thebug

I didn't get that from the thread heading?

My logic does apply as it wasn't a scoring play. That is the rule. Not sure why that is so hard to comprehend? What's to review if it was incomplete? They guys upstairs looked at it (which they do every play with under 2:00 to go) and found no reason to buzz down to the on field officials. So yes there was no "official on field review", but that doesn't mean it wasn't looked at.

You know what? After further review, you may have something here! Fitz YPA for 2010 - 6.8 Fitz YPA for 2011 - 6.7 Fitz made 569 attempts in 2011 so 569 X .1 = 56.9 yards (if my math is correct and that's not always the case). Lee Evans had 74 yards receiving this season. Hmm, there's pretty much the difference right there.

No, they ran a different offense with the intention of keeping their QB alive. They were more successful than they were with Lee Evans here.

Same height as Brees. 6.0 ft. (not saying he is as good) Just saying.

No it's not a concern because we ran a different type of offense. Like I said it was a quick release type with shorter routes. YPA doesn't matter if you get the yards. 5+5+5+5=20 as does 11+9. More balls to tight ends and back would account for the YPA difference. We had more yards without Lee Evans. Try again.

They were less productive because we had better players at other positions to give the ball to. Players that will go into traffic and make the catch. The idea is to move the ball. 20 yards is still 20 yards even if a back or a tight end moved the ball.

We passed for more yards without Lee Evans. You can take that to the bank.

What if? What if? what if that 4th rounder is a star? What if Lee Evans had the same production as he had in Balt? What do you have? What if Easley didn't have to sit out the season? We passed for more yards without Lee Evans and that's a bad thing? Could it be because of the emergence of Scott Chandler? or that fact that both of our running backs caught more balls for more yards? Remember at the start of the season when the team was putting up good numbers and the O line looked good. That was because of the quick release type passing game. That wasn't suited for Lee Evans. The Bills had a plan and Lee didn't fit that plan. That doesn't mean they made the wrong choice.

Not every trade is about getting better "today".

If the call on the field is incomplete, then it is not a scoring play. It has been called like that all season. I think it was a easy one for the guys upstairs to look at quickly and say no catch. Next play.

This ^^^^^^

I'm going to say a little bit of both. With special teams playing a much bigger role than I had expected.

Two feet and maintain possession throughout the process. I'm pretty sure Calvin Johnson got two feet down on that play last year that was ruled incomplete. Just like when you are trying to get your feet inbounds on a catch, two feet but you must keep the ball. I put the blame on Flacco. Clearly Lee was a decoy on the play.

I doubt that.

That's because back then he was called Mac.

Good! My 7 year old son asked me if it was ok for him to do the "why so serious" shirt lift when he scores a goal in hockey. I told him I would yank him off the ice if he pulls that crap!

Lee is soft. Great guy, but soft.

He's been dead for a long time.

It is a crock. I heard Mike Leach is buying the team so he can be the head coach of a NFL team. Not confirmed, just what I heard.

That's how it's done.

So being stupid gets you out of a bet? You make a bet, man up and pay it. He liked the odds at the time.

You can't be talking about the pro football hall of fame? Dude, you've got it bad.

Jimmy Spaggs is smarter den you.

That's brilliant!