Tipster19 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Before anyone takes this literal just consider what could result from it. If the Bills felt that the money would be just too much to sign Evans to an extension, or that he doesn't want to, then Buffalo could tag him next year and then trade him to another team. Buffalo would save money, and we all know how much we enjoy this mentality, and would be able to recoup our 1st rder that we used to get into the 1st rd again this year. I wouldn't suggest doing this just to get back into the end of the rd this year but if it could get the Bills into the late teens/early twenties and for a player that they really coveted then I would be for it. I think the Bills really do want to retain Evans but if he overprices himself or Buffalo is trying to shed themselves of the last remnants of the Donahoe Era, then make it count now. Now if this hypothetical scenario pisses you off then let me really put you over the edge. If this were to ever happen with this second 1st rder, I still wouldn't want the Bills to use it on a wide receiver but instead on our OL. I think that getting OL Branden Albert would pay huge dividends for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Before anyone takes this literal just consider what could result from it. If the Bills felt that the money would be just too much to sign Evans to an extension, or that he doesn't want to, then Buffalo could tag him next year and then trade him to another team. Buffalo would save money, and we all know how much we enjoy this mentality, and would be able to recoup our 1st rder that we used to get into the 1st rd again this year. I wouldn't suggest doing this just to get back into the end of the rd this year but if it could get the Bills into the late teens/early twenties and for a player that they really coveted then I would be for it. I think the Bills really do want to retain Evans but if he overprices himself or Buffalo is trying to shed themselves of the last remnants of the Donahoe Era, then make it count now. Now if this hypothetical scenario pisses you off then let me really put you over the edge. If this were to ever happen with this second 1st rder, I still wouldn't want the Bills to use it on a wide receiver but instead on our OL. I think that getting OL Branden Albert would pay huge dividends for years to come. This mentality of "shedding players from the donahoe era" is complete BS.... you don't get rid of players just because of when they were drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 If Evans won't sign an extension by the draft then I say it is a possibility. HOWEVER... who was the last WR to recieve a 1st rd pick in a trade.... I don't see anyone giving the Bills a 1st rd pick for Evans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Before anyone takes this literal just consider what could result from it. If the Bills felt that the money would be just too much to sign Evans to an extension, or that he doesn't want to, then Buffalo could tag him next year and then trade him to another team. Buffalo would save money, and we all know how much we enjoy this mentality, and would be able to recoup our 1st rder that we used to get into the 1st rd again this year. I wouldn't suggest doing this just to get back into the end of the rd this year but if it could get the Bills into the late teens/early twenties and for a player that they really coveted then I would be for it. I think the Bills really do want to retain Evans but if he overprices himself or Buffalo is trying to shed themselves of the last remnants of the Donahoe Era, then make it count now. Now if this hypothetical scenario pisses you off then let me really put you over the edge. If this were to ever happen with this second 1st rder, I still wouldn't want the Bills to use it on a wide receiver but instead on our OL. I think that getting OL Branden Albert would pay huge dividends for years to come. Franchise a player only to trade them? Never heard of it. Seriously, there's no excuse for this perpetual rebuilding mode. By the beginning of the 08 season, Buffalo will have had three drafts, three free agency periods, and two regular seasons with which to become a successful team. Trading Evans would make this team even younger. It seems like we're always talking about taking a step back now in order to move forward two steps next year or the year after. Frankly, what good is it to be young and have draft picks for a team which hasn't won 10 games or made the playoffs since 1999? Evans should be in the mix, and if not re-signed, will be a giant black mark on this front office. After all, the team has no one else in the receiving game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djfarr00 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 If Evans won't sign an extension by the draft then I say it is a possibility. HOWEVER... who was the last WR to recieve a 1st rd pick in a trade.... I don't see anyone giving the Bills a 1st rd pick for Evans Deon Branch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 If Evans won't sign an extension by the draft then I say it is a possibility. HOWEVER... who was the last WR to recieve a 1st rd pick in a trade.... I don't see anyone giving the Bills a 1st rd pick for Evans The last Bills' receiver traded for a #1 was Peerless Price in 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 When a team gets a great WR it's stupid to get rid of them without a VERY good reason. Most WR's don't develop overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Note both the Branch and the Price trades are considered busts for the receiving team - I bet that price is going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 The last Bills' receiver traded for a #1 was Peerless Price in 2003 Yep. And perhaps its not just a coincidence