Go on record regarding the trades

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This move sucks for the future, not the past. The hope is actually that the team acquires a real QB, has better coaching , and Tom Brady retires. A Watkins ( healthy of course) would be a big piece of any turnaround. Why set the bar low based on the team's previous suckitude?

Point ----------------------->

________Your head

Edited August 13, 2017 by joesixpack

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

.....a new gang in town from Administration to FO to coaching is charged with erasing 17 years of futility......sure as hell will be those in favor of moves and those vehemently against.....nature of the beast......but would you rather have any of the previous administrations post Polian in place or roll the dice with a new gang that sure as hell wants to prevent YEAR 18 from happening, whether you agree or disagree with their decisions?..and NO ONE will certainly agree with all decisions.......900 Jim Jones followers drank HIS kool-aid...uh oh..............

[disco]

This is the sunk cost fallacy, and it's part of the reason Whaley ended up getting fired. I respect the view, I am sure the Rams staff still believes in Goff - they pretty much have to. But a truly rational and objective third party would look at Goff's awful play last year and conclude the Rams should start thinking about moving on. They need to think about what happens if Goff blows this year, and what they will need to replace him in 2018. A high 2nd rounder is tremendous lost value for them but I am sure the Rams think they will be good so they don't see it that way. No guarantee Sammy signs long-term which would make this a historically bad trade.

Ha it's sunk cost fallacy to YOU because you've decided Goff won't be the future. For the Rams, they've executing a plan centered on Goff and you can't blame them for believing in that plan and wanting a big play threat to support it.

 

By the way, who says it's going to be a high 2nd round pick?

[Wayne Cubed]

Ha it's sunk cost fallacy to YOU because you've decided Goff won't be the future. For the Rams, they've executing a plan centered on Goff and you can't blame them for believing in that plan and wanting a big play threat to support it.

 

By the way, who says it's going to be a high 2nd round pick?

Yea, I mean you should obviously give up on a QB you drafted 1st overall after 7 starts.

[Scott7975]

If my QB was Jared Goff I would be pissed. Trading a high 2nd round pick in a QB heavy draft, for a receiver in a contract year with an injury history. That's pretty much indefensible if you ask me. It's a Whaley-lite move. Say what you want about the trade from the Bills side, I think it is far worse objectively from the Rams side.

After spending 6 picks to get Goff I really don't think the Rams would be going QB next year regardless. I don't care how bad Goff is.

Tell me one guy since Pat Williams that we were forced to let go (not elected to)? I will argue this point until I am blue in the face. The Bills went through this offseason with Glenn and Dareus restructures sitting in their pockets. They could have signed anyone that they wanted without any issue.

Its almost never a good idea to restructure. All that does is push bigger cap problems into the future and make it more difficult to get away from. See the Clay restructure. A team is almost always better off eating the cap hit now and let it tail off in the future. The only time this isn't the case is if the team is good enough to compete for a SB and need cap room to get that one more guy.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Scott7975

[Kirby Jackson]

After trading 5 picks to get Goff I really don't think the Rams would be going QB next year regardless. I don't care how bad Goff is.

 

Its almost never a good idea to restructure. All that does is push bigger cap problems into the future and make it more difficult to get away from. See the Clay restructure. A team is almost always better off eating the cap hit now and let it tail off in the future. The only time this isn't the case is if the team is good enough to compete for a SB and need cap room to get that one more guy.

I don't disagree that it isn't ideal but with the rising cap it isn't hurting anyone. They just push it off forever. They never let it catch up. The cap isn't restricting anything at the moment.

[NoSaint]

Exactly its not sustainable just as I stated quite a bit. Either the player gets cut, traded, accepts a lesser contract, or released. Going out of your way to pay something to a player that will cause your team to be less of a winner because you cant afford other players isnt a very smart thing to do. For example see the saints.

Signing galette and Graham and nearly immediately having to move them created monstrous dead money. If we signed Sammy and cut or traded him within a year (and did the same with someone like Gilmore) it'd be much more akin to the Saints troubles.

[HappyDays]

After spending 6 picks to get Goff I really don't think the Rams would be going QB next year regardless. I don't care how bad Goff is. .

I get it, but that's the definition of the sunk cost fallacy. It isn't sensible. We played the same game with EJ and it cost us.

Yea, I mean you should obviously give up on a QB you drafted 1st overall after 7 starts.

