Bill_with_it Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 This post has many levels of not understanding the situations being discussed in it. I'll simply leave my chat with you as we wouldnt see eye to eye even if we agreed. No I understand and so does Beane. You are basing what you think Sammy might be worth on his potential which is hypothetical. Thats not smart. Say he did reach this mythical hupothetical season that everyone thinks hes capable of. Are you going to pay him the money that another team thinks hes worth if they go all andrew luck contract on him? No thats fiscally irresponsible and history has shown that you cant field a sustainable football team that always wins like that. I do understand. The problem is you dont. Once again see the Saints.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 12, 2017 Author Posted August 12, 2017 The money does matter. See the saints. Also see the colts. Paying one player on your team the kind of money Watkins is likely asking for can and will as history shows destroys your ability to field a sustainable model of winning with players and stayingg under the cap.We signed a guy to be the highest defensive player in history (I think twice) in the last 5 years.
DirtDart Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Abso-damn-lutely. The Bills lost two capable players and brought in two capable players.....all the while adding draft picks. Out !@#$ing standing, Pyle! What this guy said.
Watkins101 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Cooks nabbed the 32 and 103 overall picks. The Rams arent winning a Superbowl. That top 15 pick we get from them is worth more than the 32 and 103 overall pick.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/ The Saints also gave there 118 overall pick up. Stop not giving the whole story is dishonest. Comparatively speeking we robbed the Rams compared to the Cooks trade. Cooks nabbed the 32 and 103 overall picks. The Rams arent winning a Superbowl. That top 15 pick we get from them is worth more than the 32 and 103 overall pick.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/ The Saints also gave there 118 overall pick up. Stop not giving the whole story is dishonest. Comparatively speeking we robbed the Rams compared to the Cooks trade. Actually, no. Cooks got A first rounder and they swapped picks later. We got a second rounder.
DirtDart Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Abso-damn-lutely. The Bills lost two capable players and brought in two capable players.....all the while adding draft picks. Out !@#$ing standing, Pyle! What this guy said.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Cooks got a 1 and a 3 in this draft- part of me wonders if we could've done a bit better here for a total haul from Sammy and a good young corner on a rookie deal -- especially if willing to be decisive early in the offseason and maybe dabble in free agency a little to round out the positions instead of trading WR/cb for WR/cb in august Yea I've thought the same. Some have argued that teams wanted to see him play... which I could get but I still think they could have had more teams bidding if they started shopping him earlier.
Bill_with_it Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 We signed a guy to be the highest defensive player in history (I think twice) in the last 5 years.Yup and we arent winning and we were in cap teouble. See what I mean. Its not sustainable.
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 No I understand and so does Beane. You are basing what you think Sammy might be worth on his potential which is hypothetical. Thats not smart. Say he did reach this mythical hupothetical season that everyone thinks hes capable of. Are you going to pay him the money that another team thinks hes worth if they go all andrew luck contract on him? No thats fiscally irresponsible and history has shown that you cant field a sustainable football team that always wins like that. I do understand. The problem is you dont. Once again see the Saints. So we are up to giving Sammy Andrew luck dollars if he stayed, and ignoring that the saints had $40+ mil in dead money. And it good that we got a top 15 pick for Sammy instead of settling for what the saints got for cooks And I am the one that is missing this completely. Yup- actually done this time. Not even sure why I let that one suck me back in.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 12, 2017 Author Posted August 12, 2017 No I understand and so does Beane. You are basing what you think Sammy might be worth on his potential which is hypothetical. Thats not smart. Say he did reach this mythical hupothetical season that everyone thinks hes capable of. Are you going to pay him the money that another team thinks hes worth if they go all andrew luck contract on him? No thats fiscally irresponsible and history has shown that you cant field a sustainable football team that always wins like that. I do understand. The problem is you dont. Once again see the Saints.If he reaches the level that he is capable of you tag him. It was $2M more than his option (or something like that). You try to work out a long-term deal and if not you have a 24 year-old receiver coming off of a massive season. You'd get more than EJ Gaines and a 2nd.
row_33 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I'm too old to believe that Sammy's social media image is more important than his suiting up and getting onto the field every week.