that our offense has sucked ass ever since. They've finished 25th or worse in total yardage every season in the five years since that trade (30th three times). They were no worse than 13th in the five years prior. Maybe you really do need two solid WRs to play offense in the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 what ever happens when Bills try to re-sign Evans will happen and I'm hoping they get it done..so I'm apposed to the trade or Evans part....but, I wouldn't mind Bills giving away next years 1st and whatever to get back into this years 1st ...this could mean Bills could take DE Derrick Harvey with #11 and still grab someone like Kelly or Hardy in later round 1...I just think the Bills are a few guys away from going to playoffs and if they can get them all this year it less to worry about next year..so that would be a 1st round DE and WR a 2nd round CB or TE and what used to be considered a 1st day pick...a 3rd round CB or TE...leaving 4th pick - 7th to be OL and FB....sounds good to me..esspecialy if we get a 4th round comp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Before anyone takes this literal just consider what could result from it. If the Bills felt that the money would be just too much to sign Evans to an extension, or that he doesn't want to, then Buffalo could tag him next year and then trade him to another team. Buffalo would save money, and we all know how much we enjoy this mentality, and would be able to recoup our 1st rder that we used to get into the 1st rd again this year. I wouldn't suggest doing this just to get back into the end of the rd this year but if it could get the Bills into the late teens/early twenties and for a player that they really coveted then I would be for it. I think the Bills really do want to retain Evans but if he overprices himself or Buffalo is trying to shed themselves of the last remnants of the Donahoe Era, then make it count now. Now if this hypothetical scenario pisses you off then let me really put you over the edge. If this were to ever happen with this second 1st rder, I still wouldn't want the Bills to use it on a wide receiver but instead on our OL. I think that getting OL Branden Albert would pay huge dividends for years to come. This makes a lot of sense based on teh Bills historical trend of getting rid of starters only to create a hole with no resoiurces or talent available to fill that hole (and numerous other pre-existing ones). There are no free agents or elite WRs that are sure fire bets to fill the WR#2 availabe for the 2008 season- yet you want to create a hole at WR#1 as well. That should do wonders for Trent's development as a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 Note both the Branch and the Price trades are considered busts for the receiving team - I bet that price is going down. Neither of them were a #1 receiver. If Buffalo can't or Evans won't re-sign then the Bills should make it a priority to insure that Evans has a monster year. Trading our #1 pick in 2009's draft and pairing it with Losman should be enough of a compensation to get Minnesota's pick at #17 in this year's draft. The Bills should then fortify our lines on both sides of the ball (Derrick Harvey and Branden Albert). They could grab WR Jordy Nelson in the 3rd and C Fernando Velasco in the 6th and I expect Hamden to be our #2 QB. That leaves us our 2nd, 4th, 5th and two 7th rders to address our needs at the CB and TE positions. I would still like to see the Bills take another DT and players at the LB and secondary positions for depth/rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 This makes a lot of sense based on teh Bills historical trend of getting rid of starters only to create a hole with no resoiurces or talent available to fill that hole (and numerous other pre-existing ones). There are no free agents or elite WRs that are sure fire bets to fill the WR#2 availabe for the 2007 season- yet you want to create a hole at WR#1 as well. That should do wonders for Trent's development as a QB. Seeing that the 2007 season has past, I'm only concerned about 2008. When Moulds wasn't receptive (literally) to Losman he was traded. The same with Travis Henry'Willis McGahee. Evans hasn't been the biggest Edward supporter. Why is it taking so long to re-sign him? The Bills have been professing that they want to. When Nate Clements was nearing the end of his contract and Buffalo was stating that they would like to keep him, what happened? They let him walk. Zero compensation. How did you like that? The hole isn't created at the #1 receiving position this year. We would have Evans this year. I don't think that the Bills are looking to becoming the Greatest Show on Turf this year or in the future. We need solid receivers, not superstars. That's why they were going after the likes of Willford and Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I see what your saying Tipster but I really dont like the Brandon Albert pick....Bills OG's are set and Im feeling you want him only because hes from Rochester,NY....and the first section of the OL I would address is C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Seeing that the 2007 season has past, I'm only concerned about 2008. When Moulds wasn't receptive (literally) to Losman he was traded. The same with Travis Henry'Willis McGahee. Evans hasn't been the biggest Edward supporter. Why is it taking so long to re-sign him? The Bills have been professing that they want to. When Nate Clements was nearing the end of his contract and Buffalo was stating that they would like to keep him, what happened? They let him walk. Zero compensation. How did you like that? The hole isn't created at the #1 receiving position this year. We would have Evans this year. I don't think that the Bills are looking to becoming the Greatest Show on Turf this year