After today, Bills one step closer to shopping Evans

[The Big Cat]

Against the NFL's 5th rated pass defense and 6th overall defense, Fitzmagic and The Lost Boys moved the ball pretty damn effectively.

 

Before today, Evans hadn't missed a single game in his entire professional career. We all saw the play where he got tangled up and hurt. It didn't look that brutal. The Lee Evans of yore would have had that foot taped-up, and there's no doubt he would have played on it.

 

But in this season and for this game, a game in which 23 of the players on the 53 man roster are new to Buffalo this year, his bosses thought he'd be better off sitting out the rest of the season.

 

He's clearly a value to this team, don't get me wrong. He changes the way defenses have to scheme, he blocks well, and he's ALWAYS a deep threat. But he may not be as valuable as the whipper snappers Buffalo fielded today, and he may be very valuable to other teams in the league--The Chargers come to mind.

 

After today, the Bills are one step closer to putting Lee--with his fairly modest contract--on the trade dock.

 

Consider the following:

 

Today, Stevie Johnson became the first Bills receiver to reach 10 TD's since 2002. If he gets one more, he'll have tied the franchise record for single season TD's. In way or another, regardless of the franchise pedigree, Stevie Johnson may soon out-perform any Buffalo Bill to come before him, including Lee Evans.

 

Stevie also only needs 57 yards over the next two games to reach 1000 yards. That's right, two games left in the year, and Stevie's already gained more yards than Evans did in all but two of his seven seasons in Buffalo.

 

Now, I understand that Evans deserves credit for some of Johnson's production. He's, you know, a decoy.

 

Before today, with Lee Evans, Johnson averaged 5 catches for 67.2 ypg and .69 TD's

 

Johnson's week 15 stat line sans Lee Evans: 6 catches for 69 yards and a TD.

 

If Nelson scores a TD against New England, he'll have the same amount of TD's in the same amount of games as Lee Evans.

 

And about Lee's four TD's in 2010: three of them came in one game. That means he didn't score a touch down in ten of his twelve starts this year. Stevie has now scored in seven different games.

 

Now, I'm not totally sold on Donald Jones. But I am sold on Roscoe Parrish, a guy who had more catches and more yards than Evans through the first eight weeks of the season, up until Parrish was injured.

 

These young guys have two more weeks with Fitzmagic, we're getting Parrish back, and we've got Easley, a guy who appeared--at times--to be a dangerous new toy for Fitz to mess around with. If they perform next week at home against he Patriots like they did today against a far superior pass defense on the road in Miami, the Bills might have to think long and hard about if Lee's value to the team is as great as the compensation he could fetch from other team's around the league.

[bowery4]

You could be right but I kind of have a hunch he will be playing here at least for next year. Having too many good players at a position is a good problem. I think Nix said something about stacking talent....sounds good to me.

[OldTimer1960]

He is far more valuable to the Bills than the 3rd or 4th round pick that they

might be able to get for him - unless they decide that he just isn't worth

the big money that they'll have to pay him.

 

Evan's trade value just isn't very high, so they are better off keeping him (IMHO).

[OCinBuffalo]

As I said in the shoutbox yesterday, I have an idea/prediction regarding Shanahan, and of course Snyder, and the Redskins:

 

Lee Evans for their #2. If that's too much, then #3 and #4 this year. Based on this draft chart, I'd say Evans is worth at least a 2. He is a #1 WR that is proven, and he forces teams to gameplan for him. Assuming the Skins are picking somewhere around #10, the number 2 we would get is a fair trade by the numbers. Regardless, wouldn't you take a #3 and #4?

 

Hold on, I understand that the Redskins have decent WRs. But, that is a fact, and facts don't apply when we are talking about the Redskins. Dan Snyder is a headline whore(see every single move he has ever made), and his whoredom passes for a marketing department, along with his co-opting of the DC media(edit: who make their living on Dan Snyder headlines, btw). Because of this, he NEEDS to make big splashes. His entire plan appears to be based on them.

 

Hey, you can call this a stupid idea, and I would be inclined to agree , but "aggressive"(read: stupid) is the Redskins hallmark.

 

Teams that are in real need of WRs, and listed in order of feasibility imho, are:

Raiders(Al Davis, period. Almost as bad as the Skins)

Chefs (terrible passing game, and with Cassle's supposed ability, this is also very feasible, a "add one more player" thing)

Panthers(with Clausen now starting, this is a very feasible idea, and with Steve Smith there would be no excuses)

Browns(same argument as Panthers, new, supposedly awesome QB, "needs a veteran WR" blah, blah)

Rams(same as Panthers and Browns)

Titans(I don't know about this idea, since I don't know who plays QB for this team, and if they even care who their QB is)

Bears(Does Cutler need weapons? They are leading their division, but look at their stats on O. Horrible)

 

The reason I didn't include the Jags and the 49ers is: neither of these teams seems interested in throwing the deep ball. The Titans could be in this category as well, but, if Kerry Collins is still their QB next year, who knows?

Edited December 20, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Pirate Angel]

Dont forget WR Marcuse Easley, our rookie out of UConn was looking real good in training camp before going down with an injury.

[OCinBuffalo]

Dont forget WR Marcuse Easley, our rookie out of UConn was looking real good in training camp before going down with an injury.

I did. And, you are right. Boy, Easley has a long way to go to make the team, never mind get on the field.

 

Not sure if this has a lot of effect on an Evans trade right now, but, if he comes back and looks good in OTAs...then that adds fuel to the fire.

[Coach Tuesday]

$4 million salary for the next two seasons. Peanuts. Why on Earth trade the guy?

[mattsox]

He is far more valuable to the Bills than the 3rd or 4th round pick that they

might be able to get for him - unless they decide that he just isn't worth

the big money that they'll have to pay him.

 

Evan's trade value just isn't very high, so they are better off keeping him (IMHO).

 

When did the Bills ever say they were shopping Evans? I missed that memo...

[OCinBuffalo]

$4 million salary for the next two seasons. Peanuts. Why on Earth trade the guy?

Because, if we can get a #2 for him, it's completely worth it.

 

And, that salary is an incentive for a trading partner. Actually, that salary makes the deal more likely.

When did the Bills ever say they were shopping Evans? I missed that memo...

We didn't realize how many good WR we had on this team. And, we don't even know how good Beasley is to boot. What if he is as good as he looked in camp?

 

 

---

At some point, you have to make a decision that it's better to move a guy when he has some value, than hold onto him until he doesn't. Or, play him until his contract runs out, and then he walks, and then you get nothing = what he Bills have been doing for the last 10 years.

 

The Pats keep ending up with a bevy of 2nd round draft picks, that they use to move around in the draft and pick the exact players they want, usually for value, rather than reaching. Bad picks aside, the strategy works flawlessly in terms of putting them in position to make the right picks.

 

How do they do this? Because they trade veteran players with multiple years left on their contracts. See: Randy Moss, the most recent example.

 

Edit: What if we had traded London Fletcher to the Redskins when we decided to go to the Tampa2? What would they have given us? At least their #2, probably more. Instead, what did we do? Let him stay here, then let him walk, and end up there as a FA anyway.

Edited December 20, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Mr. WEO]

Because, if we can get a #2 for him, it's completely worth it.

 

And, that salary is an incentive for a trading partner. Actually, that salary makes the deal more likely.

 

We didn't realize how many good WR we had on this team. And, we don't even know how good Beasley is to boot. What if he is as good as he looked in camp?

 

 

---

At some point, you have to make a decision that it's better to move a guy when he has some value, than hold onto him until he doesn't. Or, play him until his contract runs out, and then he walks, and then you get nothing = what he Bills have been doing for the last 10 years.

