SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

Oh really? How about you cite some of the "common sense, observations, and/or logic" that leads you to that conclusion? I bet you are one of those people who thinks Evans is the #1 receiver on our current depth chart too. Rather than just posting arbitrary statements that really have no substantive evidence supporting such, try to actually post an argument to support your claims. Otherwise, your "logic" is just jargon. I.E. describe what Lee Evans does that in your mind puts him in a different league as Don Beebe. Otherwise, don't comment, because comments like the one above depreciate your position.

If you put Lee Evans across from Reed and Lofton his numbers would be no where near as good as they are now. He simply would not get enough balls throw his way to post the same kinds of numbers as when he was the primary target in the offense. His numbers would have been very Don Beebeish. Evans career average yards per catch are a mere .4 yards better than Don Beebe (both of which are respectable - 15.6 ypc for Beebe and 16.0 ypc for Evans). The only real statistical difference between them is the number of receptions each has made, and with Reed and Lofton on the same field, Evans just wouldn't be the best option very frequently.

Ok Ok I am going to back off of my assessment that Beebe was better than Evans. It may have been my bias towards Don Beebe giving him the edge over Evans. So I'll give Evans a slight nod there, but Lee Evans is no where near the caliber of player that many of you think he is. I am more than willing to bet that Beebe would have as good of numbers as Evans if he was the primary target in any offense. Lee Evans does not run good routes. Lee Evans is not in any way a threat over the middle. Lee Evans is not nearly big enough to beat double teams or win jump ball situations consistently. He is pretty much a carbon copy of Don Beebe. Both have/had great speed and reliable hands, and not much else. Both require a dynamic talent across the field to free them up to make receptions. Neither is capable of being an effective primary target. Neither is capable of forcing a team to change it's defensive game plan. (Andre Reed, James Lofton, and TO are all capable of doing that). So while I can give Lee the slight nod, it is such a close call as to be almost arbitrary.

Yea and Evans was the PRIMARY target and Beebe was the #3 guy on the chart....your argument is completely self defeating. And what exactly does Lee Evans do other than run a fly? Exactly. And Beebe was still better at that even.

I don't overrate Conlan. I think it was adequate at best. And while Poz is one of the players I think we might have a better argument for by the end of the season, just based on what we have seen so far I don't see anything that would make me want to start him over Conlan. I think Poz has lots of potential, but until he taps into it, I can't give him the nod over a tried and true Shane Conlan.

I'm sorry but I would take Don Beebe over Lee Evans every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Not sure where the idea that Evans is so awesome comes from.

Yea I was thinking Ted Washington but that was after the SB run. I agree with Stroud over Wright.

OK yea I forgot about Stroud, I can agree with him over Jeff Wright. But Poz over Conlan? Evans over Lofton? I'm afraid those two are just silly.

1. TO (easily better than Reed or Lofton) 2. Terrence McGee I think that's about it. By the end of the season we may be ready to add a few more to the list. And Lee Evans over James Lofton is absolutely absurd. Also, the #3 receiver wasn't Tasker - it was Don Beebe, and yes, he is a no brainer over Josh Reed.

Hmmm what about the 2 game winning drives he engineered last year that allowed the Bills to go 3-0? I love the selective memory. No QB can put together any drive at any time if he is being sacked.

What about the Chargers game last year? The first game back after his concussion I might add - he absolutely was rifling the ball all over the field. I remember one throw to Roscoe that Trent made while falling backwards, across his body, and close to 30 yards down the field, that was as on the money as it could possibly be. That isn't just good arm strength - it is exceptional.

I for one have been pointing out the flagrant stupidity of those posters for a long time.

Ahem. Except you will be replacing the obvious #1 receiver, and nobody on the Bills roster beside for TO can man that position adequately. Lee Evans is not now and never will be a #1 receiver. He is an above average #2 receiver, but lacks the size or route running expertise to make the kind of impact you have to have out of your top weapon. Repeat: TO is NOT the #2 receiver. Stop pretending Lee Evans is better than he is. Lee Evans never dictated a game plan to BB before. You need to wake up and realize that your estimation of Lee Evans' abilities is sorely disproportionate to reality. It is a farce for you people to suggest that Lee is even comparable to TO, much less that he is better than TO. TO is infinitely superior to Lee, and if he walks this year, so do the Bills chances of making a post season run, or even making it to the post season.

Yea ok. We have seen his presence open up the field for Trent. New England would not be just giving us the underneath throws if they didn't have to worry about TO...they would do what they did last year - 8 in the box and double Lee Evans and poof, our offense disappears. If you can't see the benefit TO has provided already, there really is no point in you continuing to watch games that you clearly don't comprehend. LOL @ "other talented receivers". GET REAL. You have zero idea what you are talking about. OMFG.

Or intelligent.

LOL. I think you should seek some more enlightened company. That's all I can say.

You see ESPN is not going to admit they there are completely and utterly wrong about the Bills. To do so would be evidence of their flagrant bias, and their non-existent journalistic integrity would become obvious, which would be detrimental to their company. Yes the power rankings piss me off every week. All I can say is that sooner or later, if the Bills keep winning ball games, they will have to begrudgingly move us up the rankings. But don't expect any props for beating the Bucs, or for *almost* dominating the Patriots. ESPN hates the Bills, even more now because we have TO. We just have to wait for the Bills to shut those fools up.

Well I certainly wouldn't want Derrick Anderson starting for *my* favorite NFL team...any fan who sits there and thinks "man oh man if only we could get Derrick Anderson...that would be an upgrade!" has my utmost pity.

1. Duh. 2. Wrong. It isn't fantasy football. Case in point: against the Bucs, neither Lee Evans or TO amassed an impressive number of catches or yards. But they accounted for 14 points. All that matters is that they force teams to play reactive football. Who actually carries it or punches it in is utterly irrelevant. 3. Arguable but not totally incompetent at least. If you jam their wide receivers then you are asking to get burned deep, and Drew Brees is the kind of QB that can make you pay dearly for letting the WR get even one step's advantage. I would say this is conditional: *if* we can get decent pressure, then we can move up and press the WRs more aggressively. But we should start playing soft and make Drew prove that he can consistently beat us underneath and against our blitz package before we give them any chance at throwing it long (kind of like teams have done to Trent thus far). 4. Duh. 5. Duh. Wow. One out of five of your comments warranted a legitimate response. That shatters your previous best of zero for eternity in comments that make sense. Good for you! Just for the record, the other three points weren't bad at all, just obvious.

I have to agree with this. I don't think there were many people more critical of the Bills' off season transactions in regards to the O line than I was. Right now that crow is lodged squarely in my throat. Apparently the Bills coaches and front office had better knowledge of the situation than myself, and thus, the lesson is learned and I am more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in finding what they believe the best possible replacement. Just what I have read about Jamon Meredith indicates that they in fact know what they are doing. After watching how effective our line has been thus far, I think none of us should utter even the slightest doubt about their personnel decisions at this time.

You are also talking about the team that let Favre walk, despite the fact that he carried the facking franchise for his entire career there. They also DID NOT make any attempt whatsoever to sign Randy Moss when they had the chance. So really I have no faith in Packers' personnel decisions anyway.

You are misguided and uninformed. What happened - you pessimistic pukes can't use your "Terrance McGee will walk" jargon anymore so you just moved down to the next absurdly ridiculous item on the list?

I don't think your D is 38 points bad either. I think we will have several short field opportunities to help get our points up to my prediction. I'm not saying we are going to score defensively for the third consecutive week, but I think there is a good chance that we will have several short field opportunities thanks to turnovers and/or good kick/punt returns. Even if we do ring up my predicted 38 points, I wouldn't think of it as a discredit to the Saints D as much as a credit to the Bills offense. If we continue to get the same good blocking (all things considered our O-line has been great), then our offense is one of if not the most dynamic in the league. Should be a great game, and I certainly think the Saints are capable of beating any team in the league right now, if the breaks go their way. Another interesting question for you too: being from Georgia I also like the Falcons (though admittedly I have no where near the passion for them that I do for the Bills), so I'm wondering how a fan of another team in the division likes their chances of toppling the birds in the NFC south? They seem to be a very complete team. Do you think the Saints are ready to challenge them in the division? At the start of the season I didn't think any NFC south team had a snowball's chance of taking the division from them. The Saints have planted a significant seed of doubt for me there: I still like the Birds better but they will have to beat the Saints: it isn't going to be handed to them for sure. What is your take on that?

Welcome, saints fan. I think it should be a great game. Why some fans on this forum "expect to be drilled by the Saints" etc is totally beyond me. Certainly the Saints scare me. Any team that looks that proficient on offense has to cause concern. But I think we match up well and I expect a hard fought Bills win. The Saints look much more vulnerable on defense than the Bills. We will probably shut down the running game, so Drew Brees will be operating a one dimensional offense. Not that I don't think Brees will be effective - scoring 40+ points in two games can't be a fluke IMO. However I believe he is going to need to ring up in the neighborhood of 40 to have a chance to win. I'm not sure if he will be able to against the Bills. We have a solid secondary and a staunch run defense thus far. I don't think Brees has enough weapons to exploit our secondary. If we can generate any kind of pass rush (which has been surprisingly effective for us so far), I think we can contain the Saints offense and hold them to less than 30 points. Conversely, our offense looks to cause fits for the Saints D. Not only do I expect even more effectiveness from Trent Edwards and the passing game, but we have a very stout rushing attack to provide balance and open it up. From a Saints fan's perspective, I think you need to control the clock dominantly to have a chance. But if TOP and turnovers are even comparable, I don't think the Saints D can't stop the Bills from hanging 30+ points. I am going to go with my gut and say Bills win, 38-28.

Tackles are not a relevant statistic for measuring effectiveness. The reason I say that is because typically, the fewer tackles a team has to make, the more effective they are on defense. You want to limit offensive repetitions, and all that having a high total of tackles indicates is that the offense is getting a lot of reps to create tackling opportunities. The tackles statistic also does not measure where the tackles occur. Thus if Ellison is making half of his tackles 7 yards beyond the line of scrimmage, that should be counted as ineffective. It doesn't mean Ellison is playing badly, because I know he isn't. All I'm saying is that his high tackle total is not indicative of him making an impact to the degree that Hangartner and Fred Jackson and Trent Edwards are making.