I didn't say give up. See this is why you don't like the Sammy trade, it's all black and white to you. Smart teams need to be realistic about the present AND the future. I'm not suggesting the Rams tank because of Goff's rookie season. But being realistic he has a very small probability of succeeding from this point on. Trading what is likely to be a high 2nd round pick isn't smart when you aren't sure about the QB. Especially when the position you're trading for is dependent on having a competent QB, and that player is in a contract year.

[oldmanfan]

I stopped reading after it said Sammy Watkins was a huge problem.

God forbid you'd try to educate yourself

[Boatdrinks]

Signing galette and Graham and nearly immediately having to move them created monstrous dead money. If we signed Sammy and cut or traded him within a year (and did the same with someone like Gilmore) it'd be much more akin to the Saints troubles.

Gilmore wasn't going to be retained because the contract wasn't going to be value for a CB, especially in this D. The team's strategy at the CB position is obviously to draft , have at a reasonable price for 4-5 years then replace. Except for a Revis in his prime, CB is not the ticket to a championship. Passing the football is more important. SW was going to be a Bill for a reasonable number in 2017 and2018 with the fifth year option. This team has far too few stars to be approaching any kind of cap trouble.

[Wayne Cubed]

I get it, but that's the definition of the sunk cost fallacy. It isn't sensible. We played the same game with EJ and it cost us.

 

I didn't say give up. See this is why you don't like the Sammy trade, it's all black and white to you. Smart teams need to be realistic about the present AND the future. I'm not suggesting the Rams tank because of Goff's rookie season. But being realistic he has a very small probability of succeeding from this point on. Trading what is likely to be a high 2nd round pick isn't smart when you aren't sure about the QB. Especially when the position you're trading for is dependent on having a competent QB, and that player is in a contract year.

What does what I said have to do with the Sammy trade and seeing it in black and white? Im sorry I don't follow that analysis at all. And I don't like the Sammy trade because you don't dump young players in a rebuild, IMO you dump vet players who won't be around when the team actually does turn around.

 

I'm not sure if you are aware, but a lot of players have a very small probability of succeeding. You've seen 7 games of Goff and made your decision. The Rams haven't and probably won't make their decision on Goff in the next 2 seasons so losing a 2nd next year for a player that will help Goff isn't a massive deal. They want to surround there player they invested in with talent. Like the Raiders did, like the Bucs did, like the Titans have done, like the Eagles have. You know teams do attempt help their young QBs?

 

And who says they aren't sure about Goff? He's played 7 games. You aren't sure about Goff, that's your opinion. You have no idea what the current FO of the Rams think of Goff.

 

You know what else isn't smart? Making decisions on NFL players 7 games into their career.

[Scott7975]

I don't disagree that it isn't ideal but with the rising cap it isn't hurting anyone. They just push it off forever. They never let it catch up. The cap isn't restricting anything at the moment.

Sounds good on paper but the cap never forgives. It catches you at some point because at some point the player becomes old. For instance Dallas restructured the hell out of Tony Romo. His cost to the team last year was almost 21 mil to ride the bench. This year it would have been almost 25 mil but he retired. That turned the hit to almost 11 mil this year and 9 mil next year. All for a player they wont have. It may not seem like a lot but there is a lot you can do with 10 mil in cap space. That's 41 mil over 3 years for a player they either couldn't use, didn't use, or wont even be on the team.

 

We have already done that with Clay. You are talking Dareus and Glenn as well. The dead cap space from 3 restructured players of that salary combined would decimate this team. What if this team wanted to dump Dareus and or Clay right now? They couldn't without serious penalty. Dareus with a restructure would be the most ludicrous contract in NFL history. Especially for a player that is one puff away from sitting out 10 games.

 

After saying all that your original point was they could sign Watkins if they wanted to. You are correct there. They could give him any contract they wanted to and did it without restructuring anyone. I am not sure what the Bills new office is thinking with this trade. There has to be something behind the scenes that no one knows about because the trade was stupid otherwise.

I get it, but that's the definition of the sunk cost fallacy. It isn't sensible. We played the same game with EJ and it cost us.

 

I didn't say give up. See this is why you don't like the Sammy trade, it's all black and white to you. Smart teams need to be realistic about the present AND the future. I'm not suggesting the Rams tank because of Goff's rookie season. But being realistic he has a very small probability of succeeding from this point on. Trading what is likely to be a high 2nd round pick isn't smart when you aren't sure about the QB. Especially when the position you're trading for is dependent on having a competent QB, and that player is in a contract year.

