After today, Bills one step closer to shopping Evans

[Kelly the Dog]

What does consistently getting open deep and making long catches and scoring have to do with Evans? I saw none of that this year. Did you read the OP?

It has everything to do with it. Do people actually watch the games?

 

Every team, every single time, puts a CB on Evans and then the safety lines up to his side of the field and keys on Evans. Almost every single play. As soon as he runs downfield the safety goes with him, meaning two guys. Every time that Fitz sees only one guy, he immediately looks to Evans or audibles deep to him. The reason ALL teams ALL game EVERY GAME do this? One reason. Because Lee Evans has proven in this league he can consistently beat one on one coverage deep and score touchdowns. It doesn't matter one lick if he hasn't been able to do it in six years, if teams are going to cover him that way, which they do, always, then he is extremely valuable to the team. He could not catch one pass all game and if he runs down the field and takes two guys out, we're playing 10 against 9. That's high school stuff. It's amazing to me that anyone watching how teams play us don't see that.

[The Big Cat]

It has everything to do with it. Do people actually watch the games?

 

Every team, every single time, puts a CB on Evans and then the safety lines up to his side of the field and keys on Evans. Almost every single play. As soon as he runs downfield the safety goes with him, meaning two guys. Every time that Fitz sees only one guy, he immediately looks to Evans or audibles deep to him. The reason ALL teams ALL game EVERY GAME do this? One reason. Because Lee Evans has proven in this league he can consistently beat one on one coverage deep and score touchdowns. It doesn't matter one lick if he hasn't been able to do it in six years, if teams are going to cover him that way, which they do, always, then he is extremely valuable to the team. He could not catch one pass all game and if he runs down the field and takes two guys out, we're playing 10 against 9. That's high school stuff. It's amazing to me that anyone watching how teams play us don't see that.

 

And this decoy service he provides the team was so utterly missed yesterday that he's a MUST KEEP? Our offense needs this from him or else it can't function? Looked to me yesterday that our passing game fared fine without it, and without any kind of rushing attack either.

 

Tell me, how is it that other guys in the league who are predominately deep threats, guys like DeSean Jackson, how is it they manage to provide this oh-so valuable decoy AND put up the stats that Evans simply has not????

[Ramius]

It has everything to do with it. Do people actually watch the games?

 

Every team, every single time, puts a CB on Evans and then the safety lines up to his side of the field and keys on Evans. Almost every single play. As soon as he runs downfield the safety goes with him, meaning two guys. Every time that Fitz sees only one guy, he immediately looks to Evans or audibles deep to him. The reason ALL teams ALL game EVERY GAME do this? One reason. Because Lee Evans has proven in this league he can consistently beat one on one coverage deep and score touchdowns. It doesn't matter one lick if he hasn't been able to do it in six years, if teams are going to cover him that way, which they do, always, then he is extremely valuable to the team. He could not catch one pass all game and if he runs down the field and takes two guys out, we're playing 10 against 9. That's high school stuff. It's amazing to me that anyone watching how teams play us don't see that.

 

Kelly, you're forgetting you're trying to explain this concept to people who see nothing more than Evans' contract and scream and whine to cut him when he doesn't post 100-1500-12 every season.

[The Big Cat]

Kelly, you're forgetting you're trying to explain this concept to people who see nothing more than Evans' contract and scream and whine to cut him when he doesn't post 100-1500-12 every season.

 

He was responding to me,. The only mention I've made of Evans' contract was when I referred to it earlier as "modest."

 

I've raised many other variables to suggest Evans could be dealable. Perhaps you'd like to respond to just one of them.

[gumby]

What are you basing this on? I provided ample evidence to the contrary, some facts to back up your claim would be nice.

 

 

Which evidence do you want?

 

Moss was traded with a 7th in exchange for a 3rd.

Boldin was moved for a 3rd and a 4th

 

If you think Evans comes close to those two guys well then we got a totally different view on football.

 

As far as not being a #1 receiver on the Bills the last couple of seasons. T.O. was the #1 in '09 and Stevie Johnson is clearly the #1 this year. Add to the fact Evans caught 44 balls last year and only had 37 this year before going on IR. That's 81 catches in the last 29 games. 81 catches in a 16 game season barely qualifies for #1 status let alone stretched over almost 2 complete seasons.

[Spiderweb]

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).

 

Unless someone is as stupid as the Falcons were when they gave up big (#1?) for Price, we're far better off keeping Evans.

If we could get a one or a two, maybe, but even then it's a crap shoot. I'd rather trade him (rare these days) for an existing

player to help the defense. Since this isn't likely, we should stop with the Evans stuff. He's far more valauable than what we

are likely going to get in return.

