FireChan Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Or it could be that Colts are the beneficiaries of Rogers deciding sooner than later that he needs to dedicate himself to the game. Every year there's a Da'Rick coming out and everyone is perplexed why a guy wasn't drafted. In a small number of cases, like Vontaze and perhaps now Da'Rick, they get it together in the NFL in a short time frame. More often than not, these guys prove why they weren't drafted. Good for Colts for being lucky. It's not like they have stellar talent evaluation considering their RB situation and their desire to have Kelvin Sheppard. Getting 2 franchise QB's in 20 years is still pretty good, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Or it could be that Colts are the beneficiaries of Rogers deciding sooner than later that he needs to dedicate himself to the game. Every year there's a Da'Rick coming out and everyone is perplexed why a guy wasn't drafted. In a small number of cases, like Vontaze and perhaps now Da'Rick, they get it together in the NFL in a short time frame. More often than not, these guys prove why they weren't drafted. Good for Colts for being lucky. It's not like they have stellar talent evaluation considering their RB situation and their desire to have Kelvin Sheppard. But there was not a viable NFL alternative! I never would advocate letting a top end NFL talent go in a rebuilding situation. I certainly would never do that without a viable alternative. It makes zero sense and the more that people are trying to argue against it the weaker the argument gets. They released that guy to keep Chris Hogan and to play TJ Graham!! That is why it was even dumber. They didn't release him to give a spot to Goodwin or Woods or another guy with upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 But there was not a viable NFL alternative! I never would advocate letting a top end NFL talent go in a rebuilding situation. I certainly would never do that without a viable alternative. It makes zero sense and the more that people are trying to argue against it the weaker the argument gets. They released that guy to keep Chris Hogan and to play TJ Graham!! That is why it was even dumber. They didn't release him to give a spot to Goodwin or Woods or another guy with upside. Its because both of those guys showed more on the field then Rogers did in his time here, and apparently both of them learned the playbook, something Rogers didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Its because both of those guys showed more on the field then Rogers did in his time here, and apparently both of them learned the playbook, something Rogers didn't. Practice Squad. Practice Squad. Practice Squad. Practice Squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 It is not so much about Rogers the player. The whole point is that a team in this position is not in position to pass up ANY talented players (especially in favor of scrubs). This decision is just a real life example of a no brainer that they somehow managed to screw up. Exactly right... And like you pointed out previously this decision is a microcosm of the past 14 years...And I'm 100% sure there were plenty of folks right here on this board that knew Rogers would become a decent NFL WR...Not necessarily because they know football, or even that they believed in his talent...But purely because they knew the minute the Bills released him it would likely turn out to be the wrong move...That is exactly the reputation this team has built up over the past 14 years...Any Bills fan with even the slightest grasp of reality had to know this was not only possible...but inevitable...This team can't punch it's way out of a paper bag...From the owner down, when a big decision is to be made, they usually make the wrong one...Even a blind squirrel will land a Kiko every now and again...But for whatever reason...call it the Flutie curse or whatever, this team usually lands on the side of being wrong more than right... And when you have a decision like this...A decision that looked so obvious to some...I mean look folks...We are talking about the 6th...the 6th WR slot!!! Not one, not two, hell not even four or five...The 6th freaking slot!!! And they STILL can't get it right...Well...You just have to ask yourself if something else is going on here that we all simply can't see...And I'm not talking about something in the locker room, or the film room, or the practice field...I'm talking about something that cannot be explained with any kind of science or facts...It's time to consider the jinxed factor as the only legitimate excuse...Because this is just ridiculous... Sorry y'all...I can't possibly explain why this specific blunder is bothering more more than the others...But it is...This one is really, really, pissing me off...Anyway.../endrant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) And when you have a decision like this...A decision that looked so obvious to some...I mean look folks...We are talking about the 6th...the 6th WR slot!!! Not one, not two, hell not even four or five...The 6th freaking slot!!! And they STILL can't get it right...Well...You just have to ask yourself if something else is going on here that we all simply can't see...And I'm not talking about something in the locker room, or the film room, or the practice field...I'm talking about something that cannot be explained with any kind of science or facts...It's time to consider the jinxed factor as the only legitimate excuse...Because this is just ridiculous... No need to go there, because it's pretty clear what the problem is. You have a lack of accountability and effective strategic planning from ownership on down. There are lots of voices and no clear line of command, and a total lack of cohesive vision. I think this one was pretty simple: Marrone, a rookie HC who is somewhat in over his head when it comes to talent evaluation and roster design, decided he needed to instill more accountability in the locker room from Day 1. Rogers is a bit of a headcase and (rumor has it) was still screwing up off of the field during training camp (the rumor I heard, unsubstantiated, is weed). Marrone caught wind of it and decided to take the opportunity to make an example out of someone who wasn't getting with the program. In a vaccum, the decision is defensible. However, at the same time, you have no strategic architect to step in and say, Hey, look, we understand the need for maturity and accountability, but this team needs a serious talent infusion over the next few years, and also, we knew this guy was a risk when we brought him in. That person should've been some combination of Russ Brandon and Doug