 

Yeah I understand your line of thinking and for the most part agree. Cut bait and move on when the answer is obvious. That's just not what the NFL does though. For instance... the Bills should have cut bait with EJ, not traded anything away to draft Sammy, and stayed put while drafting Carr. Imagine this team right now with Carr.

[HappyDays]

What does what I said have to do with the Sammy trade and seeing it in black and white? Im sorry I don't follow that analysis at all. And I don't like the Sammy trade because you don't dump young players in a rebuild, IMO you dump vet players who won't be around when the team actually does turn around.

 

I'm not sure if you are aware, but a lot of players have a very small probability of succeeding. You've seen 7 games of Goff and made your decision. The Rams haven't and probably won't make their decision on Goff in the next 2 seasons so losing a 2nd next year for a player that will help Goff isn't a massive deal. They want to surround there player they invested in with talent. Like the Raiders did, like the Bucs did, like the Titans have done, like the Eagles have. You know teams do attempt help their young QBs?

 

And who says they aren't sure about Goff? He's played 7 games. You aren't sure about Goff, that's your opinion. You have no idea what the current FO of the Rams think of Goff.

 

You know what else isn't smart? Making decisions on NFL players 7 games into their career.

It is possible to not give up on your QB without selling out on the future in the even that he fails. We've been asking for the Bills to make moves like this for years. Plan ahead, recoup something instead of letting someone walk for nothing. Don't sell out to give yourself a slightly better chance of the wildcard (which is what the Rams are essentially doing).

[Rocky Landing]

I would not have done it, nor would I have had the cajones to do it. I don't like it right now. My viewpoint may change of course as it all plays out. If the team is better because if it (by wins - I don't care about WR stats) and they gained valuable draft assets in the process - then of course I will look back and applaud it.

I respect your open-mindedness. But, honestly, how do you even make that judgement? In what universe will we be able to look back on the season, and say, "I guess we were better without that elite WR talent, after all...?" If we go 10-6, and make the playoffs, who's to say we wouldn't have won another game with a better #1 WR?

 

If Watkins snaps the bone in his foot, I suppose we will have made the right choice. But, even in the event of a different injury, it would still be speculative.

[Wayne Cubed]

It is possible to not give up on your QB without selling out on the future in the even that he fails. We've been asking for the Bills to make moves like this for years. Plan ahead, recoup something instead of letting someone walk for nothing. Don't sell out to give yourself a slightly better chance of the wildcard (which is what the Rams are essentially doing).

Selling out the future? Did I miss something?? Did the Rams give up a 1st in 2018 and a future 1st in 2019?

 

They gave up a 2nd round pick for a starting WR with elite talent. The chances of that second round pick turning into Watkins are even slimmer than your thoughts on Goffs potential.

 

Plan ahead and recoup? So don't sign any of the players you drafted?

 

You know what else Bills fans have been asking for for years? Talented players and retaining said talented players.

[NoSaint]

Gilmore wasn't going to be retained because the contract wasn't going to be value for a CB, especially in this D. The team's strategy at the CB position is obviously to draft , have at a reasonable price for 4-5 years then replace. Except for a Revis in his prime, CB is not the ticket to a championship. Passing the football is more important. SW was going to be a Bill for a reasonable number in 2017 and2018 with the fifth year option. This team has far too few stars to be approaching any kind of cap trouble.

I think the point flew right by

[BillsFan4]

Perfectly said

One more thing on the trade a lot of people like it because Sammy was going to be hard to sign. They had the tag to use twice. They controlled his rights. Additionally the Bills have loads of cap space and will have a roster full of guys on rookie deals. They aren't hindered or restricted by the cap at all. That point is totally irrelevant. The Bills could have elected to make Sammy the highest paid player in the NFL and wouldn't have had to make one roster decision because of it. They just decided that they weren't going to re-sign him.

Additionally, you have Matthews entering FA next year. He's probably looking at $10M+ a year. It's not like there is massive savings there. Would you rather have Matthews at $10M a year or Watkins at $12M?

The whole "signability" thing is a lie. Nothing was preventing the Bills from signing him just like nothing will prevent them from signing Matthews.

Isn't the franchise tag for Sammy next year roughly $15-$17M or am I wrong? If so, the Bills are projected to have $26M in cap space next year according to spotrac. Tagging Sammy leaves them $9 - $11M to fill out an entire roster. I don't see that as oodles of cap space or as having the ability to make Sammy the highest paid player in the NFL. Making him the highest paid player in the NFL would literally eat up that entire $26M leaving the Bills $0.

 

From everything Watkins has said, I see zero reason to assume they could get him signed for $12M per year, either. He wants to change the entire pay structure of the NFL as per his words.

[BillsFanM.D.]

Since this is all about being on the record:

 

1. I hate the Watkins trade. If the 2018 draft were today, would you not spend a first (late first at worst) to draft a 24 year old Sammy Watkins. What future are we planning for when you trade that guy? I don't get it at all. He'll be special and this trade will be 'bad' down the road.

 

2. I liked the Darby trade. I think in our current D (assuming our front four is as advertised) allows for more pedestrian corner play. Even if we did not acquire Gaines, I have no beef trading a 'solid' starter in Darby for a 'solid' starter in Matthews....plus a pick.

 

As a final image, I almost threw up when I saw that photoshopped pic of Watkins in a Rams uni. I don't get it. The Julio Jones comparisons (injuries and talent) make me very anxious.

 

I hope Mr. Beane proves me wrong.

 

 

Point one is totally irrelevant - yes I would draft a 24 yr old SW in the first if he was under a rookie contract and the injuries were not there.

 

I would not draft a 24 yr old SW with the known injury history and knowing you need to sign him at 13-15 million a year contract with the injury history.

 

You trade the guy to get a younger version that is price controlled for 4 or 5 years and fits the scheme you want to run.

 

The Julio Jones comparison is great if we had Matt Ryan and a passing offense, but that is not what we are doing this year or probably next year - so get something and move on.

 

We can disagree. Point one is about the value the Bills got back in return. I.e. the topic of this thread. Do I (and everyone else) like it or not? I think they got pedestrian return for what I think is elite talent. The contract/potential contract is an issue but it then becomes about value.

 

Your presumption of replacing elite talent is interesting. In fact, your third point is a huge leap of faith. It'd be great if we could flip our roster every three years and never worry about spending any money to retain great players. We can just keep drafting and finding elite players all the time. That's always easy. Draft 'luck' is a different topic....but you can keep your second rounder and your corner. I'lI keep Watkins for this year and next at the very least....but probably longer. I know tough decisions have to be made with the cap etc. This, however, is one I would have never had to face. I was stunned when they did not pick up his option....and I was moreso when they traded him. (As an aside....another poster pointed out, they likely 'hurt' his trade value by not picking up that option).

 

Let me know when this 'younger version' (Again...sammy is 24) arrives....and we can also watch how Sammy's career unfolds.

 

My opinion is that Watkins will be great. I could be wrong.....but that's the joy of going on the record. Im guessing you think he's average as your premise requires him to be easily and readily replaced.

 

Time will tell. I wish Mr. Watkins well and hope we do, in fact, find equal talent.

[oldmanfan]

I respect your open-mindedness. But, honestly, how do you even make that judgement? In what universe will we be able to look back on the season, and say, "I guess we were better without that elite WR talent, after all...?" If we go 10-6, and make the playoffs, who's to say we wouldn't have won another game with a better #1 WR?

 

If Watkins snaps the bone in his foot, I suppose we will have made the right choice. But, even in the event of a different injury, it would still be speculative.

.

 

I don't like the trade. But an argument can be made that the Lions offense improved without CJ.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Isn't the franchise tag for Sammy next year roughly $15-$17M or am I wrong? If so, the Bills are projected to have $26M in cap space next year according to spotrac. Tagging Sammy leaves them $9 - $11M to fill out an entire roster. I don't see that as oodles of cap space or as having the ability to make Sammy the highest paid player in the NFL. Making him the highest paid player in the NFL would literally eat up that entire $26M leaving the Bills $0.

 

From everything Watkins has said, I see zero reason to assume they could get him signed for $12M per year, either. He wants to change the entire pay structure of the NFL as per his words.

I couldn't fathom any smart front office making him the highest paid WR. People throw around his name with top 5 WR like it's a fact, the results show he isn't even the fifth best WR from his own draft class...

 

He's an electric twitchy athlete with great hands. So are a lot of other guys. And there's at least 10-15 WRs who have blown his production out s the water, even those with less than optimal QBs and offenses.