[Nostradamus]

wow you guys are something else. Kick Evans while he's down why don't you!

 

I've a question -- are you the people of the same group that wanted to hang Stevie Johnson out to dry when he had 4 drops, 1 THAT WOULD HAVE WON THE GAME just a week or 2 ago??

 

Just checking.

 

Speaking for myself, I was very supportive of Johnson after 'the drop.' In Johnson, I see a developing receiver who has a gift for getting open. He might not have the athleticism to be a top tier number 1 wide receiver, but he is certainly the best one we have right now.

In Evans, I see a wide receiver whose skill set is eroding. He seems to be the one receiver who has NOT earned the trust of Fitzpatrick because of his complete lack of competitive drive. This is evidenced by Evans not coming back for footballs, not laying out, or not competing for footballs in tight spots.

At this point, Evans seems to be a remnant of a failed regime. He seems to be a Donahoe/jauron guy. I'd have no problem if the Bills cut him outright, so long as they grabbed a speedster in either free agency or the draft that could stretch defenses.

[Kelly the Dog]

And this decoy service he provides the team was so utterly missed yesterday that he's a MUST KEEP? Our offense needs this from him or else it can't function? Looked to me yesterday that our passing game fared fine without it, and without any kind of rushing attack either.

As I stated in another thread, we don't need Evans and I would be happy to trade him IF and ONLY IF we can consistently prove that we can 1] throw deep and 25 yards downfield, 2] run, 3] complete tough tight passes into blanket coverage and 4] win.

 

Yesterday, we did #3 and #4 so a lot of people (IMO, foolish) think we don't need Evans. But we won because Fitz threw several INCREDIBLE passes into blanket coverage, often, as Gaily said, he couldnt believe he even attempted. We couldn't run because they dared us to throw. Our WRs made acrobatic catches on amazing throws. And we scored 17 points.

 

If we can play like that and win, then we don't need Evans.

 

I highly doubt we can win without running, without throwing deep and downfield, and with throwing into blanket coverage.

[The Big Cat]

What are you basing this on? I provided ample evidence to the contrary, some facts to back up your claim would be nice.

 

 

Which evidence do you want?

 

Moss was traded with a 7th in exchange for a 3rd.

Boldin was moved for a 3rd and a 4th

 

If you think Evans comes close to those two guys well then we got a totally different view on football.

 

As far as not being a #1 receiver on the Bills the last couple of seasons. T.O. was the #1 in '09 and Stevie Johnson is clearly the #1 this year. Add to the fact Evans caught 44 balls last year and only had 37 this year before going on IR. That's 81 catches in the last 29 games. 81 catches in a 16 game season barely qualifies for #1 status let alone stretched over almost 2 complete seasons.

 

What is Evans value to this team? You said he has more value if we keep him. What value is that?

 

 

Unless someone is as stupid as the Falcons were when they gave up big (#1?) for Price, we're far better off keeping Evans.

If we could get a one or a two, maybe, but even then it's a crap shoot. I'd rather trade him (rare these days) for an existing

player to help the defense. Since this isn't likely, we should stop with the Evans stuff. He's far more valauable than what we

are likely going to get in return.

 

WHAT IS EVANS VALUE TO THIS TEAM!!!!???

 

:wallbash: :wallbash:

 

GOD YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE BROKEN RECORDS!

 

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

 

DID THE OFFENSE TAKE A MASSIVE STEP BACKWARD WHEN HE WASN'T IN THERE "OCCUPYING SAFETIES!!?? NO!! IT DID NOT!

 

WHAT IS EVANS VALUE TO THIS TEAM!!???

 

HE MIGHT BE MORE TALENTED THAN ANY RECEIVER IN OUR CORPS, ****, HE MIGHT BE MORE TALENTED THAN ANY RECEIVER IN THE SAINTS CORPS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED HIM TO PRODUCE IN THE PASSING GAME!!

 

WE HAVE ONE GAME TO GO ON SINCE 2003 TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, I GET THAT. IF WE CAN PRODUCE NEXT WEEK WITHOUT HIM, AND THE WEEK AFTER THAT, THEN WHAT IS HIS VALUE TO THIS TEAM!!??

 

WITH TWO OTHER VERY SERVICEABLE RECEIVERS COMING OFF IR WHY DO WE NEED HIM!!??

 

AND IF A TEAM SEVEN RECEIVERS DEEP SUPPOSEDLY NEEDS HIM SO MUCH, HOW DOES HAVE NO VALUE TO ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE LEAGUE!!??

 

 

SOMEBODY TELL ME!

[Magox]

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

Really? Hmmm....

 

I guess you just pulled that out of your ass thinking that that was logical or true or whatever the hell you were thinking. I like Fitz and believe he has proved a lot and I believe it is logical to shop Evans around.

 

 

 

MGX

[1B4IDie]

It has everything to do with it. Do people actually watch the games?

 

Every team, every single time, puts a CB on Evans and then the safety lines up to his side of the field and keys on Evans. Almost every single play. As soon as he runs downfield the safety goes with him, meaning two guys. Every time that Fitz sees only one guy, he immediately looks to Evans or audibles deep to him. The reason ALL teams ALL game EVERY GAME do this? One reason. Because Lee Evans has proven in this league he can consistently beat one on one coverage deep and score touchdowns. It doesn't matter one lick if he hasn't been able to do it in six years, if teams are going to cover him that way, which they do, always, then he is extremely valuable to the team. He could not catch one pass all game and if he runs down the field and takes two guys out, we're playing 10 against 9. That's high school stuff. It's amazing to me that anyone watching how teams play us don't see that.

 

Kelly, you're forgetting you're trying to explain this concept to people who see nothing more than Evans' contract and scream and whine to cut him when he doesn't post 100-1500-12 every season.

 

The reason it is difficult to explain is that is not true or logical.

 

Lee Evans is not doubled on every play.

A Safety on the Half of the Field that Lee Evans is on (make that QTR since Lee doesn't move inside the harsh marks too often) has other responsibilities besides Lee Evans.

Where do you think the Safety plays against the other 31 teams? Do you think they're hanging out on the sideline talking to the coach during the play, unless there is a speedster on the field? Its foolish to think that a safety on the side of the field that Lee Evans is on is a special defense that is game planned to stop Lee Evans. The Safety gets the name safety because their primary duty is to support the CB in pass coverage. A Safety is a Defensive Back.

 

You're insulting the preparation and intelligence of every D-Co that plays the Bills.

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick is not very accurate past 15-20 yards(some might say inside the 15-20 yard mark either but thats a different story.) The Bills are running the deep play just to keep defenses honest (Meaning a safety plays safety not cheats on run support) but do you think that they are scared of 44 catches and 800 yard average receiver? Or are the planning for a guy that has a TD in 4 straight games(David Nelson) and the other receiver that has more yards and catches (Stevie)? Do you think they don't know Fitzy's tendencies in the games over the last three years and that the long bomb is not one of them.

 

Its fan boy mentality that continues the myth that "Lee Evans is doubled on every play." Then parroted back as an obvious statement of fact.

 

It is not reality.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Why So Serious?

[Magox]

i cant read crap like this anymore, its like the people who rroted for edwards to continue starting over fitzy, where are those geniuses now?

It was one of the rare mistakes I made, but I was one of those guys that thought Edwards could of been good. What the hell was I on?

Edited December 20, 2010 by Magox

[Armchair GM]

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

 

2 reasons...reasonably

1.) Collect draft picks like Nix & Gailey like to do "phlosophically" (works for the Pats*)

2.) Could be in the way of developing better talent (Fitzy spread the ball around yesterday, and those kids made some good plays on the ball. I saw a lot of very good route running, which is surprising)

[Kelly the Dog]

The reason it is difficult to explain is that is not true or logical.

 

Lee Evans is not doubled on every play.

A Safety on the Half of the Field that Lee Evans is on (make that QTR since Lee doesn't move inside the harsh marks too often) has other responsibilities besides Lee Evans.

Where do you think the Safety plays against the other 31 teams? Do you think they're hanging out on the sideline talking to the coach during the play, unless there is a speedster on the field? Its foolish to think that a safety on the side of the field that Lee Evans is on is a special defense that is game planned to stop Lee Evans. The Safety gets the name safety because their primary duty is to support the CB in pass coverage. A Safety is a Defensive Back.

 

You're insulting the preparation and intelligence of every D-Co that plays the Bills.

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick is not very accurate past 15-20 yards(some might say inside the 15-20 yard mark either but thats a different story.) The Bills are running the deep play just to keep defenses honest (Meaning a safety plays safety not cheats on run support) but do you think that they are scared of 44 catches and 800 yard average receiver? Or are the planning for a guy that has a TD in 4 straight games(David Nelson) and the other receiver that has more yards and catches (Stevie)? Do you think they don't know Fitzy's tendencies in the games over the last three years and that the long bomb is not one of them.

 

Its fan boy mentality that continues the myth that "Lee Evans is doubled on every play." Then parroted back as an obvious statement of fact.

 

It is not reality.

This is all somewhat true.

 

What you're not saying, however, is that the free safety always leans and looks to Evans. Every play. If the safety sees a pass play he immediately looks to Evans. if Evans runs downfield he is immediately double covered. If Evans runs a short route, then and only then does the safety look to see who else may be running down the field that he can cover. Usually, because Gailey is smart and he knows this, and Fitz is smart and he knows this, they will look to Steve Johnson short or medium range, or Nelson short or medium range, while the safety is still watching or covering or wary/scared of Evans.

 

That's why those two guys are almost always single covered, even deep. It's why you often saw Stevie Johnson run free deep down one sideline, because he had beaten his one man and the safety was watching Evans on the other side of the field.

 

Yesterday, the Dolphins either double covered SJ because Evans wasn't in, and he had a lot less room than normal, OR they had the safety come up to stop run support and didn't even bother with worrying the Bills would throw deep.

[Coach Tuesday]

SOMEBODY TELL ME!

 

At the very least: DEPTH. It's not your money, he has a modest contract, and we're not anywhere near the cap (and right now, there is no cap).

 

I know DEPTH is a foreign concept to the Bills and their fans, but successful teams specialize in it.

 

Really, this is tiresome.

[bananathumb]

We won nothing with lee Evans and now that he is out, we win.

 

Some people argue just to be heard.

 

Why wouldn't you try to get something for him and if you can't, cut him to use salary on somebody in a position of NEED?

[Grimace]

What is Evans value to this team? You said he has more value if we keep him. What value is that?

 

 

 

 

WHAT IS EVANS VALUE TO THIS TEAM!!!!???

 

:wallbash: :wallbash:

 

GOD YOU PEOPLE SOUND LIKE BROKEN RECORDS!

 

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

 

DID THE OFFENSE TAKE A MASSIVE STEP BACKWARD WHEN HE WASN'T IN THERE "OCCUPYING SAFETIES!!?? NO!! IT DID NOT!

 

WHAT IS EVANS VALUE TO THIS TEAM!!???

 

HE MIGHT BE MORE TALENTED THAN ANY RECEIVER IN OUR CORPS, ****, HE MIGHT BE MORE TALENTED THAN ANY RECEIVER IN THE SAINTS CORPS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED HIM TO PRODUCE IN THE PASSING GAME!!

 

WE HAVE ONE GAME TO GO ON SINCE 2003 TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, I GET THAT. IF WE CAN PRODUCE NEXT WEEK WITHOUT HIM, AND THE WEEK AFTER THAT, THEN WHAT IS HIS VALUE TO THIS TEAM!!??

 

WITH TWO OTHER VERY SERVICEABLE RECEIVERS COMING OFF IR WHY DO WE NEED HIM!!??

 

AND IF A TEAM SEVEN RECEIVERS DEEP SUPPOSEDLY NEEDS HIM SO MUCH, HOW DOES HAVE NO VALUE TO ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE LEAGUE!!??

 

 

SOMEBODY TELL ME!

 

 

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.

[Billy in 4C]

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.

 

Not true. We would get a compensation pick. For a tier 1/2 type of guy that's a 3rd/4th rounder. Keeping him at 4 mil per year then getting a 3rd/4th rounder is what I would prefer than not having him and getting a 2nd/3rd at best.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not true. We would get a compensation pick. For a tier 1/2 type of guy that's a 3rd/4th rounder. Keeping him at 4 mil per year then getting a 3rd/4th rounder is what I would prefer than not having him and getting a 2nd/3rd at best.

It's based on the contract they signed. Who is going to sign a worthless washed up one trick pony who can't even do the one thing he can do? Oh, wait, on the open market Lee Evans would be one of the top three players available this year and sign a contract worth 6-8 million a year.

[1B4IDie]

This is all somewhat true.

 

What you're not saying, however, is that the free safety always leans and looks to Evans. Every play. If the safety sees a pass play he immediately looks to Evans. if Evans runs downfield he is immediately double covered. If Evans runs a short route, then and only then does the safety look to see who else may be running down the field that he can cover. Usually, because Gailey is smart and he knows this, and Fitz is smart and he knows this, they will look to Steve Johnson short or medium range, or Nelson short or medium range, while the safety is still watching or covering or wary/scared of Evans.

 

That's why those two guys are almost always single covered, even deep. It's why you often saw Stevie Johnson run free deep down one sideline, because he had beaten his one man and the safety was watching Evans on the other side of the field.

 

Yesterday, the Dolphins either double covered SJ because Evans wasn't in, and he had a lot less room than normal, OR they had the safety come up to stop run support and didn't even bother with worrying the Bills would throw deep.

 

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.

[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.