Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) So, you'd take 4th round pick (that's the best we'll get) for Evans? Just to get this straight. Did you peruse the list of 4th round picks from 2008 I posted? Maybe 2-3 out of about 40 picks were any good. I suspect that fully 30% are no longer in the League 4 years later..... I hope it would be more than just a 4th, as the report on ESPN claimed "Buffalo would only trade the receiver if it was able to get "something substantial" in return." link I hope they're not viewing a 4th round pick as substantial. There's also more than what is coming back from the other team involved in the trade. There are also opportunity costs since you can only keep so many WRs. So not trading Evans will cost you a WR on your roster currently that you value, likely 2 of Easley, Roosevelt & Davis. So add their value into the return. Finally, why cherry pick 2008? Is 2-3 players the norm for a 4th round pick? 2006 garnered 15+ players including Eric Smith, Owen Daniels, Brad Smith, Jahri Evans, Stephen Tulloch, Leon Washington, Stephen Gostkowski, Brandon Marshall, Damato Peko, Barry Cofield, Elvis Dumervil, Ray Edwards, Ryan Sims & Willie Colon among others. Not that this list is also typical, but let's not pick a bad year and call it the norm. Edited August 12, 2011 by Ghost of Rob Johnson
Coach Tuesday Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) 1) Don't be surprised if it's a 6th round pick, 5th round at best. 2) If the Bills trade Evans, doesn't that confirm that they're not expecting to do much this season? 3) That may not be a bad thing... so far, no one has challenged Big Papi's well-written essay claiming that the trade is the right move because the Bills' mindset ought to be like that of the Florida Marlins, looking to re-tool every few years because vets are too expensive/too uninterested in playing here. Papi says that this team is focused on 2013 - I think he's right. Edited August 12, 2011 by Coach Tuesday
GG Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 1) Don't be surprised if it's a 6th round pick, 5th round at best. 2) If the Bills trade Evans, doesn't that confirm that they're not expecting to do much this season? 3) That may not be a bad thing... so far, no one has challenged Big Papi's well-written essay claiming that the trade is the right move because the Bills' mindset ought to be like that of the Florida Marlins, looking to re-tool every few years because vets are too expensive/too uninterested in playing here. Papi says that this team is focused on 2013 - I think he's right. Yes, if they dump Evans for such low consideration is an indication of continuing rebuilding that's been in place since 2000. If this team's focus is now 2013, what does that say about 2009's proclamation that the rebuilding will take about 2 years? I guess the Bills are again on a perpetual 2-yr rebuilding cycle.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Yes, if they dump Evans for such low consideration is an indication of continuing rebuilding that's been in place since 2000. If this team's focus is now 2013, what does that say about 2009's proclamation that the rebuilding will take about 2 years? I guess the Bills are again on a perpetual 2-yr rebuilding cycle. It says they're lying to sell tickets. Considering that this organization is run like a used car dealership, it's not surprising. Putting that aside, perhaps they SHOULD be focused on 2013. It will be Year Two of their new, young QB's tenure. The defensive nucleus should be in place by then, and one would think (if this weren't the Bills we're talking about) that the team will have obtained 5 NFL-caliber offensive linemen by that time...
GG Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 It says they're lying to sell tickets. Considering that this organization is run like a used car dealership, it's not surprising. Putting that aside, perhaps they SHOULD be focused on 2013. It will be Year Two of their new, young QB's tenure. The defensive nucleus should be in place by then, and one would think (if this weren't the Bills we're talking about) that the team will have obtained 5 NFL-caliber offensive linemen by that time... ... and this has been the biannual rationale over the last decade ...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 One darkhorse candidate for Evans would be Dallas. Jones loves burners, and he was willing to pony up big for Galloway and then Roy Williams. They have no real complement to Dez Bryant - Evans would be a great fit there, and Jones tends to overpay. Would be great if they would get involved. Oakland also makes sense, as does Indy (although Polian hates trading for vets). Baltimore won't pay a high enough price to make the deal worthwhile to me.
The Big Cat Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Do we even bother to mention that Nelson, Jones and Parrish were also injured for the last two games and Fitzpatrick was even injured for the last one? Doesn't fit your argument? Ok, nevermind. Thanks for saving me the effort. KTFABD has been one of Evans' strongest advocates in this debate. It's a debate him and I, and others, have been having since about week 14 of last season. I think he makes fair points, but no one has yet to address my insistence that Evans' replace won't be an Evans-like receiver. It'll be a facet of the offense that Evans isn't fit for, or hasn't shown the ability to manage, i.e. going over the middle. Plain and simple. Yes, Evans is extremely talented. Yes, he's given the Bills seven solid years through some of our darkest times. But if he doesn't fit, he doesn't fit. If his skill set was so valuable, he'd be an NFL super star. Newsflash, Bills fans: he isn't.
NewEra Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 One darkhorse candidate for Evans would be Dallas. Jones loves burners, and he was willing to pony up big for Galloway and then Roy Williams. They have no real complement to Dez Bryant - Evans would be a great fit there, and Jones tends to overpay. Would be great if they would get involved. Oakland also makes sense, as does Indy (although Polian hates trading for vets). Baltimore won't pay a high enough price to make the deal worthwhile to me. Miles Austin is pretty good
Coach Tuesday Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Miles Austin is pretty good He is - he's not a deep threat.
