Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
WR Sammy Watkins, BAL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Carter_Can_Fly
- Start date
werdnoynek
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
georg013
Footballguy
I just don't understand the Matthews love. I'm sorry. I don't see it. This guy couldn't crack the first round and isn't even running with the first team. It's not like he has world beaters in front of him. Owners are going to see what they want though even though the evidence is right there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Beautiful.Steed said:
I'll start by saying that that's a nearly impossible route for a CB to cover one-on-one without help. The fact that a WR got open on a double move against single man-coverage is not newsworthy.
But Watkins did some good things on that route. First, note that the CB lined up on the outside eye of Watkins, but Watkins still got a clean release to the outside. Good quickness off the line. Next, note that Watkins sold the corner route by turning his head back to the QB. It's not that easy to turn your head all the way back to the left right before making a sharp cut to the right while running at full speed. Which takes us to the most impressive part.
Watkins accelerated out of his first cut to the left. Usually, when a receiver runs a pattern with a double move like that, he makes his first cut in front of the CB, and his second cut is also in front of the CB. In this case, however, Watkins' first cut was roughly even with the CB and the second cut was behind the CB. Watkins accelerated away from the CB on his first cut, and then, two steps later, kept running at full speed through his second cut. That made it completely hopeless for the CB to stick with him.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
Sammy took a shot and was holding his upper left rib area.
Not sure the extent but he looked like he was in some pain.
Not sure the extent but he looked like he was in some pain.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Looked pretty minor IMO but they're looking at him anyway. Not sure if he's coming back.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Yeah, didn't look bad at all. Hopefully nothing, I really would like to the Bills and Sammy have success.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
I agree that it didn't look bad at all but he didn't leave the field and he went down to one-knee and the trainers ran out to the field.
When he took his helmet off on the sidelines he was in obvious pain and was grimacing.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Anytime they head to the locker room it's not good. My guess is he broke a rib somehow.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
PFT confirmas Sammy to the lockerroom with a rib injury.
No word yet on how bad it is.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/
No word yet on how bad it is.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/
Bills' Sammy Watkins suffers rib bruise vs. Steelers:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000378846/article/bills-sammy-watkins-suffers-rib-bruise-vs-steelers
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000378846/article/bills-sammy-watkins-suffers-rib-bruise-vs-steelers
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
If he were taller, he wouldn't have hurt his ribs.
Right, people are still thinking elite i'm sure. Manuel has looked like crap, Watkins can do nice things in practice, but a game??? I was way off base
Last edited by a moderator:
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
Since it's Sunday and Baby Jesus is working today, I went ahead and asked him. He said Watkins is eliteRight, people are still thinking elite i'm sure. Manuel has looked like crap, Watkins can do nice things in practice, but a game??? I was way off base
Checkmate.
P.S. He's not even a Bills fan, so you can't claim Jesus is biased either.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
Update on Sammy Watkins injury.
It is bruised ribs and that is better than busted ribs but bruised ribs 'could' hamper Sammy.
http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/bills-notebook-watkins-suffers-bruised-ribs-20140816
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/17/watkins-has-bruised-ribs/
It is bruised ribs and that is better than busted ribs but bruised ribs 'could' hamper Sammy.
http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/bills-notebook-watkins-suffers-bruised-ribs-20140816
PFT says that bruised ribs 'can' slow Watkins down and make it difficult to run, etc, so this 'could' slow him down early in the year till the ribs heal.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/17/watkins-has-bruised-ribs/
slackjawedyokel
Footballguy
The undersized argument is undersized in merit. If he is on another level than the defender, he will catch tons of catches. This year I can surely see the argument that a QB needs the actually get him the ball. That's fair and I think Manuel is much worse than folks are thinking. He might be approaching Jamarcus levels of bad. That's a curse for Watkins.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
since when is 6'1" 210 undersized?
matuski
Footballguy
Still looks tiny to me on the field, despite his measurements. Looked no bigger than the DB covering him on the play.
matuski
Footballguy
If I went by what I see from college and this game (just my eyes).. that is about where I would put him size-wise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Still not seeing it. Googling Watkins and tiny doesn't get a lot of hits, might be you.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
Maybe his upper body doesn't match his legs.. dunno. He doesn't look or play big when I watch him. Of course I've only seen a half dozen games or so.Still not seeing it. Googling Watkins and tiny doesn't get a lot of hits, might be you.
matuski
Footballguy
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
WTF is prototypical anyway?
