Watkins Injured v. Browns/CJ Eligible to return

[JohnnyGold]

Two things to keep an eye on at practice this week:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11964606/sammy-watkins-buffalo-bills-dealing-hip-injury?ex_cid=espnapi_public

Watkins doesn't sound like he'll be out v. Denver, but may be limited in practice this week.

CJ is eligible to return to practice on Wednesday... will be interesting to see if he is ready to go again. Getting him back for this stretch would be absolutely amazing--cross your fingers!

[YardRat]

Jeezums Christmas, has this guy been 100% healthy for any game this season?

[WagonCircler]

Jeezums Christmas, has this guy been 100% healthy for any game this season?

Yet another reason that you don't spend two #1s and a #4 on one guy.

[TacklingDummy]

I'd claim I was injured too if I have been ineffective for several weeks now.

[Fletch]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/01/sammy-watkins-dealing-with-hip-injury/


I'd claim I was injured too if I have been ineffective for several weeks now.

5 weeks now. But 8 of 12 weeks total while Hogan and Woods have been picking up the slack.

First ribs, then a groin, now a hip. Maybe the CFL would be a better fit.

4 games against the Jets, Minnesota, Miami, and Detroit: 27 catches for 483 yards, 4 TDs and a 17.9 ypr average. Game averages of 7 catches, 121 yards, and 1 TD.

8 other games: 24 catches for 212 yards, 8.8 ypr, 1 TD for game averages of 3 catches for 27 yards and 0 TDs.

I won't bother posting his comps against his rookie peers.

Hopefully he snaps out of this crap and stops getting injured. It's not like he's been taking any more of a beating than any of the other WRs or anything.

Sounds like he's following in Spiller's footsteps on all counts right now though.

[BillsImpossible]

Yet another reason that you don't spend two #1s and a #4 on one guy.

Oh come on, you're not being fair when you say the Bills gave up two first round picks.

The Bills gave up next year's 2015 1st and 4th round draft picks to move up in the 1st round. They did draft in the first round, correct?

Looks like the Bills are going to finish no worse than 8-8, which means the Browns will be getting a middle of the first round draft pick at best.

That's the 16th pick in the draft, which I think is well worth giving up to get the kind of talent Sammy Watkins has.

Without Sammy Watkins, the Bills wouldn't be 7-5 right now.

[BillsImpossible]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/01/sammy-watkins-dealing-with-hip-injury/



5 weeks now. But 8 of 12 weeks total while Hogan and Woods have been picking up the slack.

First ribs, then a groin, now a hip. Maybe the CFL would be a better fit.

4 games against the Jets, Minnesota, Miami, and Detroit: 27 catches for 483 yards, 4 TDs and a 17.9 ypr average. Game averages of 7 catches, 121 yards, and 1 TD.

8 other games: 24 catches for 212 yards, 8.8 ypr, 1 TD for game averages of 3 catches for 27 yards and 0 TDs.

I won't bother posting his comps against his rookie peers.

Hopefully he snaps out of this crap and stops getting injured. It's not like he's been taking any more of a beating than any of the other WRs or anything.

Sounds like he's following in Spiller's footsteps on all counts right now though.

Why are you always so negative?

I swear, even if the Bills won the Super Bowl you'd still post something negative.

'Maybe the CFL would be a better fit.'

Wow, can't believe you said that.

[YardRat]

Part of the reason for his dip in production is teams have probably been game-planning against him specifically, especially since the NE game. (I know for a fact some have, but haven't paid close enough attention in a couple of games to say all definitely have, as opposed to probably). That's also probably part of the reason Woods and Hogan's numbers have gone up. If he truly is injured, that is certainly a factor also. As far as getting beaten on, the only reported injury (as far as I know) that resulted from contact was the ribs.

[WagonCircler]

Oh come on, you're not being fair when you say the Bills gave up two first round picks.

