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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Carter_Can_Fly
- Start date
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
does he still suck?
werdnoynek
Footballguy
Sammy showed size doesn't always matter in the redzone.
georg013
Footballguy
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
georg013
Footballguy
Not that anyone is sizing him up for Canton or anything after ONE good game. It just seemed incredibly stupid to start laughing at his week one performance and pounding chest as if anyone knew "all along" he would be an average talent. Let his season play out before patting yourself on the back. Great game. Lots of work still ahead.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
And, he just missed hauling in a deep TD on the first drive of the game. It could have easily been a 3 TD game.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
pin it?
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
A very AJ like performance except Watkins was able to find the end zone. 8 catches on 11 targets for 117 yards. They did a good job of making him a big part of their game plan. Concerning for short term is those ribs are not in good shape. He was in a ton of pain after each tackle.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
It was a nice play on the TD, he had the speed to defeat a defender to the corner of the end zone that should have had the angle, than the strength to split the second defender as he stretched for the pylon. Plays like that are why they traded up. Even though Watkins isn't huge, he is still going to be bigger than most CBs.
BUF is 2-0.
BUF is 2-0.
Last edited by a moderator:
RhymesMcJuice
Footballguy
Elite
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
solorca
Footballguy
So one poor game is a reason to come into this thread and mock people, but one good game is nothing special?
Got it.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
FWIW, I don't know if it's because of the defense Miami was running or Watkins' ability or both, but Watkins was absurdly open over and over again yesterday. I follow CFB pretty closely so I know his talents, but I think he opened the eyes of a lot of Bills fans yesterday. He looked GOOD.
massraider
Footballguy
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
Welcome to fantasy football.
People are so desperate to be right around here. See evidence A, last week. Evidence B, this week.
Half the fun is being right and the other half is making fun of people who are not right.
Well to a certain extent.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Agreed. Knew he was talented, but with better ball placement, he might have had a 30 point game yesterday. Like you said, he was wide open the entire game.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
In the interest of accuracy, this was the quote.
"Lol i tried to warn you guys. Good not great. Terrible situation. Not a good combo."
If after just one week, you start off by laughing at people and saying I told you so, than he has a top 3 WR game in week 2 (behind only a WR with 209 yards and another with 3 TDs), there is going to be some blowback.
The narrative from some is he isn't special (because he isn't 1" taller, etc.). Also, he is in a bad situation with Manuel. This will preclude elite production, he isn't good enough to overcome his supposedly bad situation. We need to see a bigger sample. I'm not laughing at anybody or saying I told you so after two games (let alone one). But if he continues to have more games like week 2 against MIA, that could suggest that Watkins is special and able to overcome a sub-optimal situation, or, maybe the situation isn't so sub-optimal that it will prevent him from putting up big numbers (great RB situtaion, for instance, potentially very good defense, etc.).
His TD this week was an example of how he doesn't need to jump as high as Dez Bryant to score in the red zone, not consistently skying over DBs is missing the point about his game, he has great hands, is explosive in the open field and has the strength to be a RAC weapon. Also with the reception volume, Manuel doesn't need a Manning-like completion percentage to get the ball to their best plamaker at WR a handful of times a game (give or take).
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
You were laughing at people and saying I told you so after one week. That is accurate (and hard to take seriously).
One of the things you said, such as nobody said he will never score a TD, was a strawman, as nobody said anybody said that. But, as noted above, the comment does remain silent on the 7 receptions and 100+ yards.
You have to admit, the timing was poor for you, making a not great, terrible situation, bad combo call the week before he has a breakout game, in which he looked great, the situation wasn't terrible and there was no resulting bad combo bogeyman?
One of the things you said, such as nobody said he will never score a TD, was a strawman, as nobody said anybody said that. But, as noted above, the comment does remain silent on the 7 receptions and 100+ yards.
You have to admit, the timing was poor for you, making a not great, terrible situation, bad combo call the week before he has a breakout game, in which he looked great, the situation wasn't terrible and there was no resulting bad combo bogeyman?
Last edited by a moderator:
Milkman
Footballguy
Ok tells me not to make judgements on players over one week of production. Then makes judgement on Player for this week's performance.
