playboy reese 2.0 Posted August 10, 2011 Author Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) There was an article out with quotes from the equipment manager not that long ago. They didn't really "ask" Reed if Evans could use 83, but pretty much told him and he didn't have a problem with it. The NFL kinda frowns against retiring numbers, and with the Bills the only number actually retired is #12, altough 34, 32, 78 and a few others will probably never be used again except in training camp where those players normally won't be around come opening day anyway. If you put Evans on the other side of the line from Fitzgerald in Arizona, he would dwarf the numbers Johnson put up last year, and benefit from the other guy getting the double teams like Johnson did last year with Evans getting doubled up all the time. I seem to remember johnson catching double teams also.And Lee dropping alot of balls. Edited August 10, 2011 by playboy reese 2.0
timba Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 There was an article out with quotes from the equipment manager not that long ago. (1)They didn't really "ask" Reed if Evans could use 83, but pretty much told him and he didn't have a problem with it. The NFL kinda frowns against retiring numbers, and with the Bills the only number actually retired is #12, altough 34, 32, 78 and a few others will probably never be used again except in training camp where those players normally won't be around come opening day anyway. (2)If you put Evans on the other side of the line from Fitzgerald in Arizona, he would dwarf the numbers Johnson put up last year, and benefit from the other guy getting the double teams like Johnson did last year with Evans getting doubled up all the time. (1)Thanks for the clarification. Reed is still a classy guy. HOF 2012! (2)This is a new year for Lee if Buffalo. I like what I've heard about the receivers in camp so far (very excited to see them in action on Saturday!) and hopefully running more 3-5 wide sets will give Lee some more space to get open. The productivity Stevie had last year along with the apparent development of a lot of those young receivers may be the talent pool that finally pulls guys away from Lee. Go Bills!
mrags Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 One thing that just sticks out to me when I looked at Lees stats on the rotoworld link: most receptions in a season in the 80's and it only happened once. That's just sad, especially for a guy that people around here think of as a great #1 WR. Let's out that into perspective, Boldin, Fitzgerald and Breaston all did that a few years ago from the same offense. Moss, Welker both did it for years in NE. There are plenty of teams that have 2 80 catch recievers on thier rosters and Lees only done it once. And for those people that say that it's too early to call Stevie a real #1 reciever cause he's only put up numbers one year, consider this: in just one season after being given the chance to start, Stevie posted more yards, TDs, receptions, and had an absolutely great repor with his QB and he's only been in the league for 3 years. Evans has had over how many? 7 years with at times being the ONLY option and still never did what Stevie did. The only time he even sniffed 10 TDs is when he was the 3rd WR with Moulds on the team taking the #1 role. So maybe we should put Evans in the slot behind Stevie and Nelson and let him work in space. Just a thought. I guarantee you all that he never tops his 9 TDs or just over 1,000 yards or 80 receptions again in his career. At least on this team. So let's trade him, get a 3 and 4 for him if you can. Give the young guys a chance to prove themselves. Good teams do this kind of stuff all the time. The only time when teams keep these guys are when they are actually good.
playboy reese 2.0 Posted August 10, 2011 Author Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) One thing that just sticks out to me when I looked at Lees stats on the rotoworld link: most receptions in a season in the 80's and it only happened once. That's just sad, especially for a guy that people around here think of as a great #1 WR. Let's out that into perspective, Boldin, Fitzgerald and Breaston all did that a few years ago from the same offense. Moss, Welker both did it for years in NE. There are plenty of teams that have 2 80 catch recievers on thier rosters and Lees only done it once. And for those people that say that it's too early to call Stevie a real #1 reciever cause he's only put up numbers one year, consider this: in just one season after being given the chance to start, Stevie posted more yards, TDs, receptions, and had an absolutely great repor with his QB and he's only been in the league for 3 years. Evans has had over how many? 7 years with at times being the ONLY option and still never did what Stevie did. The only time he even sniffed 10 TDs is when he was the 3rd WR with Moulds on the team taking the #1 role. So maybe we should put Evans in the slot behind Stevie and Nelson and let him work in space. Just a thought. I guarantee you all that he never tops his 9 TDs or just over 1,000 yards or 80 receptions again in his career. At least on this team. So let's trade him, get a 3 and 4 for him if you can. Give the young guys a chance to prove themselves. Good teams do this kind of stuff all the time. The only time when teams keep these guys are when they are actually good. I agree.My next point was going to be was fitzgerald only good because of boldin.Maybe evans only looked good because of moulds.You cant keep giving excuses for evans.#1 wrs get open and get the ball regardless of a double team.Thats what makes them elite.If you arent doing that you arent elite.And people still want to say hes our number 1 even though johnson had twice the production last year.5"9 180 is a slot guy and personally i like parrish or jones in the slot even more.Divert that huge salary toward a #1 QB. Edited August 10, 2011 by playboy reese 2.0
