eball Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 After practice last night Chan was asked if he has any concerns about defenses respecting the Bills deep now that Evans is gone. Gailey's response: "No." I'll have to see it to believe it, but I love Chan's matter-of-factness and confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 We have several burners available that run just as fast or Bette than Evans, it isn't like a deep route needs a huge amount of form either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 One word, "No".......Direct, to the point, and absolutely no hesitation when answering. That is what a coach does. What did you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 We have several burners available that run just as fast or Bette than Evans, it isn't like a deep route needs a huge amount of form either. Actually, no we don't. I do not think tteams are actually scared of any of our WRs. Hopefully that plays to our advantage but taking away one of the best deep threats in the game does shorten the field for the Bills a lot. Donald Jones does not exactly scare anyone. The Jets now are going to put Revis on S Johnson instead of Lee and that creates a very bad match up for the rest of our WRs. It all remains to be seen but of course teams lose respect from a down field threat with Lee gone. He has more deep TDs than any WR in the league over the past 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HARCO186 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Actually, no we don't. I do not think tteams are actually scared of any of our WRs. Hopefully that plays to our advantage but taking away one of the best deep threats in the game does shorten the field for the Bills a lot. Donald Jones does not exactly scare anyone. The Jets now are going to put Revis on S Johnson instead of Lee and that creates a very bad match up for the rest of our WRs. It all remains to be seen but of course teams lose respect from a down field threat with Lee gone. He has more deep TDs than any WR in the league over the past 6 years. What many fans on here don't realize is that Lee may be one of the best deep threats in the league, but Buffalo will have many more options to attack. Lee was a great deep receiver but he couldn't run routes and Chan has stated so many times. Easley has to step up his game and if he shows a deep threat, then Buffalo will be just fine. One of Buffalo's strong points is the receiver position, and if Chan needed Lee then he would have stayed, and truly believe this. Maybe this is why they kept him so long and didn't give him away sooner is they needed to see if someone else was going to step it up. I believe Jones will step up, and put Easley out there, we will have 4 receivers that can catch. Johnson, Jones, Easly, Parrish, and put Spiller in a slot with Chandler and that spread offense sound pretty sick to me and dangerous. Will they put a LB on Spiller or Parrish? That will be an easy 5 yard slant with room to run and guess what. You now have Spiller or Parrish in the open with room to run, and they can explode. I see this happening a lot and that will keep the defenses from unloading on Fitz because he only takes a 3 step drop. Starting to sound sick to me. I can't wait....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Gailey has reason to be confident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmalibu Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I am sure that the Chan gang talked at great length about what the lose without Lee. They must feel that they have someone on the roster that can do what lee does. Maybe another receiver is not quite as good going deep but is much better with the underneath routs. It seems that Chan likes versatility form the skill guys. With lees contract if they thought that they needed him they would have kept him. If lee is a true #1 or #2 nfl started I am surprised that he was only worth a 4th round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 One word, "No".......Direct, to the point, and absolutely no hesitation when answering. That is what a coach does. What did you expect? It is what anyone with good PR/media training does. If a reporter is dumb enough to ask a closed-ended, yes/no type question on a touchy subject, you answer yes/no and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFlutie Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 It may not be just a matter of versatility and what they lose... It may be a matter of having all around good receivers that can handle the coverage and make it actually EASIER to go deep because now it won't be a "throw it deep when Lee isn't triple covered" kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 One word, "No".......Direct, to the point, and absolutely no hesitation when answering. That is what a coach does. What did you expect? Exactly. What does anyone expect him to say ... "yes, we are totally !@#$ed"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I am sure that the Chan gang talked at great length about what the lose without Lee. They must feel that they have someone on the roster that can do what lee does. Maybe another receiver is not quite as good going deep but is much better with the underneath routs. It seems that Chan likes versatility form the skill guys. With lees contract if they thought that they needed him they would have kept him. If lee is a true #1 or #2 nfl started I am surprised that he was only worth a 4th round pick. Absolutely they discussed the impact at length. However, a lot of times coaches can convince themselves of something just because they want it to be true. For example: "I can make Trent Edwards a good QB." We'll see how the loss of Lee affects the offense. I know we looked miserable once he got hurt last year, but that doesn't guarantee that we'll be bad this year. (I think we will be bad, but hopefully I'm wrong.) One thing's for sure: Steve Johnson is going to see a lot more coverage rolled his way this year. Someone else will have to do some