Sweet! Got it!
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
For somebody who claims to be keen on accuracy, you are being kind of inaccurate. Below is what I actually said in the post immediately above.
"We need to see a bigger sample. I'm not laughing at anybody or saying I told you so after two games (let alone one). But if he continues to have more games like week 2 against MIA, that could suggest that Watkins is special and able to overcome a sub-optimal situation, or, maybe the situation isn't so sub-optimal that it will prevent him from putting up big numbers (great RB situtaion, for instance, potentially very good defense, etc.)."
I also said it was accurate that you were laughing at others and saying I told you so after week 1. I don't see you disputing that, despite the protests of inaccuracy in characterizing your position (which you used at least one inaccurate strawman argument to make the point with). I didn't tell you what to do, I just said obviously laughing at people and making definitive statements after 1 week is bound to incur blowback under the circumstances (laughing at other people and saying I told you so after one week, than complaining about the blowback, is like Larry poking Curly in the eye, than complaining when Moe hits him on the head
). .Ask yourself, if you were on vacation and didn't post anything about Watkins after week 1, than returned after week 2, would you have posted, LOL, I told you so? Probably not. Pretty clearly, it WAS unfortunate timing for you, to make a definitive non-greatness, bad situation and combo call, BASED ON ONE WEEK, the week before he broke out, BASED ON YOUR OWN ONE GAME STANDARDS.
You are the one who began with the one NFL game school of scouting confirmation gambit. Is it ridiculous or not, which is it, you can't have it both ways? If it is, than you were being ridiculous, by your own definition. If you don't think it is (at least there is that presumption, seeing as you did it yourself), why wouldn't you expect to be critiqued in the same manner, if you think it is appropriate for you to do it? Since you don't seem to think it is ridiculous, I'm responding to you in kind.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
Magaw killing it the last few posts. On point for sure.
Milkman
Footballguy
Lol reread your own post dude.For somebody who claims to be keen on accuracy, you are being kind of inaccurate. Below is what I actually said in the post immediately above.
"We need to see a bigger sample. I'm not laughing at anybody or saying I told you so after two games (let alone one). But if he continues to have more games like week 2 against MIA, that could suggest that Watkins is special and able to overcome a sub-optimal situation, or, maybe the situation isn't so sub-optimal that it will prevent him from putting up big numbers (great RB situtaion, for instance, potentially very good defense, etc.)."
I also said it was accurate that you were laughing at others and saying I told you so after week 1. I don't see you disputing that, despite the protests of inaccuracy in characterizing your position (which you used at least one inaccurate strawman argument to make the point with). I didn't tell you what to do, I just said obviously laughing at people and making definitive statements after 1 week is bound to incur blowback under the circumstances (laughing at other people and saying I told you so after one week, than complaining about the blowback, is like Larry poking Curly in the eye, than complaining when Moe hits him on the head
Ask yourself, if you were on vacation and didn't post anything about Watkins after week 1, than returned after week 2, would you have posted, LOL, I told you so? Probably not. Pretty clearly, it WAS unfortunate timing for you, to make a definitive non-greatness, bad situation and combo call, BASED ON ONE WEEK, the week before he broke out, BASED ON YOUR OWN ONE GAME STANDARDS.
You are the one who began with the one NFL game school of scouting confirmation gambit. Is it ridiculous or not, which is it, you can't have it both ways? If it is, than you were being ridiculous, by your own definition. If you don't think it is (at least there is that presumption, seeing as you did it yourself), why wouldn't you expect to be critiqued in the same manner, if you think it is appropriate for you to do it? Since you don't seem to think it is ridiculous, I'm responding to you in kind.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
You're getting killed here. Quit while you're behind.Lol reread your own post dude.For somebody who claims to be keen on accuracy, you are being kind of inaccurate. Below is what I actually said in the post immediately above.
"We need to see a bigger sample. I'm not laughing at anybody or saying I told you so after two games (let alone one). But if he continues to have more games like week 2 against MIA, that could suggest that Watkins is special and able to overcome a sub-optimal situation, or, maybe the situation isn't so sub-optimal that it will prevent him from putting up big numbers (great RB situtaion, for instance, potentially very good defense, etc.)."
