Can Evans be trade bait?

[tennesseeboy]

I so not understand the reasoning that goes with the "should we re-sign Poz or Whitner" or "should we trade Evans?" posts. We are almost certainly going to have to play a season of some sort this year and and we need an inside linebacker, a good safety, and at least one more quality receiver for our passing game. On a team with needs such as tight end, offensive tackle, gaurd, and other places, why would we be doing anything other than keeping the few truly good players we have?

 

Evans is a good solid number two receiver. Parrish should get a lot more play this year. I think we go with the receiving course we have and try to find a good solid free agent tight end.

[Turbosrrgood]

Lee Evans is a known commodity as a very good speedy wide-out, who requires double coverage in most situations. The Bills are rich in wide receivers right now, but still a draft or two away from becoming a significant factor in the post season. By then, Evans will be on the downhill side of his career and he will have blocked some of the young good receivers on the roster from being developed to see their potential.

 

QUESTION:

 

What do you think about the Bills trading Evans for a draft pick once the league is back in business?

 

I would take a pick in the 80-100 range (a mid second round pick)for him and hope fore a pick in the 60-80 range (early second round).

 

What do you think?

 

I guess I don't understand why anyone thinks the Bills are "rich" or "loaded" at wide receiver. We have a few prospects, and a few mediocre receivers. I still think Evans is a good WR, and probably the best on our team. SJ had a great year last year, but I am not ready to proclaim him a great WR quite yet. I'd like to see that success continue into next year to know he wasn't a 1 year wonder (Peerless price). Behind them who do we have?

 

Parrish? Made for Gailey's offense, but can never stay healthy (understandably, he is built like a 12 year old girl).

 

Nelson? I have to admit, I like this guy. Best hands on the team. Tall. Runs great routes. He is a little slow though, so I don't know if he can push to be a starter.

 

Easley? Many are already crowning him a "great" receiver. There is only one problem, he has never played WR in the NFL. He was a 4th round prospect that is coming off of a serious injury. He definitely COULD be good, but I will wait to see him on an NFL field before I make that judgment. After all, our 2nd round pick from a few years ago was supposed to be great too...Right now I would compare him to Sam Aiken, another 4th round pick with similar measurables...

 

Donald Jones? He filled in pretty well for injured players, and looked OK on special teams. He is athletic, but inconsistent in most aspects of his game. Questionable hands, iffy routes. Decent depth player.

 

Roosevelt? I know people like to root for the hometown guy, but he was on the PS for a reason. I'm not sure he even makes the team. I'd rather see a guy like Huggins make the team, tall, fast, but raw prospect.

 

I'm not bashing our WR's, I am saying right now we have more "hopeful prospects" than anything else. Only Evans and SJ have proven that they can produce and stay healthy for a full season. I don't see us getting rid of evans, our only experienced starting WR on the team. Having said all that I wouldn't be opposed to it if we could get a decent return (2nd). We won't be contending this year, so it doesn't hurt to get younger...I just don't see it happening.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Turbosrrgood

[T master]

yeah I don't know- It's not like Lee Evans is 35 and in a steep decline and while Evans isn't an elite WR it's not like we have a sure fire elite WR to replace him, Parrish isn't as good, Easley hasn't played a down,- if you want to cut or trade Evans sign someone better first.

 

O.K this sounds more like the Bills fans i know . A little less harsh for what ever reason . When i first read this i thought it was 2010 all over again but i knew something had changed .

 

The Bills fans are a year older & more mellow !! When i did a post about this very subject last year i believe the Bills fans on this sight were sending out a lynch mob & i don't mean Marshawn either .

 

I was no kind of a fan , i needed to be excommunicated from the Bills fandom & hung at half time during the Dolphins game at the Ralph for even thinking of getting rid of Evans , but i'm glad to see that you all have mellowed a bit .

 

But i will say that if Evans doesn't show any thing this year in Gailey's Offense SCREW ALL OF YOU ALL & TRADE THE BUM !!!!

[Turbosrrgood]

I so not understand the reasoning that goes with the "should we re-sign Poz or Whitner" or "should we trade Evans?" posts. We are almost certainly going to have to play a season of some sort this year and and we need an inside linebacker, a good safety, and at least one more quality receiver for our passing game. On a team with needs such as tight end, offensive tackle, gaurd, and other places, why would we be doing anything other than keeping the few truly good players we have?

 

Evans is a good solid number two receiver. Parrish should get a lot more play this year. I think we go with the receiving course we have and try to find a good solid free agent tight end.

 

I think the key here is that many people do not consider Evans, POZ, or Whitner to be "truly good", especially considering their draft status and resigning costs (Evans is signed). With POZ you could make the case that while he is less than spectacular, we don't really have much to replace him with depth wise. Whitner is over-rated and a big play allowing machine...Plus we have plenty of depth behind him. IMO getting rid of him makes us better regardless of signing costs (He's all but gone anyway, regardless of how we feel).

 

I still think Evans is decent though. You certainly have to take into consideration the carousel of QB's and coaches he has had to work with, changing almost every year, sometimes several times a year. You also have the problem of who would replace him, I don't really see any viable candidates quite yet. So I'm with you on this one.

 

Case in point, T.O. came to the Bills and was awful. But when he went to an established offense he was lights out...

Edited June 13, 2011 by Turbosrrgood

[maryland-bills-fan]

Again I'm not the biggest Evans supporter and certainly think he's been a disappointment since he's been relied upon as our #1 WR. But you are trying hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, but are clearly over your head.

 

You said "Evans and Johnson played nearly every offensive down", that's not factual Evans missed 3 games. You also said "Evans gets soft deep single coverage without a safety over the top". I don't even know where to start with that statement. What does soft deep single coverage mean? Even if you could try and explain a non existing coverage, you're way off. Evans has been getting doubled (whether you want to admit it or not) for 5 years. I'm kind of a dorky and certainly novice that likes to watch a lot of film. Of course my resources are limited because I can only get access to what I can find on the net. But I have hours of film on Evans and you couldn't be more wrong.

 

 

By soft coverage, I mean that the CB opposite him (if he is not the #1 CB) is well off the line, giving him a short pass, but making the long pass to Evans harder to complete because of the buffer. Also, I will grant you that the safety (there is at least one safety playing "center field" in any defense) is shaded to his side of the field, but he has his eyes in the backfield and is cheating to the other WR, slot or to the running play. This hurts the rest of our offense.

 

 

Evans did miss 3 and a half games. Johnson did not start 3 games, so I don't know how his playing time compared with Evans. Regardless, Evans got only about half the yardage that Johnson got and there are 16 games in the season. You seem to be clearly over your head in implying that Evans output was comparable to S.Johnson. Another comparison is the number of catches each player got per game.

 

Evans.......Johnson

4...........3................Edwards was QB

0...........3................Edwards was QB

5...........3

1...........3

5...........5

6...........8

5...........5

3...........11

2...........3

2...........8

2...........7

0...........5 (Evans injured in first half)

DNP.........6

DNP.........5

DNP.........5

 

So there were TWO games where Edwards caught more passes, and EIGHT games where Johnson caught more passes. (Two games where they both caught 5 passes). Think a bit: which is the higher number?

 

When Evans was the #1 receiver, he averaged THREE catches a game, when Johnson was the #1 receiver he averaged 5.3 catches a game. (and that with Roscoe Parrish out for the year, so a poorer supporting WR cast to help). Think a bit: which would you rather have 3 or 5 catches a game from your #1 WR?

 

 

Evan's style of play has been called into question by the coach.

Evans' role will change for Bills

cf: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/25/evans-role-will-change-for-bills

"It was a tough 2010 season for Bills WR Lee Evans. The veteran wideout had one splendid game: Week Seven vs. the Ravens, where he posted 6-105-3 in an overtime loss. Other than that, however, Evans never caught more than five passes or went over 87 receiving yards in a game and only scored one other touchdown. Then, to add injury to insult, his season ended in Week 14 after an ankle injury forced him to go on I.R.

 

With Evans now healthy, head coach Chan Gailey has new plans for the team's former big-play wideout. Speaking at the NFL owners meetings in New Orleans, Gailey told reporters the role of Evans will change in 2011. "He's been more of a deep threat," Gailey said. "I've got to get him to do a better job of becoming an underneath threat. I've got to do a better job of that." With emerging WRs Stevie Johnson, David Nelson and Naaman Roosevelt set to see their roles increase as well, Evans' place in the receiving corps may depend on his ability to adjust to his coach's request. Buffalo was not very successful throwing underneath last year, averaging 5.49 yards on short passes, which ranked in the bottom third of the NFL. However, using a veteran receiver on more shallow routes could be a major boost to the offense if Evans adapts well."

 

I don't think that the coaching staff suddenly decided in the off-season that they needed to get more crossing routes and short stuff out of the WR's. I think they were trying to get more of this out of Evans last year and he didn't produce. They got good young guys and are a few drafts away from filling all the holes. Evans might be in a different uniform in 2011.

Edited June 13, 2011 by maryland-bills-fan

[White Linen]

By soft coverage, I mean that the CB opposite him (if he is not the #1 CB) is well off the line, giving him a short pass, but making the long pass to Evans harder to complete because of the buffer. Also, I will grant you that the safety (there is at least one safety playing "center field" in any defense) is shaded to his side of the field, but he has his eyes in the backfield and is cheating to the other WR, slot or to the running play. This hurts the rest of our offense.