Whaley - they should've insisted that Marrone keep the guy on the PS for awhile, at least until it was clear that he was either totally unsalvagable and/or that the Bills were set at the WR position. But you don't have that kind of functionality at OBD. Whaley is a rookie GM. Brandon is a snake oil salesman who somehow convinces most of you to part with a considerable amount of your time and money in exchange for a horrible entertainment product, year after year (and I mean that as a compliment to him - I have no ill will toward the guy, he's very good at what he does). I seriously doubt the Bills have a coherent STRATEGIC PLAN for succeeding ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD for the next 3-5 years. Their plan appears to have gone as far as: hire a diamond-in-the-rough head coach and let him draft a franchise QB, and the rest will take care of itself. (In the meantime, pocket as much money from the Toronto series and the TV deals as possible, and negotiate a team-favorable lease with an out, to position the team for a sale to the highest bidder). Edited December 11, 2013 by Coach Tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) Its because both of those guys showed more on the field then Rogers did in his time here, and apparently both of them learned the playbook, something Rogers didn't. Really?!? So you believe that Chris Hogan was going to be a better NFL player than Rogers?? What do you believe Chris Hogan's ceiling to be in the NFL? Rogers ceiling? The bottom line is that this team is in a rebuild so the ceiling argument is much more important than their floors. Each player has the same floor (guys that don't belong in the NFL). Their ceilings are very different. Edited December 11, 2013 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve in Carolina Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 By all accounts, Levy was one of the smartest and articulate coaches in recent memory. Perhaps his age when he was with the Bills would be against him nowadays, but there weren't many guys that weren't willing to run through a wall for the guy. Belichick beat the Bills with Jeff Hostetler and still had a winning season with Cassel. He's a huge jerk, but he's also a great coach. Belichick beat the Bills with Jeff Hostetler! When was he the head coach of the Giants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Really?!? So you believe that Chris Hogan was going to be a better NFL player than Rogers?? What do you believe Chris Hogan's ceiling to be in the NFL? Rogers ceiling? The bottom line is that this team is in a rebuild so the ceiling argument is much more important than their floors. Each player has the same floor (guys that don't belong in the NFL). I think the point he is trying to make is the coaches went with what they saw on the field. These guys are given once in a lifetime opportunities to play, especially UDFA, and I think you have to go with the guy that shows more. You can't just say, well this guy practiced and played like crap but we should keep him because he has more supposed potential over the guy who bust's his butt and preforms and actually shows something. What message does that send to the team when you do something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I think the point he is trying to make is the coaches went with what they saw on the field. These guys are given once in a lifetime opportunities to play, especially UDFA, and I think you have to go with the guy that shows more. You can't just say, well this guy practiced and played like crap but we should keep him because he has more supposed potential over the guy who bust's his butt and preforms and actually shows something. What message does that send to the team when you do something like that? That's why the GM should be the one to step in and make the call. Marrone has every incentive to maximize the short-term. Whaley should be thinking about what this roster needs to look like in 5 years, with or without Marrone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Sorry y'all...I can't possibly explain why this specific blunder is bothering more more than the others...But it is...This one is really, really, pissing me off...Anyway.../endrant... ive said it several times, im never the one to advocate for a guy thats got a lot of red flags - but this one seemed obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I think the point he is trying to make is the coaches went with what they saw on the field. These guys are given once in a lifetime opportunities to play, especially UDFA, and I think you have to go with the guy that shows more. You can't just say, well this guy practiced and played like crap but we should keep him because he has more supposed potential over the guy who bust's his butt and preforms and actually shows something. What message does that send to the team when you do something like that? It says, "we are trying to end this playoff drought." We are going to take some chances to turn around a franchise that has been horrible for a decade and a half. Currently, the 6th WR has not surprisingly had zero impact on any wins or losses. Rogers could potentially positively impact a game or two (see last week). That could have potentially been the difference in a playoff spot before the team fell apart. Maybe Rogers would have made a play in the KC, New England, Atlanta and/or Cincy games? This team has sure lost a lot of close games and the guy that they replaced him with doesn't even play. It is not like you are sacrificing his production. At the end of the day you can find hustling scrubs to bust their butts anywhere. I bet Tim Anderson, Vince Pappale and Rudy Ruddiger could all be added to boost team morale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 You can't just say, well this guy practiced and played like crap but we should keep him because he has more supposed potential over the guy who bust's his butt and preforms and actually shows something. What message does that send to the team when you do something like that? i think the point hes making is hogan at his best showed he was a 6th wr and special teamer - thats not showing something, and in our situation a guy with explosive potential made a lot more sense. sure it sends a message that "hard work trumps potential" - which i like, dont get me wrong but i guess i question whether that is always 100% of the time the right message to send. if winning is the ultimate goal id think sometimes "we will find a way to get the most talent on the roster we can" is also a nice one to have floating around the building. theres a balance to be had between the two. ill go out there and outwork everyone til