Buddy on Shredd and Ragan a few minutes ago

[GG]

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.

 

 

It's the same question asked in a different way ....

Edited September 7, 2011 by GG

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

No, the question is the same, both times. Would the Bills be better with Evans plus all the other guys, or without Evans. We could have kept all the other guys and Evans. If you kept five WR are they better with Easley instead. If you kept six, like we did at the cut off, are they better with Martin instead.

 

I'm pretty good at poker. I don't think you're ready for third grade English.

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

[disco]

No, the question is the same, both times. Would the Bills be better with Evans plus all the other guys, or without Evans. We could have kept all the other guys and Evans. If you kept five WR are they better with Easley instead. If you kept six, like we did at the cut off, are they better with Martin instead.

 

I'm pretty good at poker. I don't think you're ready for third grade English.

 

Seriously? You can't understand the difference between the two questions, particularly given my position on Evans?

 

Secondly, wtf? You are so solidified in your position that you instantly jump to insults? I've always enjoyed your posts, whether I agree or not. Did I really say something so offensive to warrant that? Whatever man.

 

It's the same question asked in a different way ....

 

Actually it's not. My position was that Evans, like anybody else, went through a lot in Buffalo. Losing year after year, QB carousels, coaching changes, etc. That wears on someone just like in any job. While I believe Evans could still be a star, I don't think it was going to happen again in Buffalo.

 

A player on one team doesn't necessarily have the same value on another. The first point was whether every GM/QB/Coach would agree that Buffalo is better with Evans. I disagreed. The follow-up was whether or not another GM would prefer Evans or [Easley/Jones/etc] for their team. It's a completely different question, particularly given the point I was making involved Evans needing a change. See Randy Moss in Oakland vs NE. The Moss of New England was never going to show up in Oakland.

Edited September 7, 2011 by disco

[Doc]

Nix' and Gailey's stories haven't changed. Gailey was never a fan of Evans and Nix wanted to see the younger guys, i.e. Jones, Nelson, Roosevelt, and Easley, i.e. guys they drafted or signed, get a chance. Will they be better without Evans? Remains to be seen. But it could just as easily happen as not, and Evans' production from at least last year shouldn't be too hard to replace.

[Kelly the Dog]

Seriously? You can't understand the difference between the two questions, particularly given my position on Evans?

 

Secondly, wtf? You are so solidified in your position that you instantly jump to insults? I've always enjoyed your posts, whether I agree or not. Did I really say something so offensive to warrant that? Whatever man

You started by saying I am not ready for poker. I responded by saying you're not ready for English class, because to me you didnt follow the thread, or understand it was the same question.

 

I'm totally okay with the Evans trade. I'm happy for him. I think the Ravens are a great spot for him. I'm excited about the Bills and I like the young WRs, especially Easley, whom Evans is presumably replacing. I don't think money was at all the only reason, and may not even be the major reason. I can't wait to watch the Bills offense this year. I really like Gailey and I really like Fitz.

 

My objection was for anyone to say the Bills are actually a better team without Lee Evans, when they could have everyone PLUS Lee Evans is an absolutely absurd thing to say. So I postulated the hypothetical that no one in the league would think the Bills WR corps without Evans is better than the one with Evans. Even if his best days are behind him (which they may not be), even if he doesn't go over the middle (which he does). He add something no one else does. Teams can defend us differently without him. That part of his game is flat inarguable, IMO.

 

We started this roster with 6 WRs on the team. Lee Evans being one of those 6 makes it a better unit and us a better team. All the young guys could still stay and learn and grow. If you ADD Lee Evans to that mix, we're harder to defend, we have more talent and experience, we can run different patters, they cannot double SJ as easy. How can that be denied, I don't know.

[Delete This Account]

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..

nefarious, really? gees. all i did was point out that he has played guard, even started more games at guard than some players currently on the Bills line. i don't know if he ever got a chance to practice at guard for much if not all of training camp. that's all i'm saying.

 

jw

[nucci]

Everyone take a deep breath. We're all on the same team and we have a game in a few days. Let's Go Buffalo!!

[disco]

You started by saying I am not ready for poker. I responded by saying you're not ready for English class, because to me you didnt follow the thread, or understand it was the same question.

 

What? I didn't start anything. You asked ME if I wanted to play poker and I said I didn't think you were ready. As I've explained, it's not the same question.

