Peter Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I am too lazy to read this entire thread, but here are my two cents: Lee is a good WR, but if an opposing team wants to take him out of the game, that can and has been done. That is the difference between him and the elite receivers in the game. In watching the replay of the first half, I paid particular attention to the INT. Two comments. First, how was that not pass interference (especially given the call that the officials made against Ellison later). Second, Lee has to do a better job attacking the ball. The DB (who was behind Lee) attacked the ball whereas Evans appeared to wait on it (at least more so that the DB). The DBs are too good in this league to not attack the ball. Just my two cents.
BuffaloBill Posted August 24, 2009 Author Posted August 24, 2009 It's amazing that we can see the same thing and draw 2 different conclusions. You're absolutely correct though. Lee WAS waiting for the ball on his comeback route...it was thrown late!!! That ball is supposed to be on him when he is making his break back to the QB. WR don't make their break and then immediately start sprinting back to the QB in case the ball is thrown late or slow. They are supposed to be at a specific spot at a specific time and the ball is too!!!! That being said the no call on what could have been pass interference was as much a factor as trying to blame someone in a Bills uniform. Agreed that both Edwards and Evans could have played that better. IMO that particular play is mostly on Trent for being late with the throw. However, Evans has to make a statment and get after the ball.
PDaDdy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I am too lazy to read this entire thread, but here are my two cents: Lee is a good WR, but if an opposing team wants to take him out of the game, that can and has been done. That is the difference between him and the elite receivers in the game. In watching the replay of the first half, I paid particular attention to the INT. Two comments. First, how was that not pass interference (especially given the call that the officials made against Ellison later). Second, Lee has to do a better job attacking the ball. The DB (who was behind Lee) attacked the ball whereas Evans appeared to wait on it (at least more so that the DB). The DBs are too good in this league to not attack the ball. Just my two cents. I've watched that play several times on my DVR. Lee Evans did attack the LATE thrown ball. Lee made a really hard cut to shield the ball with his body and got run through by the DB on the no call. Go back and watch it one more time. You'll see what I'm talking about.
bbillsfan87 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 There is A LOT of blame to go around with this team, but I would not put it on Evans. He cannot throw the ball to himself people. Insert Evans into Indy's offense and watch Peyton Manning make him a bonafide star... even parrish for that matter.....
PDaDdy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Also you can see the little hitch Edwards takes just before he lets the ball fly. That's ALL it took!!! Inches and split seconds can make all the difference.
Peter Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I've watched that play several times on my DVR. Lee Evans did attack the LATE thrown ball. Lee made a really hard cut to shield the ball with his body and got run through by the DB on the no call. Go back and watch it one more time. You'll see what I'm talking about. I will watch again tonight. I did play it back several times yesterday and saw it differently. I guess a question I have is who attacked the ball more - Lee Evans or the DB who initially was behind Evans?
GG Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I guess a question I have is who attacked the ball more - Lee Evans or the DB who initially was behind Evans? Depends on the end of the play. If Evans had the guy beat, turned around for a pass and the DB was rushing back to cover, the DB would have more momentum heading back to the ball. If the ball is late, the DB has the advantage. (I only saw the NFL.com replay and not the end zone replay, which would be more conclusive)
PDaDdy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Depends on the end of the play. If Evans had the guy beat, turned around for a pass and the DB was rushing back to cover, the DB would have more momentum heading back to the ball. If the ball is late, the DB has the advantage. (I only saw the NFL.com replay and not the end zone replay, which would be more conclusive) Yes Evans had his man beat. The DB was playing catchup and was coming with momentum. It was pass interference but it was a no call. I don't think you can really blame Lee. He got to his spot. He positioned himself well but the DB got away with one. His attack on the ball in this case because of the no call can't be judged by the end result. As I mentioned before. You can see the shot of Trent double pumping the ball before he finally throws it. If he lets it go on the first pump it's a completion.
bflotim1 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Edwards would look much better if he was protected by a good offensive line. It is as simple as that. Hopefully this group of linemen comes together - otherwise it will be another short year.
mikey98277 Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I think Edwards main problem is well, Evans has been real lazy going after the ball, there is no way he is a number one reciver anymore, if he ever was. I used to think he was really good, but the more i watch him the more i see him giving up on routes, so far twice this pre-season he gave up on the route and it ended up in an interception. I do hope that it is only becasue it is pre-season and he dosnt want to get hit now. But if he does that in a regular season game and i would have to say that you dont even want a #2 guy doing that.
