Figster Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 There are game changers at many positions besides QB. That includes WRs. People look at what Tom Brady can do and base their opinions using the best QB in the history of the NFL by way of example. The Falcons have a very good QB and football team, but its very doubtful they reach the big dance without Julio Jones in my humble opinion.
DC Tom Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 Bills Today: Eddie Yarbrough impressing during camp Bills have been the best in the league in under-25 talent in what seems like forever. Because they suck, so any talented player who develops into a productive player leaves the first time they hit free agency.
chris heff Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 Not at all. You can make exceptions for elite talent with elite production. The only player on our roster with that description is Shady McCoy. If we trade him I'll agree we are tanking, or if we're not then it's just a poor move. But not Sammy. I also don't know if McDermott sees a need for a Randy Moss which does make sense considering he never got that ring... elite receivers don't win championships. But Belichick saw the need for Moss are you saying McDermott is a smarter coach than Belichick?
Andrew Son Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 But Belichick saw the need for Moss are you saying McDermott is a smarter coach than Belichick? I think BB saw value in Moss. He didn't get a big contract if I recall correctly. Do you think, in general, that the Pats* have invested heavily in their receiving corps?
PolishDave Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 (edited) People look at what Tom Brady can do and base their opinions using the best QB in the history of the NFL by way of example. The Falcons have a very good QB and football team, but its very doubtful they reach the big dance without Julio Jones in my humble opinion. It is a very reasonable opinion too - because I think they proved that when Julio was injured. That team flat out sucked without him. They went from 13-3 season to a 4-12 season. Of course there is more behind it than just losing one player. But his injury was a part of it. Edited August 15, 2017 by PolishDave
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 I think BB saw value in Moss. He didn't get a big contract if I recall correctly. Do you think, in general, that the Pats* have invested heavily in their receiving corps? They traded a 4th rounder for him. They traded a 2nd and 7th for Welker. It was more of a flier as he was poison to the league at that point. It is a very reasonable opinion too - because I think they proved that when Julio was injured. That team flat out sucked without him. They went from 13-3 season to a 4-12 season. Of course there is more behind it than just losing one player. But his injury was a part of it. They were 8-8 when he lead the NFL in catches and yards. Being a great PLAYER does not always translate to wins on the field. You have to have a great team.
HappyDays Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 But Belichick saw the need for Moss are you saying McDermott is a smarter coach than Belichick? If we ever find ourselves with the greatest QB of all time playing on a well below market value contract, and we have a chance to sign a top 5 all time receiver with the production to prove it, and McDermott declines to, then you can ask me this question. Right now it's comparing apples to oranges.
Bill_with_it Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 If we ever find ourselves with the greatest QB of all time playing on a well below market value contract, and we have a chance to sign a top 5 all time receiver with the production to prove it, and McDermott declines to, then you can ask me this question. Right now it's comparing apples to oranges.Dont ruin their narrative. Let alone their ridiculous comparison of one of the best wrs to ever touch a football and the oft injured Sammy Watkins.
HappyDays Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 Randy Moss had what should have been the game winning catch in February 2008. And even on the Pats very final possession, he cleanly (and shockingly) beat the guy covering him for what would have been an 80 yard TD pass if Brady hadn't underthrown him. So, no. Okay I don't know why Randy Moss keeps getting brought up as if he has anything to do with Sammy Watkins. When has Sammy ever looked as good as Moss? Also this was 8 years ago. Look at recent championships. Julio Jones is the exception, the best teams are not paying their top receivers the kind of money Sammy will likely command.
John from Riverside Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 He better not be a redux of Dick Jauron. This makes total sense to me....this bills team has been loaded with talent and cant get over the hump
HappyDays Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 You don't know what year is going to be your year. You are supposed to try to win the championship every year. Isn't that what you are telling your players? Not trying to win is friggin nonsense. If every team was truly trying to win the Super Bowl every year, every team would spend to the salary cap every single year. What you're asking for isn't realistic. Of course you try to win now but not at the expense of the future. This isn't the Ralph regime, we aren't being cheap for no reason. They're making sure we don't end up in the bad cap situations Whaley always put us in.
BuffaloBaumer Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 If every team was truly trying to win the Super Bowl every year, every team would spend to the salary cap every single year. What you're asking for isn't realistic. Of course you try to win now but not at the expense of the future. This isn't the Ralph regime, we aren't being cheap for no reason. They're making sure we don't end up in the bad cap situations Whaley always put us in. Fonzi has been making all the right points about this discussion (cap, QB over receivers, etc..) - nice work
YoloinOhio Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 (edited) Apparently a team devoid of talent is the plan. McDermott: "we're building a team not accumulating talent" not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose but clearly the point is that instead of just having a bunch of players with individual talent, they want to build a winning team where the players complement each other. Not that they don't have talent, they actually can win with that talent. Whaley took the opposite approach. He could evaluate talent but he could not put together a winning team. I think they have the same issue in Jax and LA Chargers. Edited August 15, 2017 by YoloinOhio
Figster Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 They traded a 4th rounder for him. They traded a 2nd and 7th for Welker. It was more of a flier as he was poison to the league at that point. They were 8-8 when he lead the NFL in catches and yards. Being a great PLAYER does not always translate to wins on the field. You have to have a great team. and probably go 4 - 12 again without him.
