Peter King: Bills Training Camp Report - Watkins Wows

[jrry32]

Run first, play-action offense with a strong defense. One could argue that Donald was the best value, too.

Well, no matter the argument, Donald is on this team and I'm ecstatic.

 

[FRO]

First arguing over Watkins/Donald is stupid. Both are going to be great, but to have gotten Watkins we would have to give up a future first, plus other picks either a second or third. So while I would have picked Watkins over Donald, that wasn't the choice. Personally I would have picked Watkins over Robinson.

Also I don't feel we will be a run heavy team. That's not saying we will be a pass heavy team either. We ran very heavily with Clemens as the QB, that's because Clemens is limited. With Bradford at QB we will be much more balanced. Watkins could have been used in this offense. It's time for Austin to step up, and if used correctly I think he will.

 

[FRO]

The fact that they didn't draft a WR doesn't tell me that they didn't view it as a need. All it showed me was that a super stud like Watkins didn't fall to them at #13. DL wasn't a need either but they grabbed him because of the value he represented. Just like they would have grabbed Clowney had he fallen to #2 even though they didn't need a DE.

The "hype" on Watkins was deserved IMO, which means that it wasn't "exaggerated or extravagant" claims but instead, a spot on evaluation of his abilities. Like you, I'm hoping that Donald, in his own way, will be as valuable to us as Watkins will be for the Bills. Of course he doesn't have to be that valuable because we didn't use the #4 pick to get him.

Really agree with this post. Had Watkins or Evans been there at 13 I think the Rams would have picked them. The Rams needed a top end WR, we have a good group of complimentary receivers.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Really agree with this post. Had Watkins or Evans been there at 13 I think the Rams would have picked them. The Rams needed a top end WR, we have a good group of complimentary receivers.

Unlike yourself, I'm not convinced that they would have over Donald. Why? Because of Snead's earlier comments about adding another young WR to develop to a group of young developing WRs already on the roster. Seems those comments held true given they didn't select a WR in one of the deeper WR draft classes.

 

[Faceplant]

Ugh. No good can come of this. Watkins is on another team....in another CONFERENCE......why are we discussing this?

 

[Alan]

Memphis Ram talking apples and Fro talking oranges:
Unlike yourself, I'm not convinced that they would have over Donald. Why? Because of Snead's earlier comments about adding another young WR to develop to a group of young developing WRs already on the roster. Seems those comments held true given they didn't select a WR in one of the deeper WR draft classes.

While I agree with Snead's comments and the draft bore those thoughts out, Watkins wasn't a WR who needed developing and thus didn't fall into the category of WRs he was talking about. So you're talking about apples and Fro considered Watkins and Evans to be oranges. I personally don't agree that Evens was an orange and thus I'm less sure we would have drafted him at #13 if Donald was there too. I think that would have been a close call but i'd have taken Donald. Maybe.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

Donald all day every day.

.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I'm kinda starting to think Watkins would have been superfluous, because I think Tavon is gonna be our Z receiver. Watkins wouldn't have been a fit at X.

 

[jjab360]

While I agree with Snead's comments and the draft bore those thoughts out, Watkins wasn't a WR who needed developing and thus didn't fall into the category of WRs he was talking about. So you're talking about apples and Fro considered Watkins and Evans to be oranges. I personally don't agree that Evens was an orange and thus I'm less sure we would have drafted him at #13 if Donald was there too. I think that would have been a close call but i'd have taken Donald. Maybe.

Uhh, yeah he is. Just like pretty much any rookie receiver. Not sure what makes some people think he isn't..

 

[jrry32]

While I agree with Snead's comments and the draft bore those thoughts out, Watkins wasn't a WR who needed developing and thus didn't fall into the category of WRs he was talking about. So you're talking about apples and Fro considered Watkins and Evans to be oranges. I personally don't agree that Evens was an orange and thus I'm less sure we would have drafted him at #13 if Donald was there too. I think that would have been a close call but i'd have taken Donald. Maybe.

Yes, he was. Watkins didn't run a NFL route tree at Clemson. Every rookie WR needs developing...especially the ones that come from spread offenses that lacked NFL route trees.

Randy Moss might be the only WR I can think of that didn't need developing...and that's because he was so superior to every player athletically that he didn't need to be master the technical side of the game.

