bortles targeting you 10. But Bortles targeting you 12 times may surpass that.
Recommended Posts