Nasty Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I believe the real reason the Bills traded Evans was because they have 4 WRs from the class of 2010 that they don't want to cut. While their future is yet to be determined, one of them might just be an important player when the team gets good. By the time the team is good, they realize Evans' contract will be up & they had no intention of giving him another big $ contract. So, to play it safe, it's better to keep Easley, Jones, Nelson & Roosevelt on the roster. With Johnson & Parish that's 6 receivers. Since they don't want 7 receivers on the roster,the oldest guy, Evans, was the odd man out. It's more a classic example of a team knowing they're not winning this year & are investing time, including added playing time, into the future at the WR position. I totally agree with you. And I noticed some people are saying we lost the deep threat, I say Parrish is our deep threat now. He is small but fast and he has caught a few bombs in his day. Plus Evans didn't fit Fitz QB style anyway. Fitz isn't a deep ball QB. Intermediate yes but not deep and we have a ton of intermediate WR's. I think Nelson is going to step up this year myself.
BillnutinHouston Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I equate Buddy's roster-building philosophy to that of a family who saves for the future rather than spending everything they have. Of course the kids in the family want to see a flashy car in the driveway rather than a Taurus, but when their college tuition is paid for years later, the light comes on and they finally understand the wisdom of Dad's decisions. Buddy time and again confounds most fans by going the delayed gratification route. Hopefully, 3 years from now when the roster is growing up together, the light will come on for all of us. I do not expect Buddy to alter his philosophy just because he inherited a perennial loser with fans who are tired of losing. If Buddy DID change course just to please the "instant gratification" crowd, he'd be the wrong man for the job.
JohnC Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) i question the motives for making this deal. and as i wrote, it opens up the Bills to being second-guessed for thinking this offense, which made modest gains last year, can improve without what's been its most consistent threat. jw I didn't realize that Evans was its most consistent threat. He was more like the team's invisible threat. The Bills' status from a won/lost standpoint will be little affected by the deal. The upside for this deal is that Evans is liberated from a bad football situation for him and is now on a team where he has a better opportunity to thrive and be on a playoff team. I'm happy for him. I also believe that even allowing for a loud chorus of second guessing Nix's trade does make some sense for a rebuilding team. Edited August 13, 2011 by JohnC
Astrobot Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I agree. Ravens also drafted Tandon Doss so they will have a good 1-2-3. I think we'll be fine at WR as well, keeping 6-7 WR's plus Spiller split out wide now and then. Absolutely correct. Just as TO delayed the development of Stevie Johnson, the presence of Lee Evans is going to unnecessarily delay the development of such players as Donald Jones, Namaan Roosevelt and David Nelson.
GOBILLS78 Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Can we stop using the term "rebuilding"? To rebuild something, there needs to be something of significance to rebuild. When you have a building that's been torn down and discarded, you have a vacant lot. When that lot is vacant for 20 years, and you decide to build something on it, you're just building. You're not rebuilding anything.
bobinaz Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I believe the real reason the Bills traded Evans was because they have 4 WRs from the class of 2010 that they don't want to cut. While their future is yet to be determined, one of them might just be an important player when the team gets good. By the time the team is good, they realize Evans' contract will be up & they had no intention of giving him another big $ contract. So, to play it safe, it's better to keep Easley, Jones, Nelson & Roosevelt on the roster. With Johnson & Parish that's 6 receivers. Since they don't want 7 receivers on the roster,the oldest guy, Evans, was the odd man out. It's more a classic example of a team knowing they're not winning this year & are investing time, including added playing time, into the future at the WR position. Well I have to say after reading all the chicken littles on the wall complaining about the trade, this is a very good take on why the trade may have happened. I will miss Lee, but if the plan is to get them young, groom them and let them grow as a team, then let the games begin. I think Nelson and Rosevelt with blossom. If Roscoe can stay healthy, then he'll pick up where he left off from last season. I'm actually thinking Chandler will be the diamond in the rough; the TE we've been waiting for. Your analysis makes a lot of sense. I have a slightly different twist to the Evans trade. It has little to do with the development of the other receivers so much as taking a broader three to four year perspective on the reshaping of the roster. Buddy Nix and his associates made the decision that Evans wasn't in their long term plans, especially considering when his contract was up. Many critics are making the point that the Bills didn't get much in return on the trade. They didn't get much in return but something is certainly better than nothing. The Bills are probably going to be a 5-6 win team this year, with or without Evans. So with that in mind it is smart to try to get something for him while you can. Is the productivity from Evan's spot going to be greatly reduced with his replacements? Probably not. Is Buster Davis or Easley, combined, going to have similar numbers? Probably so. The routes that Fitz is most comfortable with are of the quick slants type of routes. Those are not the type of routes that Evans thrives at. Nix is receiving a lot of criticism for the Evans trade. That is understandable because there is so little trust for this very flimsy organization. People are simply tired of the mounting losses. But if one stands back and reviews the deal from a strategic long term project it makes a lot of sense. Nix has laid out his approach on how to build a successful franchise. There is nothing novel about it. It is the standard approach other successful organizations take. You do it through the draft. Success is predicated on drafting well. The best way to judge Buddy Nix at this point is not through wins or losses, it is through player development. If last year's draft class in general do well and contribute this year then his plan is working. This year's draft class will be better judged next year. In the grand scheme of things the Evans trade is not such a big deal. What it signals to me is that Nix has a plan and he is sticking to it, no matter how loud the howls are. Isn't it better to have a basic plan and follow it instead of the stupid Donahoe/Jauron/Levy/Brandon ad hoc approach. The upside on this deal is that Evans gets a good opportunity to play for a playoff team. I wish him the best. He is a class person and deserves to be in a better football situation. The following WGR interview with Merrill Hoge on the Howard Simon Show gives a good analysis on the impending Evans trade. I agree with his assessment. While many people are upset with the deal I'm not. http://www.wgr550.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5422626 I agree with you too JohnC, but let's hope that the boss doesn't get impatient with this building and growing of the team amidst a few more years of losing seasons, and decides to hire someone new again.
Dirtbag Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Can we stop using the term "rebuilding"? To rebuild something, there needs to be something of significance to rebuild. When you have a building that's been torn down and discarded, you have a vacant lot. When that lot is vacant for 20 years, and you decide to build something on it, you're just building. You're not rebuilding anything. excellent post. the term "rebuilding" gives the bills far too much credit, and excuses all sorts of ineptitude. it takes a special kind of talent to be this bad for this long.
vincec Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I totally agree with you. And I noticed some people are saying we lost the deep threat, I say Parrish is our deep threat now. He is small but fast and he has caught a few bombs in his day. Plus Evans didn't fit Fitz QB style anyway. Fitz isn't a deep ball QB. Intermediate yes but not deep and we have a ton of intermediate WR's. I think Nelson is going to step up this year myself. Parrish will spend half the season injured, as usual. If anything HE should've been the one to be traded although I doubt that the Bills would've received more than a 6th or 7th round pick for him.
d_wag Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Parrish will spend half the season injured, as usual. If anything HE should've been the one to be traded although I doubt that the Bills would've received more than a 6th or 7th round pick for him. i'd rather have a 7th for roscoe then a 4th for evans........the difference in value is marginal, yet in the locker room the difference is huge......but of course, it wasn't about either of those factors - it was about the payroll savings for ralph's pockets unfortunately
Tarrytown Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 My problem with the Evans trade is what we got back...you have two teams fishing around...in need...and we get a lousy 4th?
transient Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I agree. Ravens also drafted Tandon Doss so they will have a good 1-2-3. I think we'll be fine at WR as well, keeping 6-7 WR's plus Spiller split out wide now and then. I was thinking the same thing. For all those saying we can't replace Evans as a deep threat with what's on the roster, we have a running back who's built the same, only faster. One that Gailey admitted he couldn't figure out how to use last year. Motioning him wide out of the backfield every now and then and just letting him run straight down the field is more versatile than lining up a receiver every play whose one and only trick is that, no matter how good Evans was at it.
coseybedaman Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 There is such thing as planning for the future, and still remaining respectable while doing it. This team has no legitimate threat at wide out going into the year. Stevie Johnson had a horrendous second half to the season after he lost his confidence in the Steeler game. This staff made it obvious last year that Evans wasn't in the plans, but atleast have something more than Marcus Easley if you are going to dump your best wide out. The guy has never even played an NFL game. Is a 4th round pick really that valuable that we make this deal now? I cant wait for fantasy football. The steal of the draft will be Lee Evans in the 9th or 10th round.
marshawnsdreads23 Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 So everyone is upset that we traded a 30 year old wide receiver whos on the downside of his career for a 4th round draft pick, but everyone is ok with trading 23-24 year old Marshawn Lynch for a 4th round pick? Doesnt make sense We were never gonna be a serious contender this year so why not get the best compensation for lee before he has no more value, we have so many young receivers that need to prove themselves. You guys get these crazy ideas in your head that this team is gonna win 10 games and make the playoffs every year and when we start making moves you get all whiny, understand this is for the best of the team and shut up.
Lurker Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) Hopefully, 3 years from now when the roster is growing up together, the light will come on for all of us. Since the average NFL career is 3.3 years, the majority of the team will be ready to turn over by then. This isn't the '80s or early '90s where teams had the luxury of time to accumulate talent. Today, you've got quality starters for a single contract before FA and "greener grass" breaks up the band. If Buddy thinks it will take 3+ more years to be competitive, he's the wrong man for the job. Edited August 13, 2011 by Lurker
Dirtbag Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 So everyone is upset that we traded a 30 year old wide receiver whos on the downside of his career for a 4th round draft pick, but everyone is ok with trading 23-24 year old Marshawn Lynch for a 4th round pick? Doesnt make sense We were never gonna be a serious contender this year so why not get the best compensation for lee before he has no more value, we have so many young receivers that need to prove themselves. You guys get these crazy ideas in your head that this team is gonna win 10 games and make the playoffs every year and when we start making moves you get all whiny, understand this is for the best of the team and shut up. expect them to make the playoffs every year? seriously, dude? i'd be happy to go .500 at this point. please alert us when the team is competitive enough to critique their decisions.
TPS Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I was thinking the same thing. For all those saying we can't replace Evans as a deep threat with what's on the roster, we have a running back who's built the same, only faster. One that Gailey admitted he couldn't figure out how to use last year. Motioning him wide out of the backfield every now and then and just letting him run straight down the field is more versatile than lining up a receiver every play whose one and only trick is that, no matter how good Evans was at it. Good point. I think you have to add that thinking to Gailey's comments about Evans needing to do more in the middle of the field, not just a one-dimensional threat. I don't think Evans fits what Gailey wants.
GG Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 This reminds me of the day when Bills traded Eric Moulds to bank on Drew Haddad's future potential.
pimp on da' net Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 The only thing I am dissappointed in is the 4th round pick for him. Thought it was a bit low (3rd sounds realistic). But other than that Evans is a one dimensional WR with fly route capabilities that can't run the crucial underneath and timing routes in the NFL. He does not make or break our offense and has pretty much been invisible for a number of years now. Did we really lose a leader? I dunno, I never seen it on the field. Was he a class act? Sure. However, I don't mind dumping his salary for the sacrifice of the rebuild, locking up guys like Williams and Stevie long term, hopefully have a top 3 draft pick next year and make a splash next offseason in fa to polish the turd into one shiny one. We are not winning this year anyways. Its not that bad people. Some how this sums up the pathetic organization from top down. Insert said player and wait til next year...have we really come to this conclusion? Keep rotating the coals like this is some farm/ Triple A system, I guess if we continue to support this turd. Its gonna continue to smell FOUL!!! What salary saving??? Their 20 mil below the cap...this is a con game & the fan base needs to demand more from OBD.
coseybedaman Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Exactly! I agree that Lee wasn't a good fit with Gailey's "system", but he is a quality player on a team that has very few to spare. This was purely about money. Anyone who thinks differently is one of those fans that will defend anything and everything the front office does. This reminds me of the day when Bills traded Eric Moulds to bank on Drew Haddad's future potential.
Lv-Bills Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I believe the real reason the Bills traded Evans was because they have 4 WRs from the class of 2010 that they don't want to cut. While their future is yet to be determined, one of them might just be an important player when the team gets good. By the time the team is good, they realize Evans' contract will be up & they had no intention of giving him another big $ contract. So, to play it safe, it's better to keep Easley, Jones, Nelson & Roosevelt on the roster. With Johnson & Parish that's 6 receivers. Since they don't want 7 receivers on the roster,the oldest guy, Evans, was the odd man out. It's more a classic example of a team knowing they're not winning this year & are investing time, including added playing time, into the future at the WR position. Even though I hate the Bills front office. This is a great take. It makes sense. Simply because you didn't justify today's move simply by saying that the Bills have a fantastic WR corps, even though no one knows if we do or not. Well done.
Recommended Posts