Jerry Jabber Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 You guys are absolutely nuts. I'm thrilled with how the young kids played today, and they got good production. But I have spent the last 10 weeks repeatedly saying how does Steve Johnson get so wide open all the time. Today? He was hardly ever open let alone wide open. He made plays with his hands. Fitzpatrick's TD to Nelson was AWESOME. Guess what? Nelson was triple covered. It was almost stupid it throw that pass (but how glad I am he did). 9 times out of 10 that pass is intercepted. How many of Fitz's completions today were great passes into double coverage where it was perfectly placed over one defender and just before the other defender with the WR leaping and making an excellent catch? Several. The Bills WR's were all blanketed today. We threw one pass downfield where Fitz called an audible and Jones looked like he was running with cement shoes on. Evans might have scored on that pass. Hats off to ALL of the young guys and The Amish Rifle for the game they played and the plays they made. But our guys were not open hardly at all today. That's the difference between "the unknown 4" & Evans, the WR's today were able to outleap & outmuscle their DB's, something Evans has a very hard time doing.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 That's the difference between "the unknown 4" & Evans, the WR's today were able to outleap & outmuscle their DB's, something Evans has a very hard time doing. One of the reasons it was impossible to run today was because the Bills had NO DEEP THREAT. The defense could all creep up, especially the safeties. Chan and Fitz and the no name WRs took what advantage they could and made some highlight reel plays but the fact is, we couldn't go more than 15 yards down the field, we couldn't run at all, and we scored 17 points. Evans changes the way teams play against us and anyone who cannot see that doesn't seem to really watch how other teams play defense against us, who they cover, how many men they play in the box, etc.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Today showed we do not need Lee at all. I say cut trade him to Indy.
Jerry Jabber Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 One of the reasons it was impossible to run today was because the Bills had NO DEEP THREAT. The defense could all creep up, especially the safeties. Chan and Fitz and the no name WRs took what advantage they could and made some highlight reel plays but the fact is, we couldn't go more than 15 yards down the field, we couldn't run at all, and we scored 17 points. Evans changes the way teams play against us and anyone who cannot see that doesn't seem to really watch how other teams play defense against us, who they cover, how many men they play in the box, etc. The Bills had multiple 20+ yard receptions today, so the "15 yards down field" statement is very exaggerated. I do have to agree that the Bills did not have a deep threat/speedster today, but you don't always have to have a deep threat on your team if you have a QB that can spread it around and has a good short-to-intermediate game (like Brady & the Pats before they got Welker & Moss).
Thoner7 Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 One of the reasons it was impossible to run today was because the Bills had NO DEEP THREAT. The defense could all creep up, especially the safeties. Chan and Fitz and the no name WRs took what advantage they could and made some highlight reel plays but the fact is, we couldn't go more than 15 yards down the field, we couldn't run at all, and we scored 17 points. Evans changes the way teams play against us and anyone who cannot see that doesn't seem to really watch how other teams play defense against us, who they cover, how many men they play in the box, etc. I assume you were at the game then, because you couldnt see that on TV. But to address the OP "We will find out how important Lee Evans is" - Very Little is my answer. I actually think our WRs were better without him.
Magox Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 I don't believe any rational thinking person is suggesting that we should cut Lee Evans, but the question is would we miss him? And the answer is, not much. The best thing that could possibly happen is see if we could trade him and hope to get a third rounder for him, if he was half as good as some of you make him out to be, then we should easily be able to get that pick. Maybe a team like an Indianapolis colts could be interested, it would make sense for both teams.
BADOLBILZ Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Evans can, and has, run fine intermediate routes. They just typically use him long (I assume to drag coverage and open up the middle of the field). It isn't because Lee wont, or can't, run those routes. And, yes every WR drops the occasional catchable ball, but Lee has very good hands and drops very few passes. Lee Evans is not good in the middle of the field. This offense is pretty diverse, but the outside receivers need to make plays all over the field, not just along the sideline like Lee. If the right trade is there I would trade Lee Evans, but otherwise I would say just keep him and try to find a big deep threat for this offense in the mold of Vincent Jackson. I'm sure they are hoping Easley is that guy.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 The Bills had multiple 20+ yard receptions today, so the "15 yards down field" statement is very exaggerated. I do have to agree that the Bills did not have a deep threat/speedster today, but you don't always have to have a deep threat on your team if you have a QB that can spread it around and has a good short-to-intermediate game (like Brady & the Pats before they got Welker & Moss). If you call two, maybe three several, fine. I think we had two plays the entire game where the ball was a 20 yard pass. One was the great pass and catch into double coverage by Roosevelt for 24 yards. Try that ten times you complete it once, maybe twice. The other was a 23 yarder down the sideline to David Nelson. Not sure the ball was 20 yards in the air, I can't recall it that well but lets say it was 20. There was one down the sideline to Donald Jones where he jumped up and made a great catch and then run IIRC with a guy right on him. Not sure that was 20 yards in the air. Nelson had a 20 yard play that was a 4 yard pass. Stevie had an 18 yarder that was a 5 yard pass or so, then run. The TDs were 15 and 18, both with defenders draped all over the WRs. So two, maybe three. And two of the three were acrobatic catches to players well covered.