i pass out, but it doesnt mean i help create a winning 53. in this case rogers was so low cost, and low risk with such a high possible reward... it just doesnt add up to good asset management unless theres a lot more to the story we dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 ive said it several times, im never the one to advocate for a guy thats got a lot of red flags - but this one seemed obvious. It was so obvious because it didn't cost anything to take a chance. Sometimes in these situations you have to make a sacrifice to take a chance. In that case it may not have been worth it. You didn't have to risk anything here to take a shot. That is why it is so maddening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 It was so obvious because it didn't cost anything to take a chance. Sometimes in these situations you have to make a sacrifice to take a chance. In that case it may not have been worth it. You didn't have to risk anything here to take a shot. That is why it is so maddening. i think the point hes making is hogan at his best showed he was a 6th wr and special teamer - thats not showing something, and in our situation a guy with explosive potential made a lot more sense. sure it sends a message that "hard work trumps potential" - which i like, dont get me wrong but i guess i question whether that is always 100% of the time the right message to send. if winning is the ultimate goal id think sometimes "we will find a way to get the most talent on the roster we can" is also a nice one to have floating around the building. theres a balance to be had between the two. ill go out there and outwork everyone til i pass out, but it doesnt mean i help create a winning 53. in this case rogers was so low cost, and low risk with such a high possible reward... it just doesnt add up to good asset management unless theres a lot more to the story we dont know. I wouldn't exactly say it's low risk. Hogan plays on ST's and has made quite a few tackles. They would need Rodgers to do that as well and with what happened in pre season and not even trying to run down the interception, how can the coaches let that fly? All of this talk about Rodgers is completely pre-mature anyways, he has one good game, with Andrew Luck throwing him the ball on a decimated Indy receiving core and all of a sudden the Bills made a mistake? How about we let Rodgers have another couple games before people pull the whole "I told you so" card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I wouldn't exactly say it's low risk. Hogan plays on ST's and has made quite a few tackles. They would need Rodgers to do that as well and with what happened in pre season and not even trying to run down the interception, how can the coaches let that fly? All of this talk about Rodgers is completely pre-mature anyways, he has one good game, with Andrew Luck throwing him the ball on a decimated Indy receiving core and all of a sudden the Bills made a mistake? How about we let Rodgers have another couple games before people pull the whole "I told you so" card. He had more yards in a game than CH will have this season (possibly his career). That is a problem. Like I said earlier if they released him to find a spot for Goodwin or another physically talented guy I would not have even chimed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I wouldn't exactly say it's low risk. Hogan plays on ST's and has made quite a few tackles. They would need Rodgers to do that as well and with what happened in pre season and not even trying to run down the interception, how can the coaches let that fly? All of this talk about Rodgers is completely pre-mature anyways, he has one good game, with Andrew Luck throwing him the ball on a decimated Indy receiving core and all of a sudden the Bills made a mistake? How about we let Rodgers have another couple games before people pull the whole "I told you so" card. To the first half, its incredibly low risk. Chris Hogan has 6 tackles and 8 catches. I am positive we could find a safety, corner, linebacker, or even rogers to make those 6 tackles. i dont know any other team carrying 2 WRs with the argument "well they arent dynamic with the ball but they make tackles." heck, if its an absolute trainwreck, hogan would likely be available today (just like he was last year) along with 8 other guys that fill the same role. as to the preseason - if i recall wasnt it a play where he thought it was an incomplete pass and it turned out to be ruled a fumble, not that he simply let a guy with the ball run by him with no effort? a mistake for sure, but im not sure cut worthy - lots of ways to work with a player after that situation. last up - i dont think its premature as the mistake was made in August, not last sunday when he looked good. if he keeps looking good, it just makes it look worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 To the first half, its incredibly low risk. Chris Hogan has 6 tackles and 8 catches. I am positive we could find a safety, corner, linebacker, or even rogers to make those 6 tackles. i dont know any other team carrying 2 WRs with the argument "well they arent dynamic with the ball but they make tackles." heck, if its an absolute trainwreck, hogan would likely be available today (just like he was last year) along with 8 other guys that fill the same role. as to the preseason - if i recall wasnt it a play where he thought it was an incomplete pass and it turned out to be ruled a fumble, not that he simply let a guy with the ball run by him with no effort? a mistake for sure, but im not sure cut worthy - lots of ways to work with a player after that situation. last up - i dont think its premature as the mistake was made in August, not last sunday when he looked good. if he keeps looking good, it just makes it look worse. To the bolded, what if he never looks good again. Is it still a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 How about we let Rodgers have another couple games before people pull the whole "I told you so" card. But haven't the anti-Rogers crowd been doing this since he was cut? You can't have it both ways, you know. A better response to him being cut shouldn't have been "because he sucked", but should've been "the Bills just cut an immature player with worlds of talent, good luck on another team". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Getting 2 franchise QB's in 20 years is still pretty good, no? Usually happens when you have the top pick and there's a Manning or a Luck available and not an Aundray Bruce. How would that offensive genius look if Colts had the top pick in the 2013 draft and not 2012? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts