Rochesterfan Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Exactly what I've thought and argued in the Watkins thread. The 5th year option makes him more valuable. Do the Pats give up a 1st if Cook doesn't have the 5th year option? I doubt it. The pats gave up a very late 1st for Cook. The Bills got a 2nd (potentially very high) and a potential starter. Seems about a wash to me. Not sure the 5th year option helps much at all.
DocLawless Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Let's go on record as to our feelings on the deals today. There are no bs in between answers either. It is a yes or a no. If you were the GM and had the exact same deals on the table would you have made the moves? We are not seperating them out either because they are tied together. On record as LOVING this trade. We acquired somewhat similar talent at both positions if you look at the numbers and injury history, lost a locker room cancer/diva (I know, that is merely my opinion, not fact) and gained another 2nd round pick. They have a good collection of draft picks now and I believe they didn't drop off much talent wise. Like the direction of this team. If I am wrong about it, I will eat crow but I think this is the right move. I should mention I also loved the draft moves building the collection of picks for the future.
thurst44 Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Do I "like" the moves? No. I can't stand them. I have a Watkins jersey and still feel like when he gets it all going in the right direction, he'll be a top 5 receiver (possibly THE best). I was rooting for Darby to be the pick in 2015 before the draft. Do I believe they are trades that make the Bills better overall? Absolutely...or, well, probably, anyway. The players have huge upside and have shown flashes, but the way the team is made up (especially with the focus on the run game), it doesn't put as much of a dent in the team (Darby may just go the way of Kiko & the Byrd) as people may think for the 2017 season. Plus now they have an insane haul of draft picks. If Tyrod collapses, they can target a future stud QB (although not rooting for that as qbs are such a crapshoot). If he improves his throws up the middle (looked pretty solid at that yesterday...granted most of those were to our former WR) and has a top season, well then we have a good problem to have and hopefully are stocking up with the bevy of picks. Frankly it seemed bemusingly Belichick-ian (surprising people traded, draft pick stockpile, team still at relatively similar position for next season. So, which way should I vote?
Kirby Jackson Posted August 11, 2017 Author Posted August 11, 2017 Its 17 million. And its that or extend him. Okay but the point remains. They'd have another year of control plus 2 more years of franchise (if necessary). Any team that was interested in giving up assets (like a 2nd round pick and a player) wants the player for more than a year.
dayman Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Don't like it. I more or less get the rationale behind them, but the bottom line is both of those guys were good players. I do not know that the incoming guys net us out the same talent (I suspect they don't). Hope I'm wrong! I know both our new guys are pretty good...and I know we got picks. Edited August 11, 2017 by dayman
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 The pats gave up a very late 1st for Cook. The Bills got a 2nd (potentially very high) and a potential starter. Seems about a wash to me. Not sure the 5th year option helps much at all. Watkins 5th year option is so high at pick 4 that its basically a franchise tag.
sodbuster Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Absolutely, however I dont know if I do one without the other.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 The pats gave up a very late 1st for Cook. The Bills got a 2nd (potentially very high) and a potential starter. Seems about a wash to me. Not sure the 5th year option helps much at all. So the Rams, who have a good defense, and have now added Watkins to Gurley, Woods and an offensive minded coach are a potentially high 2nd pick?
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Okay but the point remains. They'd have another year of control plus 2 more years of franchise (if necessary). Any team that was interested in giving up assets (like a 2nd round pick and a player) wants the player for more than a year. You have "control" - it ties up a ton of cap space and he isn't guaranteed to show up.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Watkins 5th year option is so high at pick 4 that its basically a franchise tag. It actually has nothing to do with where they are picked, it's the average of the top 10 at their position.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 So the Rams, who have a good defense, and have now added Watkins to Gurley, Woods and an offensive minded coach are a potentially high 2nd pick? sure - their best player on defense hasn't showed up to camp yet, and they may or may not have a QB... Offensive line wasn't particularly great in the past. They're a lot like Buffalo was last year honestly....
BigdaddyinOrlando Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Love the moves and find the direction/vision refreshing!
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 It actually has nothing to do with where they are picked, it's the average of the top 10 at their position. Then it must've gone up with the contract extensions - my bad.
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Out of curiosity, why? Just thinking about the history of it. You spend two first-round picks and a fourth on a player you let walk for player drafted in the sixth round plus a second round pick next year. Then trade a player you spent a second on for another second-round draftee plus a future third...but you let another first round pick walk in the off-season because hey, you've got that second-rounder you just traded waiting in the wings. And that's just today's roster bull **** from this franchise...we have four players from the first three rounds of each draft from 2005-2015, and the litany of players from those drafts who have been wasted, traded, let go, or just never panned out is ridiculous. This trade may or may not be bad in and of itself, but it's the most recent cherry topping the **** sundae that is this franchise.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 sure - their best player on defense hasn't showed up to camp yet, and they may or may not have a QB... Offensive line wasn't particularly great in the past. They're a lot like Buffalo was last year honestly.... Well I guess we shall see.
Big Blitz Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Beane used the word "signability" twice when asked twice about what went into his thinking on trading Sammy. Sammy wasn't resigning here or we didn't think he would be worth the money some team will throw at him. Jordan Matthews ain't chopped liver people. Our WR corps is still 10 times better then last year. AND we now bc it's the Rams and that 2nd round pick is likely to be in the 33-39 range will have FOUR picks in the top 40 (we weren't making the playoffs with or without Sammy imo and believe we're a bottom 10 team). And if it unravels badly for us and KC (who I think is heading toward 6-10) we could have TWO picks in the TOP 15. So yes. I'm good. Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk Edited August 11, 2017 by Big Blitz
Wayne Cubed Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Beane used the word "signability" twice when asked twice about what went into his thinking on trading Sammy. Sammy wasn't resigning here or we didn't think he would be worth the money some team will throw at him. Jordan Matthews ain't chopped liver people. Our WR corps is still 10 times better then last year. AND we now bc it's the Rams and that 2nd round pick is likely to be in the 33-39 range will have FOUR picks in the top 40. And if it unravels badly for us and KC (who I think is heading toward 6-10) we could have TWO picks in the TOP 15. So yes. I'm good.Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk He actually said he hadn't had a conversation with him about his future in Buffalo and if he wanted to be here. So following what you think happened, Beane made the decision that he didn't want to be here without actually asking the player. Genius.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Beane used the word "signability" twice when asked twice about what went into his thinking on trading Sammy. Sammy wasn't resigning here or we didn't think he would be worth the money some team will throw at him. Jordan Matthews ain't chopped liver people. Our WR corps is still 10 times better then last year. AND we now bc it's the Rams and that 2nd round pick is likely to be in the 33-39 range will have FOUR picks in the top 40. And if it unravels badly for us and KC (who I think is heading toward 6-10) we could have TWO picks in the TOP 15. So yes. I'm good. Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk Hey its a new coach - give him a chance... they've been a fisher team for so long we just expect them to be terrible. Personally Goff reminds me of Gabbert, which will not bode well for them though... Prove me wrong!
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 On record: No. You traded 2 very promising young players for average at best talent and a 2nd and 3rd round pick. I have seen tanking in the NFL and it is called the Browns. Not only that, if there is going to be a vet cap dump, it's going to be NEXT year. That is two years of floundering for maybe the shot at a magic bullet.
Rochesterfan Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Watkins 5th year option is so high at pick 4 that its basically a franchise tag. Exactly - an it would potentially have saddled a team if he gets hurt. Again not sure the 5th year option meant you would have gotten more and may not have been able to do anything. Most teams were talking about a third or mid second for Cooks with the 5th year option. Finally got a late first from NE.
Recommended Posts