Sammy Watkins classes it up on his way out of LA

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Graham is not "a generational talent"--that would be Rob Gronkowski. 

 

"Hooked up for a couple of TDs"?  It was 16 over 2 seasons.  In fact, Wilson threw more TDs to Graham last year than to any other player on the team.  I'm not sure what chemical problems Wilson and Graham had that you are talking about.

 

As for Watkins, it seems his on the rise sophomore Rams QB had no "chemistry issues" with Woods, or any other receiver on that team.  And now he's going to find "better chemistry" with a first year starter/recent backup QB who he knows nothing about?  Ok, Sammy....

 

No, Gaines isn't exactly comparable to Watkins.  They have different jobs and different pedigrees and different jobs, so why would anyone think use their contracts to point out how more or less valuable they are to their teams?

 

As for your Evans post--I was making the point (to another poster)  that his contract money (2nd in the league) doesn't equate to him being the second best WR in the league.  And it has nothing to do with Graham.  He did just fine the past two years in Seattle--in an offense nothing like the one in New Orleans.  In fact, considering how drastically different the offenses are, Graham had remarkable production these past two seasons.

 

Comparing 2 QBs of vastly different talent at this point in their careers to the difference in a WR and a CB doesn't further your argument.

 

My point was that saying "of course Sammy is great, look at all the money he is being paid"  isn't very persuasive.

 

 

Watkins chemistry issues with Goff were simply related to how he was used.    Woods didn't have a "chemistry" issue during the regular season because he was running into wide open spaces on short to intermediate routes with lesser CB's on him and Goff was taking the easiest throw as quickly as possible.

 

The Rams paid for not mixing up their use of Watkins.    Playoff football is another level of intensity and you need to practice executing the plays you will need to make in the playoffs DURING the regular season.  

 

When they met up with playoff intensity Woods and Goff got predictably shut down by a better than average defense that was playing at a level of intensity far above the muted effort of the regular season.  See the Bills D in Jax as another example.   So when they needed Goff/Watkins to make plays against Atlanta that they hadn't even been trying all season they got preseason level execution.    McVay is a quality young HC but he learned an important lesson about the cost of picking low hanging fruit all season versus prepping his team for the playoffs.  

 

Mahomes is a great fit with Watkins and even though he is no master of playoff football Andy Reid is experienced enough to know he will need to do more than just give Watkins token shots.    It's a good fit for Watkins. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by BADOLBILZ

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Good thing I didn't say that then, huh?

 

Another poster said that Gaines was a better player than Watkins.  I simply pointed out that the open market shows that Watkins was worth 4x as much as Gaines.  If Gaines was viewed by anyone as a better player than Watkins, he'd have gotten more than medial backup CB money from the worst team in football.

 

 

Why does the Brown's being the worst team in football matter?

 

 

Anyway, it's possible the original poster meant that Gaines may be a more valuable DB than Watkins is as a WR.

 

Because the 3rd team in 3 seasons is willing to blow more money on Watkin's "potential" doesn't, in and of itself, make him more valuable to a team.  But certainly more expensive.

 

One could also argue "the market" also decided that no team so far has wanted to pay this guy for very long...

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why does the Brown's being the worst team in football matter?

 

 

Anyway, it's possible the original poster meant that Gaines may be a more valuable DB than Watkins is as a WR.

 

Because the 3rd team in 3 seasons is willing to blow more money on Watkin's "potential" doesn't, in and of itself, make him more valuable to a team.  But certainly more expensive.

 

One could also argue "the market" also decided that no team so far has wanted to pay this guy for very long...

 

You would think that a player that's valued in the market would be able to snare a contract of reasonable value with a decent team, no?  Not the case for Gaines, who had to wait 2 weeks on the open market before getting a backup contract from a bottom-feeder.

 

As for relative value, if that's what the original poster meant, then it's still a silly supposition.

 

Your last sentence is bordering absurdity.  Buffalo decided not to pick up his option, and then traded him to a team that had 3 top-tier UFAs hitting the market in the same year and still needs to get a contract done with the reigning DPOY...and so Watkins (and Trumaine Johnson) hit the market.  He got a 3-year contract like many other UFAs because the existing CBA expires after the 2020 season, and there are financial implications to a new CBA that can't be predicted at this point.

 

I want to believe that you have a relevant argument to keep advancing here, but I'm just not seeing it.  Maybe it's just me.

[Bing Bong]

9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Watkins chemistry issues with Goff were simply related to how he was used.    Woods didn't have a "chemistry" issue during the regular season because he was running into wide open spaces on short to intermediate routes with lesser CB's on him and Goff was taking the easiest throw as quickly as possible.

How did Kupp get into the equation in that offense? The few Rams games I watched, he wasn't remarkable, but is a great route runner.. Pretty Woods-like actually. Watkins was the better talent but it must have been a product of Goff working with him longer than the other guys.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Watkins chemistry issues with Goff were simply related to how he was used.    Woods didn't have a "chemistry" issue during the regular season because he was running into wide open spaces on short to intermediate routes with lesser CB's on him and Goff was taking the easiest throw as quickly as possible.

 

The Rams paid for not mixing up their use of Watkins.    Playoff football is another level of intensity and you need to practice executing the plays you will need to make in the playoffs DURING the regular season.  

 

When they met up with playoff intensity Woods and Goff got predictably shut down by a better than average defense that was playing at a level of intensity far above the muted effort of the regular season.  See the Bills D in Jax as another example.   So when they needed Goff/Watkins to make plays against Atlanta that they hadn't even been trying all season they got preseason level execution.    McVay is a quality young HC but he learned an important lesson about the cost of picking low hanging fruit all season versus prepping his team for the playoffs.  

 

Mahomes is a great fit with Watkins and even though he is no master of playoff football Andy Reid is experienced enough to know he will need to do more than just give Watkins token shots.    It's a good fit for Watkins. 

 

 

I really don't believe that the Rams lost because of a chemistry issue with the QB and Watkins.  QB's have great chemistry with WR's who can get open.  You can't argue that Woods got open because of heavy coverage on Watkins, and then say that They should have worked on getting Sammy open more all season.  It's as likely that Woods got open more because, side by side, now together on a second team, Woods is the better WR.

 

If Watkins was joining the Chiefs with Alex Smith, a very accurate, smart and mobile QB who is a proven winner in this league, then Sammy's whining about finding better chemistry might make sense.

 

But I don't see how joining a QB with zero accomplished in the NFL, a complete unknown (certainly Sammy knew little to nothing about this guy before he was joined him in KC), is, right now, a "great fit."

 

 

[Bing Bong]

3 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

You would think that a player that's valued in the market would be able to snare a contract of reasonable value with a decent team, no?  Not the case for Gaines, who had to wait 2 weeks on the open market before getting a backup contract from a bottom-feeder.

I'm not going to factor in the team he signed for, so I disagree with you on that point. But yes, you are absolutely right, it's apparent that GMs hold Watkins to a much higher value than Gaines, the sheer margin of the contract difference makes that clear. It's a straw man argument to point to other contracts and say that players aren't signed to their exact  value.. but they are signed close to their value. And I'd say the $10M difference is more than enough to prove the difference in value, just not the exact value.. who cares, like I said it's close.

 

As much as I loved Gaines last year we lost the trade from a value perspective. But given that they were both 1 year rentals, who's to say 1 year of Gaines might not have made more of an impact than Watkins last year in the playoff run. Conversely though I think we had enough secondary talent (although we might not have known how good back then), that Watkins' WR talent eclipsing anybody else we were trotting out wide would have made a huge difference on the offense, while Gaines possibly would have made somewhat less of a difference from purely a game winning standpoint.

 

Give me one game to bet my life on last year, and I'd rather have Watkins than Gaines.. for one game I'd rather put my life in Watkins' hands to impact the game more.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

You would think that a player that's valued in the market would be able to snare a contract of reasonable value with a decent team, no?  Not the case for Gaines, who had to wait 2 weeks on the open market before getting a backup contract from a bottom-feeder.

 

As for relative value, if that's what the original poster meant, then it's still a silly supposition.

 

Your last sentence is bordering absurdity.  Buffalo decided not to pick up his option, and then traded him to a team that had 3 top-tier UFAs hitting the market in the same year and still needs to get a contract done with the reigning DPOY...and so Watkins (and Trumaine Johnson) hit the market.  He got a 3-year contract like many other UFAs because the existing CBA expires after the 2020 season, and there are financial implications to a new CBA that can't be predicted at this point.

 

I want to believe that you have a relevant argument to keep advancing here, but I'm just not seeing it.  Maybe it's just me.

 

 

yes Buffalo, not a top feeder, decided that they guy they spend 2 1sts and a 4th on only 3 seasons prior wasn't worth what it would cost to re-sign him.  Then the Rams picked up his expiring contract, and they too decided that he wasn't worth singing.  That's the market speaking loudly.

 

It's not an absurd counterpoint to your market-based point. 

 

Maybe if you were to think about this in terms of value, you might understand the other poster's point better?  That as a cheap solid DB, Gaines may be  more valuable than an overpaid WR who at each stop in his brief career, has not found a team that wanted to make him a cornerstone of their offense?  Clearly, the Bills and the Rams did not see the vlue in keeping him.  Now the Chiefs are on the hook for an insane 63% of his contract guaranteed.  With, essentially, a rookie QB throwing to him.  On a team that already had 2 1000 yard receivers on it.

 

Maybe that will help frame this better for you?