Is Wes Welker tall enough? How about Eric Decker? Percy Harvin? Jerry Rice? Cris Carter? Andre Reed? Steve Smith?
This idea that you have to be tall to be a successful WR is ludicrous.
slackjawedyokel
Footballguy
It's not, but it is continuously used as an argument that he is ineligible for the elite tiers.fruity pebbles said:
That's a good question. I went back through the last 5 years in the NFL and pulled out every 1,000 yard receiving season. The sample was 96 names long, or 19.2 per year, which I think gives a pretty solid list of "prototypical WR1s". I averaged the height and weight of every receiver on that list and found that the "prototypical WR1" was... 73.54" tall and 208.09 lbs. I'd say Sammy's 72.75" and 211 lb. build is pretty much right on the money.tdmills said:
Ah, but was that just because short guys at the bottom of the list were tanking my averages? To help test this theory, I performed a weighted average of height and weight (weighted by yards, so the guys who got the most yards, guys like Calvin Johnson, contributed the most to the average). This new weighted average was... 73.59" tall and 208.76 lbs. So weighting it added just five hundredths of an inch and two thirds of a pound. Hard to make a case that it's a bunch of short/light guys at the bottom dragging the average down.
Just to be sure, I changed the threshold to 1300 yards. This gave me a list of 32 names, or just 6.4 players per year. These are not just the NFL WR1s, these are the HIGH-END NFL WR1s, the creme de la creme of NFL receivers, the truly elite. Their average size was... 73.75" and 211.22 lbs.
I mean, if we're talking about prototypes here, the absolute *WORST* we can say about Sammy Watkins- if we wanted to be as absolutely ungenerous as the data will allow- is that he's an inch shorter than the average top-6 NFL receiver (and dead-on as far as weight). One inch. In reality, he's about as close to the prototype as a man can be, based on 5-year historical averages. He's shorter than A.J. Green, Calvin Johnson, and Demaryius Thomas, sure. He's also taller than Wes Welker, Victor Cruz, Antonio Brown, Brandon Lloyd, Steve Smith, Reggie Wayne, Pierre Garcon, and Desean Jackson, who have 11 combined 1300 yard seasons between them in the last five years. He's essentially the same height as Roddy White (and 10 pounds heavier, to boot), who has two more 1300 yard seasons plus another season of 1296 yards for good measure over that span.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
I think you just nailed what I have been saying all along. He can and (if he ever gets a QB) will be any of the guys you listed second... good or damn good, but not physically elite. When placed on the outside against a top CB, I don't see anything physically that gives him the edge. Beyond that there is no judgement made on ability or possible production... he just won't be winning those balls that the true physical freaks we are seeing more of do.
When we observe he looks small, it isn't a knock on skill... it is saying he looks small. About the extent of it, and really not requiring a thesis in response.
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
Mamula played well but not special during his college career and was a combine wonder. That's the opposite of Watkins. If you want to compare Watkins to highly drafted failures, there are many players with a resume more like his than Mike Mamula.
But at that point are you operating on or positing any meaningful definition of "physically elite"? I mean, isn't the ultimate point of physical ability in our hobby actual, observable and measurable production? If Watkins comfortably slots into a height/weight category for players who have for a prolonged period of recent NFL history been able to produce top seasons then what is the ultimate point of arguing over an inch or half an inch of height?
