26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Who cares? Honestly, who really thinks losing Watkins is somehow throwing our future Super Bowl plans in the trash? WRs don't move that needle, QBs do. We're acquiring the draft capital to get one. It's a shame a guy like Watkins gets sacrificed to that end, but the moaning about losing talent at the WR position and how it impacts our long-term success is way overblown. It's working out well with Andrew Luck thus far with a shell of a team around him? A franchise QB is highly desirable, but the team will still need talented players as a supporting cast.
GoBills808 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 It's working out well with Andrew Luck thus far with a shell of a team around him? A franchise QB is highly desirable, but the team will still need talented players as a supporting cast. I'd take Luck over Watkins, personally. You? AFC championship game, playoffs, MVP-caliber seasons, 49-33 record with him starting...yeah, I'd say it's working out well for the Colts.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I'd take Luck over Watkins, personally. You? AFC championship game, playoffs, MVP-caliber seasons, 49-33 record with him starting...yeah, I'd say it's working out well for the Colts. Facts have no place in 26's emo thread
Wayne Cubed Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 It's working out well with Andrew Luck thus far with a shell of a team around him? A franchise QB is highly desirable, but the team will still need talented players as a supporting cast. And gee all the young QBs in the NFL seem to be being surrounded by a lot of talent. Mariota, Winston, Goff and Wentz, all those teams are heavily surrounding there high drafted QBs with offensive talent.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I'd take Luck over Watkins, personally. You? AFC championship game, playoffs, MVP-caliber seasons, 49-33 record with him starting...yeah, I'd say it's working out well for the Colts. Of course, but you still need a team around him and their situation is getting progressively worse. And gee all the young QBs in the NFL seem to be being surrounded by a lot of talent. Mariota, Winston, Goff and Wentz, all those teams are heavily surrounding there high drafted QBs with offensive talent. Indeed. Facts have no place in 26's emo thread Mr. Hyperbole strikes again with another dumb comment that adds nothing of value. You're consistent.
GoBills808 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Of course, but you still need a team around him and their situation is getting progressively worse. But that's the point, really. We had the #1 rush attack in the league plus Sammy Watkins himself, an above average offensive line, and a good TE in Clay and it got us squat. Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses and change course.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 But that's the point, really. We had the #1 rush attack in the league plus Sammy Watkins himself, an above average offensive line, and a good TE in Clay and it got us squat. Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses and change course. There was no need to cut any loss from Sammy at just 24 years old if the plan is to get a Franchise QB via the draft in '18. Look at what TB is doing for Winston with the weapons they now have for him.
GoBills808 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 There was no need to cut any loss from Sammy at just 24 years old if the plan is to get a Franchise QB via the draft in '18. Look at what TB is doing for Winston with the weapons they now have for him. But Winston is a QB and Sammy is a WR. You might trade a franchise WR to get a franchise QB, but you'd never trade a franchise QB to get a franchise WR. If the FO thought they might not be re-signing Watkins anyway, it makes sense to get value for him while you can.
Watkins101 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 If Sammy left and we did indeed get our franchise Qb in the 2018, we had zilch from Sammy. I'd rather get the second than just lose him.
BringBackOrton Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 But Winston is a QB and Sammy is a WR. You might trade a franchise WR to get a franchise QB, but you'd never trade a franchise QB to get a franchise WR. If the FO thought they might not be re-signing Watkins anyway, it makes sense to get value for him while you can. His point was they got the elite WR first, then got their QB.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 But Winston is a QB and Sammy is a WR. You might trade a franchise WR to get a franchise QB, but you'd never trade a franchise QB to get a franchise WR. If the FO thought they might not be re-signing Watkins anyway, it makes sense to get value for him while you can. Who said anything about trading a WR for a franchise QB? They already had Watkins and had the option of retaining him via extension or Franchise Tag. It would have been especially smart to do that with the QB on a rookie deal while the cost is relatively low.
GoBills808 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 His point was they got the elite WR first, then got their QB. I guess my point is that it doesn't matter the order so much as you'd rather acquire the QB than the WR. Who said anything about trading a WR for a franchise QB? They already had Watkins and had the option of retaining him via extension or Franchise Tag. It would have been especially smart to do that with the QB on a rookie deal while the cost is relatively low. I can't speak to why they felt the need to deal him, I just think that it's understandable in context. A potentially great WR isn't as valuable as a potentially great QB, and if you've got to have one or the other most teams would go for the QB.
BringBackOrton Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I guess my point is that it doesn't matter the order so much as you'd rather acquire the QB than the WR. I can't speak to why they felt the need to deal him, I just think that it's understandable in context. A potentially great WR isn't as valuable as a potentially great QB, and if you've got to have one or the other most teams would go for the QB. And if the choice was franchise QB versus Sammy, I'd agree. But it wasn't.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I guess my point is that it doesn't matter the order so much as you'd rather acquire the QB than the WR. I can't speak to why they felt the need to deal him, I just think that it's understandable in context. A potentially great WR isn't as valuable as a potentially great QB, and if you've got to have one or the other most teams would go for the QB. I have no idea why you keep posting this as anyone would stipulate to it. It's not the point. I guess the Bucs should have gotten rid of Mike Evans before they drafted Jameis Winston. Not only did they not do that, but they have added DeSean Jackson and OJ Howard to the arsenal.
GoBills808 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 And if the choice was franchise QB versus Sammy, I'd agree. But it wasn't. How do you know? Maybe that extra pick is what it'll take.
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 And if the choice was franchise QB versus Sammy, I'd agree. But it wasn't. There's still some perception that we are in cap hell, even though we never were
GoBills808 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I have no idea why you keep posting this as anyone would stipulate to it. It's not the point. I guess the Bucs should have gotten rid of Mike Evans before they drafted Jameis Winston. Not only did they not do that, but they have added DeSean Jackson and OJ Howard to the arsenal. If Mike Evans wants out and the pick you're acquiring for trading him allows you to draft Winston, then you probably should.
BringBackOrton Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) How do you know? Maybe that extra pick is what it'll take. I'd say probably not. I can't imagine a scenario where we need an extra second rounder to make a deal. It's not like we can't trade next year's or the year after's picks. Right now, if we targeted a guy and wanted to move to pick #1, we could trade 3 firsts, 2 seconds, 3 thirds at least. You think someone say "no way," then we throw in another second and they go, "oh yeah absolutely!" I don't. Edited August 12, 2017 by jmc12290
26CornerBlitz Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 If Mike Evans wants out and the pick you're acquiring for trading him allows you to draft Winston, then you probably should. If you have the player under control and you already have the ammunition to get the QB you want/need there's no reason.
GoBills808 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I'd say probably not. I can't imagine a scenario where we need an extra second rounder to make a deal. It's not like we can't trade next year's or the year after's picks. Right now, if we targeted a guy and wanted to move to pick #1, we could trade 3 firsts, 2 seconds, 3 thirds at least. You think someone say "no way," then we throw in another second and they go, "oh yeah absolutely!" I don't. If this staff is thinking ahead, and by these moves you have to assume they are, then there's a reason they felt Watkins was worth moving for that additional second. You can argue otherwise, but there's nothing in these trades that makes me think they're not operating with a long term plan in mind. That leads me to believe that either A: they knew they weren't keeping Watkins and got value for him while they could or B: they have reasons for wanting an additional 2nd in 2018. You're arguing C: that they dealt Watkins because they don't know what they're doing. Which of those three is least likely?
Recommended Posts