Buddy on Shredd and Ragan a few minutes ago

[ieatcrayonz]

I'm through debating this point. I'll agree to disagree. The proof will be shown on the field -- the Bills' passing attack will either improve, decline, or stay about the same. I'm sure we'll all have our opinions once we see which of the three results occur.

 

 

I didn't, but I did notice that Stevie Johnson went about 8 or 9 rounds higher than Lee Evans.

So Evans was selected, just not Jones.

 

To be fair it is fantasy football and you can't really tell. In checking the yahoo site it seems that Jones is owned in a full 1% of leagues where Evans is owned in 70% of leagues.

Edited September 7, 2011 by ieatcrayonz

[eball]

That doesn't really say anything about how they would have done if they still had Evans this year. Obviously that comparison can never be made.

Not precisely, but you'd be naive not to expect some pretty strong arguments for both sides depending on the results.

[Kelly the Dog]

If you want to question the football decision, be my guest. The bottom line is we won't know how that plays out until the season starts. But my point is just that -- it was a football decision first and foremost.

 

I promise you, if the Bills' offense takes a step backwards from last season (particularly the passing attack), I'll be the first to come on and say how wrong it was for the Bills to get rid of Evans.

 

But if the offense improves, I trust all of you who are so confident the Bills' passing game is going to suffer will be just as gracious.

I fully expect the offense to improve. This is the second full year in the offense. They are not learning new, and they had Fitz at the helm not only for the pre-season but all of last season. David Nelson is a weapon and there from the start. Roscoe is back. Stevie has a world of confidence (he was rather pedestrian the first quarter of the season). CJ should be significantly better and Gailey will know how to exploit him. Wood and Bell have two legs instead of one. Chandler is a minor upgrade. Brad Smith is a HUGE upgrade and will be one of our most valuable players, IMO. Pears is a small upgrade from Cornell Green.

 

The fact that the defense should be better, gain us a few more possessions per game as well as field position and not struggling to score from behind should be an enormous advantage for the offense.

 

If you add Evans to this mix, it makes us significantly better than the aforementioned upgrades because teams won't be able to double Stevie and move a safety up in the box to stop the run. With him we would be able to do more. Without him, there are some things Gailey will have to counteract.

 

So even without Evans, I am expecting our offense to be better. If we kept him, we would be even better than that.

[K-9]

That doesn't really say anything about how they would have done if they still had Evans this year. Obviously that comparison can never be made.

 

I think you get right to the crux of the entire argument about the trading of Lee Evans.

 

If the passing attack shows marked improvement then the argument becomes it would have improved even more with Evans.

 

If it stays about the same we would have had marked improvement with Evans.

 

If it gets worse then it's because we don't have Evans.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ieatcrayonz]

I think you get right to the crux of the entire argument about the trading of Lee Evans.

 

If the passing attack shows marked improvement then the argument becomes it would have improved even more with Evans.

 

If it stays about the same we would have had marked improvement with Evans.

 

If it gets worse then it's because we don't have Evans.

 

GO BILLS!!!

All of these are probably true, you know why?

 

Because Lee Evans is a good football player and would not have been dumped by most NFL teams.

[eball]

I fully expect the offense to improve. This is the second full year in the offense. They are not learning new, and they had Fitz at the helm not only for the pre-season but all of last season. David Nelson is a weapon and there from the start. Roscoe is back. Stevie has a world of confidence (he was rather pedestrian the first quarter of the season). CJ should be significantly better and Gailey will know how to exploit him. Wood and Bell have two legs instead of one. Chandler is a minor upgrade. Brad Smith is a HUGE upgrade and will be one of our most valuable players, IMO. Pears is a small upgrade from Cornell Green.

 

The fact that the defense should be better, gain us a few more possessions per game as well as field position and not struggling to score from behind should be an enormous advantage for the offense.

 

If you add Evans to this mix, it makes us significantly better than the aforementioned upgrades because teams won't be able to double Stevie and move a safety up in the box to stop the run. With him we would be able to do more. Without him, there are some things Gailey will have to counteract.

 

So even without Evans, I am expecting our offense to be better. If we kept him, we would be even better than that.

Well played; you've given yourself an out. I'm through with participating in this discussion, because there's absolutely no give and take -- which makes for my increasing personal frustration. You guys all think Buddy's a liar for saying he's not been told to cut salary. I choose to believe the money is only one consideration in an analysis whose primary focus is to make the team better.

[disco]

All of these are probably true, you know why?

 

Because Lee Evans is a good football player and would not have been dumped by most NFL teams.

