After today, Bills one step closer to shopping Evans

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree that when the Safety sees that Lee is running deep the safety is going to run up the field on that side because that is the safety's responsibility. I agree that Lee has a reputation as a burner and he has to expected more than if David Nelson were lined up wide. However that is the saftey's role if David Nelson is lined up outside and starts running a fly route, or CJ Spiller lines up Wide (Which worked 2 or 3 times last game) and starts running a fly route the safety is going to stay and help in coverage if that is the defense that is called. If they start bringing the safteys in to pass rush or blitz, then the offense has to demonstrate they can beat on on ones.

I think Fitzy is demonstrating he is not afraid to throw the ball and our young inexperienced and Hungry WRs have a few games on film that show they are not afraid to make a play on the ball.

 

I contend that the offense will have to adjust to this lack of respect of speed however in my opinion this is not a very high hurdle, the offense will be able to keep the ball moving as demonstrated against the #4 Total Defense Team (Miami) that is the #6 against the pass and #6 against the run.

 

The Patriots #30 defense against the pass isn't anything to fear without Lee Evans.

 

I fully expect the offense to keep the ball moving without Lee Evans.

Yesterday, they let Donald Jones alone and run free down the sideline. He was actually filling the Evans role more than Nelson because we were almost always in three and four wide sets. Why? Because they took away our run with their safeties because Evans wasnt in. Nelson played his usual slot role and not the #2 wide guy. And was effective. Even though there were guys all over him. The Fins let Jones run deep and didnt double him.

 

One play he beat his guy and Fitz overthrew him. If that were Evans it may have been a TD (although perhaps it was too far overthrown, Jones looked like he was running with cement shoes on).

 

One play Jones made a great leaping grab and then unfortunately stepped out of bounds or it would have been a long TD. Why? Because the safety didn't double him right away like he would have if Evans was in. If a safety was there it could have been an INT.

 

Another play they let him run free across the middle and he dropped it right in his hands. A huge drop. As someone other than me said yesterday, if that were Evans he'd still be running.

 

I don't just make excuses for Evans. If we could play a balanced offense without him, I'm all for it. Again, yesterday we dodged a bullet. We succeeded doing things that cannot hold up over time. We won because Fitzpatrick made a ridiculous amount of ridiculous throws where the WRs made ridiculous catches. There were at least five of them I can think of off the top of my head. if we can do that every game, sure. Get rid of Evans.

 

I don't know anyone who knows anything about football looking at it objectively would think we could.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[The Big Cat]

I think there is more common ground to what is being said here than your capital letters imply.

 

- Evans is not being fully utilized by the team.

- We won the game yesterday without him against a good defense.

- We need to see more games to determine if our offense will maintain the production from yesterday.

 

Fitz made some very risky throws that paid off yesterday (the Nelson TD comes to mind). There was also a dropped interception, and a mental lapse induced lateral on the interception return that saved a touchdown. The risks that went in our favor could have easily gone the other way. It could be the difference in quality of the pass defense that made it necessary to take tougher throws yesterday. It could also have to do with Evans not being on the field to shift the coverage.

 

A discussion over the possible trade value vs team value of Evans will be more fruitful once we've played two more games and have a better idea of his contribution to the offense. If it turns out that our receivers are all covered more closely in the next couple games than with Evans on the field, it may be prudent to rethink these arguments. The Pats* game will be better for comparison, given that the Jets pass defense can't be compared to the likes of the Bengals.

 

I like you.

 

Come, sit by my fireplace.

 

Do you like my polar bear rug? Care for a bourbon and/or pipe?

 

Let's talk.

 

I agree with a lot of what you've just said. But I get the feeling that as opposed to the team "not fully utilizing Lee," I get the feeling that Lee isn't fulfilling the role that he's intended for. And in saying this, I'm suggesting that Chan's installing an offense which requires more than a speedy line runner on the outside. And I don't think he's in any rush to craft his offense to suit Evans.

 

I think our young guys can play Evans' role in the Chan's offense as well, if not better than Lee, because apparently the system doesn't fit his unique strength(s). Now, perhaps some of that has to do with Fitzpatrick's strengths as well. Let's not pretend like Fitz doesn't put that ball up there for Evans at least once a game, he just doesn't oft connect.

 

In some twisted anti-verse, JP Losman may have set one bar too high. Perhaps our expectation for the sure-thing-long-bomb hookup is entirely unrealistic.

 

But I digress...

 

We don't run an offense in which we're predominately lining up a "one" and a "two" receiver to the outside. In fact, whenever asked about the WR depth chart, Chan (perhaps coyly, who knows?) always scoffs at the notion of having to "number your guys." We also move receivers around a lot, line RB's up as receivers, etc.

 

It doesn't seem as though Lee has the versatility to be as plug and play as I suspect Chan wants his receivers to be.

 

Now these young guys, they were not only hand-picked by Chan, but they're hungry and they're playing for their lives, literally. They'll do whatever they're told...and it seems to be working with them.

 

And since Evans continues to demonstrate that he does do his thing pretty damn well, there's a very good chance that 1 of the other 31 teams in the NFL might have a use or need for him, a need which outweighs our own.

 

Thank you for echoing my initial assertion--that Sunday was the first glimpse that the need for Lee might not be so strong, after all.

 

But it is in question right now, like it or not. The evidence? The 2,550 days that separated yesterday from the last time the Bills took the field without Lee Evans. Nix and Gailey want to answer the question of whether or not they can do what they need to do without Lee Evans.

 

I firmly believe that in one way or another, we'll have our answer to that question by the end of week 17.

[NickelCity]

I GET IT, SAFETIES HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF HIM, BIG !@#$ING DEAL!!!!!

 

...I think this is a big deal .

 

However, it is possible that some team may try to trade for him and offer something that many of us would deem "worth it," in return. I don't see that as likely, though.

Edited December 20, 2010 by NickelCity

[Grimace]

I appreciate the kind words. And bourbon.

 

In some twisted anti-verse, JP Losman may have set one bar too high. Perhaps our expectation for the sure-thing-long-bomb hookup is entirely unrealistic.

 

JP playing football was like having a friend who's lucky at scratch-off lottery tickets. He succeeds at a gamble play more often than most, but he relies on it so often that he ends up losing anyway. It is exciting to watch, but you don't want to give him your money as an investment plan.

 

I don't intend to continue a tangent to the main topic, but I really liked that analogy.

 

I firmly believe that in one way or another, we'll have our answer to that question by the end of week 17.

 

I agree with much of what you wrote, but this sentence sums up the topic the best.

[John from Riverside]

a. I would totally trade Lee Evens for a 2nd rounder

 

b. That is not going to happen.....so he is going to play out his contract here

 

I would also like to point out....I love Lee Evens if for no other reason he is legit NFL receiver that is not a locker room lawyer and a team player.....and if you think Lee hasn't had a hand in brining along our younger recievers.....I think you are wrong.

 

He just isn't a complete receiver....he is a long ball threat on a team that doesnt use the long ball that much

[ChevyVanMiller]

It wouldn't suprise me if the money-pinching Bills consider cutting him outright. One factor that may play into their thinking is the renegotiation of Johnson's contract. He earned a paltry $385,000 this season and will need to be extended sooner rather than later. Evans' $9 mil+ skews things and drives Johnson's price up as he clearly has supplanted Lee as the number 1 on this team.

[Alphadawg7]

Ok, I am confused...I see people like Big Cat and others referring to our team as "stacked at WR" and willing to part with Evans becuase of it...How are we stacked at WR if you dont include Evans?

 

Statistically SJ is having a great season, I was high on him coming into the season, so doesnt surprise me. I like the kid but he has not proved he can be the man yet, especially with his dropsies. And his prodcution the last 4 weeks now that he has more attention isnt exactly jaw dropping.

 

Roscoe, very small and will only really excel as a #3 weapon, not as a wideout opposite SJ.

 

D. Nelson - He has 31 rec for 352 yards for an 11.4 avg and 3 TD's. Not exactly awe inspiring. He has potential, and I like him, but lets be realistic here, the kid has never even had a 100 yard game, has one game over 61 yards, and one game with more than 4 receptions. And lets not forget that very modest avg per catch.