or in the future. We need solid receivers, not superstars. That's why they were going after the likes of Willford and Johnson. I believe that Buffalo is intent on re-signing Evans and that Evans wants to stay in Buffalo. The reason a lot has not been mentioned about the contract talks is that this is draft season. Teams are not concentrating on players under contract right now. Look for a deal to be done sometime after the beginning of June and the end of camp. Hopefully before camp starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 I see what your saying Tipster but I really dont like the Brandon Albert pick....Bills OG's are set and Im feeling you want him only because hes from Rochester,NY....and the first section of the OL I would address is C That's accurate but in addition to that is that Albert projects to being a great T at the next level. I can't post or provide all that I heard on Sirius or read about him at this time because I'm off to work right now. Having a monster being able to play T and G would be an addition that would be fantastic. Him being a homeboy is of course a huge bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Maybe you really do need two solid WRs to play offense in the NFL? I think that is a definite.. There needs to be a tandem.. otherwise any team can double up on the primary and basically shut down the passing game leaving an offense to be cme one dimensional with 8 in the box... Kinda sounds familiar for us Bill sfans. I want the Bills to bring in a pair of WR's through the draft and get Evans extended. On top of that I want a offesive capable TE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ax4782 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Franchise a player only to trade them? Never heard of it. Seriously, there's no excuse for this perpetual rebuilding mode. By the beginning of the 08 season, Buffalo will have had three drafts, three free agency periods, and two regular seasons with which to become a successful team. Trading Evans would make this team even younger. It seems like we're always talking about taking a step back now in order to move forward two steps next year or the year after. Frankly, what good is it to be young and have draft picks for a team which hasn't won 10 games or made the playoffs since 1999? Evans should be in the mix, and if not re-signed, will be a giant black mark on this front office. After all, the team has no one else in the receiving game. Take a look at what happened with Peerless when we traded him to Atlanta. That might jog your memory as to the franchise then trade scenario. Other teams have done it as well. I believe the Colts did that with James. In terms of the idea, I agree with you in part. I don't like trading veteran players who know the system, only to keep bringing in new hot talent, only to then see it leave in its prime. That strategy didn't work too well for the Montreal Expos in baseball and it won't work for us. That being said, we do have a lot of short and long term needs on offense that need to be addressed. I think we need to take a WR and TE. There are a number of good ones available. Should this scenario occur, and the Bills have planned it ahead of time, I would guess they take the best player available at #11, which is likely to be LB Keith Rivers or Derrick Harvey DE or Mike Jenkins CB and then take a WR like Kelly, Sweed, or Thomas at the later pick, in the mid-teens or twenties in this scenario, then try and get either Fred Davis TE or Kellen Davis TE in the second round. Then I see us taking Mike Pollack C or Brandon Flowers CB in the Third, Owen Schmidt in the Fourth and Jordy Nelson in the Fifth. After that it's anyone guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I think that is a definite.. There needs to be a tandem.. otherwise any team can double up on the primary and basically shut down the passing game leaving an offense to be cme one dimensional with 8 in the box... Kinda sounds familiar for us Bill sfans. I want the Bills to bring in a pair of WR's through the draft and get Evans extended. On top of that I want a offesive capable TE I definitely agree and in fact, I think that there's a big misconception that there truly is such a thing as a #1 or #2 WR in the NFL. Its only kind of true. Its like a #1 or #2 CB. They're both on the field 90% of the time, and if one of them sucks, you can bet that the opposition will isolate that player and use them to cripple the rest of the team offensively/defensively. Of course, we saw just that this past season, when opposing teams were able to take Lee Evans out of the game with double and triple teams with no fear whatsoever that Reed or Parrish could consistently make plays against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 what ever happens when Bills try to re-sign Evans will happen and I'm hoping they get it done..so I'm apposed to the trade or Evans part....but, I wouldn't mind Bills giving away next years 1st and whatever to get back into this years 1st ...this could mean Bills could take DE Derrick Harvey with #11 and still grab someone like Kelly or Hardy in later round 1...I just think the Bills are a few guys away from going to playoffs and if they can get them all this year it less to worry about next year..so that would be a 1st round DE and WR a 2nd round CB or TE and what used to be considered a 1st day pick...a 3rd round CB or TE...leaving 4th pick - 7th to be OL and FB....sounds good to me..esspecialy if we get a 4th round comp I would be OPPOSED to giving up a VERY LIKELY top 10 pick + whatever to get back into the end of round 1. You might be happy with that trade short term, but when you see who we could have gotten next year you will be I would ONLY trade Lee if there is no way they could get him resigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts