thebug Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Exactly. You doubt it. What we know for certain is that a very thin roster was made thinner. Payroll was reduced. We don't know what effect Evans would have had on the Bills offense for certain either, but I find it very interesting that we threw for less yards to WRs in a year when the Bills exceeded their prior year's passing yardage (500 more passing yards in 2011). If that 4th round pick busts then what have you got? If that 4th round pick lasts a couple years but makes no measurable impact on the team then what have you got? Money in the coffers because of what they saved, that's what you got. Lee Evans superstar? Nope. Lee Evans productive member of the Buffalo Bills? Yes. What if? What if? what if that 4th rounder is a star? What if Lee Evans had the same production as he had in Balt? What do you have? What if Easley didn't have to sit out the season? We passed for more yards without Lee Evans and that's a bad thing? Could it be because of the emergence of Scott Chandler? or that fact that both of our running backs caught more balls for more yards? Remember at the start of the season when the team was putting up good numbers and the O line looked good. That was because of the quick release type passing game. That wasn't suited for Lee Evans. The Bills had a plan and Lee didn't fit that plan. That doesn't mean they made the wrong choice.
Beerball Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 What if? What if? what if that 4th rounder is a star? What if Lee Evans had the same production as he had in Balt? What do you have? What if Easley didn't have to sit out the season? We passed for more yards without Lee Evans and that's a bad thing? Could it be because of the emergence of Scott Chandler? or that fact that both of our running backs caught more balls for more yards? Remember at the start of the season when the team was putting up good numbers and the O line looked good. That was because of the quick release type passing game. That wasn't suited for Lee Evans. The Bills had a plan and Lee didn't fit that plan. That doesn't mean they made the wrong choice. You can't take what ifs or could it be to the bank. That's why I avoid them.
thebug Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 You can't take what ifs to the bank. That's why I avoid them. We passed for more yards without Lee Evans. You can take that to the bank.
Beerball Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 We passed for more yards without Lee Evans. You can take that to the bank. And yet our WRs were less productive. This team was made weaker by the trade. You can shake it any way you want, but that is the fact of the matter.
thebug Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 And yet our WRs were less productive. This team was made weaker by the trade. You can shake it any way you want, but that is the fact of the matter. They were less productive because we had better players at other positions to give the ball to. Players that will go into traffic and make the catch. The idea is to move the ball. 20 yards is still 20 yards even if a back or a tight end moved the ball.
Beerball Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 They were less productive because we had better players at other positions to give the ball to. Players that will go into traffic and make the catch. The idea is to move the ball. 20 yards is still 20 yards even if a back or a tight end moved the ball. So, the fact that Fitz's YPA went down between 2010 and 2011 should be a concern? Because, the idea is to move the ball. Fitz was behind such notable QBs as Rex Grossman, Tavaris Jackson & John Skelton. Try again.
thebug Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 So, the fact that Fitz's YPA went down between 2010 and 2011 should be a concern? Because, the idea is to move the ball. Fitz was behind such notable QBs as Rex Grossman, Tavaris Jackson & John Skelton. Try again. No it's not a concern because we ran a different type of offense. Like I said it was a quick release type with shorter routes. YPA doesn't matter if you get the yards. 5+5+5+5=20 as does 11+9. More balls to tight ends and back would account for the YPA difference. We had more yards without Lee Evans. Try again.
Beerball Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 No it's not a concern because we ran a different type of offense. Like I said it was a quick release type with shorter routes. YPA doesn't matter if you get the yards. 5+5+5+5=20 as does 11+9. More balls to tight ends and back would account for the YPA difference. We had more yards without Lee Evans. Try again. Ahhhh, they ran a different offense with the intention of gaining less yards per attempt. Now I see it, thank you for enlightening me. How successful would you say they were?
thebug Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Ahhhh, they ran a different offense with the intention of gaining less yards per attempt. Now I see it, thank you for enlightening me. How successful would you say they were? No, they ran a different offense with the intention of keeping their QB alive. They were more successful than they were with Lee Evans here.
thebug Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 So, the fact that Fitz's YPA went down between 2010 and 2011 should be a concern? Because, the idea is to move the ball. Fitz was behind such notable QBs as Rex Grossman, Tavaris Jackson & John Skelton. Try again. You know what? After further review, you may have something here! Fitz YPA for 2010 - 6.8 Fitz YPA for 2011 - 6.7 Fitz made 569 attempts in 2011 so 569 X .1 = 56.9 yards (if my math is correct and that's not always the case). Lee Evans had 74 yards receiving this season. Hmm, there's pretty much the difference right there.
Recommended Posts