Colin Cowherd on Losing Watkins

[OldSchool]

Well don’t know what Snead was thinking. He had to know a high profile player like Watkins was going to demand a lot of money. You can’t win them all and Snead lost this one.

Disagree, Snead won this one by a mile. We didn’t over pay by making Sammy one of the top 5 paid WRs . We get a comp pick back for it and maintain cap discipline.

 

[Akrasian]

It’s not my fault that you can’t grasp the concept

Actually, it's your fault for not understanding that the NFL is run by seasons, not calendar years. If the Rams got a season's value before having to give up the pick - that makes the pick a future pick, just as much as if they had traded a 2018 second for Watkins in March, 2017. It's very basic.

 

[Akrasian]

What I'm ultimately saying is that if the Rams had a do-over - could get that pick back, but had to go without Watkins, likely without the division title, without the help Watkins gave Goff in developing, the help Kupp and Woods had in developing into very good receivers - they would still make the trade. I have zero doubt in my mind about that. Which makes the trade a win, even before the likely 3rd round pick the Rams will get.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Maybe Snead & co got a little too cute, it could be that Sammy and his agent never had any interest in signing here. Don’t want to get too conspiracy theory but maybe Sammy decided to just try not to get hurt and wait for this moment to come. There wasn’t much in this years FA class, somebody was going to pay. He said all the right things but he was 4th in receptions and that probably wasn’t going to get much better.

I'm thinking part of the reason for the Watkins Trade, and then not signing him, is that it was year one of McVay/Snead and they weren't sure what they had at WR, Now in year #2 they do know what they have, and even though they may have wanted Watkins to stay, he wasn't worth the Money he wanted!!

 

[Flint]

I think the beauty of the Mcvay offense is there is no number 1. The offense doesn’t run through one guy. There is heavy play action designed to get certain guys open each play, using deception.

It’s not like Watkins was Antonio Brown and the defense had to worry about him at all times. They had to cover all
Parts of the field including TE’s, RB’s and all Wr’s.

In 2017 Watkins had one 100 yard game.
In 14 games he had 3 or less catches.
In the playoff game he had 1 catch for 23 yards.

Let that sink in.

What kind of DC would assign their top defender to such an unproductive part of a high scoring offense.

Gurley is what makes this offense go and if a team sells out to slow him down, like the Falcons did, that’s why you have a guy like Sammy. I don’t know if Trufant was on Sammy but Woods had a big game and Sammy had 1 catch.

On paper this team is the best in the division, the question is what happens against better defenses like the Falcons, like the Eagles, like the Vikes. Of course big time wr is not the only option, they could feature the TE more or get something from the rb2 spot.
Snead is saying that they will replace SW by committee which means Reynolds and Thomas I guess, so can these guys get respect from dbs and can they gain the trust of Goff, which I’m not sure Watkins ever really had.

 

[dieterbrock]

What I'm ultimately saying is that if the Rams had a do-over - could get that pick back, but had to go without Watkins, likely without the division title, without the help Watkins gave Goff in developing, the help Kupp and Woods had in developing into very good receivers - they would still make the trade. I have zero doubt in my mind about that. Which makes the trade a win, even before the likely 3rd round pick the Rams will get.

Agree totally.
Sammy’s cost was a 2nd rounder for 1 year.
And they paid it.
Doesn’t change the cost paid whether he re-signs or not.
Had he been under contract for 2 or more years, he would have costed more.
It was a solid investment and paid off.

 

[dieterbrock]

yeah...but they need a QB

Still doesn't seem equal...or even necessary.

Agreed

IDK....teams are built in the first 3 rounds...

Whoever was the #1 targeted player...is the #1 wr...IMO
And play with Tom Brady....GOAT...big difference....

We lost Sammy, Tree, Mighty Quinn....and Tru....possibly Sully....Those losses will be felt without adequate replacements. Tru may be the easiest since we've already acquired new talent at CB...

And we have Goff and McVay.
And Donald
We have less to fear than they do

 

[Corbin]

What I'm ultimately saying is that if the Rams had a do-over - could get that pick back, but had to go without Watkins, likely without the division title, without the help Watkins gave Goff in developing, the help Kupp and Woods had in developing into very good receivers - they would still make the trade. I have zero doubt in my mind about that. Which makes the trade a win, even before the likely 3rd round pick the Rams will get.

I think we still win the division without Sammy. We might have the # 2 or 3 offense but we still win the same games. He didn’t take over any games like Woods or Kupp did. Some games he was a ghost and had lazy routes.

It’s done and all, just think we got wrecked in the trade. Should have been a third at the highest we traded for Watkins. A million things we could do with a second right now.

 

[dieterbrock]

I think we still win the division without Sammy. We might have the # 2 or 3 offense but we still win the same games. He didn’t take over any games like Woods or Kupp did. Some games he was a ghost and had lazy routes.

It’s done and all, just think we got wrecked in the trade. Should have been a third at the highest we traded for Watkins. A million things we could do with a second right now.

He didn't take over the San Fran game? What?

 

[Corbin]

He didn't take over the San Fran game? What?

He had a good game and an amazing catch down the sideline. Those two scores any other of our WR’s could have made or Gurley. He had the second most yards that game to Woods as well.

This is debatable sure, but only one game debatable.

 

[1maGoh]

Not my rules. How could I be disingenuous when I am using the NFL system? I am not making it up as I go. SMH

You are choosing to use value of both picks now instead of both picks when the trade was made or both picks next year. In addition to those two options, you could use the value of each pick in the year it will be used because that's the real value of them.

A 2019 third isn't equivalent to a 2018 fourth. You can't just decide to use your third next year as a fourth this year. That only works if someone is willing to trade, in which case you actually get a 2018 fourth that can be used because they understand the greater value of the third one year from now.

If I offered you $10 tomorrow if you have me $5 today, would the $10 be worth less because you won't get it today? It will spend the same then. Same concept with the draft pick. It's still a third regardless of today's date.

We got Watkins for a year, lost a second and will probably gain a third. As long as we don't have a catastrophic failure in the mean time, by next May the values will all even out. Down playing the value of the pick only works if you do it right now. And it only matters if the second would make a significant difference. I think we'll be really good without it and really good with it.

 

[Akrasian]

I think we still win the division without Sammy. We might have the # 2 or 3 offense but we still win the same games. He didn’t take over any games like Woods or Kupp did. Some games he was a ghost and had lazy routes.

It’s done and all, just think we got wrecked in the trade. Should have been a third at the highest we traded for Watkins. A million things we could do with a second right now.

Glad you feel that way. All year long we've heard about how Sammy got a lot of attention from defensive backs, opening things up for the other receivers in a way that most receivers wouldn't have. Which is why many feel that the Rams' offense wouldn't have been near as potent without him, especially early in the season when Goff was still learning a new system and needed help, and needed a confidence boost. But you don't believe any of that.

Of course, given how high his salary ended up being bid, apparently a lot of pros DO think he was very good for the Rams in 2017.

Incidentally, since the Rams will almost certainly get a third for him, saying the Rams should have traded no higher than a third is basically saying he was worth loaning a pick for a year. That would be a great system.

Thing is, for $690k the Rams got 8 touchdowns, which strikes me as a bargain.

 

[Corbin]

Glad you feel that way. All year long we've heard about how Sammy got a lot of attention from defensive backs, opening things up for the other receivers in a way that most receivers wouldn't have. Which is why many feel that the Rams' offense wouldn't have been near as potent without him, especially early in the season when Goff was still learning a new system and needed help, and needed a confidence boost. But you don't believe any of that.

Of course, given how high his salary ended up being bid, apparently a lot of pros DO think he was very good for the Rams in 2017.

Incidentally, since the Rams will almost certainly get a third for him, saying the Rams should have traded no higher than a third is basically saying he was worth loaning a pick for a year. That would be a great system.

Thing is, for $690k the Rams got 8 touchdowns, which strikes me as a bargain.

This logic strikes me as gold, but your a opponent of keeping Austin to right? By this logic Austin keeps LB’s/ Contain honest. Should we keep him like Sammy because he draws coverage?

You don’t know we will get a 3rd. That is an assumption, if we sign a player that could move it to a 4th. And if they do award us a 4th for Sammy it can still be downgraded depending on what we do.

$690k? I’d rather have a player for 4-5 years that could produce more than that 8 TD’s or paltry 593 yards.


Plus guy couldn’t get the playbook down even throughout the year, lazy routes, and sometimes not so great effort.

Like I said all this is hindsight but if presented the options at the time I would of thought the same as per his performances/ issues in Buffalo.

 

[Akrasian]

This logic strikes me as gold, but your a opponent of keeping Austin to right? By this logic Austin keeps LB’s/ Contain honest. Should we keep him like Sammy because he draws coverage?

You don’t know we will get a 3rd. That is an assumption, if we sign a player that could move it to a 4th. And if they do award us a 4th for Sammy it can still be downgraded depending on what we do.

$690k? I’d rather have a player for 4-5 years that could produce more than that 8 TD’s or paltry 593 yards.

So it's an assumption that the Rams will get a third despite what we KNOW Watkins signed for, and even though it's obvious they aren't signing high end free agents - but it's NOT an assumption that the Rams would actually get value if they were picking #55? Is their pick #44 last year a sure fire success, even after one season?

In terms of Austin, I don't think he does that much to keep the defense honest, be
cause he doesn't actually produce much. Watkins had a 67 yard reception and 8 touchdowns, so teams knew they had to pay special attention. Austin had - what? - 4 fumbles last season? Sorry, 5. Which is less threatening to defenses.

Notice how there was demand for Watkins, to the tune of a bidding war that paid him $16 million per. Austin is about to be released, because teams refuse to pay him $3 million.

 

[Kevin]

I'm thinking part of the reason for the Watkins Trade, and then not signing him, is that it was year one of McVay/Snead and they weren't sure what they had at WR, Now in year #2 they do know what they have, and even though they may have wanted Watkins to stay, he wasn't worth the Money he wanted!!

I think you are on to something. Maybe the decision not to re-sign Watkins was about seeing if Woods could be a solid starter, or if a rookie (Kupp) could play in the slot like they thought he could? Maybe it has nothing to do with Snead and McVay thinking Reynolds can take up the slack, maybe it's about realizing that Woods and Kupp can be our #1 and #1A receivers and we will be fine without Watkins. And getting more offense from the TE spot, we need that too...

 

[London59]

Rams will get a 3rd back for Watkins and that played into the deal, the Rams knew if they could not sign Watkins they would get a compensatory pick. The Bills get a 2nd round pick and the Rams get a 3rd and had Watkins for a year and the Bills had Gaines for a year, I'm okay with it and don't understand why others are not.

Would I like to see the Rams signing their own like Joyner & Donald to long term deals? Well, of course, but I shall await until free agency is over and the draft before making my final assessment on the off season.

This was exactly what I was going to post! The Rams didn’t get taken at all. They got to watch him for a season and decide if he was worth big money. He wasn’t, so basically he was rented for he swap of a 2nd and 3rd round pick plus Gaines who the Rams had no plans to use.

 

[Corbin]

So it's an assumption that the Rams will get a third despite what we KNOW Watkins signed for, and even though it's obvious they aren't signing high end free agents - but it's NOT an assumption that the Rams would actually get value if they were picking #55? Is their pick #44 last year a sure fire success, even after one season?

In terms of Austin, I don't think he does that much to keep the defense honest, be
cause he doesn't actually produce much. Watkins had a 67 yard reception and 8 touchdowns, so teams knew they had to pay special attention. Austin had - what? - 4 fumbles last season? Sorry, 5. Which is less threatening to defenses.

Notice how there was demand for Watkins, to the tune of a bidding war that paid him $16 million per. Austin is about to be released, because teams refuse to pay him $3 million.

So your saying our #44 pick last year wasn’t a sure fire success but your argument is your happy that we are getting a Cómp 3rd for Watkins in 2019!? Are you reading what your typing? This is close to being an oxymoron of a statement.

I might need to keep that post of Austin being on the field and copy and pasting it to help mislead people that it shows statistically when he was on the field Todd’s ypc was just crazy better compared to when he wasn’t. That was just a couiencidence though.

Yes a demand for Watkins being the best WR by far in FA. That tends to happen when the only remotely closest WR to him was a guy coming off a torn acl and teams overpay. Someone signing to a huge contract doesn’t mean the player was deserving or or should have gotten, it has a lot to do with bad decisions and market inflation.

 

[Akrasian]

So your saying our #44 pick last year wasn’t a sure fire success but your argument is your happy that we are getting a Cómp 3rd for Watkins in 2019!?

My point - as you well know, since my post said it explicitly - was that you can't act like pick #55 is a sure thing, when pick #44 last year for the Rams is still in doubt whether he will end up good.

But I'll stop responding, since it's clear you are not interested in arguing in good faith. Shame. You're usually a better poster than that

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

My point - as you well know, since my post said it explicitly - was that you can't act like pick #55 is a sure thing, when pick #44 last year for the Rams is still in doubt whether he will end up good.

But I'll stop responding, since it's clear you are not interested in arguing in good faith. Shame. You're usually a better poster than that

It's not about arguing in good faith. ( I am not even sure what that means). The problem with this topic is that it can't be proven either way. This is a matter of opinion. You believe it was a great deal. I, and some others think it sucked. You think dropping from a second round pick to a third or fourth a full year later, is worth one year of an good player who had average production. I don't. If Sammy was stellar then maybe I would agree with you.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Actually, it's your fault for not understanding that the NFL is run by seasons, not calendar years. If the Rams got a season's value before having to give up the pick - that makes the pick a future pick, just as much as if they had traded a 2018 second for Watkins in March, 2017. It's very basic.

The Rams traded a 2018 draft pick in August of 2017 , 4 months after the 2017 draft. The 2018 draft is considered the current and upcoming draft. There is no draft before the April 2018 draft. The Rams traded a second round pick in the next draft, which is the current, immediate draft following the season. The value of that pick is what it is, a second round pick. It isn't regarded as anything else. Future draft picks, a year after the next draft are devalued by one round in the draft value chart. It makes sense because the pick is deferred until another draft the following year. That is one less chance to get a cheap and talented player on the roster for the coming season, which is valuable when your team is in the playoff picture.. So, by devaluing a pick that is deferred to the following year, a compensation pick that is expected to be a third round pick in the 2019 draft is valued as a fourth round pick. If you really want to get picky, then consider that the comp pick is at the very end of round 3, after the 32nd pick of that draft it is like a top of the fourth round pick, which means it is valued as a fifth round pick.