[Bing Bong]

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I really don't believe that the Rams lost because of a chemistry issue with the QB and Watkins.  QB's have great chemistry with WR's who can get open.  You can't argue that Woods got open because of heavy coverage on Watkins, and then say that They should have worked on getting Sammy open more all season.  It's as likely that Woods got open more because, side by side, now together on a second team, Woods is the better WR.

QB's have great chemistry with WRs who get open no doubt. But second year Goff, knowing his running game and conservative passing would help win, likely was hesitant throwing deep to Watkins than moving the chains with Woods, and getting Gurley a new set of downs. When you have Woods, Gurley, and Kupp, you have enough slot, short range reciever talent to let Watkins try to get open for 50 every play.

 

I don't think Watkins has found his lover boy quarterback yet, closest was Tyrod finding him deep. Is it on Watkins that he demands touches from his quarterback and has yet to be happy about it? Certainly, that's his personality. It's not a hindrance on a team where they really depend on him on any play in any situation to run any route.. that's what Watkins is looking for, and sure, it's stupid.. but it's who he is. So.. whatever, I'm not going dog on him praising his new QB and taking a slight shot at Goff, what else would he expect? and he didn't really seem to take shots at Tyrod FWIW, more the offensive gameplan.

[BADOLBILZ]

10 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

How did Kupp get into the equation in that offense? The few Rams games I watched, he wasn't remarkable, but is a great route runner.. Pretty Woods-like actually. Watkins was the better talent but it must have been a product of Goff working with him longer than the other guys.

 

 

Goff wasn't nearly as good of a QB as his numbers indicated he was last year.

 

McVay was basically doing half of his job........reading the defense and calling the play at the LOS thru the headset most of the time and in fairness he was probably trying to teach the young QB to simply throw to the open man as quickly as possible.

 

But meanwhile Watkins was lined up against great CB's and being asked to run them and the accompanying safety 30-40 yards downfield to clear space for Woods, Kupp and Gurley.

 

Those guys were open.....Kupp is a decent receiver as is Woods.......the design worked great against varying degrees of quality of regular season defense.

 

It was SOUND football if you are trying to score as often as possible early in games and end them quickly....... but in the process of making it look easy they missed opportunities to learn how to play playoff football.    

[thebandit27]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

yes Buffalo, not a top feeder, decided that they guy they spend 2 1sts and a 4th on only 3 seasons prior wasn't worth what it would cost to re-sign him.  Then the Rams picked up his expiring contract, and they too decided that he wasn't worth singing.  That's the market speaking loudly.

 

It's not an absurd counterpoint to your market-based point. 

 

Maybe if you were to think about this in terms of value, you might understand the other poster's point better?  That as a cheap solid DB, Gaines may be  more valuable than an overpaid WR who at each stop in his brief career, has not found a team that wanted to make him a cornerstone of their offense?  Clearly, the Bills and the Rams did not see the vlue in keeping him.  Now the Chiefs are on the hook for an insane 63% of his contract guaranteed.  With, essentially, a rookie QB throwing to him.  On a team that already had 2 1000 yard receivers on it.

 

Maybe that will help frame this better for you?

 

Except that better-bang-for-the-buck wasn't the original point; the original point, again, was that another poster said Gaines was a better player.

 

It's clear to me that we're on far different thought paths on this issue.

[Jauronimo]

12 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You made a point about the wide disparity in their contracts, as if that alone is evidence of a huge difference in their value.  But it's a point not worth making as one guy was a top 5 pick whereas the other is a solid DB who would never command top WR type money.

 

What you are also missing is that Watkins contract was something of a "game changer" in that he was widely seen as grossly overpaid (much of it guaranteed) when compared to his production---"underperforming" is the common descriptor. 

By Bills fans perhaps.  That's a difficult argument to make when the market just determined hes worth $16MM on average with $30MM guaranteed.

[Bing Bong]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Then the Rams picked up his expiring contract, and they too decided that he wasn't worth singing.  That's the market speaking loudly.

The Rams clearly like 1 year deals. They didn't pick him up because they could get Suh, Peters, Talib, Sheilds, and Cooks on 1 year deals. Small risk, high return for the 1 year everybody is playing their butts off for their next team. 

 

I like the way the Rams are doing business, that's how I've always thought a win now team should be GM'd while their young talent is still on them rookie contracts. But maybe I'm wrong. We'll see how the Rams GM style plays out this year.

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Goff wasn't nearly as good of a QB as his numbers indicated he was last year.

 

McVay was basically doing half of his job........reading the defense and calling the play at the LOS thru the headset most of the time and in fairness he was probably trying to teach the young QB to simply throw to the open man as quickly as possible.

 

But meanwhile Watkins was lined up against great CB's and being asked to run them and the accompanying safety 30-40 yards downfield to clear space for Woods, Kupp and Gurley.

 

Those guys were open.....Kupp is a decent receiver as is Woods.......the design worked great against varying degrees of quality of regular season defense.

 

It was SOUND football if you are trying to score as often as possible early in games and end them quickly....... but in the process of making it look easy they missed opportunities to learn how to play playoff football.    

I said the same thing, I never really thought much of Goff as others seem to have thought during the year. I knew he improved. But then I checked his numbers and they were pretty great... But I still agree he's not nearly as good as his numbers. Gurley was in the MVP voting discussion folks.

 

His stats are identical to Dak's rookie year with Zeke. Give a man a top 3 RB, and a half decent quarterback can move the chains and not be in a position to take risks (hurt dat all important passer rating). Dak regressed with like a direct correlation to Zeke's suspension, O-Line issues, running game in general.

[Mr. WEO]

7 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

QB's have great chemistry with WRs who get open no doubt. But second year Goff, knowing his running game and conservative passing would help win, likely was hesitant throwing deep to Watkins than moving the chains with Woods, and getting Gurley a new set of downs. When you have Woods, Gurley, and Kupp, you have enough slot, short range reciever talent to let Watkins try to get open for 50 every play.

 

I don't think Watkins has found his lover boy quarterback yet, closest was Tyrod finding him deep. Is it on Watkins that he demands touches from his quarterback and has yet to be happy about it? Certainly, that's his personality. It's not a hindrance on a team where they really depend on him on any play in any situation to run any route.. that's what Watkins is looking for, and sure, it's stupid.. but it's who he is. So.. whatever, I'm not going dog on him praising his new QB and taking a slight shot at Goff, what else would he expect? and he didn't really seem to take shots at Tyrod FWIW, more the offensive gameplan.

 

 

Woods wasn't just moving the chains with Woods--he had 14 ypc.

 

If Sammy could get open for 50 on every play, no team would let him go.

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

By Bills fans perhaps.  That's a difficult argument to make when the market just determined hes worth $16MM on average with $30MM guaranteed.

 

Bills and Rams FO, actually.

[Bing Bong]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Woods wasn't just moving the chains with Woods--he had 14 ypc.

 

If Sammy could get open for 50 on every play, no team would let him go.

Sammy wasn't, I'm trying to say he had the luxury to go for those routes every play with the underneath talent the Rams had. Sure Woods' not just moving the chains, but those crossing slot routes are pretty easy when the LBs are freaking out about Gurley, and the safeties are constantly trying to make sure they weren't getting burned by Sammy. Call it a decoy hahaha.. poor poor Sammy.

 

We should all sit down and watch the Rams offensive tape lol, cause TBD is all over the place here.

Edited June 26, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Woods wasn't just moving the chains with Woods--he had 14 ypc.

 

If Sammy could get open for 50 on every play, no team would let him go.

 

Bills and Rams FO, actually.

The Rams tried to keep him.  Maybe the Rams didn't think he should be the 5th highest paid at his position but the notion that the league generally felt he was "grossly overpaid" on his rookie contract seems silly when considering that multiple teams then offered him an even richer contract.

[row_33]

On 6/19/2018 at 6:59 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

There was a report last week that Watkins has worked his ass off and picked up Andy Reid's complex offense faster than anyone had ever seen before, those that had been with Reid a long time.

 

what's that?  flop around and choke every time it matters in a two minute drill?

 

[BarleyNY]

3 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

The Rams tried to keep him.  Maybe the Rams didn't think he should be the 5th highest paid at his position but the notion that the league generally felt he was "grossly overpaid" on his rookie contract seems silly when considering that multiple teams then offered him an even richer contract.

 

It’ll be interesting to see how it all works out because there’s that other thing about markets - the market sets prices based on perceptions of value, but there are often wide variances between that and actual values. 

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

The Rams tried to keep him.  Maybe the Rams didn't think he should be the 5th highest paid at his position but the notion that the league generally felt he was "grossly overpaid" on his rookie contract seems silly when considering that multiple teams then offered him an even richer contract.

 

 

Not on his rookie contract.  On what he ultimately got (or would get) paid.  Neither team wanted to pay that.  In fact, I bet the Bills could have re-signed him for less a year ago.  They passed.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Mr. WEO

[thebandit27]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Not on his rookie contract.  On what he ultimately got (or would get) paid.  Neither team wanted to pay that.  In fact, I bet the Bills could have re-signed him for less a year ago.  They passed.

 

Now take the same logic and apply it to EJ Gaines and you'll arrive at one inevitable conclusion

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Not on his rookie contract.  On what he ultimately got (or would get) paid.  Neither team wanted to pay that.  In fact, I bet the Bills could have re-signed him for less a year ago.  They passed. 

So the league generally thought the contract they themselves would offer Watkins was a "gross" overpayment? 

 

Your opinions fascinate me and I wish to subscribe to your news letter.