damage before defenses get off Stevie's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Our o-line is so poor that there isn't time to throw the ball deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFlutie Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Our o-line is so poor that there isn't time to throw the ball deep. Can't disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Short passing game. That's what we do now. It helps our oline. We'll take some deep shots, but not many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The only thing that has kept us from going down field successfully is O-line play. We can't protect long enough, and we don't run well enough to go play action either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have a new (well, maybe just new to me) take on the whole Evans situation. When I think back to comments Gailey made earlier in camp, it becomes evident that Lee really wasn't a good fit in this offense. It's clear Gailey wants versatile receivers who can do a little bit of everything, and "wasting" one position on a receiver who is essentially a one-trick pony isn't Chan's preference. Evans is 30 so teaching him to be a different sort of player isn't likely to be successful -- particularly if he's not gung-ho about it -- so I'm now more readily understanding the thought process that went into trading him. I certainly don't believe it was a money-saving move or a Ralph decision, and the end result really could be a win-win for all involved. Baltimore got their deep threat, and the Bills have receivers who fit the coach's vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If training camp is any indication, we'll see "dink-dunk-bomb" aa lot. Watch for Nelson and Jones this year have good numbers. I'd even throw Easley and Roosevelt into the mix. I don't include Parrish only because IDK if he can stay healthy for a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Evans lovers say that now Stevie will have all the doubles coverages and now players like Revis will be covering Johnson full time. So of course they are saying that Chan messed up and now nobody will be open. A few things to add here to that: 1. Do you really think after the year that Stevie had that he wouldn't be getting the double teams and Revis' of the world now? With or without Lee he has turned into the face of the Bills WR Corp and he will/would be the attack point of every defense we face. 2. Lee has never done anything more than run a deep route. What has you believing that all the sudden he's going to do something different? Even if Stevie got all the doubles all year long do you really think Lee could get open? He's never done it and it's not going to change now. I'm not saying were better without Lee. Personally I think were better with him, however by how much is the question. I don't think it's enough to make a huge difference in the W column. How much does 30-40 receptions and 4 TDs really change you over an entire season? It doesn't make much sense. I think Chans play style will utilize more WRs in the slot and use shirt slant routes over the middle that will get more production out of guys like Rosevelt, Jones and Easley because they are big physical guys where Lee would have been bumped off the coverage and out of the okay because he can't power his way I to the middle. It's deep or nothing with Lee and you've already seen his best years . These young guys will only get better and that's the main reason why Lee is gone. They are more versitle and have room to grow with thier QB. Why us itee didn't have that good a repor with Fitz? It's proven by his low numbers last year. And my other question is why wasn't Lee at camp Fitz in Arizona working out withe the rest of the WRs? He should have been first in line to get in a better page with Fitz to ensure a comeback year. Instead he was the only one not there, when he should have been the first one on the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Fitz cant through a deep ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I have a new (well, maybe just new to me) take on the whole Evans situation. When I think back to comments Gailey made earlier in camp, it becomes evident that Lee really wasn't a good fit in this offense. It's clear Gailey wants versatile receivers who can do a little bit of everything, and "wasting" one position on a receiver who is essentially a one-trick pony isn't Chan's preference. Evans is 30 so teaching him to be a different sort of player isn't likely to be successful -- particularly if he's not gung-ho about it -- so I'm now more readily understanding the thought process that went into trading him. I certainly don't believe it was a money-saving move or a Ralph decision, and the end result really could be a win-win for all involved. Baltimore got their deep threat, and the Bills have receivers who fit the coach's vision. I had come to the same conclusion. Fitz isn't the best deep ball guy. Our line isn't great at pass protection and Fitz probably won't take a lot of 7 steps drops this season. And Lee isn't good underneath. If Lee had stayed with the Bills, I'm not sure how much he would have been on the field. He just doesn't fit what Gailey wants to do nor what the Bills have the ability to do. Evans might have still started - not sure - but he would have seen his playing time reduced. That said, I think there is a problem about opponents respecting our deep threat, regardless of how Buddy responded to the question. I'm glad Buddy is confident but Stevie isn't as fast as Lee. We do have a couple WRs faster than Stevie but they haven't proven yet that they can actually get open deep and make the catch on game day. Lee was a guy who once caught two 80 yard bombs in the same half. Teams respected Lee and often doubled him because they didn't want that to happen to them. It will be interesting to see how Gailey plans to stretch the field vertically to open up the run and short-passing games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts