If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
There is work to be done and things to be learned. We are going to try to get the old look back - or something close to it. We also know there are bugs. A thread will be started to report bugs and then we can pass those onto the host.
Thank you for all the patience and support with this - hopefully this will greatly reduce the crashes and other site issues we have had lately.
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
Basically, Watkins not only has to outperform the rest of very deep, talented wide receiver draft class, but do it at such a level that makes it worth giving up a high-round selection in next year's draft, too.
this is why i would have preferred they didnt make the deal. i mean i think they HAD to do the deal given the ownership situation, but i still wish they hadnt. watkins has to be super-good for this to work out in the bills favor. he might end up being that guy and that would make it the correct move. however, its just a lot more likely they could have got better overall value by staying where they were and taking someone like evans or whatshisname the TE and save next years first
I still like the trade in what seemed like a promising off-season. The Bills viewed a ceratin unique talent which presented opportunities to use him in different looks.
The argument against is saying the Bills could have stayed put and had Beckham Jr... as if he's the exact same player in talent, size, ability etc. That logic never works.
If Whaley/Marrone had their focus on Watkins as a player who would benefit Manuel more than the others for some time prior to the draft, then they did their job. I care more about the present, not 2015.
The old way didn't move us up in the win column.
Anonymity is an abused privilege, abused most by people who mistake vitriol for wisdom and cynicism for wit
Sometimes trading up for a receiver can be a good thing. In 1985 the 49ers traded up from 28 to 16 to get some small school receiver. The 49ers gave up picks 28, 56 and 84 for picks 16 and 75. They regretted it. They, of course, are the NE Patriots who dropped down 12 spots and took Trevor Matich with pick 28 after they traded the pick that the 49ers used on Jerry Rice.
Contrary to a bunch of cooked up theories by the authors who are against trade ups, I'm always in favor of trading up rather than trading down unless the team is 99% positive that the player they want will still be there when they draft at the lower position (like the Bills did last year). The main reason why I'm so much more in favor of trading up: You know who the player is that you are trading up for. In most cases, a trade down is a pig in a poke-You don't know who will be left on the board when you pick. If you are confident in your scouting-and if you're not you shouldn't be a GM-then when you trade up, you should always have an advantage because, as I just stated, you know the player you're getting.
Sometimes trading up for a receiver can be a good thing. In 1985 the 49ers traded up from 28 to 16 to get some small school receiver. The 49ers gave up picks 28, 56 and 84 for picks 16 and 75. They regretted it. They, of course, are the NE Patriots who dropped down 12 spots and took Trevor Matich with pick 28 after they traded the pick that the 49ers used on Jerry Rice.
Contrary to a bunch of cooked up theories by the authors who are against trade ups, I'm always in favor of trading up rather than trading down unless the team is 99% positive that the player they want will still be there when they draft at the lower position (like the Bills did last year). The main reason why I'm so much more in favor of trading up: You know who the player is that you are trading up for. In most cases, a trade down is a pig in a poke-You don't know who will be left on the board when you pick. If you are confident in your scouting-and if you're not you shouldn't be a GM-then when you trade up, you should always have an advantage because, as I just stated, you know the player you're getting.
Agreed. Plus trading down means you're open to multiple players at different positions, since your needs are numerous.
The Bills had solved a lot of their depth issues via FA,trade or draft the last 2 years. Since they made a commitment to Manuel for another 1-2 years, they focused on the best playmaker available in the draft. The overall depth on paper now looks acceptable.
Anonymity is an abused privilege, abused most by people who mistake vitriol for wisdom and cynicism for wit
Obviously I hope it works out and I have been very very reluctant to criticize the move because I think I understand the reasons it was made.
But the article pretty much confirms what I've always thought about the draft. I was hoping we'd trade down not up. What's done is done. The article does concede that despite the odds it could still work out in our favor. Have to remain hopeful.
I still like the trade in what seemed like a promising off-season. The Bills viewed a ceratin unique talent which presented opportunities to use him in different looks.
The argument against is saying the Bills could have stayed put and had Beckham Jr... as if he's the exact same player in talent, size, ability etc. That logic never works.
If Whaley/Marrone had their focus on Watkins as a player who would benefit Manuel more than the others for some time prior to the draft, then they did their job. I care more about the present, not 2015.
The old way didn't move us up in the win column.