 

I think something continually overlooked here are players are only human. At some point losing year after year after year wears you down. QB carousels wear you down. Somewhere along the line you're suddenly a #1 WR averaging 40rec, 600tds, 5TDs. Which, yes, most NFL teams would move on from.

 

Is it player ability? Is it offense? Is it lost desire? Could be any of those things, but sometimes players just need a fresh start. We don't really know if Evans can still be a star, I hope can be. I always liked him. I'm pretty convinced he wasn't going to be 2006 Lee Evans in Buffalo again though.

[DrDawkinstein]

why does it have to be EITHER a salary dump OR a talent move?

 

with all of the different stories, reasons, and excuses that have been brought up, doesnt the combination of all of those reasons show it made perfect sense?

 

1. salary dump

2. one trick pony

3. production issues

4. 30 year old speed guy with only 2 years on contract

5. team being about 2 years away from making a run

6. player asked to be traded

 

Im sure Im missing others, but even if that is the entire list I think it's a pretty good argument on why the FO was on board with trading him.

 

Buddy has his sights set on the future. As a GM, that's his job. Chan should be the one worrying about getting wins from what he has right now, while Buddy is looking at building a winner.

 

The construction job is far from finished. I'd say the foundation is poured, and the walls are starting to get roughed in this season, and it looks like it's going to be a nice house. But it wont be ready to move into until next season. Chan is supervising the carpenters and making sure they do their job. Buddy is the choosing the drywall and carpet guys to bring in next.

 

Evans was an expensive fixture that didnt fit in the house, and while it would've been nice to look at and have around, it was going to end up in the way more often than not.

[K-9]

All of these are probably true, you know why?

 

Because Lee Evans is a good football player and would not have been dumped by most NFL teams.

 

Everything the Bills do on offense this year can and should be measured against the Evans barometer. I know I'll be putting an asterisk next to every statistic, both individual and team. Performance is so much easier to measure when adjusting for the impact of the loss of Evans.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

Well played; you've given yourself an out. I'm through with participating in this discussion, because there's absolutely no give and take -- which makes for my increasing personal frustration. You guys all think Buddy's a liar for saying he's not been told to cut salary. I choose to believe the money is only one consideration in an analysis whose primary focus is to make the team better.

Don't be an ass. Rebut anything specific what I said in the post about the offense and then it is a fair and decent discussion. I have said in this thread I think it was a combination of at least four factors.

 

There really isn't even any rational argument to make that NOT having Lee Evans makes this a better team if you don't include salary. We would have everything we have, plus a world class deep threat. He doesn't have to be on the field every play. He does the one thing the other guys don't. If you ask every single GM, coach, and QB in the entire NFL which is better, the Bills offense as is with Lee Evans or the Bills offense as is without Lee Evans, every single last one of them would say "with".

[Chandler#81]

ummm, he played guard -- and started -- at Carolina in each of the two seasons before arriving in Buffalo.

what's notable is he was never tried at guard during most -- if not all -- of training camp.

 

jw

 

 

ummm, he only started @ Carolina due to others' injuries. He was well liked by his teammates but Panther management didn't see enough in him to try to keep him. Neither, it turns out, did the Bills. But hey, don't let reasoning interfere with your nefarious reporting..

[Kelly the Dog]

The ironic thing is that Buddy originally said, if I am not mistaken, that the reason for the trade was because he wanted to give the young guys a chance. Well, he didn't keep any of them. We have the same four WR on the team as we had last year, Stevie, Roscoe, Jones and D Nelson, except one less, Lee Evans.

[Joe Miner]

The ironic thing is that Buddy originally said, if I am not mistaken, that the reason for the trade was because he wanted to give the young guys a chance. Well, he didn't keep any of them. We have the same four WR on the team as we had last year, Stevie, Roscoe, Jones and D Nelson, except one less, Lee Evans.

 

A case could be made to suggest that Jones, Nelson, Easly and to some extent Johnson are all still young guys.

[Mr. WEO]

The ironic thing is that Buddy originally said, if I am not mistaken, that the reason for the trade was because he wanted to give the young guys a chance. Well, he didn't keep any of them. We have the same four WR on the team as we had last year, Stevie, Roscoe, Jones and D Nelson, except one less, Lee Evans.

Good point! Are you suggesting Buddy is not being as entirely down home plumb honest straight shootin' as we are told??

 

As ol' Buddy would say, "you know.......".

[Kelly the Dog]

A case could be made to suggest that Jones, Nelson, Easly and to some extent Johnson are all still young guys.

Actually, I should take that back, because I left Easley off the list. Even though he was on the team, he wasn't dressed because he was on IR. We had five WR to start the season last year, and have five this year, with Easley in place of Evans. I was thinking more along the lines of Naaman and Aiken.

