JM2009 Posted August 17, 2017 Author Posted August 17, 2017 QBs who can reliably and accurately deliver the ball to those playmaking receivers, so they can actually make plays, are even harder to find. Until we have one, Sammy's departure is not nearly as big a minus as many posters seem to think it is. Watkins and TT actually had a great connection with the deep ball.
klos63 Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 Actually I think it was to take the pressure of of McD should the players revolt over jettisoning the best talent on the roster on the eve of the season. Finally some teachers who will maximize the talent on hand while demanding accountability and not forcing square players into round schemes. trading Watkins means they didn't maximize the talent on hand. I think.
BADOLBILZ Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 QBs who can reliably and accurately deliver the ball to those playmaking receivers, so they can actually make plays, are even harder to find. Until we have one, Sammy's departure is not nearly as big a minus as many posters seem to think it is. This sounds like the "we can finish last without him attitude".........which unfortunately for fans of losing is not the case.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 trading Watkins means they didn't maximize the talent on hand. I think. I think you may have missed the joke?
atlbillsfan1975 Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 QBs who can reliably and accurately deliver the ball to those playmaking receivers, so they can actually make plays, are even harder to find. Until we have one, Sammy's departure is not nearly as big a minus as many posters seem to think it is. Yep. Whaley would of been better trying to trade up for an elite defender. Whaley realized that finding the QB is almost impossible to do unless you have the number one pick and a QB has to be there. Whaley was trying to make a great team around an average QB. Where Whaley slipped up was trading up for Watkins. While a great talent Watkins was not worth trading up when you are building a team. The move contradicts Whaleys approach kinda. Not sure why Whaley did it or IF it was his decision alone. Watkins is a great talent that wasn't being utilized to his fullest extent. I am not sure LA will be able to utilize Watkins to his full potential. I hope so for Watkins sake.
Beast Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) I don't buy this story for one bit. He had no problem sitting out McCoy....why in the hell would you NOT sit Watkins if a trade was immenent? Yeah, let the deal fall through because he gets injured....all because you want your coach to have the full compliment of players? BS Edited August 17, 2017 by Binghamton Beast
klos63 Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 I think you may have missed the joke? apparently - good one, I guess
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 If Beane knew the trade was going through before the game, why are they having Tyrod throw the ball to someone who isn't going to be there? How about throwing to Zay Jones or Streater or Holmes or Clay?
The Big Cat Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 If Beane knew the trade was going through before the game, why are they having Tyrod throw the ball to someone who isn't going to be there? How about throwing to Zay Jones or Streater or Holmes or Clay? because having knowledge of a trade's possibility and having a trade finalized are two completely different things.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 because having knowledge of a trade's possibility and having a trade finalized are two completely different things. It's pretty clear from both sides, if you can believe them, that the trade was agreed to before the game. It was a done deal. All that remained was convincing Pegula and McD. The particulars of the trade were agreed to, and Beane knew it was going through.
The Big Cat Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 It's pretty clear from both sides, if you can believe them, that the trade was agreed to before the game. It was a done deal. All that remained was convincing Pegula and McD. The particulars of the trade were agreed to, and Beane knew it was going through. then count me among those who don't believe it's a "done deal" so long as the owner and coach aren't in the loop
oldmanfan Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 It's pretty clear from both sides, if you can believe them, that the trade was agreed to before the game. It was a done deal. All that remained was convincing Pegula and McD. The particulars of the trade were agreed to, and Beane knew it was going through. No he didn't. He wanted to discuss with the HC and owner first.
nucci Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 QBs who can reliably and accurately deliver the ball to those playmaking receivers, so they can actually make plays, are even harder to find. Until we have one, Sammy's departure is not nearly as big a minus as many posters seem to think it is. Yes, it is...great receivers help QBs also
Marty McFly Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 Hard to believe in retrospect(isn't it always with the Bills) but this is the same kind of rhetoric we heard with the Rex hire. Pegula got his man! Surrounding themselves with his guys. Look at all the experienced coaches! Roman was OC in SB 2 years ago! We're good now! Dysfunction solved. Reality is that we have to take all decisions at face value and not pretend that because the process was different it was better. Trading Watkins is trading Lynch and Peters all over again.........except maybe that the approval rating is actually MUCH LOWER this time....could scarcely find a handful on here to criticize those trades of what became future HOF'ers let alone the 1/3 or so who disapprove of the Watkins trade.........which tells you all you need to know about how easy it is to sell fans on trading polarizing players........the player they don't know is always better for a large % of the fanbase......hence the love of draft picks. im sure they also got posters all over media sites trying to sway public opinions with comments.
cba fan Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 No he didn't. He wanted to discuss with the HC and owner first. The parts of the trade were agreed to. Rams agreed to the deal. They were just waiting for Beanes response after talking to Pegs and McDerma. It was in Bills hands to say yes or no.
Bakin Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 Thats bs if true. I'd tell my coach anything..... Like a girl anything I love. Beane I am starting to hate him.You must have never been in love. Have you seen the movie Interstellar? 90% honesty.....
T-Bomb Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 It's pretty clear from both sides, if you can believe them, that the trade was agreed to before the game. It was a done deal. All that remained was convincing Pegula and McD. The particulars of the trade were agreed to, and Beane knew it was going through. If it was a done deal then why bother meeting with the owner and the coach? A deal in principal is not a done deal, jeez some of you people...
dave mcbride Posted August 18, 2017 Posted August 18, 2017 Actually I think it was to take the pressure of of McD should the players revolt over jettisoning the best talent on the roster on the eve of the season.. Good point. Hadn't thought of that. That said, showcasing Sammy at the beginning of the game will tell any player with half a brain all they need to know about the drivers behind the trade.
Recommended Posts