the offense

[nuklz2594]

I have been reading about how WR Evans is a vital cog to our offense. I am under the impression that we are slowly evolving to a smash mouth offense. Evans is going to demand/command a monster contract based on other WR contracts. We have the biggest offensive line in the NFL or darn close to it. We have big RB's. We have fullbacks that as far as I understand are going to be blocking machines. Viti could be a battering ram for Lynch and we drafted Oman for short yardage situations. We drafted large WR's with drafting of Hardy and Johnson. Do we let Evans go or do we franchise him? My only question is our TE situation.

 

Your thoughts?

[nucci]

I have been reading about how WR Evans is a vital cog to our offense. I am under the impression that we are slowly evolving to a smash mouth offense. Evans is going to demand/command a monster contract based on other WR contracts. We have the biggest offensive line in the NFL or darn close to it. We have big RB's. We have fullbacks that as far as I understand are going to be blocking machines. Viti could be a battering ram for Lynch and we drafted Oman for short yardage situations. We drafted large WR's with drafting of Hardy and Johnson. Do we let Evans go or do we franchise him? My only question is our TE situation.

 

Your thoughts?

You have to both run and pass the ball well to win. Evans is needed.

[Horus]

well the problem with the Bills is that once you become a good player they aren't willing to pay you and keep you arround...is that what the Bills will do with Evans?..who knows.....I think they sign him to a 5 year deal with incentives and a way out clause also...Ive heard some say he might demand what Fitz has from Arizona...but Fitz has 3 probowls

 

its not good to go into a season with only 1 gameplan...if the Bills go smash-mouth and don't pay attention to the passing game it would be bad...I think what your seeing is a Bills team trying to be dominant in both areas

 

I would have liked to see Bills do better in the TE area as well this year but I'm not a coach or an NFL scout so I'm going to have to give them the benefit of doubt

[buffaloboyinATL]

well the problem with the Bills is that once you become a good player they aren't willing to pay you and keep you arround...is that what the Bills will do with Evans?..who knows.....

 

I don't agree with this statement. The only time I have believed that to be true in recent history was Pat Williams. Other than that, the decidion not to sign players has been based more on having other options available at the same position, not trying to save money. Besides Williams, what players do you think were released or not re-signed to save money that were bad decisions? Spikes, Clemens, Henry, Fletcher? There were other resons besides money to move away from these guys.

[ganesh]

I have been reading about how WR Evans is a vital cog to our offense. I am under the impression that we are slowly evolving to a smash mouth offense. Evans is going to demand/command a monster contract based on other WR contracts. We have the biggest offensive line in the NFL or darn close to it. We have big RB's. We have fullbacks that as far as I understand are going to be blocking machines. Viti could be a battering ram for Lynch and we drafted Oman for short yardage situations. We drafted large WR's with drafting of Hardy and Johnson. Do we let Evans go or do we franchise him? My only question is our TE situation.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Even if we are smash mouth, we need good WRs to complement the running attack. Otherwise, that safety is always going to be the 8th player in the box to stop the run....Evans was a 1st rounder pick and has proved that he was worth that 13th pick. The Bills need to sign their young players for the long term and build a team.

[Captain Hindsight]

I don't agree with this statement. The only time I have believed that to be true in recent history was Pat Williams. Other than that, the decidion not to sign players has been based more on having other options available at the same position, not trying to save money. Besides Williams, what players do you think were released or not re-signed to save money that were bad decisions? Spikes, Clemens, Henry, Fletcher? There were other resons besides money to move away from these guys.

Exactly... the FO isnt cheap if the players perform. Evans has and he will get the contract he wants.... hopefulyl from us tho

[buffaloboyinATL]

well the problem with the Bills is that once you become a good player they aren't willing to pay you and keep you arround...is that what the Bills will do with Evans?..who knows.....I think they sign him to a 5 year deal with incentives and a way out clause also...Ive heard some say he might demand what Fitz has from Arizona...but Fitz has 3 probowls

I'm gonna bump this old thread because I am curious why people say that we are cheap and don't pay players once they become good. This seems to be the rhetoric that some in the national media like Mort, use but I don't think it is true. Does anyone here defend that point of view?

[ax4782]

I have been reading about how WR Evans is a vital cog to our offense. I am under the impression that we are slowly evolving to a smash mouth offense. Evans is going to demand/command a monster contract based on other WR contracts. We have the biggest offensive line in the NFL or darn close to it. We have big RB's. We have fullbacks that as far as I understand are going to be blocking machines. Viti could be a battering ram for Lynch and we drafted Oman for short yardage situations. We drafted large WR's with drafting of Hardy and Johnson. Do we let Evans go or do we franchise him? My only question is our TE situation.

 

Your thoughts?

 

If they lose Evans they are right back where they started with the WR position. Hardy was drafted to be a tall target to take the heat off of our top WR, LE. Buffalo has already offered him a contract and they are in negotiations. If worse comes to worse, they can franchise him next season, pay the bill and negotiate a little longer. I think they can get a six year deal for forty five mil, maybe up to fifty with twenty two mil in guaratees. That would be big numbers, but we are way under the cap and could probably still be in good shape after re-signing him. Lee is a huge part of what will make this offense work in the passing game, and without him, I don't think we can be half as effective as we are with him.

[BuffOrange]

A big reason we drafted Evans was losing 10 games with a good defense in '03. Big reason for losing 10 games with a good defense was Moulds' groin injury (he was our only playmaker) and the subsequent putrid offense. We don't even know yet if the current defense is good or not; thus I don't really want to think about an Evansless team.

[buffaloboyinATL]

If they lose Evans they are right back where they started with the WR position. Hardy was drafted to be a tall target to take the heat off of our top WR, LE. Buffalo has already offered him a contract and they are in negotiations. If worse comes to worse, they can franchise him next season, pay the bill and negotiate a little longer. I think they can get a six year deal for forty five mil, maybe up to fifty with twenty two mil in guaratees. That would be big numbers, but we are way under the cap and could probably still be in good shape after re-signing him. Lee is a huge part of what will make this offense work in the passing game, and without him, I don't think we can be half as effective as we are with him.

I heard the Falcon's GM say the reason they did the deal with Ryan when they did was because after that day you could no longer do 6 year deals, only up to 5. (until the new agreement is put in place) Not sure if that is true or not.

[LabattBlue]

We drafted large WR's with drafting of Hardy and Johnson. Do we let Evans go or do we franchise him? My only question is our TE situation.

 

Your thoughts?

You want to let Evans go because we drafted a 6'2" WR in the 7th round? Brilliant!

[Dan]

well the problem with the Bills is that once you become a good player they aren't willing to pay you and keep you arround...is that what the Bills will do with Evans?..who knows.....I

So I guess re-signing Schobel, Kelsay, Parish, McGee; not to mention paying big money on the likes of Dockery, Walker, Stroud, doens't count. Just because some GM 5 or 10 years ago ran the team a certain way, you shouldn't draw the same conclusions about the current FO.

 

As to the original poster... all the best offenses have a well-balanced attack. We need good WR's just as much as we need good RBs. So, I say no way do you not keep Evans. The only caveat being if he demands to be played like the top WR in the game (ala Clements). However, I suspect Evans will be a little more level-headed.

[San-O]

well the problem with the Bills is that once you become a good player they aren't willing to pay you and keep you arround...is that what the Bills will do with Evans?..who knows.....I think they sign him to a 5 year deal with incentives and a way out clause also...Ive heard some say he might demand what Fitz has from Arizona...but Fitz has 3 probowls

 

its not good to go into a season with only 1 gameplan...if the Bills go smash-mouth and don't pay attention to the passing game it would be bad...I think what your seeing is a Bills team trying to be dominant in both areas

 

I would have liked to see Bills do better in the TE area as well this year but I'm not a coach or an NFL scout so I'm going to have to give them the benefit of doubt

 

 

Evans has had ONE good year, any way you slice it. I'm may be in the minority here, but

I'm not totally convinced his is a No. 1 receiver.

 

 

I would suggest he show up this season and stop vanishing during games. He'll get paid.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

Evans has had ONE good year, any way you slice it. I'm may be in the minority here, but

I'm not totally convinced his is a No. 1 receiver.

 

 

I would suggest he show up this season and stop vanishing during games. He'll get paid.

 

I agree with this statement.

 

As much as I like Evans, he's only performed at a "Pro-Bowl" level 1 year. I know, I know everyone will say "Look at his QB situation" or

"He hasn't had a lot to work with" and while those are great excuses, they are still excuses.

 

Boldin and Fitzgerald seem to do fine in AZ with a crappy team and switchable QB's.

 

I love Evans but until he can prove that he is truly a #1 WR then he shouldn't get paid like one.

[San-O]

I agree with this statement.

 

As much as I like Evans, he's only performed at a "Pro-Bowl" level 1 year. I know, I know everyone will say "Look at his QB situation" or

"He hasn't had a lot to work with" and while those are great excuses, they are still excuses.

 

Boldin and Fitzgerald seem to do fine in AZ with a crappy team and switchable QB's.

 

I love Evans but until he can prove that he is truly a #1 WR then he shouldn't get paid like one.

 

 

What is the true definition of a No.1 receiver?

 

 

1. Gets "doubled" a lot?

2. Has more attempts.

3. Lines up on the left?

4. Is paid better?

[Hazed and Amuzed]

What is the true definition of a No.1 receiver?

 

 

1. Gets "doubled" a lot?

2. Has more attempts.

3. Lines up on the left?

4. Is paid better?

 

 

I think the true definition of a #1 is someone who is going to be the go-to guy in any occasion; Deep, short, across the middle, when they are doubled, it shouldn't matter. A true #1 WR should be the guy you want to have the ball in his hands under any circumstances. That's why most #1 Wr's lead their teams in rec. (I said MOST). Because their teams can trust them to make a play therefore they get more attempts thrown their direction.

 

When these receivers perform the way the above is specified under ANY condition then they are paid better.

 

So I guess #'s 1,2 and 4 are correct.

[BuffOrange]

If you cloned him 31 times, he would be the undisputed #1 target on > 50% of the teams in the league.

That's a #1 WR.

 

[/discussion].

[San-O]

If you cloned him 31 times, he would be the undisputed #1 target on > 50% of the teams in the league.

That's a #1 WR.

 

[/discussion].

 

 

OK. I'll bite.

 

Lee Evans was in 2008:

 

o 32'nd in NFL receiving yards with 849

o Tied at 45'th in NFL receptions with 55.

o There were also 7 teams with 2 receivers ahead of Evans in yards.

o Actually, 4 of the guys ahead of him we TEs.

 

I think the Bills O was so bad, it is difficult to really place his stats, although undisputed # 1 on more the 50 % of the

teams, I don't think so.

 

The thing that bothers me the most is he had a good year when J.P. was locking onto him all season (2006), but when teams knew

he could go deep, and took that away, he seemed to disappear many times during the season.

 

Could it possibly be defenses adjusted to Evans, but Evans couldn't make the adjustment?

 

Not having a true # 2 on the other side didn't help.

 

He's averaging like 55 receptions a year. No way are those # 1 receiver numbers.

[My Friends Call Me Tebucky]

I'd give Evans the benefit of the doubt on this. He hasn't shown me anything in terms of being unwilling to run slants or square-ins. The problem has been that the Bills have had a number of receivers in the last 3 years that could ONLY run slants or square-ins, so Evans has had to always play the role of "stretch the field" WR. The Bills misused Andre Davis, but that's for another thread. Parrish can occasionally get open deep, but with no consistency. Reed, Moulds, Price, Aiken? Nope.

 

I think Evans can get it done in any situation, now that he has a QB that is just as capable of completing a 5 yard pass as he is a 55 yard go route.

[BuffOrange]

SoCal - everyone has their own subjective view of how much to weigh #'s vs. supporting cast/crircumstances. I mean I think we could argue all day about Lee vs. Roy Williams or Marques Colston so I'm just going to concede all the gray area for the sake of argument and give you 19 teams and you tell me which ones Lee wouldn't be the #1 WR on:

 

Jets, Dolphins, Steelers, Ravens, Titans, Jaguars, Raiders, Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, Redskins, Eagles, Vikings, Packers, Bears, Falcons, Bucs, Seahawks, 49ers.