HappyDays Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose but clearly the point is that instead of just having a bunch of players with individual talent, they want to build a winning team where the players complement each other. Not that they don't have talent, they actually can win with that talent. Whaley took the opposite approach. He could evaluate talent but he could not put together a winning team. I think they have the same issue in Jax and LA Chargers. Remember the Eagles "dream team"? Same problem. The Seahawks secondary wasn't just a collection of talented players, that's why they were the Legion of Boom and not the Random Talent Collection of Boom. When do teams ever try to just assemble random talent without projecting how they fit into the team's vision? I get it, people are sad to see Sammy go, but we can be realistic.
Dr. Who Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 The concept of building a team and not simply an aggregate of talented players that are less than the sum of the parts is fine. I think one can buy into that and still wonder about the value of trading Sammy Watkins. The fella who simply dismissed Watkins as the "oft injured" is begging the question. He played through injuries before. Other wrs have needed a second surgery on his foot issue. If he's healthy, he's a rare talent. The return does not seem equitable. How is it that McD and Beane determined that one could not fit Sammy into their concept of a team? There reasoning will probably remain opaque to fans, but it's not irrational for fans to question the merits of the trade.
PolishDave Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 If every team was truly trying to win the Super Bowl every year, every team would spend to the salary cap every single year. What you're asking for isn't realistic. Of course you try to win now but not at the expense of the future. This isn't the Ralph regime, we aren't being cheap for no reason. They're making sure we don't end up in the bad cap situations Whaley always put us in. I get your point And I agree about not trying to win now at the expense of the future. I want the Bills to be dominant year after year as often as possible. You also don't want them to give up more one year than what they are going to get back the next year. The Bills were paying out the Watkins money this year whether or not he played for the team. They could have paid for him to play for them and make them a lot better on offense (my opinion). Instead they paid him to go play for somebody else. In exchange they get to pull a name out of a hat in the second round next year and lose the opportunity to do so in the 6th and probably 3rd round. I don't think that is a fair trade. Not considering what they lost "this season" in exchange for it. Whether he played for the Bills or not this year, the Bills would in no way be forced to end up in a bad cap situation next year because of Watkins. They could have let him walk for a comp pick. They could have traded him later this year once their shot at playoffs was eliminated. Or perhaps they could have traded him for a lot more capital once he started balling out and some other team had a number one receiver go down. Next years cap is completely irrelevant to this year as Watkins would not be under contract after this year. It is a terribly lousy explanation and reasoning for this move. If they were getting out of a long term contract with the guy where they were saving cap space, it would make more sense. But they're not. They save zero cap by this trade. Zero this year. Zero next year. The cap argument is a farce.
Turk71 Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 The concept of building a team and not simply an aggregate of talented players that are less than the sum of the parts is fine. I think one can buy into that and still wonder about the value of trading Sammy Watkins. The fella who simply dismissed Watkins as the "oft injured" is begging the question. He played through injuries before. Other wrs have needed a second surgery on his foot issue. If he's healthy, he's a rare talent. The return does not seem equitable. How is it that McD and Beane determined that one could not fit Sammy into their concept of a team? There reasoning will probably remain opaque to fans, but it's not irrational for fans to question the merits of the trade. I may be wrong but wasn t Sammy complaining about wanting more targets a while back? Is that a me first mentality? I think Sammy wanted to be paid a top 5 wr salary and was definitely going to want more $$$ than the Bills felt he was worth. 8 games 28 rec 430 yds and 2tds does not demand top money and betting he would stay healthy and be willing to stay in Buffalo seemed like a long shot. Would people rather have him walk after the season for nothing? or pay him huge money for his potential greatness? I think it was a wise business decision and regardless of my opinion he is gone.
Dr. Who Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 I may be wrong but wasn t Sammy complaining about wanting more targets a while back? Is that a me first mentality? I think Sammy wanted to be paid a top 5 wr salary and was definitely going to want more $$$ than the Bills felt he was worth. 8 games 28 rec 430 yds and 2tds does not demand top money and betting he would stay healthy and be willing to stay in Buffalo seemed like a long shot. Would people rather have him walk after the season for nothing? or pay him huge money for his potential greatness? I think it was a wise business decision and regardless of my opinion he is gone. Yes, that is painting the bleakest possible scenario and interpretation. I don't feel compelled to accept it, but if true, obviously your conclusion is logical. Btw, Sammy should have been targeted much more. I don't blame him for complaining about that.
GG Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 The Bills were paying out the Watkins money this year whether or not he played for the team. They could have paid for him to play for them and make them a lot better on offense (my opinion). Instead they paid him to go play for somebody else. I think someone needs a refresher course on caponomics. Bills are done paying Sammy. The only thing is left is the accrued dead cap hit from signing and roster bonuses already paid out.
Recommended Posts