 

Easley has never played in an NFL game. Hell, look at how dominant Spiller was in preseason, not exactly the same during the reg season. I liked the Easley pick, I am excited to see him come back next year, but he has proven nothing yet.

 

So, how are we "stacked" at WR where we can afford to just give away Evans despite the fact that teams still have to game plan for him which opens up the field for everyone else and his salary is dirt cheap in relation to his talent level next year? I just dont get it, the guy is a great teammate, talented, modest salary for the caliber of player, and a major weapon for this team and yet people want to just dump him. GM's of the year...lmao

 

Has anyone considered the fact that SJ isnt a real big deep threat, especially if Evans isnt here to draw attention from him? Take away the deep threat opposite of a WR like SJ and SJ will suffer. So without Evans, who is the deep threat? One game where SJ had a modest 6 catches for 60+ yards doesnt prove he doesnt need Evans or some other real threat next to him, thats absurd.

[C.Biscuit97]

So we finally get talent around Evans (who again was off to the best start to a career of any Bills' receiver ever) and people want to get rid of him??? Especially when he will only make $4 million next year? Brilliant.

 

But Ralph is cheap.

[The Big Cat]

So we finally get talent around Evans (who again was off to the best start to a career of any Bills' receiver ever) and people want to get rid of him??? Especially when he will only make $4 million next year? Brilliant.

 

But Ralph is cheap.

 

Never once said I wanted the guy gone.

 

Ok, I am confused...I see people like Big Cat and others referring to our team as "stacked at WR" and willing to part with Evans becuase of it...How are we stacked at WR if you dont include Evans?

 

Statistically SJ is having a great season, I was high on him coming into the season, so doesnt surprise me. I like the kid but he has not proved he can be the man yet, especially with his dropsies. And his prodcution the last 4 weeks now that he has more attention isnt exactly jaw dropping.

 

Roscoe, very small and will only really excel as a #3 weapon, not as a wideout opposite SJ.

 

D. Nelson - He has 31 rec for 352 yards for an 11.4 avg and 3 TD's. Not exactly awe inspiring. He has potential, and I like him, but lets be realistic here, the kid has never even had a 100 yard game, has one game over 61 yards, and one game with more than 4 receptions. And lets not forget that very modest avg per catch.

 

Easley has never played in an NFL game. Hell, look at how dominant Spiller was in preseason, not exactly the same during the reg season. I liked the Easley pick, I am excited to see him come back next year, but he has proven nothing yet.

 

So, how are we "stacked" at WR where we can afford to just give away Evans despite the fact that teams still have to game plan for him which opens up the field for everyone else and his salary is dirt cheap in relation to his talent level next year? I just dont get it, the guy is a great teammate, talented, modest salary for the caliber of player, and a major weapon for this team and yet people want to just dump him. GM's of the year...lmao

 

Has anyone considered the fact that SJ isnt a real big deep threat, especially if Evans isnt here to draw attention from him? Take away the deep threat opposite of a WR like SJ and SJ will suffer. So without Evans, who is the deep threat? One game where SJ had a modest 6 catches for 60+ yards doesnt prove he doesnt need Evans or some other real threat next to him, thats absurd.

 

Your theory about SJ's production "suffering" was completely debunked in post one of this thread.

 

After one game, there wasn't that big of a hole when Evans wasn't out there. We'll see after three.

 

BTW, Donald Jones has been a starter over the last six games, same stretch we've gone 4-2, fwiw. I notice you didn't mention him.

 

How did Naaman Roosevelt look getting his first career grabs on Sunday? Like he has promise? Noticed you didn't mention him either.

 

Nor did you touch on the fact that in our spread formations we lineup our RB's wide and in the slot, a lot. That's two more bodies right there.

 

So yes, WR, as it exists in our scheme, is one of the deeper, if not deepest, and most stacked unit on this team.

[....lybob]

Before we talk about getting rid of Evans I wish someone told me what we get- for example we use our 1st on Marcell Dareus then trade back into the first round using our 2nd and Lee Evans and get Akeem Ayers or Von Miller that I would consider- or Chicago offers us Greg Olsen TE that might be OK, but this addition through subtraction thing has not worked for us at all.

[Alphadawg7]

Your theory about SJ's production "suffering" was completely debunked in post one of this thread.

 

After one game, there wasn't that big of a hole when Evans wasn't out there. We'll see after three.

 

BTW, Donald Jones has been a starter over the last six games, same stretch we've gone 4-2, fwiw. I notice you didn't mention him.

 

How did Naaman Roosevelt look getting his first career grabs on Sunday? Like he has promise? Noticed you didn't mention him either.

 

Nor did you touch on the fact that in our spread formations we lineup our RB's wide and in the slot, a lot. That's two more bodies right there.

 

So yes, WR, as it exists in our scheme, is one of the deeper, if not deepest, and most stacked unit on this team.

 

No offense, but what are you smoking? SJ hasnt broken 70 yards in 4 straight games, not exactly dominating out there with defenses paying attention to him. And not to mention the 10 drops he has had over the same span including the game winner against Pitt. In fact, he has only busted above 70 once in his last 6 games and that was against Cincy AFTER both their safeties were knocked out of the game and Cincy started blowing coverage like on his long TD when not one player covered him.

 

And 6 catches for 69 yards and 1 TD is in no way proof he doesnt need Lee. Thats a modest game at best and a game just about any WR playing in the NFL is capable of. In fact, its not even in his top 4 games this year, all of which included Lee on the other side, so how is that proof he doesnt need Lee?

 

And you have to be kidding me with this other stuff, I mean for real. I didnt include Roosevelt because he has TWO catches on the year! I didnt include Donald Jones because he has just 13 catches on the year...but somehow that equates to being "stacked" at WR to you. Talk about stretching reality to say we are stacked at WR because we have a guy with 2 cathces and another guy with 13.

 

What we really have is some young guys with some potential, none of them have proved anything yet. Even SJ still has something to prove as he has only 3 games over 69 yards and too many drops. Again, I like him and the potential of our young guys, but we are no where near "stacked" where we can just give away Lee for a 5th rounder or something, especially since his salary is so low for his talent level.

[The Big Cat]

No offense, but what are you smoking? SJ hasnt broken 70 yards in 4 straight games, not exactly dominating out there with defenses paying attention to him. And not to mention the 10 drops he has had over the same span including the game winner against Pitt. In fact, he has only busted above 70 once in his last 6 games and that was against Cincy AFTER both their safeties were knocked out of the game and Cincy started blowing coverage like on his long TD when not one player covered him.

 

And 6 catches for 69 yards and 1 TD is in no way proof he doesnt need Lee. Thats a modest game at best and a game just about any WR playing in the NFL is capable of. In fact, its not even in his top 4 games this year, all of which included Lee on the other side, so how is that proof he doesnt need Lee?

 

And you have to be kidding me with this other stuff, I mean for real. I didnt include Roosevelt because he has TWO catches on the year! I didnt include Donald Jones because he has just 13 catches on the year...but somehow that equates to being "stacked" at WR to you. Talk about stretching reality to say we are stacked at WR because we have a guy with 2 cathces and another guy with 13.

 

What we really have is some young guys with some potential, none of them have proved anything yet. Even SJ still has something to prove as he has only 3 games over 69 yards and too many drops. Again, I like him and the potential of our young guys, but we are no where near "stacked" where we can just give away Lee for a 5th rounder or something, especially since his salary is so low for his talent level.

 

What am I smoking? I'm not sure if the strain has a specific name, I think we're looking at some classic beasters here. Either way, you've still done nothing to dispute Evans' lack of production over the past two years, the lack of dropoff stemming from his absence this past week, and why the Bills organization, after 7.75 seasons suddenly saw it fit to keep Evans on the sideline.

 

So, yes, I may be high, but if you're the one who can't present a linear response to the information I've provided, then what does that say about you, ya jive turkey?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Evans lack of production....

 

Last year we had bozo the clown aka Terrible Owens stealing passes from Lee so many say his #'s were down. Did Lee complain about it? Hell NO!!

 

 

This season Roscoe Parish was haveing a good year (after last years disaster) and Stevie's been working out well too. If Evans is meant to be a deep decoy so that others can produce .... then HE IS HELPING THE TEAM!!!

 

Maybe you shouldn't rely on Evans in your fantsy football league.