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Yes, if they dump Evans for such low consideration is an indication of continuing rebuilding that's been in place since 2000. If this team's focus is now 2013, what does that say about 2009's proclamation that the rebuilding will take about 2 years? I guess the Bills are again on a perpetual 2-yr rebuilding cycle. When did they say that in 2009? Who said it? Nix took over prior to the 2010 season and Ralph claimed it was a 3 year rebuild. That'd be 2013. Edited August 12, 2011 by Ghost of Rob Johnson
cvanvol Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 One darkhorse candidate for Evans would be Dallas. Jones loves burners, and he was willing to pony up big for Galloway and then Roy Williams. They have no real complement to Dez Bryant - Evans would be a great fit there, and Jones tends to overpay. Would be great if they would get involved. Oakland also makes sense, as does Indy (although Polian hates trading for vets). Baltimore won't pay a high enough price to make the deal worthwhile to me. Hahahhaha this is funny
Mickey Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 If you look at the actual comparison he had one good game out of four. The first game against Cleveland he was bad. 5-42. 4 really short passes and one 20 yarder. The next game he was decent 6-69. 11 yards a pass and 1 score, which was a nice play and pass. The next game he did nothing if you remember that game. 5-58 against NE. We never moved the ball and scored three points. The last game, decent stats but he was a non factor. We scored 7 points. He had 5-72 including a 33 yarder which he fumbled on and lost it. If you look at just the stats, he caught a similar amount of balls, because we threw to him all the time. if you watched the game, he was mostly non existent and always went for really short passes. We had 24 td passes with Evans in 12 games and 2 without him in 4. We were terrible moving the ball and scoring without Evans and it was glaringly obvious, You and your crazy "facts". we don't need your kind around here
cvanvol Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 He is - he's not a deep threat. Yeah thats why Dez is there... At this point I would say that Dez and Miles do almost everything better than lee does
DreamOnDan Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 In my opinion, they bills should trade lee evans. Lee is a decent deep threat and a team leader and I have enjoyed watching him catch the long ball over the years, but he is on the down side of his career. This offense doesn't utilize a fly pattern on every snap and lee hasn't shown much when running underneath routes. Personally, I like David Nelson in Evan's spot. Nelson seems more reliable to me. Parrish should be a pretty decent threat out of the slot, and Jones has been the talk of camp from a number of people.. Peter King said he is a fantasy football sleeper, Fitz just said that Jones is going to be a huge part of the offense, and Nix being interviewed on sirius raved about his athletic ability... This board including myself really likes Easley, he and Craig Davis have Evans type of speed if you need to stretch it out some. If they can get depth on the O-line, a TE, or a 3rd or 4th rd pick, then I would be pretty happy. If they keep him, I would be pretty happy. I think it is a good idea to roll with the young guys. I think it is a good idea to keep your vets.. Go Bills!
ThurmasThoman Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 I'd also like to point out, as the Patriots have so aptly demonstrated, the NFL has gotten to a point whereupon its laughable just how much teams overrate late round draft picks. Like, what is the positive of trading Lee at this point? Naaman Roosevelt gets to stay on the roster and we can draft another Chris Hairston? Give me a break. Let's give this offense a fighting chance and not put it in the hands of unproven 2nd year players or 1st round busts (Buster Davis). And even if Lee has lost a step, what kind of message does this send to the rest of the team? hmmmmm? their starting, all-pro, all-world, current nfl mvp quarterback was a 6th round pick, and pioli (the originator) and beliceck both play by the philosophy of stockpiling draft picks whenever possible. patriots traded moss to the vikings for a 3rd round pick. if you're confident in your ability to draft, and believe in the system you have in place to implement young talent, it makes sense to jettison aging vets.
Max997 Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 just a guess but I think Evans ends up with the Eagles...with Maclins mystery illness and Steve Smith out until at least Oct they need a receiver and have obviously been the most active team since the lockout ended they do have Avant but he is a classic slot third down receiver He is - he's not a deep threat. so because he isnt a true deep threat means he is not a real complement to Bryant? thats dumb logic...you dont need to be a burner to be a good complement to a number 1 receiver
GG Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 When did they say that in 2009? Who said it? Nix took over prior to the 2010 season and Ralph claimed it was a 3 year rebuild. That'd be 2013. Check your math - 2010 counts as a year, so a 3-year rebuild should bear fruit in 2012. Of course Wilson said that it may take 3 years to rebuild in October 2010, when the season was basically toast. So, if you add that season as a wash, was he hinting that the rebuild would actually take place over 4 years? And in that time, Bills will continue to dump contributing veterans in the hope that the youngre guys can bring change? Of course, we heard about the massive rebuild that started in 2006 following the rebuild in 2004 which was needed because the 2000 team was in such bad shape.
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Check your math - 2010 counts as a year, so a 3-year rebuild should bear fruit in 2012. Of course Wilson said that it may take 3 years to rebuild in October 2010, when the season was basically toast. So, if you add that season as a wash, was he hinting that the rebuild would actually take place over 4 years? And in that time, Bills will continue to dump contributing veterans in the hope that the youngre guys can bring change? Of course, we herd about the massive rebuild that started in 2006 following the rebuild in 2004 which was needed because the 2000 team was in such bad shape. Check yours, three seasons go by- 2010, 2011, 2012; they should be ready to compete in 2013. I'm frustrated that those rebuilds failed, but there isn't much I can do about bringing new management in and them wanting to start fresh. I can't put decisions made in 2004 or 2006 on Nix, Whaley or Gailey. Edited August 12, 2011 by Ghost of Rob Johnson
BeastMode54 Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Check yours, three seasons go by- 2010, 2011, 2012; they should be ready to compete in 2013. I'm frustrated that those rebuilds failed, but there isn't much I can do about bringing new management in and them wanting to start fresh. I can't put decisions made in 2004 or 2006 on Nix, Whaley or Gailey. @carolinagrowl Steve Reed A source from outside the Panthers organization tells me the team has inquired about for Buffalo WR Lee Evans. Interest level unclear.
Recommended Posts