I also said it was accurate that you were laughing at others and saying I told you so after week 1. I don't see you disputing that, despite the protests of inaccuracy in characterizing your position (which you used at least one inaccurate strawman argument to make the point with). I didn't tell you what to do, I just said obviously laughing at people and making definitive statements after 1 week is bound to incur blowback under the circumstances (laughing at other people and saying I told you so after one week, than complaining about the blowback, is like Larry poking Curly in the eye, than complaining when Moe hits him on the head
Ask yourself, if you were on vacation and didn't post anything about Watkins after week 1, than returned after week 2, would you have posted, LOL, I told you so? Probably not. Pretty clearly, it WAS unfortunate timing for you, to make a definitive non-greatness, bad situation and combo call, BASED ON ONE WEEK, the week before he broke out, BASED ON YOUR OWN ONE GAME STANDARDS.
You are the one who began with the one NFL game school of scouting confirmation gambit. Is it ridiculous or not, which is it, you can't have it both ways? If it is, than you were being ridiculous, by your own definition. If you don't think it is (at least there is that presumption, seeing as you did it yourself), why wouldn't you expect to be critiqued in the same manner, if you think it is appropriate for you to do it? Since you don't seem to think it is ridiculous, I'm responding to you in kind.
Milkman
Footballguy
nah dude just said you can't make a judgment on a player with one game of data then turned around and did just that the next sentence.You're getting killed here. Quit while you're behind.Lol reread your own post dude.For somebody who claims to be keen on accuracy, you are being kind of inaccurate. Below is what I actually said in the post immediately above.
"We need to see a bigger sample. I'm not laughing at anybody or saying I told you so after two games (let alone one). But if he continues to have more games like week 2 against MIA, that could suggest that Watkins is special and able to overcome a sub-optimal situation, or, maybe the situation isn't so sub-optimal that it will prevent him from putting up big numbers (great RB situtaion, for instance, potentially very good defense, etc.)."
I also said it was accurate that you were laughing at others and saying I told you so after week 1. I don't see you disputing that, despite the protests of inaccuracy in characterizing your position (which you used at least one inaccurate strawman argument to make the point with). I didn't tell you what to do, I just said obviously laughing at people and making definitive statements after 1 week is bound to incur blowback under the circumstances (laughing at other people and saying I told you so after one week, than complaining about the blowback, is like Larry poking Curly in the eye, than complaining when Moe hits him on the head
Ask yourself, if you were on vacation and didn't post anything about Watkins after week 1, than returned after week 2, would you have posted, LOL, I told you so? Probably not. Pretty clearly, it WAS unfortunate timing for you, to make a definitive non-greatness, bad situation and combo call, BASED ON ONE WEEK, the week before he broke out, BASED ON YOUR OWN ONE GAME STANDARDS.
You are the one who began with the one NFL game school of scouting confirmation gambit. Is it ridiculous or not, which is it, you can't have it both ways? If it is, than you were being ridiculous, by your own definition. If you don't think it is (at least there is that presumption, seeing as you did it yourself), why wouldn't you expect to be critiqued in the same manner, if you think it is appropriate for you to do it? Since you don't seem to think it is ridiculous, I'm responding to you in kind.
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
I think you are struggling with reading comprehension. See bolded.nah dude just said you can't make a judgment on a player with one game of data then turned around and did just that the next sentence.You're getting killed here. Quit while you're behind.Lol reread your own post dude.For somebody who claims to be keen on accuracy, you are being kind of inaccurate. Below is what I actually said in the post immediately above.
"We need to see a bigger sample. I'm not laughing at anybody or saying I told you so after two games (let alone one). But if he continues to have more games like week 2 against MIA, that could suggest that Watkins is special and able to overcome a sub-optimal situation, or, maybe the situation isn't so sub-optimal that it will prevent him from putting up big numbers (great RB situtaion, for instance, potentially very good defense, etc.)."
I also said it was accurate that you were laughing at others and saying I told you so after week 1. I don't see you disputing that, despite the protests of inaccuracy in characterizing your position (which you used at least one inaccurate strawman argument to make the point with). I didn't tell you what to do, I just said obviously laughing at people and making definitive statements after 1 week is bound to incur blowback under the circumstances (laughing at other people and saying I told you so after one week, than complaining about the blowback, is like Larry poking Curly in the eye, than complaining when Moe hits him on the head
Ask yourself, if you were on vacation and didn't post anything about Watkins after week 1, than returned after week 2, would you have posted, LOL, I told you so? Probably not. Pretty clearly, it WAS unfortunate timing for you, to make a definitive non-greatness, bad situation and combo call, BASED ON ONE WEEK, the week before he broke out, BASED ON YOUR OWN ONE GAME STANDARDS.
You are the one who began with the one NFL game school of scouting confirmation gambit. Is it ridiculous or not, which is it, you can't have it both ways? If it is, than you were being ridiculous, by your own definition. If you don't think it is (at least there is that presumption, seeing as you did it yourself), why wouldn't you expect to be critiqued in the same manner, if you think it is appropriate for you to do it? Since you don't seem to think it is ridiculous, I'm responding to you in kind.
Milkman
Footballguy
No im not talking about that post.I think you are struggling with reading comprehension. See bolded.nah dude just said you can't make a judgment on a player with one game of data then turned around and did just that the next sentence.You're getting killed here. Quit while you're behind.Lol reread your own post dude.For somebody who claims to be keen on accuracy, you are being kind of inaccurate. Below is what I actually said in the post immediately above.
"We need to see a bigger sample. I'm not laughing at anybody or saying I told you so after two games (let alone one). But if he continues to have more games like week 2 against MIA, that could suggest that Watkins is special and able to overcome a sub-optimal situation, or, maybe the situation isn't so sub-optimal that it will prevent him from putting up big numbers (great RB situtaion, for instance, potentially very good defense, etc.)."
I also said it was accurate that you were laughing at others and saying I told you so after week 1. I don't see you disputing that, despite the protests of inaccuracy in characterizing your position (which you used at least one inaccurate strawman argument to make the point with). I didn't tell you what to do, I just said obviously laughing at people and making definitive statements after 1 week is bound to incur blowback under the circumstances (laughing at other people and saying I told you so after one week, than complaining about the blowback, is like Larry poking Curly in the eye, than complaining when Moe hits him on the head
Ask yourself, if you were on vacation and didn't post anything about Watkins after week 1, than returned after week 2, would you have posted, LOL, I told you so? Probably not. Pretty clearly, it WAS unfortunate timing for you, to make a definitive non-greatness, bad situation and combo call, BASED ON ONE WEEK, the week before he broke out, BASED ON YOUR OWN ONE GAME STANDARDS.
You are the one who began with the one NFL game school of scouting confirmation gambit. Is it ridiculous or not, which is it, you can't have it both ways? If it is, than you were being ridiculous, by your own definition. If you don't think it is (at least there is that presumption, seeing as you did it yourself), why wouldn't you expect to be critiqued in the same manner, if you think it is appropriate for you to do it? Since you don't seem to think it is ridiculous, I'm responding to you in kind.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
This is turning out to be one of my favorite threads.
Last edited by a moderator:
GreenBaySnackers
Footballguy
I sure wish I could see all 8 Sammy catches from yesterday. Nothing on Toutube, anyone have a link?
georg013
Footballguy
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
He was in considerable pain all game. After he gets the rest over their bye week eventually and gets back to 100%, he's going to look even better.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Main thing i noticed was how effortlessly he plucks the ball out of the air.
RhymesMcJuice
Footballguy
Regardless of where you think he is on the 'elite' spectrum, no one can deny he isn't fun to watch.
werdnoynek
Footballguy
Looking at his Week 2 performance, for receivers playing 50% or more of their respective team's snaps in Week 2, Watkins was ranked:
7th in Targets with 11.
Tied for 4th in Receptions with 8.
2nd in Yards with 117.
2nd in Yards/Rec with 14.6.