 

I fully believe the game is as much mental as it is physical. I just don't believe the desire Evans had in 04/05/06 was still around in 11. Have you ever worked at a job that left you depressed at the end of the day? It's tough to go through. He's a guy that wanted to play professional football for his entire life, only to sit through 7 years of losing while inching closer towards the end of his career. If we are talking about team, and it is obviously a team game, that particular player doesn't necessarily make the team better than a younger guy ready to make a difference.

 

Yes, I understand your point that having a pro like Evans as your 5th WR on paper is better than a late round rookie. At the same time there is tremendous value in guys that want to be here. I don't believe Evans wanted to be here anymore. I can't prove that. However, you are saying there's no rational argument on why the Bills are a better team without Evans. That is what I believe to be a rational argument. If Evans didn't want to be here, there's not much you can do about that. If nothing else, I would think you could agree that it's rational to think the Bills are better off without him if he no longer wanted to be on the team.

[DC Tom]

Geez, I know I'm a broken record, but it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. There are other positions, other considerations, besides just "cutting pretty much your only veteran depth." The roster is limited. The only position Buffalo felt comfortable subbing Hangman in was at C. That doesn't warrant a roster spot if you can get a guy who can back up three positions.

 

I'm not the one simplifying things. I'm the one pointing out that the accountants meddle with the football operations to maintain the bottom line, which is anything but simple.

 

You want simplified? How about "The only position Buffalo felt comfortable subbing Hangman in was at C." "Buffalo" is not some homogeneous groupthink organization. The football staff (GM, coaches, scouts, etc.) and the business staff (Overdork, accountants, etc.) have different goals for the franchise. And in the in-fighting, the business staff win out.

 

You either misunderstand, or you're being intentionally obtuse. I'm critical of folks who seem to blame Nix and Gailey for the poor personnel decisions made over the past 11 years. In your case, that includes both your implication Nix is a liar and patsy for the bean-counters, and your placing of "phantom" blame upon the bean-counters who allegedly ordered the trade of Evans and cut of Hangman.

 

Or you're misunderstanding. Let's try it this way: no one ever said the bean counters traded Evans. What people are saying is that Evans' trade was motivated by finance over football. It's the difference between Overdorf telling Nix "I'm trading Evans," and Overdorf telling Nix "We need to save $5m to meet our income goals; pick a high-priced player you can live without." Ever consider that maybe the trade of a player was financial, but the choice of Evans as that player wasn't?

 

Or am I still being too "simple"?

 

includes both your implication Nix is a liar and patsy for the bean-counters

 

Not "and". "Or". At this point, I think he's just a mouthpiece. A liar would stick to ONE reason for trading Evans; he's given four half-assed ones so far. If he were lying, he'd be much more consistent. If he IS lying, he really sucks at it.

[Kelly the Dog]

What? I didn't start anything. You asked ME if I wanted to play poker and I said I didn't think you were ready. As I've explained, it's not the same question.

 

I fully believe the game is as much mental as it is physical. I just don't believe the desire Evans had in 04/05/06 was still around in 11. Have you ever worked at a job that left you depressed at the end of the day? It's tough to go through. He's a guy that wanted to play professional football for his entire life, only to sit through 7 years of losing while inching closer towards the end of his career. If we are talking about team, and it is obviously a team game, that particular player doesn't necessarily make the team better than a younger guy ready to make a difference.

 

Yes, I understand your point that having a pro like Evans as your 5th WR on paper is better than a late round rookie. At the same time there is tremendous value in guys that want to be here. I don't believe Evans wanted to be here anymore. I can't prove that. However, you are saying there's no rational argument on why the Bills are a better team without Evans. That is what I believe to be a rational argument. If Evans didn't want to be here, there's not much you can do about that. If nothing else, I would think you could agree that it's rational to think the Bills are better off without him if he no longer wanted to be on the team.

Fair enough. And I retract the snippy English remark, although I do think it is the same question, and could easily pose the same question a third way.

 

As far as the rational argument goes, I agree with what you said IF he didn't want to be here anymore. But I don't believe that at all and I didn't see it in his play. I definitely believe he wanted to be here until the trade rumors started, and then he started saying that he would like to go to a contender. I'm sure he was disappointed in the fact we havent had a good offense. I'm sure he wished he could play on a team with a good OL that can give the QB time to take advantage of his particular skills. I'm sure he was sick of losing. That doesn't at all mean he wanted out or demanded a trade and I have very good reason to believe that was not the case. And I know for a fact that his veteran teammates were not only shocked, but pissed about it.

 

Furthermore, and we can end this soon, because we're not all that far off overall, and it's okay to disagree on some points, which are all opinions. But when I said there is no rational argument, I meant that there is no way you can pick B over A, in a flat yes or no choice, of whether the team is better or worse without Evans. There are 100 factors entering it, and yes you mentioning one rational argument that could be one of the 100, or one of 10. There are others that haven't mentioned that I could come up with. I meant no one in their right mind could say the Bills OVERALL, given yes or no, are a worse team with Evans. You may think differently. Go Bills.

[3rdand12]

We gave a gift to Evans. One of our boys upstairs let him go to a potential contender for nfl glory. We all know thats not us any time soon, right? He would be 34-35 by we time develop.

it wasnt money as clarified many times here, and to a reasonable standard.

I was horrified by his release because he was a great vet to teach the kids for another year or two till contract expired. And i have respect for what he has given us through all our struggles the last 5 years..

Lets let him go and wish him well.

But the defenses will play us closer to scrimmage to one of the younger crowd earns some deep respect, and Chan will want to coach specifically.

The upside is that all the D's have to take a brand new look at us. There is not enough film on what we are putting on the field.

I hope we suprise for awhile at least. Shock and awe? probably not. but we will have to be getting some pretty good study after game one and two.

"What the hell are those boys tryin' to get done over there in Buffalo!?" Maybe we can fool them just long enough.

Seems like a Nix thing until we have the rest of the pieces. go Bills.

and by the way all gents included.. a most excellent discourse when considered as a whole body of work. Thanks for the read

[BillnutinHouston]

And so another initially promising and interesting thread goes horribly wrong.

[disco]

Furthermore, and we can end this soon, because we're not all that far off overall, and it's okay to disagree on some points, which are all opinions. But when I said there is no rational argument, I meant that there is no way you can pick B over A, in a flat yes or no choice, of whether the team is better or worse without Evans. There are 100 factors entering it, and yes you mentioning one rational argument that could be one of the 100, or one of 10. There are others that haven't mentioned that I could come up with. I meant no one in their right mind could say the Bills OVERALL, given yes or no, are a worse team with Evans. You may think differently. Go Bills.

 

We're close enough. And a truce is reached! Woo!

[QB Bills]

Are some of you really stating that trading Evans for a 4th rounder was anything other than a bush-league move? Lets revisit the excuses thrown out there for doing it..

 

1. He didn't like going over the middle because he didn't like getting hit - Horsecrap. If anything, Steve Johnson was the guy who would be afraid of getting hit and run out of bounds or fall down last year. Lee ran slants as well as anyone on the team.

 

2. Made too much money - No he didn't. There are other guys you get rid of before him if you're trying to save money (Kelsay, not re-sign Florence)

 

3. He's just a deep threat - Untrue. But even if it was, isn't having a guy like that key to keeping defenses honest? Especially when there's nobody else on the roster that can do it as well as he does?

 

4. He would leave by the time the team's good - This has got to be my favourite. The sad part it is, I think this is the actual reason they let him go. The fact is that he stuck around for his whole career on pretty much a terrible team. Why would he leave when they became good? Unless deep down they don't think they will be. In any case, good teams keep their good players and I don't know why everyone just automatically assumes he would leave in two years.

 

5. He requested a trade - Lee said he didn't and there's been no evidence to the contrary.

 

Then Buddy Nix goes on the radio talking about how Evans' skill set wasn't good enough. Not in those exact words, but that was the gist of it. An asinine judgement for starters. But perhaps more importantly than that, incredibly classless (not to mention him knocking Hangartner also).

 

In a league full of prima donna WRs, Evans was nothing but a model citizen and team player since he was drafted. Then you trade him and go on the radio and pretty much say he wasn't good enough to be on your team.

 

Straight shooter? Maybe. Bad aim? Definitely.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Reading this thread makes it pretty clear that people will believe anything Buddy says. "We tricked everybody by playing our OT at DT so we could hide him." "Evans sucks and it has nothing to do with his salary." "We need a backup guard and the best way to do that is to cut your backup center, and it has nothing to do with the guys salary. In the NFL, you don't really need a backup center because centers never get hurt."

 

All of that is met with:"Wow. Finally a straight shooter."

 

Everybody better go look for a pot of gold because Buddy says he just shot a rainbow out his butt.

There is a middle ground here. One can believe that Nix believed every word he said. Then, one can objectively reason about what he said and realize that the man in charge of the Bills is deductive reasoning challenged.