Take Watkins back for a refund?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

There was a lot of criticism for the Watkins trade around the idea that it was too much to give for a wideout when we had no franchise QB. Seeing as we still don't have a franchise QB, imagine this scenario: The Browns call us and offer their first this year (#12), our first back (#19), and our fourth-rounder back in exchange for Watkins. It wouldn't put us exactly where we were before, but as close as I can see.

Would you take it?

[The King]

No.

[Ed]

No. I love Watkins and it sounds like this draft class could be pretty weak.

[gebobs]

Negatory. Watkins is going to have a great career and will be a marquee player. We all know how well the Bills do with mid-first round picks.

[Joe Fo Sho]

I hated the trade, but I love Sammy. That said, I'd take this trade in a second. Wide receivers are overvalued on a team without a QB, which is where we stand. If we had a franchise QB, I would not make this trade.

How many 1st round wide receivers did you see playing this past Sunday? A QB can make an average wideout look good.

[Mr. Miyagi]

This thread is stupid.

[justasportsfan]

If they throw in Johnny Football , I would think about it.








not really

[Joe Fo Sho]

This thread is stupid.

This is life during the offseason.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Only a ****** would. We would get two late first talents for a perennial star player. NO THANK YOU.

[stuckincincy]

I'd turn back the clock ASAP...years wandering in the desert for a Kelly replacement, a lengthy history of iffy OLs, then they go ahead and move up to get a wr and fork over their #1 the following year. Last time they pulled that they got JP and grabbed Roscoe the next year. Oh - and another brilliant move-up...McCargo.

IIRC, SEA ended up in the SB with a bunch of undrafted or low-drafted no-names at wr.

[Joe Fo Sho]

From what I remember, people were fine with trading away Stevie for a 4th round pick. Two 1st round picks and a 4th is a very large price to pay for a wide receiver in today's NFL. There are maybe a handful of WRs that I wouldn't trade for that, and all of them have a franchise QB throwing them the ball.

[YardRat]

No.

[trapezeus]

fans have to realize that good teams give people time to develop when it's warranted. a 1000 yard receiver in his rookie year in a brain dead offense with kyle orton. he is as close to a sure thing as you can have, barring injuries.

he is part of the long term. you don't move him. you get people to make him even better.

[Meathead]

only if ruvell martin is available

[sudzy]

IIRC, SEA ended up in the SB with a bunch of undrafted or low-drafted no-names at wr.

And where were NE WRs drafted? Makes you wonder if Buffalo is trying to build backwards. A great QB can do great things with average WRs. A below average QB can make a great WR seem average.

[DraftBoy]

Nope.

[swiper]

These threads get dumber by the minute.

[Skooby]

No dice.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

The voting is much closer then the thread would suggest.

[Mace]

Deal.

Watkins is a really good receiver, so is Julio Jones and lookee at Atlanta steaming along with him, and they had a QB and figured getting him would put them over the top. Looked good in theory. They still have an excellent receiver, and a franchise QB, and finished 6-10, 4-12 last two years. But he was hurt ! Tends to happen, Watkins has been achy and looks to me sometimes like he turns it on and off.

I still see an elite-capable receiver as something we did not absolutely need to have at that point vs. what we paid to get him. Watkins is essentially our first round pick two years in a row, and though I know he's darn good, I don't think he's that dominating for our circumstances. A good scouting staff will always find you impact capable receivers, imho. Is he really that dominating ? No.

But we have no franchise QB ? Then for that price he should be even more dominating as a go-to guy, and he wasn't.

I appreciate the thought of banking him for a better tomorrow. But that thought is still banking him for a better tomorrow and not getting a max return on today. I don't think I'm the only one who has a sneaky suspicion we aren't going to see 16 games out of him this year.

[WagonCircler]

Do we get last year's first back and, since we're revising history, get to draft Odell Beckham Jr? And still have our first this year to use in or trade to acquire a veteran QB?

If ,so, put me down in the "Hell Yes" column.

[OpIv37]

fans have to realize that good teams give people time to develop when it's warranted. a 1000 yard receiver in his rookie year in a brain dead offense with kyle orton. he is as close to a sure thing as you can have, barring injuries.

he is part of the long term. you don't move him. you get people to make him even better.

And what QB are we going to get with no first round picks?

Keeping Watkins for that trade would be like refusing to sell a 1 year old Mercedes with 10k miles on it that's paid off when you're in danger of being evicted for not paying rent.

I like Watkins as a player, but spending 2 firsts on him is a luxury this team couldn't afford, and still can't afford.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Do we get last year's first back and, since we're revising history, get to draft Odell Beckham Jr? And still have our first this year to use in or trade to acquire a veteran QB?

If ,so, put me down in the "Hell Yes" column.

No we are not revisiting history, I'm asking if you would do so going forward.

Fwiw, If you gave everyone a 2nd chance, Beckham wouldn't even make it to us even if we did trade to 4.

[WagonCircler]

No we are not revisiting history, I'm asking if you would do so going forward.

Fwiw, If you gave everyone a 2nd chance, Beckham wouldn't even make it to us even if we did trade to 4.

Well, then it's not a fair question. Because the scales are tipped. You can't ask that question, a do-over, without going back to the very start. Where Beckham WAS available to us.

You just ignore that part. The fact that we could have had Beckham AND this year's #1. That's a no-brainer. You have to make that deal. It would be insane not to.

And the reality is that exact deal was available to Whaley, and he shat the bed.

[mightysimi]

What QB will be magically available in the middle of the first round that we acquire as a franchise guy? I say No.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Well, then it's not a fair question. Because the scales are tipped. You can't ask that question, a do-over, without going back to the very start. Where Beckham WAS available to us.