Last edited by a moderator:
Gottabesweet
Footballguy
The Buffalo Bills jinx mix in the Shark Pool jinx. Injury.
Hoss Style
Footballguy
Looks to me like Adam didn't aim this "thesis" at you. He quoted the guys arguing over typical WR height, and he defined it for us, using the last 5 years. He explained how he did it, and many of us found it pretty informative.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
IMO part of the confusion in calling a (nearly) 6'1", 211 lb. WR "tiny" is if you mean, for an elite WR, though that wasn't qualified in this case - I did see the later note about being in the context of a thread making a physical freak comparison.
If we are just talking about WRs in general, Watkins is at worst average size, not small, let alone tiny. Tiny WRs/returners would include Trindon Holiday (5'5", 177 lbs.), Tavon Austin, De'Anthony Thomas. Austin is about 5'8", 180 lbs. Watkins is about 5" and 30 lbs. bigger than that. To be proportionately bigger than Watkins (than Watkins is over Austin), that WR would be about 6'6", 240 lbs. Think a little bigger Calvin Johnson. Nobody would collapse the difference in size between an even bigger Johnson and Watkins, that wouldn't make sense. Proportionately, doing the same thing in the opposite direction doesn't make any more sense, imo. Everybody is welcome to report what they see and think, but if you explain that with unconventional descriptive terms, that can lead to miscommunication.
At least in the recent example above, the reason you cited for thinking Watkins looked tiny was being the same size as a CB. I looked at the link you provided and thought they looked about the same size, than immediately after fruity pebbles got to the bottom of the confusion and mistake (they looked the same size because they are about the same size). It wasn't a reason to think he looks tiny, which you acknowledged. The clip you linked wasn't a closeup, sometimes players are crouched with knees bent, one play makes it hard to judge relative size. In this case, though, we don't need to guess. We have his measureables, he is nearly 6'1", 211. You alluded to proportion, I don't know if you had something specific in mind or were hazarding guesses about what was amiss for you (proportionately, or tiny, rather
, upper to lower body, or vice verce?). Below is a picture (you can find lower body versions, he doesn't have big legs, I wouldn't call them Todd Pinkston skinny, either). Knowing he is 6'1", 210, looking at the photo, and others, tiny doesn't come to mind for me.http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/16/3272187/clemsons-sammy-watkins-says-hell.html
Do the below two players look tiny? If so, maybe it has to do with how they are proportioned, as you alluded to. But on the surface, if they are about the same size as Watkins, and they don't look tiny, it is unclear why he would?
6'1", 214 lbs. (few pictures on bottom right are representative - same height, about 3 lbs. more).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crabtree
6'0", 215 lbs. (maybe less than 1" shorter, about 4 lbs. heavier).
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2014/07/falcons-sign-roddy-white-to-4-year-extension/
Hypothetically, at what size do you think you would cease to think he looked tiny, 6'2" - 220 lbs. (Bryant), 6'3" - 230 lbs (Thomas), 6'4" - 240 lbs. (Johnson), etc. Not trying to be ridiculous, but I wouldn't call a (nearly) 6'1", 211 lb. WR tiny, so just curious how different we are seeing things. Maybe if he gets up to 215 lbs., you won't think he looks tiny any more, and it is much closer, I have no idea. Maybe you just mean tiny in an exaggerated sense, like not TINY "tiny", but slightly below average?
The next question is not just to you but the thread as well.
If Watkins was 6'2", 220 lbs., in other words, about 1" & 10 lbs. bigger, how much would it really move the dial on your dynasty projection, a lot, a little, not at all?
What I'm trying to get to the bottom of, for those that have gone on record being down on Watkins (in terms of his prospects to ever be elite) for height reasons, is that the ONLY reason, or are there other, and perhaps more serious concerns. As you said, not only doesn't he look big to you, but play big, either. I agree, I don't expect him to be like Rob Moore and make jump out of the stadium plays where he elevates over and snatches the ball away from the entire secondary. I did see him knock back and run over tacklers in ways that I didn't find common for a college WR, which is a way of playing big. But I don't know if you didn't see plays like that, maybe you did but it is more common in your experience for college WRs to make plays like that, or you just weren't impressed with that dimension of his game.