Bufcomments Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 One of the reasons it was impossible to run today was because the Bills had NO DEEP THREAT. The defense could all creep up, especially the safeties. Chan and Fitz and the no name WRs took what advantage they could and made some highlight reel plays but the fact is, we couldn't go more than 15 yards down the field, we couldn't run at all, and we scored 17 points. Evans changes the way teams play against us and anyone who cannot see that doesn't seem to really watch how other teams play defense against us, who they cover, how many men they play in the box, etc. [/quote Very true... like your points. But you have to admit having tall WR is nice to see. I like Evans and the deep threat but unless he produces more people are going to wonder if we can use him as a decoy all the time? An overpaid decoy maybe .
Magox Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 If you call two, maybe three several, fine. I think we had two plays the entire game where the ball was a 20 yard pass. One was the great pass and catch into double coverage by Roosevelt for 24 yards. Try that ten times you complete it once, maybe twice. The other was a 23 yarder down the sideline to David Nelson. Not sure the ball was 20 yards in the air, I can't recall it that well but lets say it was 20. There was one down the sideline to Donald Jones where he jumped up and made a great catch and then run IIRC with a guy right on him. Not sure that was 20 yards in the air. Nelson had a 20 yard play that was a 4 yard pass. Stevie had an 18 yarder that was a 5 yard pass or so, then run. The TDs were 15 and 18, both with defenders draped all over the WRs. So two, maybe three. And two of the three were acrobatic catches to players well covered. The Donald Jones pass was more than 20 yards in the air.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 The Donald Jones pass was more than 20 yards in the air. I just saw the replay. It was, almost 25. Just like I said, "two, maybe three" passes over 20 yards.
Jerry Jabber Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 I'm glad the Bills finally have some tall WR's that can play. At one point a few years ago, all the Bills WR's were under 6 ft tall. Ever since 2002, I've been hoping the Bills could get another great combo of WR's like we had with Moulds & Price. Maybe next year or in the coming years, we'll see a good combo (or even a trio) again.
Thoner7 Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 I think Lee is now more valuable to this team as a draft pick than a player. If Lynch gets a 4th, He should draw a 3 at least. His contract is pretty reasonable for the next few years, maybe they could fnd a suitor.
1B4IDie Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) I just saw the replay. It was, almost 25. Just like I said, "two, maybe three" passes over 20 yards. Come on Kelly. I don't think you're being fair or balanced. Your Lee Evans protectionism is strange. Lee run real fast in a straight line and is really good at that. Speed kills in the NFL and Lee's speed is not easily replaced. How ever a safety over top is hardly a game changing defensive strategy. I'm not saying cut him but when you have young hungry WRs that fight for the ball an extra safety in coverage doesn't have a huge effect. And that's the real result of Lee's absence. What will the defenses do with the safety that would watch the fly route? The answer is not much. Edited December 20, 2010 by Why So Serious?
San-O Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 I'm glad the Bills finally have some tall WR's that can play. At one point a few years ago, all the Bills WR's were under 6 ft tall. Ever since 2002, I've been hoping the Bills could get another great combo of WR's like we had with Moulds & Price. Maybe next year or in the coming years, we'll see a good combo (or even a trio) again. They seemed to be married to guys like Evans, Reed, Parrish. Great to see some young receivers get some playing time and be targeted also. Next year Parrish and Easley will be back, Easley essentially as a rookie, however I would really like to see the Bills draft a WR in the first round. They do take time to develop, and I'm not sold yet on S. Johnson or anyone really. Good young group though it would seem.
muffmonster Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 They seemed to be married to guys like Evans, Reed, Parrish. Great to see some young receivers get some playing time and be targeted also. Next year Parrish and Easley will be back, Easley essentially as a rookie, however I would really like to see the Bills draft a WR in the first round. They do take time to develop, and I'm not sold yet on S. Johnson or anyone really. Good young group though it would seem. I hope your not referring to the 2011 draft. WR is by far at the bottom of the list for NEEDs on this team. There seems to be a lot of young potential in our WR corps right now.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Come on Kelly. I don't think you're being fair or balanced. Your Lee Evans protectionism is strange. Lee run real fast in a straight line and is really good at that. Speed kills in the NFL and Lee's speed is not easily replaced. How ever a safety over top is hardly a game changing defensive strategy. I'm not saying cut him but when you have young hungry WRs that fight for the ball an extra safety in coverage doesn't have a huge effect. And that's the real result of Lee's absence. What will the defenses do with the safety that would watch the fly route? The answer is not much. You didn't notice we couldn't run -- at all -- the entire game? You didn't notice all those Dolphins up near the line of scrimmage daring us to pass the ball downfield? You didn't notice Stevie Johnson covered most of the game instead of often being wide open like before? You didnt notice we threw one long pass the entire game, which could have been a TD if we had a fast WR running the fly route? The real result is we have two guys on Steve Johnson instead of one. We couldnt run at all (in part and perhaps in large part) because there was one extra player playing the run instead of playing the field stretching play, we couldn't throw deep, and we scored 17 points.
mike oxhurtz Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 One of the reasons it was impossible to run today was because the Bills had NO DEEP THREAT. The defense could all creep up, especially the safeties. Chan and Fitz and the no name WRs took what advantage they could and made some highlight reel plays but the fact is, we couldn't go more than 15 yards down the field, we couldn't run at all, and we scored 17 points. Evans changes the way teams play against us and anyone who cannot see that doesn't seem to really watch how other teams play defense against us, who they cover, how many men they play in the box, etc. If you call two, maybe three several, fine. I think we had two plays the entire game where the ball was a 20 yard pass. One was the great pass and catch into double coverage by Roosevelt for 24 yards. Try that ten times you complete it once, maybe twice. The other was a 23 yarder down the sideline to David Nelson. Not sure the ball was 20 yards in the air, I can't recall it that well but lets say it was 20. There was one down the sideline to Donald Jones where he jumped up and made a great catch and then run IIRC with a guy right on him. Not sure that was 20 yards in the air. Nelson had a 20 yard play that was a 4 yard pass. Stevie had an 18 yarder that was a 5 yard pass or so, then run. The TDs were 15 and 18, both with defenders draped all over the WRs. So two, maybe three. And two of the three were acrobatic catches to players well covered. First you say, there were no passes beyond 15 yards, then you say there were 2, maybe 3...which is it? There were no passes caught that were considered 'deep'...so what, what was the final score?! How many times did Brady and other QB's beat the Bills where almost all of the passes in the game were anywhere from 5 to 20 yards...A ton of times! Look at one of the greatest QB's in league history, Joe Montana, he didn't have much of a deep ball, but he was one of the best effective game managers to ever play. I'd rather have a QB & WR's that can manange & win games with what's considered "intermediate" throws, than the one-trick ponies we had with Losman & Evans.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 First you say, there were no passes beyond 15 yards, then you say there were 2, maybe 3...which is it? There were no passes caught that were considered 'deep'...so what, what was the final score?! How many times did Brady and other QB's beat the Bills where almost all of the passes in the game were anywhere from 5 to 20 yards...A ton of times! Look at one of the greatest QB's in league history, Joe Montana, he didn't have much of a deep ball, but he was one of the best effective game managers to ever play. I'd rather have a QB & WR's that can manange & win games with what's considered "intermediate" throws, than the one-trick ponies we had with Losman & Evans. Put it this way. If you asked Chan Gailey or Ryan Fitzpatrick to start honestly naming all of the various reasons we had success against the Dolphins and won today, and not to stop, both of them would be as old as Ralph Wilson before they got to saying "because we got rid of Lee Evans." Everyone seems to love Chan Gailey and most people seem to love The Amish Rifle. I would bet every single penny I could get my hands on that if they had Lee Evans available and healthy, they would have never given a thought to not starting him. And would think the suggestion to be laughable.
Recommended Posts