Also, he had 0 drops in Week 2 (0 in week 1 for that matter).
PFF has him at #1 in Week 2 for Yards per Pass Route Run at 4.88 - it's the number of yards a receiver picks up on a per route basis.
PFF also had him with the best WR Rating in week 2, which is determined by what the QB's rating is while throwing to that WR.
He's not only playing great for a rookie WR, he's making his QB better too.
7th in Targets with 11.
Tied for 4th in Receptions with 8.
2nd in Yards with 117.
2nd in Yards/Rec with 14.6.
Also, he had 0 drops in Week 2 (0 in week 1 for that matter).
PFF has him at #1 in Week 2 for Yards per Pass Route Run at 4.88 - it's the number of yards a receiver picks up on a per route basis.
PFF also had him with the best WR Rating in week 2, which is determined by what the QB's rating is while throwing to that WR.
He's not only playing great for a rookie WR, he's making his QB better too.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Lets start with...Milkman said:
1) Following a non-descript week 1 by Watkins...
2) After patiently, carefully, methodically waiting for a sample of Watkins NFL body of work to emerge that was deemed large enough by you to be statistically relevant and comprising solid ground for validating your earlier, pre-season beliefs, OF ONE GAME...
3) You laughed at the thread (LOL preface)...
4) Than chose to make your point with the taunting, boorish, always grating, I told you so form of discourse...
5) Stating how one bad game in some way confirmed for you (surprise, surprise) what you already knew and told people before, Watkins isn't special, and will be further doomed by Manuel.
6) Than in the very next game, after Watkins had a top 3 WR game (and in which Manuel by definition wasn't an impediment) that was so great for a rookie, it would have been hard for you to possibly be more mistaken in a shorter period of time, BASED ON YOR OWN, "ha ha, I told you so, one game school of scouting confirmation" approach, you were predictably called out by the thread for being excessively negative and absurdly premature.
7) And since then, have been backpedaling with deflection and misdirection tactics about being misrepresented rather than acknowledge what you did say, and clumsily attempting to spit the bit of the same one game school of scouting that you championed after week 1 when it conformed to your Watkins is good not great, Manuel is terrible narrative, but now want nothing to do with when his stellar week 2 torpedoed that narrative, BY YOUR OWN one week school of scouting standards.
* But please, predictably explain how this is also a misrepresentation, you really didn't laugh at the thread, gratingly say I told you so, and make the wildly hair trigger and premature call that Watkins will merely be good, based on a massive, statistically relevant sample of one game as a pro.
* I get the neener, neener, Johnny logic puzzle, you are too defense (really, what else can you say, to deflect and misdirect away from acknowledging your own position, which you seem desperately intent on distancing yourself from at all costs). I have never said I could tell Watkins will be great based on one pro game. What I, and others in the thread have attempted, since you implied you could make such a definitive call so quicky (by, you know, making one in the thread after one game in the NFL, in this case that he wasn't great), is to mirror your method back to you, to point out the blatant contradiction of saying an average first game confirmed for you that he wasn't great after just one week into his pro career, brandishing this flimsy time frame because it supported your narrative, but rejecting the comparable, equally valid following one because it contradicted your pet narrative.
Last edited by a moderator:
hxperson
Footballguy
Still don't understand how one can make a definitive call on a wide receiver's abilities after just one game as a pro, especially when said receiver missed a meaningful portion of the preseason and has a suspect quarterback.
Anyways even then its ok to just admit you were a bit premature with your statements and perhaps give new reasons as to why you still believe your original thoughts. But if you just defend yourself instead with diversion tactics, it just shows that you are a poster that's not worth listening to.
BTW, I agree with whichever poster in here called Watkins a very fast version of Anquan Boldin - that's exactly what he looked like to me out there. I do worry that his size (as well as EJ) will limit his TD production, but his hands, agility, and speed are exceptional.
Milkman
Footballguy
That's pretty accurate but I never said he sucked and I never said he wouldn't catch any touchdowns.
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
Nobody is reading the multi quoted bickering threads save the 3 people who are involved. Nobody cares who is right other than u guys. Take it to PM please so we can get back OT