 

Good point! Are you suggesting Buddy is not being as entirely down home plumb honest straight shootin' as we are told??

 

As ol' Buddy would say, "you know.......".

 

I really liked the one where he said that money has never once been mentioned since he got there, and that he has to talk Ralph out of spending more for players. That was a Hee Haw worthy knee slapper.

 

I like Buddy Nix though, and think he is doing a pretty good job. He does have a plan. I think we may surprise some people.

[eball]

Don't be an ass. Rebut anything specific what I said in the post about the offense and then it is a fair and decent discussion. I have said in this thread I think it was a combination of at least four factors.

 

There really isn't even any rational argument to make that NOT having Lee Evans makes this a better team if you don't include salary. We would have everything we have, plus a world class deep threat. He doesn't have to be on the field every play. He does the one thing the other guys don't. If you ask every single GM, coach, and QB in the entire NFL which is better, the Bills offense as is with Lee Evans or the Bills offense as is without Lee Evans, every single last one of them would say "with".

I'm not "being an ass" -- I'm just frustrated with the discussion and tired of beating my head against a wall. No matter what the offense does this season, you're entrenched in your position that with Evans, it would have been better. How can I contradict that? It's an opinion. Similarly, there's no way to prove whether or not Nix was ordered to dump salary unless a bunch of people are hooked up to lie detectors.

 

I am a Lee Evans fan. I love the bomb. I also was increasingly frustrated over the last two years watching him absolutely disappear from games, or give what looked like half-hearted effort on anything other than a deep pattern. I think Gailey will make better use of a group of receivers who can't be pigeon-holed. When I heard Gailey's comments early in the preseason, it led me to believe he was frustrated with Lee as well. Those are the reasons I don't believe a salary dump was the overriding factor in the trade decision.

 

Since I don't think we're going to resolve any issues here, I'd rather just agree to disagree and look forward to some football.

[disco]

There really isn't even any rational argument to make that NOT having Lee Evans makes this a better team if you don't include salary. We would have everything we have, plus a world class deep threat. He doesn't have to be on the field every play. He does the one thing the other guys don't. If you ask every single GM, coach, and QB in the entire NFL which is better, the Bills offense as is with Lee Evans or the Bills offense as is without Lee Evans, every single last one of them would say "with".

 

I would take that bet in a heart beat. There is absolutely no way that's even close to the truth. See my post above. The 2006 Lee Evans isn't who we traded. The desire of an Easley or Jones as a Bills #2 may very well be greater than Evans as a #2. He may not be done as a player, but he was done in Buffalo. People in GM and coaching spots understand that better than anyone.

[GG]

I would take that bet in a heart beat. There is absolutely no way that's even close to the truth. See my post above. The 2006 Lee Evans isn't who we traded. The desire of an Easley or Jones as a Bills #2 may very well be greater than Evans as a #2. He may not be done as a player, but he was done in Buffalo. People in GM and coaching spots understand that better than anyone.

Are you talking about Easley the 3rd string receiver who has a touch of a problem holding onto the ball as better than the starting WR on a Superbowl contender?

[Kelly the Dog]

I would take that bet in a heart beat. There is absolutely no way that's even close to the truth. See my post above. The 2006 Lee Evans isn't who we traded. The desire of an Easley or Jones as a Bills #2 may very well be greater than Evans as a #2. He may not be done as a player, but he was done in Buffalo. People in GM and coaching spots understand that better than anyone.

So you're saying that GMs and coaches and QBs around the league, given the choice, would have Marcus Easley on the field as their WR than Lee Evans? That Johnson, Jones, Parrish, Nelson, Easley is more productive and difficult to defend than Johnson, Jones, Parrish, Nelson, Evans?

 

Do you play poker? I'm thinking of getting a big stakes game together tonight.

 

And I like Easley. I think he is going to be a good player, and perhaps very good. I'm glad he's on the team. We could have had both of them. We could have had all five plus Evans and without Ruvel Martin. But we would have been a worse team with Evans and not Martin, right? (And yes, I know we just cut him, but he was on the 53, and if we had Evans, we would have cut a LB or TE in all likelihood if we wanted to sign Sam Young).

Edited September 7, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[disco]

So you're saying that GMs and coaches and QBs around the league, given the choice, would have Marcus Easley on the field as their WR than Lee Evans? That Johnson, Jones, Parrish, Nelson, Easley is more productive and difficult to defend than Johnson, Jones, Parrish, Nelson, Evans?

 

Do you play poker? I'm thinking of getting a big stakes game together tonight.

 

You've changed the question haven't you? Did you not originally ask whether or not the BILLS would be better with Evans?

 

I don't think you're ready for poker.