Bill_with_it Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Actually, no. Cooks got A first rounder and they swapped picks later. We got a second rounder.Nope:The first-round pick is No. 32 overall, the last selection of the round. The Patriots also will trade a third-round pick (No. 103) to New Orleans and receive the Saints' fourth-round pick (No. 118), sources tell Russini. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18878699/new-england-patriots-trade-new-orleans-saints-brandin-cooks The team announced that Sammy Watkins has been shipped to the Los Angeles Rams -- along with a 2018 sixth-round pick -- in exchange for cornerback E.J. Gaines and a 2018 second-rounder. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000828580/article/bills-trade-sammy-watkins-to-rams-acquire-matthews%3fnetworkId=4595&site=.news&zone=story&zoneUrl=url%253Dstory&zoneKeys=s1%253Dstory&env=&pageKeyValues=prtnr%253Daround-the-league%253Bteam%253Dphi%253Bteam%253Dbuf%253Bteam%253Dla%253Bconf%253Dnfc%253Bconf%253Dafc%253Bdvsn%253Dnce%253Bdvsn%253Dace%253Bdvsn%253Dncw%253Bplyr%253Dsamuel_watkins%253Bplyr%253Djordan_matthews%253Bplyr%253Dronald_darby&p.ct=Around+the+NFL&p.adsm=false&p.tcm=%2523fff&p.bgc1m=%25230964bf&p.bgc2m=%2523053a74&sr=amp
Kirby Jackson Posted August 12, 2017 Author Posted August 12, 2017 Yup and we arent winning and we were in cap teouble. See what I mean. Its not sustainable.Atlanta just had a 25 point lead in the Super Bowl with the highest paid WR (total value) in the league. They just made their RB the highest paid RB in the league. Their QB makes $100m+. You can always pay your best players in sports.
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) Yea I've thought the same. Some have argued that teams wanted to see him play... which I could get but I still think they could have had more teams bidding if they started shopping him earlier.It's a valid point-- but I think if you allowed some time with trainers/medical teams you could have given as much assurance as a couple preseason routes. I'm not going to assert this part as factual, but I think fair for fans to wonder. The other part is whether Whaley as gm pre-draft was part of the issue with not shopping these guys and working free agency differently. Edited August 12, 2017 by NoSaint
teef Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) The point wasn't that you "can't" sign him it is that you "won't" sign him. That's what "signability" is in this case. The Bills could have easily retained him if they wanted to.Sure...you can keep anyone if you throw enough money at them. At this point in time, (and it may change this year) the money likely needed was not worth the production. Edit: I see the same conversation is going on already, so just ignore me. I'm late to the party Edited August 12, 2017 by teef
Bill_with_it Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 So we are up to giving Sammy Andrew luck dollars if he stayed, and ignoring that the saints had $40+ mil in dead money. And it good that we got a top 15 pick for Sammy instead of settling for what the saints got for cooks And I am the one that is missing this completely. Yup- actually done this time. Not even sure why I let that one suck me back in. yeah you are we got a player and likely a top 15 pick. The Saints got the last pick of the first round and another 7the pick of the fourth round. Look at the chart. Relatively speaking about the cost. I never meant that he was going to get 6 yr 140 mil contract. But, if you think hes worth the 13.2 mil it would have cost to keep him last year based on his previous perfromance wll thats sad.
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Sure...you can keep anyone if you throw enough money at them. At this point in time, (and it may change this year) the money likely needed was not worth the production. What money was needed, currently? All we know is it was more than our gm would pay- but we've likewise seen that he's fallen on the thrifty end of the spectrum in calling value
Bill_with_it Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Sure...you can keep anyone if you throw enough money at them. At this point in time, (and it may change this year) the money likely needed was not worth the production. Edit: I see the same conversation is going on already, so just ignore me. I'm late to the party Perfectly stated.
Gigs Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) 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. The other thing that irks me about the Gilmore/Darby thing is that they had to have known Darby was a man CB and wouldn't fit. WE all knew this. Rex even said that's why he will excel in his D is because he's strictly a man CB. And now they let the better all around DB walk in Gilmore for a guy they knew didn't fit...and reasoned his trading away is mostly, if not all, due to this lack of fitting a man CB in a zone cover scheme. Having a fresh HC and GM is showing right now. Watkins, when healthy, was uncoverable. He won us games. I think people just rate him lower in their minds because of his health and his draft position with what we gave up to get him. Watkins is a true loss. Jim Kelly got banged up a lot and missed games, even a super bowl, yet people would call you crazy talking about trading Ol Jimbo for a 2nd rounder and an ok but nearly not as good Corner. Edited August 12, 2017 by Gigs
Bill_with_it Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Atlanta just had a 25 point lead in the Super Bowl with the highest paid WR (total value) in the league. They just made their RB the highest paid RB in the league. Their QB makes $100m+. You can always pay your best players in sports.Thats not true. You cant always. When those back loaded contracts catch up that team will be a skeleton. Its not sustainable for more than a couple years. History has proven that. You wither lose the player, he takes a paycut, or your team suffers in other areas.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 12, 2017 Author Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) Thats not true. You cant always. When those back loaded contracts catch up that team will be a skeleton. Its not sustainable for more than a couple years. History has proven that. You wither lose the player, he takes a paycut, or your team suffers in other areas.That's fake news. Every good team pays their stars. It's true every year, in every sport. In football it's especially true because of the hard cap. Every team spends the same amount of money. The money is allocated to players based on the contracts of their counterparts around the league. A star RB in Buffalo will get roughly the same as a star RB in Atlanta. Those "back loaded" contracts never catch up in football. The guy gets cut or extended. The biggest guarantees are at the beginning of the deal. Edited August 12, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
Recommended Posts