You just ignore that part. The fact that we could have had Beckham AND this year's #1. That's a no-brainer. You have to make that deal. It would be insane not to.

And the reality is that exact deal was available to Whaley, and he shat the bed.

Yes, obviously, if only the Bills had the ability to go back and change their draft pick then everyone would say yes. Nobody is silly enough now to claim Watkins is worth an extra first over ODB. But I didn't ask about a do over, the opening post was specifically about the 2015 draft. My point is, now we know more about Watkins and the quality of the players available in the first round this year, is the Watkins trade still such a disaster? Would you want that first rounder back so much you'd give up Watkins to get it?

[Ed]

And what QB are we going to get with no first round picks?

Keeping Watkins for that trade would be like refusing to sell a 1 year old Mercedes with 10k miles on it that's paid off when you're in danger of being evicted for not paying rent.

I like Watkins as a player, but spending 2 firsts on him is a luxury this team couldn't afford, and still can't afford.
So if we still had our first round pick this year which qb would you draft?

[trapezeus]

And what QB are we going to get with no first round picks?

Keeping Watkins for that trade would be like refusing to sell a 1 year old Mercedes with 10k miles on it that's paid off when you're in danger of being evicted for not paying rent.

I like Watkins as a player, but spending 2 firsts on him is a luxury this team couldn't afford, and still can't afford.

Op, of all people, i can't believe you got onto this talking point of "2 first round picks". we swapped and gave up next years first. it's one pick.

i know we are hungry for legitimacy. something we haven't had for 15 years. the point is that there is no qb coming to save the team. no free agent, no trades for brady or rodgers. no obvious qb.

the bills had a tragically bad offense. they didn't even target him some games. and there he was putting up 1000 yards and being big in big moments when targetted. orton would turn his back and take a sack. just a guy who trusts his ability and can build reporire with watkins could do more than last year. and last year was a positive.

no way you bring in roman and rex and other talent and think "no we should try again and have to pick another receiver". We have a receiver. build around him.

[OpIv37]

Do we have a first this year? No.

Why? Because we had to give it up to get Watkins.

We used last years first and this year's on Watkins. It's 2. Any other way of looking at it is spin.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Do we have a first this year? No.

Why? Because we had to give it up to get Watkins.

We used last years first and this year's on Watkins. It's 2. Any other way of looking at it is spin.

It surprises me that people argue any other way.

[Don't Panic]

I'll say no, but to have this trade make sense, Watkins needs to be an elite WR and soon. That will be a challenge given the current state of affairs.

[trapezeus]

watkins wasn't going to be gifted to us. you needed to use a pick to get him. you paid one additional to ensure that. no one outside this board views it as two picks. its a swap in the year you do it to get your guy and you pay one pick in the next draft.

but to each their own.

the bills gambled to get him, he performed well in season one with the misses we had on offense. no run game, no targets to him for stretches, no qb with any passion. and he gets 1000 yards.

trading him for a 19th pick is so painfully stupid, only russ brandon could justify it.

[sudzy]

watkins wasn't going to be gifted to us. you needed to use a pick to get him. you paid one additional to ensure that. no one outside this board views it as two picks. its a swap in the year you do it to get your guy and you pay one pick in the next draft.



The Bills used 3 draft choice to draft Watkins. The 9th overall pick last year, this years first and fourth. Nobody else, but Bills fans on message boards spin this to make it sound like we spent less.

[Mike]

There was a lot of criticism for the Watkins trade around the idea that it was too much to give for a wideout when we had no franchise QB. Seeing as we still don't have a franchise QB, imagine this scenario: The Browns call us and offer their first this year (#12), our first back (#19), and our fourth-rounder back in exchange for Watkins. It wouldn't put us exactly where we were before, but as close as I can see.

Would you take it?
It's a great question which largely depends on this years crop.
Despite their major need at WR, thinking realistically, I doubt Cleavland wound take this trade right now.

[Joe Fo Sho]

watkins wasn't going to be gifted to us. you needed to use a pick to get him. you paid one additional to ensure that. no one outside this board views it as two picks. its a swap in the year you do it to get your guy and you pay one pick in the next draft.

but to each their own.

the bills gambled to get him, he performed well in season one with the misses we had on offense. no run game, no targets to him for stretches, no qb with any passion. and he gets 1000 yards.

trading him for a 19th pick is so painfully stupid, only russ brandon could justify it.

You have to put value on the draft pick we use to draft him though. Otherwise you're saying that a 1st round pick is equally as valuable as a 7th round pick, which obviously is not true.

There are only a handful of receivers that are worth more than 2 1st round picks and a 4th, and Sammy is not one of them. He might be if we had Peyton throwing him the ball, but we don't.

[ublinkwescore]

Any one willing to go after Sam Bradford if we go run happy on offense?

[Mad Bomber]

No. Non. Nyet. Nein.

[YardRat]

If we're going back in time and changing everything for everybody as Wagon is claiming as opposed to simply moving forward from this point in time (which is where Illumy is coming from), I'd rather go all the way to pre-glory years and void the Bennett deal because keeping all of the picks Polian gave up for him and with the benefit of hindsight we probably would be sportin' a couple of Lombardi's at OBD along with the four Hunt's.

[swiper]

Well, then it's not a fair question. Because the scales are tipped. You can't ask that question, a do-over, without going back to the very start. Where Beckham WAS available to us.

You just ignore that part. The fact that we could have had Beckham AND this year's #1. That's a no-brainer. You have to make that deal. It would be insane not to.

And the reality is that exact deal was available to Whaley, and he shat the bed.

Gotta wonder if this goes down as Whaley's defining moment as GM.