The Bills gave up next year's 2015 1st and 4th round draft picks to move up in the 1st round. They did draft in the first round, correct?.

This is the most ridiculous, insane argument I've ever heard, and I see it here over and over.

Pretend there's a ledger.

On one side, you have the acquisition. Sammy Watkins........................On the other side, the expenditure. 2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick.

At the beginning of the day, you had "2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick." in your pocket.

At the end of the day, you no longer had those. But you had Sammy Watkins.

The price to acquire Sammy Watkins was "2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick."

There's really nothing to argue about here. It's simple math.

By contrast, let's say we had chosen, instead to draft player X, rather than Sammy Watkins.

We would not have needed to spend the 2015 First Round Draft Choice, nor the 2015 Fourth Round Draft Choice.

We would simply have spent our 2014 First Round Draft Choice.

And at the end of the transaction, we would have Player X, plus next year's 2015 1st and 4th round draft picks.

This logic is infallible, airtight, inarguable.

[Fletch]

Why are you always so negative?

I swear, even if the Bills won the Super Bowl you'd still post something negative.

'Maybe the CFL would be a better fit.'

Wow, can't believe you said that.

It's just about all facts.

Which ones bother you?

[Fletch]

Part of the reason for his dip in production is teams have probably been game-planning against him specifically, especially since the NE game. (I know for a fact some have, but haven't paid close enough attention in a couple of games to say all definitely have, as opposed to probably). That's also probably part of the reason Woods and Hogan's numbers have gone up. If he truly is injured, that is certainly a factor also. As far as getting beaten on, the only reported injury (as far as I know) that resulted from contact was the ribs.

Right, like when Revis and Haden were on him 1-on-1 for most of the game. Not like those guys ever take on the best WRs on other teams or anything.

Oh yeah, what about the other 6 games that he did nothing?

Do you really believe that stuff? Nothing but excuses from you on him. Game planning, then injuries, then double-coverages, then injuries, then poor QB. What did I forget?

You say these things as if you don't watch any other games besides ours and think that these things are unusual in this league.

[Downinfloflo]

I'd claim I was injured too if I had Kyle Orton and E.J Manuel as my QB.

You're right.

[SquishDaFish]

They didnt give up a 1st in 2014 they SWAPPED 1sts BIG DIFFERENCE

[Fletch]

They didnt give up a 1st in 2014 they SWAPPED 1sts BIG DIFFERENCE

So your argument is that they didn't use the 1st that they swapped?

Seriously people.

[Fletch]

This is the most ridiculous, insane argument I've ever heard, and I see it here over and over.

Pretend there's a ledger.

On one side, you have the acquisition. Sammy Watkins........................On the other side, the expenditure. 2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick.

At the beginning of the day, you had "2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick." in your pocket.

At the end of the day, you no longer had those. But you had Sammy Watkins.

The price to acquire Sammy Watkins was "2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick."

There's really nothing to argue about here. It's simple math.

By contrast, let's say we had chosen, instead to draft player X, rather than Sammy Watkins.

We would not have needed to spend the 2015 First Round Draft Choice, nor the 2015 Fourth Round Draft Choice.

We would simply have spent our 2014 First Round Draft Choice.

And at the end of the transaction, we would have Player X, plus next year's 2015 1st and 4th round draft picks.

This logic is infallible, airtight, inarguable.

You know, I wouldn't even bother trying to explain it anymore.

Let's just insist that Maybin, Whitner, Spiller, etc. were all free picks that didn't cost us a draft pick.

Maybe we can get a free pick in the 1st round in next year's draft just by showing up to the draft for round 1 too. Same logic.

[don137]

Big difference between giving up two first round picks and exchanging picks and giving up an extra pick. The Sabres picked up a first and second round pick from the Islanders for Vanek. The Sabres did not give up any picks. That's giving up two picks.

My issue is two things. One Watkins seems hurt too much. Two, Just like Spiller Hackett doesn't seem to know what to do with him. They are barely going to him. Why trade for a guy and use him as a decoy? Management took an aggressive approach getting Watkins but the coaching staff are very conservative utilizing him.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Guys, Sammy cost us 2 1st round picks and a 4th. A moment before we acquired him, we had 2 1sts and a 4th, then after we got him we didn't. You have to assign value to the draft spot you took a player, otherwise you can say that a 1st rounder and a 7th rounder cost the Bills the same amount. This is simply not true.

Technically, Sammy cost us a 1st round pick, 4th overall. That 4th overall pick cost us a 2014 1st round pick, a 2015 1st round pick, and a 2014(2015?) 4th round pick.

[Forward_Lateral]

Are they going to activate Spiller?

[JohnnyGold]

This is the most ridiculous, insane argument I've ever heard, and I see it here over and over.

Pretend there's a ledger.

On one side, you have the acquisition. Sammy Watkins........................On the other side, the expenditure. 2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick.

At the beginning of the day, you had "2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick." in your pocket.

At the end of the day, you no longer had those. But you had Sammy Watkins.

The price to acquire Sammy Watkins was "2014 First Round Pick. 2015 First Round Pick. 2015 Fourth Round Pick."

There's really nothing to argue about here. It's simple math.

By contrast, let's say we had chosen, instead to draft player X, rather than Sammy Watkins.

We would not have needed to spend the 2015 First Round Draft Choice, nor the 2015 Fourth Round Draft Choice.

We would simply have spent our 2014 First Round Draft Choice.

And at the end of the transaction, we would have Player X, plus next year's 2015 1st and 4th round draft picks.

This logic is infallible, airtight, inarguable.

This logic is anything but infallible.

The NFL draft is not a zero sum-game--it is a scenario where each team has a finite amount of resources to spend on a (nearly) infinite number of options.

I have struggled all morning to come up with an analogous relationship from the financial sector, and I think it might be impossible to do so: because really, professional sports drafts are unique in their construction. But in it's simplest terms, a pick "used" is not a pick "spent" as every team ALSO has a first round pick. Essentially, as the purchaser, you are not "giving anything up", because that term comes with the connotation that "spending" a first round pick means that you are making a decision independent of your 31 competitors. You are not. That pick must be used on a player at some point in time--and it always will be. Someone, no matter which team it is, will always pick 4th in the NFL draft.

However, anything given up in addition to that pick, can be deemed "a cost". In this case, next years first and fourth, are the "cost" of that Watkins trade.

You can argue semantics all you like, but from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, you are simply wrong. There are no two ways about it, your logic is not air tight or infallible, it's just incorrect. Sorry.

Sammy Watkins "cost" us 2 draft picks this coming season.

Sammy Watkins is "worth" 3 draft picks.

[Joe Fo Sho]

This logic is anything but infallible.

The NFL draft is not a zero sum-game--it is a scenario where each team has a finite amount of resources to spend on a (nearly) infinite number of options.

I have struggled all morning to come up with an analogous relationship from the financial sector, and I think it might be impossible to do so: because really, professional sports drafts are unique in their construction. But in it's simplest terms, a pick "used" is not a pick "spent" as every team ALSO has a first round pick. Essentially, as the purchaser, you are not "giving anything up", because that term comes with the connotation that "spending" a first round pick means that you are making a decision independent of your 31 competitors. You are not. That pick must be used on a player at some point in time--and it always will be. Someone, no matter which team it is, will always pick 4th in the NFL draft.

However, anything given up in addition to that pick, can be deemed "a cost". In this case, next years first and fourth, are the "cost" of that Watkins trade.

You can argue semantics all you like, but from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, you are simply wrong. There are no two ways about it, your logic is not air tight or infallible, it's just incorrect. Sorry.

Sammy Watkins "cost" us 2 draft picks this coming season.

Sammy Watkins is "worth" 3 draft picks.

You absolutely are 'giving something up' when you use a draft selection. That draft pick has value, that you can use a spend how you see fit. You can trade it for a player, you can even trade it for a coach, or you can draft a player with it. If you're the Patriots, you can use it to pay for how you cheated.

Draft picks have to hold value, otherwise a 1st round pick would be the same as a 7th round pick. This isn't how it works.

[Fletch]

Big difference between giving up two first round picks and exchanging picks and giving up an extra pick. The Sabres picked up a first and second round pick from the Islanders for Vanek. The Sabres did not give up any picks. That's giving up two picks.

My issue is two things. One Watkins seems hurt too much. Two, Just like Spiller Hackett doesn't seem to know what to do with him. They are barely going to him. Why trade for a guy and use him as a decoy? Management took an aggressive approach getting Watkins but the coaching staff are very conservative utilizing him.

Why is it that the coaches don't know how to use them and not that the players just weren't as advertised? At least why isn't that a possiblity?

That's the way I see it on both. Do you have any idea what it takes for a WR to live up to the hype that Watkins' draft status had him as? I mean he would have had to have been top-5 at least to match it. One clue is that whenever Watkins has been covered by decent CBs he hasn't done anything at all generally speaking. Everyone says he's been double-covered constantly, but that's far from the truth. In fact he's been single-covered against decent CBs. His speed, agility, size, strength, power, etc. just hasn't allowed him to do what all the media draft people said it would. Big shock there, as if that never happens.

Meanwhile, if it's the coaching, then how come they're getting so much from Hogan, who wasn't even guaranteed to make a roster spot? Woods, who on paper is a fraction of the WR that Watkins is isn't far behind in production. Why? OK, so it's the coverage. My point has been made if that's the answer. Watkins just isn't as good as his pre-draft pub said he was, just like Spiller. They came from the same program, imagine that.

Regarding the two picks part of your post, are you suggesting that the 4th we got from Cleveland wasn't used to get Watkins?

If it was, then acquiring him cost us that pick, plus this year's 1st and 4th. That's two 1st-rounders and a 4th.

[Fletch]

This logic is anything but infallible.

The NFL draft is not a zero sum-game--it is a scenario where each team has a finite amount of resources to spend on a (nearly) infinite number of options.

I have struggled all morning to come up with an analogous relationship from the financial sector, and I think it might be impossible to do so: because really, professional sports drafts are unique in their construction. But in it's simplest terms, a pick "used" is not a pick "spent" as every team ALSO has a first round pick. Essentially, as the purchaser, you are not "giving anything up", because that term comes with the connotation that "spending" a first round pick means that you are making a decision independent of your 31 competitors. You are not. That pick must be used on a player at some point in time--and it always will be. Someone, no matter which team it is, will always pick 4th in the NFL draft.

However, anything given up in addition to that pick, can be deemed "a cost". In this case, next years first and fourth, are the "cost" of that Watkins trade.

You can argue semantics all you like, but from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, you are simply wrong. There are no two ways about it, your logic is not air tight or infallible, it's just incorrect. Sorry.

Sammy Watkins "cost" us 2 draft picks this coming season.

Sammy Watkins is "worth" 3 draft picks.

I'll put it into financial terms for you.

You have two options for capital improvement. One costs x-dollars, the other costs x-dollars plus you then have to take out a loan for x-plus-some-other-amount of dollars on top of that. You choose the latter option.

At the end of the day, if you realize that you could have done better that by spending even less than x-dollars, or for the original x-dollars you could have realized an even bigger return on your investment, clearly that would have made sense.

It does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you got something less than what you could have had without taking out that loan, still have that loan to repay, and spent x-dollars plus have a loan to repay for x-plus-some-other-amount. The cost of that decision was 2 times x-dollars plus that other amount, plus interest financially speaking which we do not have to account for in the analogy.

What you're saying is that we would have used that pick for a WR anyway by others' arguments and that the cost of that shouldn't be factored in, which I can see your point, but the reality is that we spent that 2 times x-dollars and then some when we could have traded down, gotten an even better player, and a whole lotta cash as well.

Make sense? There were so many good WRs available in this draft that we could have had a very good one in the 2nd easily. Late 1st for sure.

Either way, at this point it's debatable whether Watkins is even worth a 32nd overall (last pick of the 1st round) much less anything more. He hasn't played like a 1st-round pick. We can make all the excuses we want to, injuries, QB (which doesn't seem to affect Hogan or Woods), Coaching (same there), coverages, etc., but that doesn't pay off that loan that we took out.

We'll see how things shake out next season, but one injury for Watkins, or another season of highly inconsistent, less than 35 yards 2/3 of the time, or even 1/3 of the time, and it's going to be a tough argument for anyone to be saying that he was even worth a 1st anywhere. Sure, we can wait four or five seasons to see where he is, but that's not why we gave up what we did to get him, just ask Whaley, who assured us that Watkins was the missing piece to making the playoffs. That's been far from the case. We won't make the playoffs even, but the only reason why we're here is because our D is tenacious, ... only against teams with average or worse offenses I'll add, which is why we won't make the playoffs.

[Bulldog]

Why is it that the coaches don't know how to use them and not that the players just weren't as advertised? At least why isn't that a possiblity?

That's the way I see it on both. Do you have any idea what it takes for a WR to live up to the hype that Watkins' draft status had him as? I mean he would have had to have been top-5 at least to match it. One clue is that whenever Watkins has been covered by decent CBs he hasn't done anything at all generally speaking. Everyone says he's been double-covered constantly, but that's far from the truth. In fact he's been single-covered against decent CBs. His speed, agility, size, strength, power, etc. just hasn't allowed him to do what all the media draft people said it would. Big shock there, as if that never happens.

Meanwhile, if it's the coaching, then how come they're getting so much from Hogan, who wasn't even guaranteed to make a roster spot? Woods, who on paper is a fraction of the WR that Watkins is isn't far behind in production. Why? OK, so it's the coverage. My point has been made if that's the answer. Watkins just isn't as good as his pre-draft pub said he was, just like Spiller. They came from the same program, imagine that.

Regarding the two picks part of your post, are you suggesting that the 4th we got from Cleveland wasn't used to get Watkins?

If it was, then acquiring him cost us that pick, plus this year's 1st and 4th. That's two 1st-rounders and a 4th.

Really, because I could probably show you about ten plays where Watkins has absolutely destroyed the coverage and for some reason neither EJ or Kyle can seem to locate him. But that's all on Watkins right? And if you don't think he was good enough to go in the first round at all, then you're a bigger idiot than I originally thought.

[TacklingDummy]

Really, because I could probably show you about ten plays where Watkins has absolutely destroyed the coverage and for some reason neither EJ or Kyle can seem to locate him.the same could be said for Mike Evans, Odell, Calvin Johnson, basically every WR out there.

[trapezeus]

the same could be said for Mike Evans, Odell, Calvin Johnson, basically every WR out there.

but you actually can't (sans calvin johnson).

repeatedly the point is that this trade is hardly the one that should sink a FO. the trade for mike williams in more of a head scratcher. having a qb who needs to be coached up paired with an OC who doesn't know squat reflects poorly on the FO.

this teams failures have not been about personell, to me anyways. it's been how that personel has been used. and having 2 or 3 guys who cant get enough of saying the same thing over and over again won't change that underlying issue.

[WagonCircler]

This logic is anything but infallible.

The NFL draft is not a zero sum-game--it is a scenario where each team has a finite amount of resources to spend on a (nearly) infinite number of options..

It most certainly is.

It's very simple.

For further simplification, lets remove the specific rounds and think of a draft pick as one unit.

PLAYER:
Preston Brown
COST TO OBTAIN PLAYER:
One unit (One draft choice)

PLAYER:
Sammy Watkins
COST TO OBTAIN PLAYER:
Three units (Three draft choices)

Airtight logic.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

[JohnnyGold]

I'll put it into financial terms for you.

You have two options for capital improvement. One costs x-dollars, the other costs x-dollars plus you then have to take out a loan for x-plus-some-other-amount of dollars on top of that. You choose the latter option.

At the end of the day, if you realize that you could have done better that by spending even less than x-dollars, or for the original x-dollars you could have realized an even bigger return on your investment, clearly that would have made sense.

It does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you got something less than what you could have had without taking out that loan, still have that loan to repay, and spent x-dollars plus have a loan to repay for x-plus-some-other-amount. The cost of that decision was 2 times x-dollars plus that other amount, plus interest financially speaking which we do not have to account for in the analogy.

What you're saying is that we would have used that pick for a WR anyway by others' arguments and that the cost of that shouldn't be factored in, which I can see your point, but the reality is that we spent that 2 times x-dollars and then some when we could have traded down, gotten an even better player, and a whole lotta cash as well.

Make sense? There were so many good WRs available in this draft that we could have had a very good one in the 2nd easily. Late 1st for sure.

Either way, at this point it's debatable whether Watkins is even worth a 32nd overall (last pick of the 1st round) much less anything more. He hasn't played like a 1st-round pick. We can make all the excuses we want to, injuries, QB (which doesn't seem to affect Hogan or Woods), Coaching (same there), coverages, etc., but that doesn't pay off that loan that we took out.

We'll see how things shake out next season, but one injury for Watkins, or another season of highly inconsistent, less than 35 yards 2/3 of the time, or even 1/3 of the time, and it's going to be a tough argument for anyone to be saying that he was even worth a 1st anywhere. Sure, we can wait four or five seasons to see where he is, but that's not why we gave up what we did to get him, just ask Whaley, who assured us that Watkins was the missing piece to making the playoffs. That's been far from the case. We won't make the playoffs even, but the only reason why we're here is because our D is tenacious, ... only against teams with average or worse offenses I'll add, which is why we won't make the playoffs.

No, I think that's still wrong, because you're looking at the draft in a vacuum, as it seemingly only applies to the pick that the Buffalo Bills made.

The analogy of a loan falls short, because that is a financial decision that one elects to make--the NFL draft does not work like that. You have 7 picks a year, spread across 7 rounds. Leaving out compensatory picks for a second, lets do the math: 7 rounds x 32 teams = 224 young men drafted to play into the NFL.

No matter how much Bills fans gnash their teeth, stomp their feet and pout in the corner, the NFL is not going to cancel it's annual selection meeting.

Every team participates, and every team has (before trades) an equal number of picks. Using those picks does not "cost" you those picks. They are what you are slotted to use. Which is why the analogy of a loan falls short--the NFL is not loaning us anything, we have the draft pick to use. Just like every other team in the NFL. That's why all financial analogies fall short, because there is not a fiscal situation you can concoct where every player starts on equal footing...

If every team has an equal amount of resources to spend, and they were not required to give anything up to get them, then by nature, it did not "cost" any team anything to get those resources.

That point can not be refuted.

The word "cost" should be eliminated from this discussion, because it can not be used to convey the message that people are trying to get across.

The Buffalo Bills gave up 2 draft picks next year to use their draft pick this year on Sammy Watkins. Because the value of each side of the scale is measured in different terms, it makes reconciling next years picks with the one spent this year difficult, truly an apples and oranges equation.

[Joe Fo Sho]

No, I think that's still wrong, because you're looking at the draft in a vacuum, as it seemingly only applies to the pick that the Buffalo Bills made.

The analogy of a loan falls short, because that is a financial decision that one elects to make--the NFL draft does not work like that. You have 7 picks a year, spread across 7 rounds. Leaving out compensatory picks for a second, lets do the math: 7 rounds x 32 teams = 224 young men drafted to play into the NFL.

No matter how much Bills fans gnash their teeth, stomp their feet and pout in the corner, the NFL is not going to cancel it's annual selection meeting.

Every team participates, and every team has (before trades) an equal number of picks. Using those picks does not "cost" you those picks. They are what you are slotted to use. Which is why the analogy of a loan falls short--the NFL is not loaning us anything, we have the draft pick to use. Just like every other team in the NFL. That's why all financial analogies fall short, because there is not a fiscal situation you can concoct where every player starts on equal footing...

If every team has an equal amount of resources to spend, and they were not required to give anything up to get them, then by nature, it did not "cost" any team anything to get those resources.

That point can not be refuted.

The word "cost" should be eliminated from this discussion, because it can not be used to convey the message that people are trying to get across.

The Buffalo Bills gave up 2 draft picks next year to use their draft pick this year on Sammy Watkins. Because the value of each side of the scale is measured in different terms, it makes reconciling next years picks with the one spent this year difficult, truly an apples and oranges equation.

So you're happy if we say that the Bills USED/GAVE UP 3 draft picks on Sammy Watkins instead of saying Sammy Watkins COST the Bills 3 draft picks?

[YardRat]

Right, like when Revis and Haden were on him 1-on-1 for most of the game. Not like those guys ever take on the best WRs on other teams or anything.

Oh yeah, what about the other 6 games that he did nothing?

Do you really believe that stuff? Nothing but excuses from you on him. Game planning, then injuries, then double-coverages, then injuries, then poor QB. What did I forget?

You say these things as if you don't watch any other games besides ours and think that these things are unusual in this league.

If you think Revis and Haden actually covered Watkins in those games 'all on their own' I can't help you. Both teams still rolled safeties to Watkins side to help out.

Although everything you mentioned really are factors, I've never said Sammy was to be held 'blameless' in his instances of not meeting expectations of productivity. He's run some bad routes, dropped some passes, even shown lack of effort at times.

[Fletch]

If you think Revis and Haden actually covered Watkins in those games 'all on their own' I can't help you. Both teams still rolled safeties to Watkins side to help out.

Although everything you mentioned really are factors, I've never said Sammy was to be held 'blameless' in his instances of not meeting expectations of productivity. He's run some bad routes, dropped some passes, even shown lack of effort at times.

Oh, I thought that Sammy didn't run bad routes, drop passes, or show a lack of effort. Maybe that should be factored into your rants against everything I say on the topic. I've said that in the past and you've argued. That implies that you disagree.

As to Revis and Haden covering Watkins, yes, watch the games again, that was exactly the case except for the safeties who play as safeties typically do, going where the ball is thrown..

[YardRat]

Oh, I thought that Sammy didn't run bad routes, drop passes, or show a lack of effort. Maybe that should be factored into your rants against everything I say on the topic. I've said that in the past and you've argued. That implies that you disagree.

As to Revis and Haden covering Watkins, yes, watch the games again, that was exactly the case except for the safeties who play as safeties typically do, going where the ball is thrown..

If you can provide any posts where I stated that, go ahead.

No it wasn't...there are several examples of a safety cheating to Watkins side to give help over the top, or backers dropping back into zone to help underneath. And I'm certainly not alone in my observations...

http://www.wgr550.com/JW-All-22-Review-Bills-Patriots/20110759

1. I wanted to see just how often the Patriots put Sammy on "Revis Island", Answers:1. Not often

Watkins ran more vertical routes this week than any other that I can remember. He was used to pull the defense deep. Revis followed him whereever he went, and a safety was quite frequently along for the ride. The safety is important to note here. The New England Patriots did not treat Darrelle Revis like he's in "Revis Island" form. "Revis Island" was made famous by the New York Jets, in large part because Revis was able to take away a great receiver by himself. The Patriots frequently had safety help over the top.

[The Jokeman]

Did anyone miss the fact that the player the Browns ended drafting in the 1st Round, Justin Gilbert, with the "Bills" pick was essentially "scratched" against the Bills? Or maybe the Browns should also be embarrassed that they traded down from the Bills pick with Minnesota to get Gilbert over Anthony Barr who was having a decent season and better than most of the LBs in Cleveland.

So as it reads now

Watkins > Gilbert, Bills 1st in 2014 and Bills 4th in 2014. Of course we still need to see what the Browns do in next year's draft to fully evaluate the trade. As one that hated the move on draft day it might have been wrong. As come trade day I thought Ebron was the best pick for the Bills at pick 8 and like many thought gave up too much for Watkins.

[Fletch]

Did anyone miss the fact that the player the Browns ended drafting in the 1st Round, Justin Gilbert, with the "Bills" pick was essentially "scratched" against the Bills? Or maybe the Browns should also be embarrassed that they traded down from the Bills pick with Minnesota to get Gilbert over Anthony Barr who was having a decent season and better than most of the LBs in Cleveland.

So as it reads now

Watkins > Gilbert, Bills 1st in 2014 and Bills 4th in 2014. Of course we still need to see what the Browns do in next year's draft to fully evaluate the trade. As one that hated the move on draft day it might have been wrong. As come trade day I thought Ebron was the best pick for the Bills at pick 8 and like many thought gave up too much for Watkins.

What does our front office have to do with the Browns' front office?

They haven't been to the playoffs since 2002 to our 1999. They're hardly an organization to benchmark.

Our standard for comparison should be to a Super Bowl winning team and we should strive to become one. Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be tracking with Whaley in charge of personnel as he has been going into his 6th season now, the last two of which have been as GM, not merely as Asst. GM & Director of Pro Personnel. He's made two enormous errors in judgement as GM.

So if we truly want to become a championship contender, it's time to cut the cord between Whaley and this organization. With that will come a new GM and hopefully a new front office and almost assuredly a new coaching staff. Marrone is hardly championship caliber.

[feldspar]

This logic is anything but infallible.

The NFL draft is not a zero sum-game--it is a scenario where each team has a finite amount of resources to spend on a (nearly) infinite number of options.

I have struggled all morning to come up with an analogous relationship from the financial sector, and I think it might be impossible to do so: because really, professional sports drafts are unique in their construction. But in it's simplest terms, a pick "used" is not a pick "spent" as every team ALSO has a first round pick. Essentially, as the purchaser, you are not "giving anything up", because that term comes with the connotation that "spending" a first round pick means that you are making a decision independent of your 31 competitors. You are not. That pick must be used on a player at some point in time--and it always will be. Someone, no matter which team it is, will always pick 4th in the NFL draft.

However, anything given up in addition to that pick, can be deemed "a cost". In this case, next years first and fourth, are the "cost" of that Watkins trade.

You can argue semantics all you like, but from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, you are simply wrong. There are no two ways about it, your logic is not air tight or infallible, it's just incorrect. Sorry.

Sammy Watkins "cost" us 2 draft picks this coming season.

Sammy Watkins is "worth" 3 draft picks.

LOL, YOU want to argue semantics for some unfathomable reason...and people like you.

If somebody chooses to say that Sammy "cost" three draft picks, everybody knows damn well what they mean. Everybody knows what happened, as it is not complicated in the least. Why not just leave it alone? It's the stupidest pointless argument you can have. "Draft picks aren't 'spent,' they are 'used.'" C'mon now, already. Is the difference in semantics REALLY that much of an issue with you? It's not a mystery as to how the draft works.

You may as well have a problem with somebody saying that they are "spending" their time doing something...reading this drivel, for instance. No, I didn't "SPEND" my time writing this...I "USED" my time, right? Actually, I just WASTED some time.

Can time be "spent" or just "used?"

Excuse me, but I have to take a piss now, even though my real intention is to leave it behind.