mrags Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 I agree.My next point was going to be was fitzgerald only good because of boldin.Maybe evans only looked good because of moulds.You cant keep giving excuses for evans.#1 wrs get open and get the ball regardless of a double team.Thats what makes them elite.If you arent doing that you arent elite.And people still want to say hes our number 1 even though johnson had twice the production last year.5"9 180 is a slot guy and personally i like parrish or jones in the slot even more.Divert that huge salary toward a #1 QB. I agree with your point about Lee being the size and speed to be the slot reciever. Truth is if he was playing it for his whole career, much like Wes Welker, he might have been the best slot guy in the league. Unfortu Arely we've had coaches who thought he was something he's not. Your also extremely right about the argument for the true #1 WR not having a problem beating double coverage. Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Smith, Brandon Marshall, Anquan Boldin, Roddy White, Andre Johnson, Marquez Colston, Chad OchoCinco, Plaxico Burress, Hines Ward, Etc...... All these guys are number #1's or were at one point in thier youth and all have absolutely no problems beating double or even triple coverage at times. Lee's best seasons barely compare to any one of these recievers average years. True #1 WR's beat anything the defense throws at them. They find ways to get open. Maybe part of the problem is the coaching never gave Lee a chance to shine. But you have to look at it the other way more often, if he was a real stud, his play would dictate that he deserves to get the ball more. He doesn't.
Phlegm Alley Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Trade him. We are deep at the WR position with some young, hungry talent and unfortunately, Lee doesn't fit into the type of offense we run.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Trade him. We are deep at the WR position with some young, hungry talent and unfortunately, Lee doesn't fit into the type of offense we run. Actually, he precisely fits into the offense we run. Our line stinks. Evans runs deep right off the line. The safety has to watch him or be ready for him so he cannot take a step forward until he reads the play. Stevie, Roscoe or David Nelson run shorter patterns against one DB. Fitz looks downfield and knows he has to get it off soon because he has little time, makes a quick decision and throws to one of the shorter guys just before Fitz gets smacked. Edited August 10, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog
Lurker Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Actually, he precisely fits into the offense we run. Our line stinks. Evans runs deep right off the line. The safety has to watch him or be ready for him so he cannot take a step forward until he reads the play. Stevie, Roscoe or David Nelson run shorter patterns against one DB. Fitz looks downfield and knows he has to get it off soon because he has little time, makes a quick decision and throws to one of the shorter guys just before Fitz gets smacked. All this "we're deep at WR" chatter mystifies me. The WR depth is all two's and three's and four's. There isn't a WR on the roster that can back off DBs like Evans. Does anyone think having SJ as the #1 wide-out will make DC's sweat much? He helps the run game just by being on the field. Take him out of the equation and watch the 8-man fronts every team would run against us. That said, if someone was crazy enough to offer a quality OT for him, I'd have to think about it...
The Big Cat Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 ***I FIND THIS JUST AS RELEVANT TO THIS EVANS THREAD AS IT IS TO THE OTHER, SO I'M CONSCIOUSLY DUPLICATING IT BETWEEN THE TWO: WAIT!! Why is everyone evaluating Lee's value to this team in the vacuum of a traditional two-wide offense? Don't have a straight ahead burner? We have several--Parish, Jones and Roosevelt all come to mind. And one of them's not even a wide receiver, he's a running back, drafted 9th overall for his versatility. Johnson needs Lee to get open? Well, sure that's ONE way to get a receiver open. A person taking a holistic view might tell you that the addition of Brad Smith and spreading the field will keep teams off balance and DB's honest just as effectively as Lee. It's just a different way of going about it. I don't see how we can all collectively agree that Chan's willing/able to install wrinkles and gadgets galore, yet we're totally handcuffed to Lee's presence because using him as a decoy is the only way to get guys open and generate offense.
Lurker Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Don't have a straight ahead burner? We have several--Parish, Jones and Roosevelt all come to mind. Seriously? Parish - slot receiver only, get's blown off his feet by a strong wind Jones - 18 career NFL receptions, 4.5 speed (pedestrian for an NFL WR) Roosevelt - "God didn't give him a lot of speed" - Chan Gailey (Aug 8, 2011)
Mr. WEO Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Seriously? Parish - slot receiver only, get's blown off his feet by a strong wind Jones - 18 career NFL receptions, 4.5 speed (pedestrian for an NFL WR) Roosevelt - "God didn't give him a lot of speed" - Chan Gailey (Aug 8, 2011) Amen. Getting rid of Evans would be a bonehead move at this point. All the benchwarmers are not going to turn into Stevie Johnson--and Roscoe in the slot has yet to pan out like Wes Welker.
The Big Cat Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Seriously? Parish - slot receiver only, get's blown off his feet by a strong wind Jones - 18 career NFL receptions, 4.5 speed (pedestrian for an NFL WR) Roosevelt - "God didn't give him a lot of speed" - Chan Gailey (Aug 8, 2011) Amen. Getting rid of Evans would be a bonehead move at this point. All the benchwarmers are not going to turn into Stevie Johnson--and Roscoe in the slot has yet to pan out like Wes Welker. Wow, you addressed one of my points, that losing Lee means losing a straight-ahead burner. Boy, those are tough as hell to find... However would we get by without a fast guy? (notice you made no mention of Spiller being sent long) Also, your rebuttal to Parish being an ample replacement in this regard was non-sequitur, at best. EDIT: FURTHERMORE! Being a get-behind guy doesn't always have a direct correlation with speed and 40 times. Ugh, why do I even bother with the likes of you? Edited August 10, 2011 by The Big Cat
Chas56 Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Stevie? Love me some Stevie Fell in love from 50 feet at the stadium back in the 70's.
Donald Duck Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) WR is one of the few positions the Buffalo Bills have sufficient talent/depth and it takes far to long for inexperienced WR's to get up to speed in the NFL. Veteran WR Lee Evans is a prime example of how you want your players to conduct themselves on and off the football field. Edited August 10, 2011 by Fig Newton
Thunderstealer Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Maybe they feel a depth WR is better to keep for special teams purposes if injuries happen.
Defend Greece Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 I agree.My next point was going to be was fitzgerald only good because of boldin.Maybe evans only looked good because of moulds.You cant keep giving excuses for evans.#1 wrs get open and get the ball regardless of a double team.Thats what makes them elite.If you arent doing that you arent elite.And people still want to say hes our number 1 even though johnson had twice the production last year.5"9 180 is a slot guy and personally i like parrish or jones in the slot even more.Divert that huge salary toward a #1 QB. Who is 5'9" 180? Wow, you addressed one of my points, that losing Lee means losing a straight-ahead burner. Boy, those are tough as hell to find... However would we get by without a fast guy? (notice you made no mention of Spiller being sent long) Also, your rebuttal to Parish being an ample replacement in this regard was non-sequitur, at best. EDIT: FURTHERMORE! Being a get-behind guy doesn't always have a direct correlation with speed and 40 times. Ugh, why do I even bother with the likes of you? Ummmm dude you can not line Roscoe up outside consistently, sorry bud, this isn't madden. He can't beat big corners who bump Yea spiller can get deep, but it I could refer you to the buffalo bills home page, there is a link that says roster, click on it, scroll down to the "s"s (s for spiller) and you will see a "rb" this means runningback. Now come the end of august head out to your local gamestop and purchase the newest installment of madden and you can move spiller to wr, or if your feeling crazy, you could make him a kicker or tightend! Hope this helps
The Big Cat Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Who is 5'9" 180? Ummmm dude you can not line Roscoe up outside consistently, sorry bud, this isn't madden. He can't beat big corners who bump Yea spiller can get deep, but it I could refer you to the buffalo bills home page, there is a link that says roster, click on it, scroll down to the "s"s (s for spiller) and you will see a "rb" this means runningback. Now come the end of august head out to your local gamestop and purchase the newest installment of madden and you can move spiller to wr, or if your feeling crazy, you could make him a kicker or tightend! Hope this helps You also don't need to be lined up wide to go deep. We lined Spiller wide on MANY occasions last year. But thanks for finally cracking that "RB" code that had me stumped all these years. Why you gotta be a douche? Edited August 10, 2011 by The Big Cat
Defend Greece Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 You also don't need to be lined up wide to go deep. We lined Spiller wide on MANY occasions last year. But thanks for finally cracking that "RB" code that had me stumped all these years. Why you gotta be a douche? It's called reality dude, you cannot replace Evans with a rb or Roscoe, maybe a few plays but not for a season
Rico Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Meh... Evans is a fine #2 WR, better to keep him than to trade him for a day 3 draft pick. You can argue that it'd be good to dump all the long-time Bills who only know how to lose, but (unlike say Kelsay), I never considered Evans to be a leader (nothing wrong with that, it just is what it is), so I don't think that would apply to him. Contract isn't a problem either, so I'd let him stay.
The Big Cat Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 It's called reality dude, you cannot replace Evans with a rb or Roscoe, maybe a few plays but not for a season Ha! Yes, reality. Now that we've done several laps around your non point, why don't you explain what we'd be missing without Lee. Had you read my original post it addresses several facets of Lee's so-called irreplaceable contributions. Rather than focus squarely on one to make your point, why not go through them all and address the "reality" as it exists in multiple dimensions, as I have, bro.
Recommended Posts