 

 

Evans did miss 3 and a half games. Johnson did not start 3 games, so I don't know how his playing time compared with Evans. Regardless, Evans got only about half the yardage that Johnson got and there are 16 games in the season. You seem to be clearly over your head in implying that Evans output was comparable to S.Johnson. Another comparison is the number of catches each player got per game.

 

Evans.......Johnson

4...........3................Edwards was QB

0...........3................Edwards was QB

5...........3

1...........3

5...........5

6...........8

5...........5

3...........11

2...........3

2...........8

2...........7

0...........5 (Evans injured in first half)

DNP.........6

DNP.........5

DNP.........5

 

So there were TWO games where Edwards caught more passes, and EIGHT games where Johnson caught more passes. (Two games where they both caught 5 passes). Think a bit: which is the higher number?

 

When Evans was the #1 receiver, he averaged THREE catches a game, when Johnson was the #1 receiver he averaged 5.3 catches a game. (and that with Roscoe Parrish out for the year, so a poorer supporting WR cast to help). Think a bit: which would you rather have 3 or 5 catches a game from your #1 WR?

 

 

Evan's style of play has been called into question by the coach.

Evans' role will change for Bills

cf: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/25/evans-role-will-change-for-bills

"It was a tough 2010 season for Bills WR Lee Evans. The veteran wideout had one splendid game: Week Seven vs. the Ravens, where he posted 6-105-3 in an overtime loss. Other than that, however, Evans never caught more than five passes or went over 87 receiving yards in a game and only scored one other touchdown. Then, to add injury to insult, his season ended in Week 14 after an ankle injury forced him to go on I.R.

 

With Evans now healthy, head coach Chan Gailey has new plans for the team's former big-play wideout. Speaking at the NFL owners meetings in New Orleans, Gailey told reporters the role of Evans will change in 2011. "He's been more of a deep threat," Gailey said. "I've got to get him to do a better job of becoming an underneath threat. I've got to do a better job of that." With emerging WRs Stevie Johnson, David Nelson and Naaman Roosevelt set to see their roles increase as well, Evans' place in the receiving corps may depend on his ability to adjust to his coach's request. Buffalo was not very successful throwing underneath last year, averaging 5.49 yards on short passes, which ranked in the bottom third of the NFL. However, using a veteran receiver on more shallow routes could be a major boost to the offense if Evans adapts well."

 

I don't think that the coaching staff suddenly decided in the off-season that they needed to get more crossing routes and short stuff out of the WR's. I think they were trying to get more of this out of Evans last year and he didn't produce. They got good young guys and are a few drafts away from filling all the holes. Evans might be in a different uniform in 2011.

 

There's no doubt Evans has been a disappointment because of his unwillingness to go over the middle or run any semblance of a crossing pattern. But that doesn't mean he's not being effective in other ways. His speed has to be respected and he's commanding the safeties attention. He's not a superstar receiver and doesn't overcome the attention and still produce. That's the knock on him. But I can assure you his speed and the shifting to his side by the defense is what allowed Johnson to get open more easily. The question remains can the other receivers be what Evans isn't and can they flourish without the attention defenses give him? It's a question not easily answered, but if I had to, I would say the other receivers do not posses these abilities except for the possibility of Easley. Because he has the speed and size.

 

I can tell you straight up I don't think Johnson can handle the double team that a #1 would garner. I don't even think teams would double him, making it even more difficult for his teamates to run free. He doesn't have the speed to threaten the jam with and he isn't overly physical. He doesn't have the best hands to be able to just throw it up and he'll come down with the ball. Let's face it he's a nice player that doesn't posses any elite skills. Our only option to being able to move on without Evans is if Easley develops into that role.

[AReed Deep For 7]

Almost any player is tradeable if the value is there, but I take exception with your assertion that the Bills are rich in WRs. Who would replace Evans in the starting lineup, and how is Johnson going to produce as a #1?

Very good point. Reminds me of Peerless Price trying to step in as a #1 in Atl. Not saying Johnson cant pull it off, just saying its just as big of a risk counting on him as your number 1 with limited success/experience.

[maryland-bills-fan]

What you are missing is that Evans is not producing as a #1 WR should. His lack of effectiveness and willingness? to go over the middle means he has become one-dimensional and easy to defend. Not only that is bad, but it also reduces the options and effectiveness of the other wide outs. If Evans is always going deep, then somebody else has to always go short or across the middle. We are not that much worse off if we send a younger, cheaper, guy who will be contributing 2-4 years from now on the deep patterns (and might develop into a better player than Evans!), put the extra draft pick in the bank and soldier on. You can't flip-flop your reasoning between "Evans is a #1 receiver, so we need him" and "Evans doesn't do what is needed of a #1 receiver". There are other options for playing someone who is right now certainly a #1 receiver (if it comes to that and it may not).

Edited June 13, 2011 by maryland-bills-fan