Alphadawg7 Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Absolutely...I had my doubts about Gaines' ability to regain his 2014 form, but so far he's been very good. Biggest issue with Gaines is his ability to stay on the field.
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Too bad. The Rams need one. They had a good one, but they traded him. Along with a 2nd round pick. Gaines was their 3 or 4th cb. Their young qb has shown a lot of improvement this year. That triumphs everything.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) always interesting to see these stats. But since we traded Sammy for Gaines, and our secondary has allowed ZERO pass TD's, I'd say we are winning the trade. Thanks While it wasn't a WR for WR trade the combination of the 2 trades did net WR for WR and CB for CB. since this is a Sammy watch thread I assumed the intent was to see how well Sammy was doing and what his replacement was doing. Beyond the 2 TD's by Sammy the #'s look close. the result - Too Early To Tell. Gaines was their 3 or 4th cb. Their young qb has shown a lot of improvement this year. That triumphs everything. thanks to Sammy???? . I find F5 looks cooler when bumping to the last page Edited September 28, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 While it wasn't a WR for WR trade the combination of the 2 trades did net WR for WR and CB for CB. since this is a Sammy watch thread I assumed the intent was to see how well Sammy was doing and what his replacement was doing. Beyond the 2 TD's by Sammy the #'s look close. the result - Too Early To Tell. thanks to Sammy???? You honestly dont think Sammy helped open up their offense and Goff would be the same player with Woods and Austin as his top WRs?
Magox Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Having Sammy definitely helps Goff, no doubt about it.
The Jokeman Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 always interesting to see these stats. But since we traded Sammy for Gaines, and our secondary has allowed ZERO pass TD's, I'd say we are winning the trade. Greta point. But good for the Bills to find a player who fits their D very well, and scoop up a 1st rounder. We also acquired a 2nd Round pick which is higher than any compensation we'd get if lost Watkins/Gaines as an UFA after this year.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 You honestly dont think Sammy helped open up their offense and Goff would be the same player with Woods and Austin as his top WRs? I don't believe that is what I said. It appears (since I don't watch their games) that Sammy is helping Goff and the team to get to 2-1 just like the Bills. All I did was post Sammy's stats with the stats of the WR Matthews (whos is supposedly replacing him). Sammy's #'s are higher, but I don't see a huge difference beyond what I had already commented on ie 2 TD's.
Dopey Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 As cruel as it sounds, if you can't stay on the field, you are a liability. Production didn't meet expectations. Ours and his. trump would call him "china doll" sammy!
Doc Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) Thanks While it wasn't a WR for WR trade the combination of the 2 trades did net WR for WR and CB for CB. We also acquired a 2nd Round pick which is higher than any compensation we'd get if lost Watkins/Gaines as an UFA after this year. Was going to mention that they also got a 2nd round pick, and they also got a 3rd round pick. Got a pretty big upgrade at CB with Gaines over Darby and a moderate downgrade at WR with Matthews over Sammy. Edited September 28, 2017 by Doc
klos63 Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Was going to mention that they also got a 2nd round pick, and they also got a 3rd round pick. Got a pretty big upgrade at CB with Gaines over Darby and a moderate downgrade at WR with Matthews over Sammy. Keep in mind that both Mathews and Gaines are free agents after this season. If Gaines continues to play well on a top rated defense, could likely have high price demands. Not sure Beane likes paying big contracts.
Bill_with_it Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Keep in mind that both Mathews and Gaines are free agents after this season. If Gaines continues to play well on a top rated defense, could likely have high price demands. Not sure Beane likes paying big contracts.This is a false narrative. Why pay a player that doesnt fit your play. Stephon was let go because hes not a zone cb. What gives you any indication that he is not willing to pay a player that fits offensively or defensively? Its just another out of many long list of thinly veiled shot at the FO that is undeserved.
Magox Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Keep in mind that both Mathews and Gaines are free agents after this season. If Gaines continues to play well on a top rated defense, could likely have high price demands. Not sure Beane likes paying big contracts. I don't think it's that he doesn't like paying big contracts, I believe it to be more of a matter of paying big contracts to: A) Scheme fits B) History of consistent proven production
4merper4mer Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Keep in mind that both Mathews and Gaines are free agents after this season. If Gaines continues to play well on a top rated defense, could likely have high price demands. Not sure Beane likes paying big contracts. Let's hope he plays crappy for the rest of the year.
Billsmovinup Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Keep in mind that both Mathews and Gaines are free agents after this season. If Gaines continues to play well on a top rated defense, could likely have high price demands. Not sure Beane likes paying big contracts. Or we can read the above and come to the conclusion that the poster is implying that Beane is fiscally responsible much like Pittsburgh and NE have been for the most part over the past decade and isnt going to recklessly give out big money deals that may have serious cap implications if the player isnt living up to the contract.
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Or we can read the above and come to the conclusion that the poster is implying that Beane is fiscally responsible much like Pittsburgh and NE have been for the most part over the past decade and isnt going to recklessly give out big money deals that may have serious cap implications if the player isnt living up to the contract. This strategy works a lot better if you have HOF qbs. This is a false narrative. Why pay a player that doesnt fit your play. Stephon was let go because hes not a zone cb. What gives you any indication that he is not willing to pay a player that fits offensively or defensively? Its just another out of many long list of thinly veiled shot at the FO that is undeserved. Gilmore was not retained because he was too expensive. Most good cbs can play in a zone. In fact, its easier for most.
Bill_with_it Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 This strategy works a lot better if you have HOF qbs. Gilmore was not retained because he was too expensive. Most good cbs can play in a zone. In fact, its easier for most. Thats just incorrect.These are mcdermotts words: McDermott spoke about the type of player he wants and what hes looking for in replacing almost the entire roster of defensive backs at the recent NFL owners meeting in Phoenix. Its nice to be out there and able to run but this is not track practice, this is football, McDermott said. So weve got to be able to be physical and tackle. Thats a big part of it for us and our identity you guys have heard me say it before and youll continue to hear me say it our identity on defense will be built around our corners and their tackling ability and how much our defensive line runs to the football. Those to me are big selling points for our defense. Stop making crap up. Stephone didnt fit what Mcdermott was looking for and had no intentions of signing him.
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Thats just incorrect. These are mcdermotts words: McDermott spoke about the type of player he wants and what hes looking for in replacing almost the entire roster of defensive backs at the recent NFL owners meeting in Phoenix. Its nice to be out there and able to run but this is not track practice, this is football, McDermott said. So weve got to be able to be physical and tackle. Thats a big part of it for us and our identity you guys have heard me say it before and youll continue to hear me say it our identity on defense will be built around our corners and their tackling ability and how much our defensive line runs to the football. Those to me are big selling points for our defense. Stop making crap up. Stephone didnt fit what Mcdermott was looking for and had no intentions of signing him. Sure dude.
mead107 Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Why we still talking about Sammy? Did he leave his foot brace behind?
Recommended Posts