John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, mannc said:

What's your opinion of the decision to decline Watkins's fifth-year option?  I think it's a pretty tough decision to defend. 

You didn't ask me, but I never understood it.  I try to understand the logic in movies that they make, and one reason I like McBeane is that they seem to have good reasons for doing things.   This one I never understood.

 

Watkins may have been less than a great team player, but he wasn't a cancer.  He just seemed not to realize his potential. 

 

I always say it's better to keep good talent a year too long than to give up on talent a year too early, so I would have exercised the option and tried to get him to be the guy we all hoped he would be.  

 

Turns out that wouldn't have helped much, because he wasn't stellar for either of the next two years and would have left in free agency.  Still, I thought he was worth the continuing investment. 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Why couldn't the Rams reach a deal with Watkins when they could with Cooks?  They signed for the same amount of money per year, just less years.

So the Rams were willing to pay Cooks $16 million a year, but not Watkins.  That $16 million a year is what Watkins got in KC.

 

 

 

 They are taking the "you gotta break a couple eggs to make an omelette approach".  If they feel that was the best approach, then do it.  We weren't winning before, so why continue going down the old regimes path?

 

 

 

 

1. Rams couldn't reach a deal in part because they didn't have negotiating leverage on Watkins.  Watkins also wasn't thrilled about not getting the ball thrown to him.    Goff struggled to throw the ball deep.   So McVay played the whole season using Watkins to run Richard Sherman and Jalen Ramsey and Patrick Peterson, Josh Norman etc.. out of the play by running Watkins deep and destroying teams with wide open receivers underneath.    When the playoffs came the Falcons took away the underneath and intermediate "Goff" routes.  The Rams then tried to use Watkins to run routes they hadn't worked all season to beat the tight coverage and it looked like they'd never played together.   Lesson learned for McVay.......you gotta' use everyone during the season even if you are going thru in-season defenses like sh*t thru a goose.    But all things being equal Watkins was going to want to go somewhere that the QB could throw the ball deep.    Mahomes was a perfect match.

 

2. They were willing to pay more to Cooks than Sammy because he has been great AND healthy.    Nice option to have.    One of the flaws of the "parity" encouraging system the NFL has is that teams at the back end of round 1 have a real advantage when trading for star players.    Pats did it to get Cooks from New Orleans and the Rams did it the next year to get him.    

 

3. So......you really don't understand this saying.    You can't make an omelette without egg........so you gotta' break the egg.   There is no other option.  That's what the saying means. You CAN win in the NFL without tearing a team down.   No option.........option.   Get it?  

 

4. Building on talent is not necessarily "going down the old regimes path".     Are the Rams still on the Jeff Fisher path because they kept so many players?   You are literally just reaching for sayings and cliches that make no sense in this context.

[Augie]

So....is Sammy the broken egg here? It seems it was a role he was destined to play. 

[Rico]

2 hours ago, Chemical said:

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-back-foot-54-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-on-the-run-38-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

these two plays alone are worth 16 mil considering the circumstances. 

Chris Hogan did a lot more to help his team actually get a ring, and I don't miss him either.

[mannc]

34 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You didn't ask me, but I never understood it.  I try to understand the logic in movies that they make, and one reason I like McBeane is that they seem to have good reasons for doing things.   This one I never understood.

 

Watkins may have been less than a great team player, but he wasn't a cancer.  He just seemed not to realize his potential. 

 

I always say it's better to keep good talent a year too long than to give up on talent a year too early, so I would have exercised the option and tried to get him to be the guy we all hoped he would be.  

 

Turns out that wouldn't have helped much, because he wasn't stellar for either of the next two years and would have left in free agency.  Still, I thought he was worth the continuing investment. 

Even if they weren't going to keep Watkins, it seems to me it would have been smart to pick up the option because (I assume) it would have increased his trade value because teams would be acquiring him for at least two years, not a one-year rental.  Also, as it turns out, the 5th year would have been a relative bargain at $11 million, even though Watkins had a less than stellar year with the Rams.

 

There's no telling what would have happened if the Bills had kept Watkins, but I think it's safe to say they (1) would not have wasted a 3d round pick on KB and (2) they would have had a better receiving corps last year for Josh Allen (or whichever QB they ended up with).   

[Rico]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

Even if they weren't going to keep Watkins, it seems to me it would have been smart to pick up the option because (I assume) it would have increased his trade value because teams would be acquiring him for at least two years, not a one-year rental.  Also, as it turns out, the 5th year would have been a relative bargain at $11 million, even though Watkins had a less than stellar year with the Rams.

 

There's no telling what would have happened if the Bills had kept Watkins, but I think it's safe to say they (1) would not have wasted a 3d round pick on KB and (2) they would have had a better receiving corps last year for Josh Allen (or whichever QB they ended up with).   

And if they hadn't determined he was a loser, that's what might have happened.

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

1. Rams couldn't reach a deal in part because they didn't have negotiating leverage on Watkins.  Watkins also wasn't thrilled about not getting the ball thrown to him.    Goff struggled to throw the ball deep.   So McVay played the whole season using Watkins to run Richard Sherman and Jalen Ramsey and Patrick Peterson, Josh Norman etc.. out of the play by running Watkins deep and destroying teams with wide open receivers underneath.    When the playoffs came the Falcons took away the underneath and intermediate "Goff" routes.  The Rams then tried to use Watkins to run routes they hadn't worked all season to beat the tight coverage and it looked like they'd never played together.   Lesson learned for McVay.......you gotta' use everyone during the season even if you are going thru in-season defenses like sh*t thru a goose.    But all things being equal Watkins was going to want to go somewhere that the QB could throw the ball deep.    Mahomes was a perfect match.

 

2. They were willing to pay more to Cooks than Sammy because he has been great AND healthy.    Nice option to have.    One of the flaws of the "parity" encouraging system the NFL has is that teams at the back end of round 1 have a real advantage when trading for star players.    Pats did it to get Cooks from New Orleans and the Rams did it the next year to get him.    

 

3. So......you really don't understand this saying.    You can't make an omelette without egg........so you gotta' break the egg.   There is no other option.  That's what the saying means. You CAN win in the NFL without tearing a team down.   No option.........option.   Get it?  

 

4. Building on talent is not necessarily "going down the old regimes path".     Are the Rams still on the Jeff Fisher path because they kept so many players?   You are literally just reaching for sayings and cliches that make no sense in this context.

 

LOL...Goff struggled with the deep ball. I guess he’s struggles with the deep ball only with Watkins but doesn’t with Cooks.

 

Only Sammy can be a decoy to run people off.  Julio Jones, AB, OBJ....they all can run and run people off but they aren’t used that way.  Geezus...enough with the pathetic excuses for his lack of production.

 

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/10/nfl-los-angeles-rams-jared-goff-stats-deep-passes-ranking/

 

https://brickwallblitz.com/2019/02/22/the-2018-19-deep-ball-project-part-3-3/

 

And you’re #4...I have no idea what you’re talking about.  I simply said the Bills Brass thought it was better to rebuild.  I don’t feel every situation is the same.  Get it?

Edited June 26, 2019 by Royale with Cheese

[Shaw66]

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according to some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

Edited June 27, 2019 by Shaw66

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

This is just too good.

[K-9]

3 hours ago, Augie said:

So....is Sammy the broken egg here? It seems it was a role he was destined to play. 

Sammy is the egg man.

 

Goo goo g’joob.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, K-9 said:

Sammy is the egg man.

 

Goo goo g’joob.

And Star is the walrus

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

29 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

 

The opposite is interesting as well. 

 

Star is much worse comparatively and surrounding Allen with talent should be more of a priority than a run stopper. Run stopping DT is not a hard thing to find, but he’s our highest paid player. Star is a replacement level player AT BEST. 

 

thanks for bringing this up. 

 

Interesting, we could afford both btw.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Chemical

[HappyDays]

53 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according to some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

 

A couple people in the thread also think Mitch Morse was a bad signing because he has a history of concussions. 

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is crazy.  We've talked about all kinds of things.   

 

I find it interesting that according to some people McBeane got BOTH of these things wrong:

 

They didn't pay Watkins $14 million or more (SEVENTH IN THE LEAGUE) for mediocre receiver performance and lousy locker room presence.

 

They did pay Lotulelei $10 million (13th in the league and $4 million less than Dareus) for mediocre defensive tackle performance and good locker room presence.  

 

Um, position value dude?

[mannc]

4 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Um, position value dude?

You’re not seriously suggesting that run-plugging DTs have a higher positional value than WRs are you?

[beerme1]

Opened this thread for the first time in a long time and we're talkin about Sammy Watkins. Sammy Watkins! Why? Because we're Buffalo? Cripes let's move on shall we. Sammy's got nothing to do with us now or in the future. Now maybe the exploits of Percy Harvin or even better Richie is someone we could talk about. ?

Onward gents. 2019 now. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by beerme1

[Coach Tuesday]

15 minutes ago, mannc said:

You’re not seriously suggesting that run-plugging DTs have a higher positional value than WRs are you?

 

The opposite.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

18 minutes ago, beerme1 said:

Opened this thread for the first time in a long time and we're talkin about Sammy Watkins. Sammy Watkins! Why? Because we're Buffalo? Cripes let's move on shall we. Sammy's got nothing to do with us now or in the future. Now maybe the exploits of Percy Harvin or even better Richie is someone we could talk about. ?

Onward gents. 2019 now. 

 

Can’t evaluate a trade immediately but when you try to a couple years later you get told to move on. 

 

Turns out the Rams got one year of Sammy Watkins for a 2nd round pick. They received a comp 3rd when he left. So essentially a late 2nd for late 3rd swap to surround their young QB with more receiver talent in a critical point in his development. 

 

This is is the kind of perspective you don’t have until later on. Maybe a team with a first time head coach and young QB who turned it around and made the super bowl in two years is actually relevant to a discussion of how the Bills have been/should be built. 

 

Thanks for your contribution though

[mannc]

19 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

The opposite.

Gotcha?

[Thurman#1]

19 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

I have no ax to grind wrt Sammy, other than the fact that I hated the trade to draft him.

 

That said, Sammy is 10x more talented than Zay Jones at every aspect single aspect of the wide receiver position.

 

I took guitar lessons yeas ago and still have a nice acoustic I play around with every now and then. Let us not compare me to Jerry Garcia.

 

 

There's no sense in making the analogy of Zay is to Watkins as you are to Garcia. More like Zay is to Watkins as the guitarist of Fish is to Garcia. Zay is in the top hundred WRs in the world right now. I'm guessing you don't fit at that level as a guitarist. (If you're in the top hundred, tell me, and I'll take it all back.

 

10x more talented simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

Watkins didn't have more yards or TDs than Zay did last year. And yet Watkins made about 20x Zay's salary. Getting rid of Sammy was whip-smart GMing, especially as it helped bring in Josh Allen.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Thurman#1