If Watkins was 6'2", 220 lbs. (exact same 40, VJ, college production, etc.) and you still didn't like him that much AS AN ELITE WR PROSPECT, even though he would be about the same size as Dez Bryant and Julio Jones (6'3"), than size could be a red herring, for the thread. We tend to discuss what comes up, and size has been a topical issue, but maybe the bigger issue for some is just perceived lack of talent, in which case maybe we should be discussing that. Maybe there are people in which the dial WOULD move a lot if he was just 1" and 10 lbs. bigger, but it would at least be helpful to know what we are talking about, and recognize separate discussions for what they are, so we are talking with each other instead of across each other (again, meant collectively, addressed to the thread). There could be those who have issues with both his size and game, and both discussions could be relevant.
If a company was thinking of bringing on an employee (not unlike our position, whether to add Watkins to a dynasty roster), and they mentioned during the interview two health related issues, a tendency to have the sniffles and a bombshell announcement of a mutated, incurable form of ebola that enabled a worker to be functional and probably wasn't transmittable, and you discussed the prospective hire later, the meeting probably wouldn't spend a lot of time on the sniffles issue, and cut right to the chase with the ebola part.
Last edited by a moderator:
GreenBaySnackers
Footballguy
If Watkins were 6'2 220, 1.01 owners would be clinking beer mugs together and high fiving, not looking for validation that he was the right pick over Evans.IMO part of the confusion in calling a (nearly) 6'1", 211 lb. WR "tiny" is if you mean, for an elite WR, though that wasn't qualified in this case - I did see the later note about being in the context of a thread making a physical freak comparison.
If we are just talking about WRs in general, Watkins is at worst average size, not small, let alone tiny. Tiny WRs/returners would include Trindon Holiday (5'5", 177 lbs.), Tavon Austin, De'Anthony Thomas. Austin is about 5'8", 180 lbs. Watkins is about 5" and 30 lbs. bigger than that. To be proportionately bigger than Watkins (than Watkins is over Austin), that WR would be about 6'6", 240 lbs. Think a little bigger Calvin Johnson. Nobody would collapse the difference in size between an even bigger Johnson and Watkins, that wouldn't make sense. Proportionately, doing the same thing in the opposite direction doesn't make any more sense, imo. Everybody is welcome to report what they see and think, but if you explain that with unconventional descriptive terms, that can lead to miscommunication.
At least in the recent example above, the reason you cited for thinking Watkins looked tiny was being the same size as a CB. I looked at the link you provided and thought they looked about the same size, than immediately after fruity pebbles got to the bottom of the confusion and mistake (they looked the same size because they are about the same size). It wasn't a reason to think he looks tiny, which you acknowledged. The clip you linked wasn't a closeup, sometimes players are crouched with knees bent, one play makes it hard to judge relative size. In this case, though, we don't need to guess. We have his measureables, he is nearly 6'1", 211. You alluded to proportion, I don't know if you had something specific in mind or were hazarding guesses about what was amiss for you (proportionately, or tiny, rather
http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/16/3272187/clemsons-sammy-watkins-says-hell.html
Hypothetically, at what size do you think you would cease to think he looked tiny, 6'2" - 220 lbs. (Bryant), 6'3" - 230 lbs (Thomas), 6'4" - 240 lbs. (Johnson), etc. Not trying to be ridiculous, but I wouldn't call a (nearly) 6'1", 211 lb. WR tiny, so just curious how different we are seeing things. Maybe if he gets up to 215 lbs., you won't think he looks tiny any more, and it is much closer, I have no idea. Maybe you just mean tiny in an exagerrated sense, like not TINY "tiny", but slightly below average ?
The next question is not just to you but the thread as well.
If Watkins was 6'2", 220 lbs., in other words, about 1" & 10 lbs. bigger, how much would it really move the dial on your dynasty projection, a lot, a little, not at all?
What I'm trying to get to the bottom of, for those that have gone on record being down on Watkins (in terms of his prospects to ever be elite) for height reasons, is that the ONLY reason, or are there other, and perhaps more serious concerns. As you said, not only doesn't he look big to you, but play big, either. I agree, I don't expect him to be like Rob Moore and make jump out of the stadium plays where he elevates over and snatches the ball away from the entire secondary. I did see him knock back and run over tacklers in ways that I didn't find common for a college WR, which is a way of playing big. But I don't know if you didn't see plays like that, maybe you did but it is more common in your exerience for college WRs to make plays like that, or you just weren't impressed with that dimension of his game.
If Watkins was 6'2", 220 lbs. (same 40 and VJ) and you still didn't like him that much AS AN ELITE WR PROSPECT, even though he would be about the same size as Dez Bryant and Julio Jones (6'3"), than size could be a red herring, for the thread. We tend to discuss what comes up, and size has been a topical issue, but maybe the bigger issue for some is just perceived lack of talent, in which case maybe we should be discussing that. Maybe there are people in which the dial WOULD move a lot if he was just 1" and 10 lbs. bigger, but it would at least be helpful to know what we are talking about, and recognize separate discussions for what they are, so we are talking with each other instead of across each other (again, meant collectively, addressed to the thread). There could be those who have issues with both his size and game, and both discussion could be relevant.
If a company was thinking of bringing on an employee (not unlike our position, whether to add Watkins to a dynasty roster), and they mentioned during the interview two health related issues, a tendency to have the sniffles and a bombshell announcement of a mutated, incurable form of ebola that enabled a worker to be functional and probably wasn't transmittable, and you discussed the prospective hire later, the meeting probably wouldn't spend a lot of time on the sniffles issue, and cut right to the chase with the ebola part.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Some, I have no doubt, but I think there are others that just wouldn't project him favorably, even if 1" and 10 lbs. bigger. In which case, my point was it might be more helpful for those people to focus on what are actually the biggest issues with him, whether they be other measureables, skills, aspects of his game, etc., if height isn't the "major malfunction".
Last edited by a moderator:
grateful zed
Footballguy
lots of words in here.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
1) Watkins isn't tiny in conventional terms.
2) Are you concerned about his height, overall talent, both, neither - does anybody think he is merely a good to average prospect, but would have been an elite prospect if he was 1" taller and 10 lbs. heavier, or if size wouldn't make a difference either way in projecting him as merely a good to average prospect but non-elite, than for what reason/s?
3) It also might be instructive if more people "weighed in" on the two picture links in the post above under the one for Watkins, for similarly sized Michael Crabtree and Roddy White. Do they look "tiny" to anybody else?
2) Are you concerned about his height, overall talent, both, neither - does anybody think he is merely a good to average prospect, but would have been an elite prospect if he was 1" taller and 10 lbs. heavier, or if size wouldn't make a difference either way in projecting him as merely a good to average prospect but non-elite, than for what reason/s?
3) It also might be instructive if more people "weighed in" on the two picture links in the post above under the one for Watkins, for similarly sized Michael Crabtree and Roddy White. Do they look "tiny" to anybody else?
Last edited by a moderator:
Milkman
Footballguy
If Watkins was 1 inch taller and 10 pounds heavier with the same speed as he has now he would be an elite prospect. He's not so he's not an elite prospect because he is not going to dominate the redzone. He's still a good prospect but he's in a crap offense with a crap QB.
Last edited by a moderator:
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
Please stop with the size stuff. Jesus was only 5'9" and ran a 4.7 40, but I bet you he could play WR. The only thing holding him back is that crap QB.