PDaDdy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I think Edwards main problem is well, Evans has been real lazy going after the ball, there is no way he is a number one reciver anymore, if he ever was. I used to think he was really good, but the more i watch him the more i see him giving up on routes, so far twice this pre-season he gave up on the route and it ended up in an interception. I do hope that it is only becasue it is pre-season and he dosnt want to get hit now. But if he does that in a regular season game and i would have to say that you dont even want a #2 guy doing that. A + B =5 I don't agree with your assessment of Lee's effort level in the somewhat meaningless preseason OR during the regular season when it counts. That being said I don't know what his supposed effort level during preseason has to do with him being a #1. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens have had their effort level questioned too. I don't think anyone is saying they aren't #1s because of the skepticism of a few.
StupidNation Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Every time somebody bangs this "Evans isn't a true #1 WR" drum, I am forced to point out that Evans' numbers through 5 seasons are on par with those posted by Andre Reed through 5 seasons. See for yourself: http://www.nfl.com/players/leeevans/profile?id=EVA454901 http://www.nfl.com/players/andrereed/profile?id=REE121548 Totals Evans: 296 rec--4,744 yds--32 TDs Reed: 317 rec--4,408 yds--31 TDs Now unless anyone is going to try to sell me the idea that Andre Reed--twice a semi-finalist for the Pro Football HOF--wasn't a #1 WR, this argument about Evans is foolishness. Next. You cannot compare stat guys from the 80's and 90's to now. Reed wouldn't make it to Pro Bowls based strictly on #s. Look at Kelly's numbers to guys today. People used to run the ball more. Reed is not Evans, Reed was a #1 who wasn't one dimensional. Could Evans develop that? Sure he could, the question is will he?
PDaDdy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 You cannot compare stat guys from the 80's and 90's to now. Reed wouldn't make it to Pro Bowls based strictly on #s. Look at Kelly's numbers to guys today. People used to run the ball more. Reed is not Evans, Reed was a #1 who wasn't one dimensional. Could Evans develop that? Sure he could, the question is will he? Why let actual factual statistics get in the way of making a point and creating another excuse for Trent. It was the LATE 80's and 90's not the 1950's. They still threw the ball and Buffalo threw it more than most!
BuffaloBill Posted August 24, 2009 Author Posted August 24, 2009 Yes Evans had his man beat. The DB was playing catchup and was coming with momentum. It was pass interference but it was a no call. I don't think you can really blame Lee. He got to his spot. He positioned himself well but the DB got away with one. His attack on the ball in this case because of the no call can't be judged by the end result. As I mentioned before. You can see the shot of Trent double pumping the ball before he finally throws it. If he lets it go on the first pump it's a completion. I've said before trent was late with the throw. However, now way was there a double pump ... watch the replay. Three mistakes in the play: Trent locked on to Evans the whole play (I rewound it three times on the dvr just to watch this)Trent did not pull the trigger soon enough or he did not put enough velocity on the throw to make up for the late throwEvans was not aggressive enough to go get the ball when he had space and time to do so My hunch is that TO or another true #1 receiver would have gone after the ball more agressively. This does not excuse trent's mistakes in the play it just says that if Evans wants to win he has to step up his play also. I know the ... its just preseason excuses may come out but neither of these guys plays like they intend to step above what they do in practice. In practice you can blow this off. In a preseason game when you are a nine year losing team you think you would step it up a notch or two to make a statement about how you will play when the real games are here.
StupidNation Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Why let actual factual statistics get in the way of making a point and creating another excuse for Trent. It was the LATE 80's and 90's not the 1950's. They still threw the ball and Buffalo threw it more than most! And I mentioned Trent where genius? Also, you never refuted my point, you just threw out the 50's as a lame azz excuse. Facts are guys like Art Monk and Andre Reed would not be Pro Bowlers based on #s in today's game, in the same way that 1,000 yards for a RB is pretty common even for crappy ones. But let's pretend it's the 50's football right when you can look at factual stats and be proven wrong again and again and again.