Actually Beckham is a very similar receiver to Watkins. Not at the same level in college but very similar traits. Both are RAC guys, both are hands catchers, both extend well for the ball outside their bodyframe, both are valuable on KR/PR. Both are not very tall WRs.
It will be interesting to see who has the better rookie year.
I still like the trade in what seemed like a promising off-season. The Bills viewed a ceratin unique talent which presented opportunities to use him in different looks.
The argument against is saying the Bills could have stayed put and had Beckham Jr... as if he's the exact same player in talent, size, ability etc. That logic never works.
If Whaley/Marrone had their focus on Watkins as a player who would benefit Manuel more than the others for some time prior to the draft, then they did their job. I care more about the present, not 2015.
The old way didn't move us up in the win column.
I think you missed the point.
They never said we could get the exact same player at 9. They said the difference between what we could have gotten at 9 and Watkins is far less than what we paid to move up.
Watkins had 100 receptions for almost 1500 yards and 12 TD's in SEC against the best competition who I assume would have been gameplanning for him specifically. AJ Green had in his best season like 60 receptions for maybe 1000 yards and under 10 tds. I'm not saying that Watkins will be Green or better than Green but the article says:
But while Watkins was generally considered the best wide receiver in the draft, he wasn't an otherworldly talent in the mold of Calvin Johnson or A.J. Green
How can they know that? Looking at the numbers I don't see how that argument can be made already. The article also assumes that it will be a high 1st round pick. History indicates that this is probably right but way too early to tell.
Sometimes trading up for a receiver can be a good thing. In 1985 the 49ers traded up from 28 to 16 to get some small school receiver. The 49ers gave up picks 28, 56 and 84 for picks 16 and 75. They regretted it. They, of course, are the NE Patriots who dropped down 12 spots and took Trevor Matich with pick 28 after they traded the pick that the 49ers used on Jerry Rice.
Contrary to a bunch of cooked up theories by the authors who are against trade ups, I'm always in favor of trading up rather than trading down unless the team is 99% positive that the player they want will still be there when they draft at the lower position (like the Bills did last year). The main reason why I'm so much more in favor of trading up: You know who the player is that you are trading up for. In most cases, a trade down is a pig in a poke-You don't know who will be left on the board when you pick. If you are confident in your scouting-and if you're not you shouldn't be a GM-then when you trade up, you should always have an advantage because, as I just stated, you know the player you're getting.
I don't mind trading up. But I'm against giving up 1st round picks for any player. The reason is simple: there are too many uncertainties in football that you could wind up really stinking it up; then you could miss a potential Andrew Luck type of guy.
This has to be an organizational rule. If I were an NFL team owner, I'd let my GM calling all shots directly except for 1) trade away 1st picks and 2) handing out biggest contract for any position - I'd need explanation for those 2 type of cases.
The Bills, from Brandon on and down, are in a unique situation this year. Instead of giving up two additional picks this year, they gave the Browns next year picks for obvious reasons. As a result, #1 pick next year had to be included.
In order for this move to work, Watkins has to be a unique talent, one of those guys that comes around every 5 years. Obviously Whaley feels that he is and is banking on it. Time will tell.
Lou Saban: You can get it done, you can get it done. And what’s more, you’ve gotta get it done.
Not really. It didn't say it was a bad move it said the stats say that it's a long shot to work out to the Bills advantage based on a statistical analysis of draft history. Past history isn't opinion it's fact.
Sometimes trading up for a receiver can be a good thing. In 1985 the 49ers traded up from 28 to 16 to get some small school receiver. The 49ers gave up picks 28, 56 and 84 for picks 16 and 75. They regretted it. They, of course, are the NE Patriots who dropped down 12 spots and took Trevor Matich with pick 28 after they traded the pick that the 49ers used on Jerry Rice.
Contrary to a bunch of cooked up theories by the authors who are against trade ups, I'm always in favor of trading up rather than trading down unless the team is 99% positive that the player they want will still be there when they draft at the lower position (like the Bills did last year). The main reason why I'm so much more in favor of trading up: You know who the player is that you are trading up for. In most cases, a trade down is a pig in a poke-You don't know who will be left on the board when you pick. If you are confident in your scouting-and if you're not you shouldn't be a GM-then when you trade up, you should always have an advantage because, as I just stated, you know the player you're getting.
So you went back 30 years to find the one example where it worked out. In that span, how many times did a trade up bite a team in the ass?
Tweet
Comment