 

The Pats keep ending up with a bevy of 2nd round draft picks, that they use to move around in the draft and pick the exact players they want, usually for value, rather than reaching. Bad picks aside, the strategy works flawlessly in terms of putting them in position to make the right picks.

 

How do they do this? Because they trade veteran players with multiple years left on their contracts. See: Randy Moss, the most recent example.

 

Edit: What if we had traded London Fletcher to the Redskins when we decided to go to the Tampa2? What would they have given us? At least their #2, probably more. Instead, what did we do? Let him stay here, then let him walk, and end up there as a FA anyway.

If he's worth a number 2 (which no one will part with for him) why not keep him? Why replace him with some kid who could not withstand the rigors of training camp?

Also, there is no way you really believe that we could have gotten a 2nd rounder for Fletcher.

[OCinBuffalo]

If he's worth a number 2 (which no one will part with for him) why not keep him? Why replace him with some kid who could not withstand the rigors of training camp?

Also, there is no way you really believe that we could have gotten a 2nd rounder for Fletcher.

Again, I am talking Redskins here.

 

But still, what did we really get from trying to convert our "stars" who were good at the scheme we had, into average players because they were average at cover 2?

 

All we did was bastardize their value. If we had traded, Posy and/or Spikes and/or Fletcher, we would have gotten #2-3s for them. Instead, we ended up either getting nothing, or, trading for #5s later? That was stupid.

 

Similarly, this is not a deep ball offense as much as it is a 20-30 yard big play offense and a "get (insert skill player here) with the ball in space" offense. Why should we keep Lee Evans for 2-3 plays a game, with a max of 5-6 TDs and 400 yards a season? That's bastardizing his value. Either start gunning the ball down field more often, or, move Evans and get his full value in return.

[HARCO186]

One can't argue with the facts you put up because stats don't lie. I do think Lee Evans time in Buffalo is on a downslide, but he is under contract and he shows up to work. How many qb's did he go thru? I feel the chemistry just never developed with Lee as it did with Stevie. Johnson as we know spent countless time with Fitz at and after practice working on the coordination and patterns. This is a key part to the success of each others development. Lee is not over in Buffalo, and will stay as long as his contract. Buffalo has too much invested in him, and he is not a bad receiver by far. He just has to work with Fitz to get the chemistry down. Plus with all the qb changes, who knows what was said behind close doors to each other. They may not get along at all because Lee wanted a different qb besides Fitz and Fitz just might not be getting Lee the ball much. With that said, Lee is still a threat that needs to be looked at, and must be protected against. I do feel when his contract is up, Lee will be told to go elsewhere though.

[Ghost of Rob Johnson]

Lee Evans for their #2. If that's too much, then #3 and #4 this year. Based on this draft chart, I'd say Evans is worth at least a 2. He is a #1 WR that is proven, and he forces teams to gameplan for him. Assuming the Skins are picking somewhere around #10, the number 2 we would get is a fair trade by the numbers. Regardless, wouldn't you take a #3 and #4?

Anquan Boldin was traded last offseason for 3rd and 4th round picks in an offseason with very limited free agency, he is actually a legit #1 receiver. You have to factor in that there are WRs available in the open market, so the teams arent paying for Lee Evans full value, they're paying draft picks for the amount better that he is over the best available UFA. Why pay a draft pick when you can get Randy Moss, Sidney Rice, Vincent Jackson, Steve Smith, Santonio Holmes, Donald Driver, Mike Sims-Walker, Steve Breaston, Malcolm Floyd, or James Jones and probably equal or in many cases better production for just the money. You might be looking at getting a 6th round pick.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Ghost of Rob Johnson

[mattsox]

Because, if we can get a #2 for him, it's completely worth it.

 

And, that salary is an incentive for a trading partner. Actually, that salary makes the deal more likely.

 

We didn't realize how many good WR we had on this team. And, we don't even know how good Beasley is to boot. What if he is as good as he looked in camp?

