Trade-up for Watkins discussed

[stuckincincy]

Was trading up for Sammy Watkins worth it? History says no
By Ryan Wilson | CBSSports.com May 22, 2014 11:56 am ET

Article about the pros and (mostly) cons of trading up in the draft...feel free to follow the usual M.O. and call the author names. :kid:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24569874/was-trading-up-for-sammy-watkins-worth-it-history-says-no

[Meathead]

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

water under the bridge now. nappy better be right

[Night Train]

Nothing is wrong with this article. It's opinion.

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.

[Albany,n.y.]

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.

[Night Train]

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.

[Bill Cody]

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.

[Mahdi]

Nothing is wrong with this article. It's opinion.

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.

[OpIv37]

Nothing is wrong with this article. It's opinion.

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.

[mightysimi]

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 (http://www.billszone.com/nfl/players/playerpage/502629/calvin-johnson) or A.J. Green (http://www.billszone.com/nfl/players/playerpage/1673207/aj-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.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

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.

[Ginger Vitis]

Watkins had 100 receptions for almost 1500 yards and 12 TD's in SEC


Watkins played in the ACC which in IMO was the 3rd best conference in college football not too far behind the SEC

[mightysimi]

Watkins played in the ACC which in IMO was the 3rd best conference in college football not too far behind the SEC

Haha I was thinking ACC and typing SEC. Either way those stats aren't anything to scoff at.

[Turf]

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.

[Bill Cody]

Nothing is wrong with this article. It's opinion.



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.

[OpIv37]

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?

It's using the exception to prove the rule.

[Woodman]

The Bills got the best player so it works for me.

Welcome to Buffalo Sammy Watkins!!!!

[better days]

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.

I don't remember ANYONE before the draft saying Beckham was ALMOST as good as Watkins or worth the #9 pick.

He moved up in the draft because of the combine to go #12 to the Giants.

Beckham is NOT 6' tall, weighs less than 200 lbs.

In other words, similar to what the Bills already had on the roster.

The Bills moved up to get the consensus BEST WR in the draft & possibly the best offensive player in the draft.

The distance between Watkins & Beckham is the same distance I see when I go to the beach, wide as the Gulf of Mexico.

[OpIv37]

I don't remember ANYONE before the draft saying Beckham was ALMOST as good as Watkins or worth the #9 pick.

He moved up in the draft because of the combine to go #12 to the Giants.

Beckham is NOT 6' tall, weighs less than 200 lbs.

In other words, similar to what the Bills already had on the roster.

The Bills moved up to get the consensus BEST WR in the draft & possibly the best offensive player in the draft.

The distance between Watkins & Beckham is the same distance I see when I go to the beach, wide as the Gulf of Mexico.
Well you have your opinion and they have theirs. Time will tell who is right.

I think Watkins will be a good player but I have a really hard time buying tha the difference between him and who we would have drafted if we stayed at 9 is worth next year's first.

There might be 20 guys in the entire NFL right now who are worth two firsts, and most of those are QB's. Watkins is going to have to be truly elite for this trade to make sense.

[JoeMama]

Was trading up for Sammy Watkins worth it? History says no
By Ryan Wilson | CBSSports.com May 22, 2014 11:56 am ET

Article about the pros and (mostly) cons of trading up in the draft...feel free to follow the usual M.O. and call the author names. :kid:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24569874/was-trading-up-for-sammy-watkins-worth-it-history-says-no

OK you just sit there in your ivory tower with your ginger quarterback who can't deliver in the playoffs (despite having AJ Green) and dole out life lessons about draftees even though you have Akili Smith and David Klingler under your belt.

We took a chance on a WR who could be a monster. Let the cards fall where they may.

[better days]

Well you have your opinion and they have theirs. Time will tell who is right.

I think Watkins will be a good player but I have a really hard time buying tha the difference between him and who we would have drafted if we stayed at 9 is worth next year's first.

There might be 20 guys in the entire NFL right now who are worth two firsts, and most of those are QB's. Watkins is going to have to be truly elite for this trade to make sense.

I agree, Watkins will have to be elite for the draft to make sense.

ALL of the pre draft talk about him said he was sure to be that.

And Beckham's SIZE is not my opinion, that is FACT.

As I said the Bills already had similar WR's on the roster

[Mr. Pink]

Watkins was the only player in this draft that made sense to move up and break the bank for.

Unsure if a team who has a desperate need for a legitimate NFL caliber QB is the team who should have done it but there is no denying Watkins is going to be a special player.

[stuckincincy]

OK you just sit there in your ivory tower with your ginger quarterback who can't deliver in the playoffs (despite having AJ Green) and dole out life lessons about draftees even though you have Akili Smith and David Klingler under your belt.

We took a chance on a WR who could be a monster. Let the cards fall where they may.

MY ginger quarterback? I was in favor of the B'gals leaving town way back when. I still wish they'd pack up and leave. Regarding Dalton, pose your comments to coach-for-life Marvin Lewis and former HC "Punkinhead' Gruden, who felt that tossing around 50 passes in each of three playoff games was a bright idea. Regarding Green - very nice player - marginal pattern runner.

P.S. I didn't write the article. Feel free to send him a note.

[billser]

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.

I disagree w this statement. Part of the reason you trade up is to get a much higher chance of getting a good player. I'm sure one of the other 500 receivers chosen will live up to some potential and out perform watkins...doesn't make the trade up a bad move so long as Watkins performs well. We traded up for the higher likelihood that watkins would b great.

[The Jokeman]

The Bills got the best player so it works for me.

Welcome to Buffalo Sammy Watkins!!!!

