How Good Is Sammy Watkins?

[jap]

That's just not how I do it. I take the approach that the draft is for the future. I try to grab the best talent possible while keeping positional value and need in mind. I call it "value" or BVA(Best Value Available). It's a combination of all 3 but talent and positional value weigh more heavily for me than need.

But no one approach is the only right approach. Just different strokes for different folks.

My assumption is that the rookie likely won't contribute a ton to my team immediately...because most players just don't put up a ton of production as rookies. So the immediate isn't what I'm concerned as much about. Free agency is about plugging holes that need to be plugged. The draft, for me, is about collecting as much talent as possible.

And again, that's just my explanation on how I do it. Totally understand if you don't feel the same way.

That's a very reasonable approach.

 

[blackbart]

No to Bailey. No. No. No. He's an ineffective player in deep zone coverage.

CBS has him ranked second and you know the whole SC connection. I would not pick him I want Pryor

 

[max]

That's just not how I do it. I take the approach that the draft is for the future. I try to grab the best talent possible while keeping positional value and need in mind. I call it "value" or BVA(Best Value Available). It's a combination of all 3 but talent and positional value weigh more heavily for me than need.

But no one approach is the only right approach. Just different strokes for different folks.

My assumption is that the rookie likely won't contribute a ton to my team immediately...because most players just don't put up a ton of production as rookies. So the immediate isn't what I'm concerned as much about. Free agency is about plugging holes that need to be plugged. The draft, for me, is about collecting as much talent as possible.

And again, that's just my explanation on how I do it. Totally understand if you don't do it that way.

Allow me to clarify. I oversimplified by saying immediate impact. It's more about time to impact. Drafting a player who doesn't help you until his rookie contract is just about up is a bad investment. I expect a first round player to start immediately and be very productive by his 2nd season.

That's why I'm so disappointed in the Quick pick. Drafting a guy at #33 overall and getting vitally nada from him in 2 years is a huge mismanagement of a high pick.

I think we all expect Snead to trade the #2 pick as he's been broadcasting. If that's the case, then Clowney and Bridgewater are out of the running. And I'm happy with that. If we take either Matthews or Watkins and plug them in from day one, then that fits my way of thinking as getting the best time to impact player.

 

[Alan]

Yeah, I've been saying virtually the same thing for years now max. I agree completely obviously. It's gotten worse with the shorter rookie contracts under the new CBA.

 

[jrry32]

Allow me to clarify. I oversimplified by saying immediate impact. It's more about time to impact. Drafting a player who doesn't help you until his rookie contract is just about up is a bad investment. I expect a first round player to start immediately and be very productive by his 2nd season.

That's why I'm so disappointed in the Quick pick. Drafting a guy at #33 overall and getting vitally nada from him in 2 years is a huge mismanagement of a high pick.

I think we all expect Snead to trade the #2 pick as he's been broadcasting. If that's the case, then Clowney and Bridgewater are out of the running. And I'm happy with that. If we take either Matthews or Watkins and plug them in from day one, then that fits my way of thinking as getting the best time to impact player.

I'm totally cool with that. As I said, if we trade down, I think Matthews or Watkins would be our top 2 targets. I just prefer Matthews over Watkins.

 

[max]

Yeah, I've been saying virtually the same thing for years now max. I agree completely obviously. It's gotten worse with the shorter rookie contracts under the new CBA.

Yeah, Al. And I think Snead and Fisher see it the same way. There is no way they would have taken Quick if they thought he'd take 3 years to produce. Whatever they said about expecting him to take a few years to be another VJackson is covering their ass for blundering the pick. And they blundered the Pead pick for actually the same reason, mental acuity. Neither Quick nor Pead have the mental acuity of Bailey or Stacey. So I think Snead has learned from his rookie draft mistakes.

One big reason why I'm good with picking Matthews is that I know he is mentally sharp. He will produce at a high level right out of the gate. And I think Watkins is mentally sharp as well.

 

[jrry32]

Yeah, Al. And I think Snead and Fisher see it the same way. There is no way they would have taken Quick if they thought he'd take 3 years to produce. Whatever they said about expecting him to take a few years to be another VJackson is covering their ass for blundering the pick. And they blundered the Pead pick for actually the same reason, mental acuity. Neither Quick nor Pead have the mental acuity of Bailey or Stacey. So I think Snead has learned from his rookie draft mistakes.

One big reason why I'm good with picking Matthews is that I know he is mentally sharp. He will produce at a high level right out of the gate. And I think Watkins is mentally sharp as well.

Matthews is football brilliant imo. You can see it with the way he plays.

