Courtney Watson traded to Bills

[Rip32]

NEW ORLEANS (June 6, 2006) -- The New Orleans Saints traded linebacker Courtney Watson to the Buffalo Bills in exchange for tight end Tim Euhus.

It's the second time this year that Watson has been traded. He was sent to Miami earlier this offseason but the deal was voided when Eddie Moore, the player the Saints had obtained, failed a physical.

Euhus, entering his third season, has started nine of 23 games in his career. He has 14 receptions for 115 yards and a pair of touchdowns over the past two seasons with the Bills.

The trade is pending league approval.

Watson, who was drafted in the second round in 2004, played in nine games for the Saints last season and had 37 tackles and one sack. He was arrested in late October on a drunken driving charge in San Antonio and a knee sprain kept him out for the last seven games of the season.


AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

[RamsFan16]

That stinks. I was really hoping we'd make a push for him. I'm guess were stuck with either Chillar or Smith, grr.

[HUbison]

That stinks. I was really hoping we'd make a push for him. I'm guess were stuck with either Chillar or Smith, grr.

Please expand upon what you believe Watson would have been able to do for us.

[RamsFan16]

Please expand upon what you believe Watson would have been able to do for us.

Because coming out of college he was a better prospect than Chillar or Smith. He is a better athlete than Chillar and a little worse than Smith, BUT Smith is very injury prone as you can tell in his last few seasons and Chilllar doesn't IMO have the ideal size to play SLB. Watson had the perfect size in 6 - 1 245lbs. And was tougher and faster than Chillar. I don't think Chillar is SLB material, but thats just me.

[HUbison]

Because coming out of college he was a better prospect than Chillar or Smith. ---RF16

Ryan Leaf was a great prospect too.

Smith is very injury prone as you can tell in his last few seasons --- RF16

Watson has yet to finish a season healthy.

Chilllar doesn't IMO have the ideal size to play SLB. ---RF16

Well, I would think that a natural SOLB like Chillar (6'3, 255) is a better fit at strongside than a natural MLB like Watson (6'1", 245)

I don't think Chillar is SLB material, but thats just me. ---RF16

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I think Chillar, the ONLY true SOLB on our roster, might disagree.

[RamsFan16]

Just because your big in weight doesn't mean your strong, I can't even find if he did any lifting at the combine (Chillar). Ok found it he did 23 reps of 225.

I guess the way I'm thinking why not play Alston there?
Combine: 4.50-second 40-yard dash. ... 10'04" broad jump. ... 40-inch vertical jump. ... Bench-pressed 225 pounds 30 times.

He did it 33 times, he is alot more muscle per pound than Chillar but doesn't have the weight which I heard he is trying to gain like 10 pounds before the season.

[HUbison]

My man, nowhere in the job description of SOLB does it say......must bench-press more than 23 times. There's a huge difference between lifting a metal bar, and taking on OTs and TEs coming off the line.

[RamsFan16]

My man, nowhere in the job description of SOLB does it say......must bench-press more than 23 times. There's a huge difference between lifting a metal bar, and taking on OTs and TEs coming off the line.

I know. But you need to have strengh to do that, don't think I'm nagging on Chillar I just wish we would have taken a run at him, thats all.

[Nick]

RF, this is why it's important to think before responding.

You criticize Smith for being injury prone, yet Watson has played in 21 games over the last two years - nine games in 2005 and 12 games in 2004. Meaning he's missed 11 games in two years.

You say Chillar (6'3" 253) doesn't have ideal size to play SAM linebacker, yet he has much better size than Watson (6'1" 246)! Then you go on to suggest trying Jon Alston at SLB because of measurables. I guess I must have missed where Alston's 6'1" 224-pound frame became ideal SLB material, or at least is more ideal size than Chillar's much larger frame.

It takes five minutes to look this stuff up, and in doing so, perhaps it will lead to actually being able to post accurate information instead of things that get proven completely false as the thread goes on.

[RamsFan16]

RF, this is why it's important to think before responding.

You criticize Smith for being injury prone, yet Watson has played in 21 games over the last two years - nine games in 2005 and 12 games in 2004. Meaning he's missed 11 games in two years.

You say Chillar (6'3" 253) doesn't have ideal size to play SAM linebacker, yet he has much better size than Watson (6'1" 246)! Then you go on to suggest trying Jon Alston at SLB because of measurables. I guess I must have missed where Alston's 6'1" 224-pound frame became ideal SLB material, or at least is more ideal size than Chillar's much larger frame.

It takes five minutes to look this stuff up, and in doing so, perhaps it will lead to actually being able to post accurate information instead of things that get proven completely false as the thread goes on.

Ok, Smith has played in 30 games, which means in his 4 year career he has missed 34 games. In 4 years in the NFL Smith has 52 total tackles.

Watson has missed 11 games in 2 years and has 68 total tackles. I'm not saying anything but Watson appears to be the better player.

But here is another though. Maybe the coaching staff passed up on Watson, because there going to attempt to draft Ahmad Brooks in the Supplemental Draft!

[Nick]

Glad to see you ignored my advice and once again didn't take the time to think before posting.

You didn't respond to any of the points I raised. Arguing who is the better player between the two based on career tackles is not only laughable but was never the point.

You claim that Smith is very injury prone as a reason to go after Watson, and I counter by showing you Watson isn't a beacon of health himself. You say Chillar doesn't have ideal size or strength for the position, but Watson is smaller and benched less, a stat you seem to put a lot of emphasis on. Then you jump on Alston-for-SLB, even though Alston is quite a bit smaller than both Chillar and Watson. I guess you just chose to ignore that.

And now you want Ahmad Brooks? Do you want anyone that has a recognizable name? Because Brooks, whom I was a big fan of in 2003 and 2004, is clearly not the same player and has loads of off the field trouble. Then again, you also wanted Marcus Vick for some reason.

[RamsFan16]

I wanted Vick because he is a playmaker, and so is Brooks.

[Nick]

"He's a playmaker." How can I disagree with that stunning argument?

You sound like a Madden commercial.

[HUbison]

I wanted Vick because he is a playmaker, and so is Brooks.---RF16

But that's just it, 16.....there were literally hundreds of "playmakers" in college last year. Success in the NFL takes more than being a "playmaker" or bench-pressing a certain number of times.

We shouldn't consider a player our "answer" just because they're available, or signed with another team.

[Nick]

"We shouldn't consider a player our "answer" just because they're available, or signed with another team." -- HUb

Or simply because they have a recognizable name.