The problem is the draft is about getting the best collection of players and if Watkins out performs CB Justin Gilbert, WR Amari Cooper (a guy ranked around 16th best based on most mock and someone Cleveland could be looking for with the questions they have at WR) and player X (our 4th Rounder in 215) only then will be be a worthwhile trade.

[X-Era]

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

water under the bridge now. nappy better be rightThis is all based on what the perceived depth of the draft was?

They moved up for an elite prospect and one that IMO is one of the best WR prospects in a decade. The value of the prospect is not diminished because their were lot's of other WR prospects. It's individual. It's what the individual may add that sets the worth. To me there was only 1 maybe 2 elite WR prospects. To get the top guy we had to move up and would very likely have to move up to get a prospect of this caliber in any draft when we pick at 9.

[better days]

The problem is the draft is about getting the best collection of players and if Watkins out performs CB Justin Gilbert, WR Amari Cooper (a guy ranked around 16th best based on most mock and someone Cleveland could be looking for with the questions they have at WR) and player X (our 4th Rounder in 215) only then will be be a worthwhile trade.

If the Bills make the playoffs this year for the first time in forever & continue to do so in the coming years, then this will be a worthwhile trade.

[YardRat]

Only time will tell...if Watkins fails to live up to expectations, many will be able to say 'I told you so'. If he explodes and becomes a borderline or definite HOFer, 31 other teams' fans will be screaming 'We should have given up three first-rounders to get him'.

[OpIv37]

Only time will tell...if Watkins fails to live up to expectations, many will be able to say 'I told you so'. If he explodes and becomes a borderline or definite HOFer, 31 other teams' fans will be screaming 'We should have given up three first-rounders to get him'.
You just described the nature of any gamble.

I could drive down 295 to the casino in Arundel Mills and put every penny to my name on a spin of roulette. If I lose, I'm the biggest dumbass ever. And a broke dumbass at that. If I win, I'm a genius.

That's how a gamble works.

[Mace]

It was a totally stupid trade and one people will be backing away from cringing like weeping children for years, or cheering for with fists pumping for the same years.

I think it was a really stupid trade and we gained an awesome wide receiver who won't win a crap. I'm going to bounce back to the awesome running back, CJ Spiller who we didn't trade anything for, who remains an awesome CJ Spiller we couldn't do a crap with, and everyone yelled at me on a diff board for saying it.

Watkins can be the shiznit for a decade and so what. I'm going to point back yet again at Julio Jones, drafted by a playoff team, was awesome, gained them not a crap, got hurt and they folded, and they had a Matt Schaub.

But he got hurt !!!! Well damn go figure, welcome to 4-12 land, we live there and boo hoo it was such a booming success.

[Woodman]

The problem is the draft is about getting the best collection of players and if Watkins out performs CB Justin Gilbert, WR Amari Cooper (a guy ranked around 16th best based on most mock and someone Cleveland could be looking for with the questions they have at WR) and player X (our 4th Rounder in 215) only then will be be a worthwhile trade.

No worries Watkins is the best thing to hit Buffalo in many years.

I just don't see this as anything but a huge win for the Bills.

I judge this trade worthwhile right now.

[better days]

The way people talk about mortgaging the future for Watkins, you would think Whaley gave up the first pick in the draft for the next 10 years.

He gave up the first & fourth next year. That is ALL.

A gamble to be sure, but it is not a HUGE gamble.

[sudzy]

If the Bills make the playoffs this year for the first time in forever & continue to do so in the coming years, then this will be a worthwhile trade.

I'll agree with that. But, if the pick ends up being in the top 5. Then it was a dumb trade.

[YardRat]

I dunno...anytime you use multiple valuable assets on a single risk, it becomes a huge gamble to me.

[Jan Reimers]

After 14 futile, mediocre, and horribly depressing years, the future MUST be NOW. I'm all in on taking the big gamble.

[TacklingDummy]

You just described the nature of any gamble.

I could drive down 295 to the casino in Arundel Mills and put every penny to my name on a spin of roulette. If I lose, I'm the biggest dumbass ever. And a broke dumbass at that. If I win, I'm a genius.

That's how a gamble works.
Every penny you have plus your next 5 years paychecks.

[Jan Reimers]

Why don't we just play it safe for the next 14 seasons, then, and set the all-time record for playoff-less futility?

[better days]

I dunno...anytime you use multiple valuable assets on a single risk, it becomes a huge gamble to me.

THREE first rnd picks & a second like the Skins paid the Rams for RGIII is a HUGE gamble to me.

If RGIII becomes a franchise QB it will be a gamble that paid off. If not, that trade will blow up in their face.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

It will make for some interesting times in 2019 when we hear the excuses for not re-signing Watkins, that's for sure.

[TacklingDummy]

Why don't we just play it safe for the next 14 seasons, then, and set the all-time record for playoff-less futility?

Is the record 27 years without playoffs?

More than halfway there.

[better days]

It will make for some interesting times in 2019 when we hear the excuses for not re-signing Watkins, that's for sure.

So already, before he owns the team, the new Bills owner has the past he had nothing to do with thrown in his face. LMAO.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

So already, before he owns the team, the new Bills owner has the past he had nothing to do with thrown in his face. LMAO.

I was referring more to the fanbase, but fair enough.

[TacklingDummy]

It will make for some interesting times in 2019 when we hear the excuses for not re-signing Watkins, that's for sure.

He might not be worth re-signing, like Lee Evans.

[better days]

He might not be worth re-signing, like Lee Evans.

If that is the case, Whaley would need to be fired.

I don't thank that will be the case however.

I think Watkins will be talked about as the next Andre Reed or James Lofton.

[better days]

The Bills were # 22 in the NFL in points scored last year with 21.19 points per game.

If Watkins can help them get one more TD per game they will vault to the top of the NFL with the Broncos, Pats* & Eagles.