 

 

---

At some point, you have to make a decision that it's better to move a guy when he has some value, than hold onto him until he doesn't. Or, play him until his contract runs out, and then he walks, and then you get nothing = what he Bills have been doing for the last 10 years.

 

The Pats keep ending up with a bevy of 2nd round draft picks, that they use to move around in the draft and pick the exact players they want, usually for value, rather than reaching. Bad picks aside, the strategy works flawlessly in terms of putting them in position to make the right picks.

 

I think you make those decisions in Training camp. If he can't comeback off the Injury and play good, then you make a move. If he can comeback and contribute to the team. I say keep him. Finding good quality receivers are hard to come by. I would say we have more so "lucked out" when it comes to WR this year. Guys are always gonna get hurt, and 1 year doesn't necessarily translate into the next. I'd just be skeptical until makiing rash decisions.

How do they do this? Because they trade veteran players with multiple years left on their contracts. See: Randy Moss, the most recent example.

 

Edit: What if we had traded London Fletcher to the Redskins when we decided to go to the Tampa2? What would they have given us? At least their #2, probably more. Instead, what did we do? Let him stay here, then let him walk, and end up there as a FA anyway.

[PromoTheRobot]

The same people who feel Fitz has proved nothing with 23 TDs this season are the same ones ready to trade Evans after one game and hand his job to a rookie injured in camp.

 

PTR

[OCinBuffalo]

Anquan Boldin was traded last offseason for 3rd and 4th round picks in an offseason with very limited free agency, he is actually a legit #1 receiver. You have to factor in that there are WRs available in the open market, so the teams arent paying for Lee Evans full value, they're paying draft picks for the amount better that he is over the best available UFA. Why pay a draft pick when you can get Randy Moss, Sidney Rice, Vincent Jackson, Steve Smith, Santonio Holmes, Donald Driver, Mike Sims-Walker, Steve Breaston, Malcolm Floyd, or James Jones and probably equal or in many cases better production for just the money. You might be looking at getting a 6th round pick.

Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying I want to trade Evans, or, that it is a good idea, if all we get is "fair" value.

While I think estimating his value as a 6 is a preposterous, I also think giving us a 2 for him would be equally goofy.

 

I am merely trying to show feasible situations where teams would be willing to overpay, and give us "unfair value" for Evans, since getting "unfair value" = win.

 

Doing nothing(Nate Clements) = fail.

Overpaying for another teams FAs that they are letting walk(The O lineman we signed) = fail.

Not taking trade offers for players like London Fletcher = fail.

 

You can't keep doing the same thing, fail, and then go right back to it and expect different results. I understand that each player is different, but every single time we have traded a "star" we have ended up with the better part of the deal.

"Stars" on a team that can't make the playoffs the 5 years they are there? Stars? Really?

Edited December 20, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Mr. WEO]

Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying I want to trade Evans, or, that it is a good idea, if all we get is "fair" value.

While I think estimating his value as a 6 is a preposterous, I also think giving us a 2 for him would be equally goofy.

 

I am merely trying to show feasible situations where teams would be willing to overpay, and give us "unfair value" for Evans, since getting "unfair value" = win.

 

 

huh?

 

goofy is feasible?

 

This was your clarification?

[Coach Tuesday]

Ok. So we can all agree, unless by some miracle the Bills can swindle a team into trading a coveted second-round pick for a guy who isn't even a number one receiver, we should keep him.

 

Can we all move on now?

[apuszczalowski]

Anquan Boldin was traded last offseason for 3rd and 4th round picks in an offseason with very limited free agency, he is actually a legit #1 receiver. You have to factor in that there are WRs available in the open market, so the teams arent paying for Lee Evans full value, they're paying draft picks for the amount better that he is over the best available UFA. Why pay a draft pick when you can get Randy Moss, Sidney Rice, Vincent Jackson, Steve Smith, Santonio Holmes, Donald Driver, Mike Sims-Walker, Steve Breaston, Malcolm Floyd, or James Jones and probably equal or in many cases better production for just the money. You might be looking at getting a 6th round pick.

You are exactly right. Boldin, and moss are proven #1 WR's and were traded for so much less then a 2nd. So why would Lee Evans, someone that so many fans here believe is not a #1 WR and can be replaced easily by a bunch of UDFA's and a 7th rounder get more then those guys?

 

Keep making your fantasy trades on Madden where you might be able to get the computer to agree to that deal, but in the real world, anything more then a 4th for Evans and Buddy Nix should be given the title of greatest Bills GM in history for fleecing an NFL team

[Red]

Against the NFL's 5th rated pass defense and 6th overall defense, Fitzmagic and The Lost Boys moved the ball pretty damn effectively.

 

Before today, Evans hadn't missed a single game in his entire professional career. We all saw the play where he got tangled up and hurt. It didn't look that brutal. The Lee Evans of yore would have had that foot taped-up, and there's no doubt he would have played on it.

 

But in this season and for this game, a game in which 23 of the players on the 53 man roster are new to Buffalo this year, his bosses thought he'd be better off sitting out the rest of the season.

 

He's clearly a value to this team, don't get me wrong. He changes the way defenses have to scheme, he blocks well, and he's ALWAYS a deep threat. But he may not be as valuable as the whipper snappers Buffalo fielded today, and he may be very valuable to other teams in the league--The Chargers come to mind.

 

After today, the Bills are one step closer to putting Lee--with his fairly modest contract--on the trade dock.

 

Consider the following:

 

Today, Stevie Johnson became the first Bills receiver to reach 10 TD's since 2002. If he gets one more, he'll have tied the franchise record for single season TD's. In way or another, regardless of the franchise pedigree, Stevie Johnson may soon out-perform any Buffalo Bill to come before him, including Lee Evans.

 

Stevie also only needs 57 yards over the next two games to reach 1000 yards. That's right, two games left in the year, and Stevie's already gained more yards than Evans did in all but two of his seven seasons in Buffalo.

 

Now, I understand that Evans deserves credit for some of Johnson's production. He's, you know, a decoy.

 

Before today, with Lee Evans, Johnson averaged 5 catches for 67.2 ypg and .69 TD's

 

Johnson's week 15 stat line sans Lee Evans: 6 catches for 69 yards and a TD.

 

If Nelson scores a TD against New England, he'll have the same amount of TD's in the same amount of games as Lee Evans.

 

And about Lee's four TD's in 2010: three of them came in one game. That means he didn't score a touch down in ten of his twelve starts this year. Stevie has now scored in seven different games.

 

Now, I'm not totally sold on Donald Jones. But I am sold on Roscoe Parrish, a guy who had more catches and more yards than Evans through the first eight weeks of the season, up until Parrish was injured.

 

These young guys have two more weeks with Fitzmagic, we're getting Parrish back, and we've got Easley, a guy who appeared--at times--to be a dangerous new toy for Fitz to mess around with. If they perform next week at home against he Patriots like they did today against a far superior pass defense on the road in Miami, the Bills might have to think long and hard about if Lee's value to the team is as great as the compensation he could fetch from other team's around the league.

 

 

Big Cat,

 

Love the "Lost Boys" moniker for the receiving corp.

 

But I highly doubt that this suddenly makes Evans expendable.

 

I will be the first one to state that Evans is not a #1 receiver. He is a highly skilled and polished #2 WR, but not a dominant, game-changing, run-any-kind-of-route WR like a true #1 needs to be. A true #1 receiver never gets lost in defenses as often as Evans has. However, I completely disagree that he has no value to the team. Now, for as often as he disappears and for his salary, we could probably afford to part with him. As he ages, he loses that 4.3-ish speed. That's all he has.

 

But it would be yet another example of a #1 pick, scouted by Modrak, that never truly lived up to the draft position.