StupidNation Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Why let actual factual statistics get in the way of making a point and creating another excuse for Trent. It was the LATE 80's and 90's not the 1950's. They still threw the ball and Buffalo threw it more than most! For a reference point on some WRs that are NOT Hall of Fame worthy look at Derrick Mason and Donald Driver, both have 50% or more 1,000 yard seasons in less seasons than Reed. People's points are not that we are defending Trent, it's that Evans is too one-dimensional. He was the same way with JP so I don't know what that has to do with Trent. I want to see Evans go over the middle and catch the ball. You can't expect me to believe it's just a coincidence. I've seen him stop his route up the middle, and one time with JP against the Rams 4 years ago he stopped his slant route and it was an INT and the DB was wide open because Evans stopped. Evans doesn't attack the ball but rarely. He's not a #1.
Trader Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 No secret that I think Roscoe is a tool when it comes to WR play. IMO he is a gimmick guy and a punt returner not a NFL wide receiver. I am also having my doubts that Lee can pull off the #1. If so, it is all the more important to get TO back on the field and developing chemistry with Trent. The Bills looked like the same bumbling team from last year against the Packers. I am not saying the season is doomed on the basis of one preseason game. However, I am saying the Bills will find it very hard to rise above mediocrity if TO does not get and stay healthy this year. Any good defensive team in any sport can stop one strong offensive player. Two strong offensive players is another matter. I would suggest to you that lining up Parrish in the number spot at least with this coaching staff and perhaps with any coaching staff is pure folly.
PDaDdy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I've said before trent was late with the throw. However, now way was there a double pump ... watch the replay. Three mistakes in the play: Trent locked on to Evans the whole play (I rewound it three times on the dvr just to watch this)Trent did not pull the trigger soon enough or he did not put enough velocity on the throw to make up for the late throwEvans was not aggressive enough to go get the ball when he had space and time to do so My hunch is that TO or another true #1 receiver would have gone after the ball more agressively. This does not excuse trent's mistakes in the play it just says that if Evans wants to win he has to step up his play also. I know the ... its just preseason excuses may come out but neither of these guys plays like they intend to step above what they do in practice. In practice you can blow this off. In a preseason game when you are a nine year losing team you think you would step it up a notch or two to make a statement about how you will play when the real games are here. It's there. Just took a look again. 12:34 - 12:33 on the clock. It's a little pump, hitch, hesitation whatever you want to call it with his right shoulder as you can see.
BuffaloBill Posted August 24, 2009 Author Posted August 24, 2009 It's there. Just took a look again. 12:34 - 12:33 on the clock. It's a little pump, hitch, hesitation whatever you want to call it with his right shoulder as you can see. I will watch it again when I go home .. but OK add to the list of mistakes made by Trent. The outcome is still the same - both receiver and QB were in error.
PDaDdy Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 And I mentioned Trent where genius? Also, you never refuted my point, you just threw out the 50's as a lame azz excuse. Facts are guys like Art Monk and Andre Reed would not be Pro Bowlers based on #s in today's game, in the same way that 1,000 yards for a RB is pretty common even for crappy ones. But let's pretend it's the 50's football right when you can look at factual stats and be proven wrong again and again and again. And I said you mentioned Trent where Genius? I mentioned Trent!!! This BS about Lee Evans makes just another excuse for not looking at Trent with clear vision. It was MY point. I wasn't saying it was yours. Learn to read. I didn't realize pro bowl nominations had anything to do with being a #1 WR. That's a new one on me. Forget about RBs. 1000 yd WR are not easy to come by. If that is such a small feat how come we have only been able to find one in the last 5 years? Answer me that! Seems like you think that it's no big deal and any old #2 level talent WR can get 1000yds a year. Again this guy is a Ferrari not the truck that tows your boat. If you want a guy that works the middle of the field and out muscles and out bodies DBs you need a 6'2"+ 220+ lb WR like Terrell Owens. If you want a guy that is a deep threat and can stretch the field and run some deep ins and outs you get Lee Evans. Problem is is that our current QB can't makes those throws. You can make the case that Lee Evans is not the #1 WR for a noodle arm QB like Edwards but a guy with an actual arm like JP and a brain unlike JP that can run an NFL offense makes him a star. I mentioned this before. I guess it comes down to what you call a #1 WR. Me, I call a #1 WR the guy that is your biggest threat. The guy the other team double teams. The guy that gets you 1000yds a year. If you think a #1 WR is, again, 6'2"+ and 220+lb that runs crossing routes and catches jump balls then we differ in our opinion of the definition of what a #1 is.
Recommended Posts