 

[max]

I'm totally cool with that. As I said, if we trade down, I think Matthews or Watkins would be our top 2 targets. I just prefer Matthews over Watkins.

I'm cool with your preference as well.

So where do you think the sweet spot is for those 2 guys? My guess is the sweet spot is where Matthews may be gone but Watkins should be there. Somewhere around 5 or 6? At the sweet spot you take Matthews if he's still there and Watkins if he's not.

 

[jrry32]

I'm cool with your preference as well.

So where do you think the sweet spot is for those 2 guys? My guess is the sweet spot is where Matthews may be gone but Watkins should be there. Somewhere around 5 or 6? At the sweet spot you take Matthews if he's still there and Watkins if he's not.

I think Matthews will make it to #6 unless there's a trade up. If we swap with Atlanta, we get him. If we swap with Tampa Bay at #7, I think Atlanta takes him. In that case, I'd take Watkins.

 

[jap]

I think Matthews will make it to #6 unless there's a trade up. If we swap with Atlanta, we get him. If we swap with Tampa Bay at #7, I think Atlanta takes him. In that case, I'd take Watkins.

I suppose the Horns could nab Matthews at #2, then trade up to #5 to get Watkins if those are the guys they want.

 

[PhxRam]

There is no way they would have taken Quick if they thought he'd take 3 years to produce. Whatever they said about expecting him to take a few years to be another VJackson is covering their ass for blundering the pick.

I am still baffled at the position that they picked him. Did you or anyone you know even have him mocked higher than a 4-5th round?

 

[jap]

I am still baffled at the position that they picked him. Did you or anyone you know even have him mocked higher than a 4-5th round?

I'm sure they realized he was a project coming in. However, I doubt they expected Sam to go in Week Seven. Quick was starting to come on and may have been ready by season's end with a healthy Sam.

 

[blackbart]

I find it interesting that some think a player coming from college has a better chance of learning a new offense and producing better than a guy going into his 3rd year with said offense. Bradford is not going to be having a camp with his WRs and practicing this off season, so any chance at learning the new guys game will not be there. In fact Bradford may not be ready for camp and probably won't play the whole preseason. The chances that Watkins comes in and produces with this team next year are slim to none.

Protecting your QB is the first priority of any offensive scheme (except maybe Martz) The Oline has got to be the base for anything the offense does and it is in shambles. Free Agency is a chance to start re-building but only if Saffold is the FA you are bringing back and he is playing OG.

The guy Watkins would presumably be replacing had 2 drops last year so you can quit using that as part of the reason for drafting a WR.

Football is won and lost in the trenches the Rams have a problem there on the Oline if they don't fix it Bradford may not play for the full year. I have seen enough of this team playing with a back up QB

 

[PhxRam]

I'm sure they realized he was a project coming in. However, I doubt they expected Sam to go in Week Seven. Quick was starting to come on and may have been ready by season's end with a healthy Sam.

Yeah they knew he was a project. A project who very well could pan out.

But i guess my point is that you could have gotten this project three rounds later.

 

[max]

I think Matthews will make it to #6 unless there's a trade up. If we swap with Atlanta, we get him. If we swap with Tampa Bay at #7, I think Atlanta takes him. In that case, I'd take Watkins.

Makes sense. Snead wants a 2015 first rounder, trading down from #2 to #6 gets that plus a 2nd rounder this year according to the trade value chart.

 

[Alan]

If I remember correctly, there were other teams sniffing around him. He wasn't an unknown quantity to any of the other teams. There were other teams who had him in for a private workout I believe. I don't blame them for where they drafted him because I think other teams would have too. What I blame them for is drafting a project when we had nothing at WR. If you have a good WR already on your roster then you can more easily afford to spend the extra time on him.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Makes sense. Snead wants a 2015 first rounder, trading down from #2 to #6 gets that plus a 2nd rounder this year according to the trade value chart.

SOLD!

Sounds good.

 

[blackbart]

Yeah, Al. And I think Snead and Fisher see it the same way. There is no way they would have taken Quick if they thought he'd take 3 years to produce.

They probably expected him to play his second year with Bradford at QB not KC:nau:

 

[PhxRam]

Makes sense. Snead wants a 2015 first rounder, trading down from #2 to #6 gets that plus a 2nd rounder this year according to the trade value chart.

Well Houston might very well dictate what we receive in any potential trade.

 

[jrry32]

I am still baffled at the position that they picked him. Did you or anyone you know even have him mocked higher than a 4-5th round?

I know people that did but I still went on an absolute tirade when it was reported on twitter.

I suppose the Horns could nab Matthews at #2, then trade up to #5 to get Watkins if those are the guys they want.

Possibly. But I think they'll hold onto their picks.