Hell, even Calvin Johnson took some time to develop.

 

[TheDYVKX]

Watkins or Evans or Donald or Robinson or Matthews, doesn't matter to me. I'm ecstatic over our choices and I don't think we could have gone wrong no matter what we did. We added premiere talent to the team, which is what matters.

 

[Alan]

I'll answer both of you. @jrry32 & @jjab360
Obviously many of us here at the ROD, in the media and in the coaching ranks of the NFL think that there are some WRs you know are going to be great out of the gate.

Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones both put up stats their rookie years that would have easily been better than that of any of the Rams WRs. So if you think that Watkins was in that category, and the Bills obviously did, then you're not talking about development you're talking about refinement. Of course it doesn't mean you're correct in your assessment but I believe that is how the Bills viewed it and I doubt they were alone in that view. They gave up next years 1st and 4th round picks for him and the Falcons gave up their first born and the farm for Jones. You don't do that for players you think you need to develop.

 

[jrry32]

I'll answer both of you. @jrry32 & @jjab360
Obviously many of us here at the ROD, in the media and in the coaching ranks of the NFL think that there are some WRs you know are going to be great out of the gate.

Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones both put up stats their rookie years that would have easily been better than that of any of the Rams WRs. So if you think that Watkins was in that category, and the Bills obviously did, then you're not talking about development you're talking about refinement. Of course it doesn't mean you're correct in your assessment but I believe that is how the Bills viewed it and I doubt they were alone in that view. They gave up next years 1st and 4th round picks for him and the falcons gave up their first born and the farm for Jones. You don't do that for players you think you need to develop.

No, I'm talking about development. But you're arguing semantics with refinement. It means the same thing in the context of football.

As far as Calvin goes, he put up 756 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. The man developed.

There are some...by some I mean not many...WRs that are productive ~1000 yards or ~10 TDs out of the gate...but even they usually need development. Again, the only WR I've seen that was great out of the gate was Randy Moss.(and by great, I mean one of the league's best WRs)

 

[Alan]

jrry32 having trouble understanding me:
No, I'm talking about development. But you're arguing semantics with refinement. It means the same thing in the context of football.

As far as Calvin goes, he put up 756 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. The man developed.

There are some...by some I mean not many...WRs that are productive ~1000 yards or ~10 TDs out of the gate...but even they usually need development. Again, the only WR I've seen that was great out of the gate was Randy Moss.(and by great, I mean one of the league's best WRs)

That would be incorrect jrry. I'm not using a different word to say the same thing. Getting better at what you do is not the same thing as learning how to do your job.

Example: Jake Matthews knows how to pass block but he will get better over time as he refines his pass blocking. Robinson Greg Robinson knows only the rudiments of how to pass block and Boo will have to teach him how to do it. Robinson will need to develop this skill.

BTW, I looked up the stats of both the players I mentioned before I posted my reply so that I wouldn't look any more foolish than normal but thanks anyway.

If haven't explained what I believe to be the fundamental difference between the two in a way that would explain why I said what I did then we'll just keep talking past each other.

But I have a plan.

Let's approach this from a different direction. When you boil down what I've said to its basic essence, it comes down to this:
I believe that there are elite players that don't fit the normal paradigm.
I believe that Snead was referring to the normal WR paradigm in his statement.
I believe that Watkins fits the elite paradigm and not the normal one and thus was not the type of WR he was referring to.

So, when explained in that fashion, do you agree with any of that?
If you don't then the conversation is over as we will just have to disagree about this.
If you do agree with what I said in those three sentences then do you disagree with my assertion that Watkins fits that elite paradigm?

 

[jrry32]

That would be incorrect jrry. I'm not using a different word to say the same thing. Getting better at what you do is not the same thing as learning how to do your job.

Come on, Alan. If that's true then there's no such thing as developing a player that played in college. Because they all know how to play football and do their job. All NFL teams do is teach them how to do it better and master it.

The word develop means to grow or become more mature or advanced.

Example: Jake Matthews knows how to pass block but he will get better over time as he refines his at pass blocking. Robinson Greg Robinson knows only the rudiments of how to pass block and Boo will have to teach him how to do it. Robinson will need to develop this skill.

Except by your definition of develop, Robinson doesn't need to develop the skill. He needs to refine it. He can pass block. He knows how to pass block. He just has to improve technical aspects of it...he has to become more advanced at it.

I don't define develop that way. Don't know of others who do. Maybe some do but I've never heard it used that way. I.E. we're arguing semantics.

When I say develop, I am talking about becoming more advanced. However, the contention that Mike Evans and all the other WRs needed "developing" using your definition is a curious one. I don't think it's accurate.

Frankly, I'm not sure how Watkins is any more advanced at route running than Robinson is at pass blocking.

BTW, I looked up the stats of both the players I mentioned before I posted my reply so that I wouldn't look any more foolish than normal but thanks anyway.

If haven't explained what I believe to be the fundamental difference between the two in a way that would explain why I said what I did then we'll just keep talking past each other.

But I have a plan.

Let's approach this from a different direction. When you boil down what I've said to its basic essence, it comes down to this:
I believe that there are elite players that don't fit the normal paradigm.
I believe that Snead was referring to the normal WR paradigm in his statement.
I believe that Watkins fits the elite paradigm and not the normal one and thus was not the type of WR he was referring to.

So, when explained in that fashion, do you agree with any of that?
If you don't then conversation over as we will just have to disagree about this.
If you do agree with what I said in those three sentences then do you disagree with my assertion that Watkins fits that elite paradigm?

No. I also don't believe that Snead was being fully honest either. GM talk like Coach's talk isn't supposed to be all revealing.

However, I also don't believe Watkins is/was an elite WR prospect. I think he was worth a top 5-6 pick but in order to be elite, he'd have to be one of the top 3 or so of the last decade. I didn't rate him THAT highly.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 still getting it wrong:
Except by your definition of develop, Robinson doesn't need to develop the skill. He needs to refine it. He can pass block. He knows how to pass block. He just has to improve technical aspects of it...he has to become more advanced at it.
However, I also don't believe Watkins is/was an elite WR prospect. I think he was worth a top 5-6 pick but in order to be elite, he'd have to be one of the top 3 or so of the last decade. I didn't rate him THAT highly.

I don't mean this to sound like I don't think you understand the meaning of those two words so consider this just a refresher.

re·fine
riˈfīn/
verb
improve (something) by making small changes, in particular make (an idea, theory, or method) more subtle and accurate.

Matthews needs to make small changes but Robinson needs to make huge changes. That is why Matthews needs to refine his skills and Robinson needs to develop those skills. That's the best I can do to explain why you're wrong about it just being semantics. Develop is not a synonym for refine.

As for your final statement about Watkins, that's where we actually disagree about the substance of this debate. I won't try and change your opinion here because knowing you, it was reached after many hours of studying tape on him. I still disagree with your assessment though.

 

[jrry32]

I don't mean this to sound like I don't think you understand the meaning of those two words so consider this just a refresher.

re·fine
riˈfīn/
verb
improve (something) by making small changes, in particular make (an idea, theory, or method) more subtle and accurate.

Matthews needs to make small changes but Robinson needs to make huge changes. That is why Matthews needs to refine his skills and Robinson needs to develop those skills. That's the best I can do to explain why your wrong about it just being semantics. Develop is not a synonym for refine.

As for your final statement about Watkins, that's where we actually disagree about the substance of this debate. I won't try and change your opinion here because knowing you, it was reached after many hours of studying tape on him. I still disagree with your assessment though.

If that's the case, Watkins needs to develop route running as any player who didn't run a NFL route tree and played in a screen heavy offense would. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[den-the-coach]

Now if Watkins were Megatron, I'd take Megatron over Donald.

The only pick Matt Millen got right!

 

[Rams and Gators]

Would be a moot point if Snead had done a better job of drafting WRs, there's no way we should be sitting here discussing the need for a WR having spent a top 10 pick, the first pick in the 2nd round, a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick on the position.

 

[jrry32]

Would be a moot point if Snead had done a better job of drafting WRs, there's no way we should be sitting here discussing the need for a WR having spent a top 10 pick, the first pick in the 2nd round, a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick on the position.

Maybe it will be? *Shrugs*

The top 10 pick and 3rd rounder just finished their rookie seasons and the 2nd and 4th only finished their sophomore years. If the extent of judging a WR's career was his first two years in the league, well...there would be a lot of successful WRs that would have never made it...