Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 That's a reach, even you have to know that! How (and which part)? If you are talking about the game changing play, Nantz and Simms talked about it during the broadcast. If you are talking about the Lattimore part, which statements that I made were a reach?
YoloinOhio Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not to play devil's advocate but how do you explain the Marcus Lattimore situation? He was a leading SEC rusher, like Rogers was WR. He has had 2 major knee surgeries in the last 3 years, equivalent to a pot suspension 3 years ago. He was drafted late and sat throughout the year. Does it matter to SF what he did in college? Apparently it must or they wouldn't be working to rehab him. Good teams stockpile talent and add value guys to their roster. This is what the Bills had a chance to do and chose to keep CH. It is not surprising, that a playoff team ended up adding the value guy in Da'Rick. It's not so much Da'Rick, the player, it's more about that type if player. The Bills are in no position to cut a rookie that once led he SEC in receiving. They are even in less of a position to cut him because they did not have an NFL quality player to use that spot on. No, but he made a big play that spun the momentum of a playoff game. What did the guy that they kept ahead of him do all season??? Not really the same... I see your point, but Lattimore never would have gone undrafted because of the knee issues. They were beyond his control and he was absolutely worth taking a chance on for a team like SF or some others who didn't have the need for him to play right away.
ALF Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The Bills are not like the old Raiders being able to cope with unruly good players like Lynch also.
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Who cares what he did in college. All I know is that he did zero to earn a spot on his first pro team. If he learned enough to stick with Colts, more power to him. There are dozens of decent college players coming out every year who don't amount to squat in the NFL. That's the thing though - on the field he wasn't just "decent" and he was a lot better than decent in the toughest conference out there as a sophomore. Those guys don't just grow on trees, even if they don't all succeed.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not really the same... I see your point, but Lattimore never would have gone undrafted because of the knee issues. They were beyond his control and he was absolutely worth taking a chance on for a team like SF or some others who didn't have the need for him to play right away. That has kind of been my point. The Bills didn't have a viable alternative so they were in a good position to take a chance. If it was at the expense of Goodwin or even Graham I would have been fine with releasing him.
Turbosrrgood Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) People are getting so defensive over the fact that the Bills didn't keep Rogers, some people are clearly in denial. Rogers has gotten serious playing time on a playoff team, mainly due to injury. He has looked good at times, but hasn't consistently lit it up. He HAS shown solid NFL potential, and it's hard to deny that. The fact of the matter is, the TJ Graham experiment failed, and the Bills were clearly lacking in WR talent this season despite nice showings from Woods and Goodwin (the few times he was healthy. It's hard to make a case that Graham, Hogan or Easley have anything close to the potential of Rogers, especially after what they all showed this year. Will letting go of Rogers make or break the franchise? No (it would be broken anyway). Do the people that didn't want them cut have a solid case? Yes. My opinion is that the Bills kept guys with a very low ceiling on the roster, over a guy with a much higher ceiling. That's my gripe personally. It's tough to say that any roster moves regarding WRs has been good for the Bills recently, considering how bad the WR corp has been. That has kind of been my point. The Bills didn't have a viable alternative so they were in a good position to take a chance. If it was at the expense of Goodwin or even Graham I would have been fine with releasing him. I strongly disagree with the Goodwin part of this statement. Goodwin was a 3rd round pick, and showed a bunch of big play potential when healthy (health is a huge concern though). Graham I agree with 100% (3rd rnd pick by previous administration who sucked in college, and looked even worse in the pros), or Hogan. Graham was an utter disaster, Hogan made virtually no impact as a WR or STer. Easley at least proved his worth on ST's. Obviously there is some hindsight involved here, but similar arguments were made before the season. Edited January 6, 2014 by Turbosrrgood
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 I strongly disagree with the Goodwin part of this statement. Goodwin was a 3rd round pick, and showed a bunch of big play potential when healthy (health is a huge concern though). Graham I agree with 100% (3rd rnd pick who sucked in college, and looked even worse in the pros), or Hogan. Graham was an utter disaster, Hogan made virtually no impact as a WR or STer. Easley at least proved his worth on ST's. he was saying that hed obviously keep a guy like goodwin over rogers and not think twice but given that it was hogan, or as K9 is arguing kaufman or streeter that it should have been an obvious choice to keep rogers based on his potential and our lack there of.
LB3 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 If Rogers main job as a #5 or #6 receiver is to play special teams and he was not good at that job or just didn't/couldn't care to learn it, that sounds like a waste of a roster spot. Better WR than CH? Certainly. Higher value to the position he's filling (ST), I don't think so.
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 If Rogers main job as a #5 or #6 receiver is to play special teams and he was not good at that job or just didn't/couldn't care to learn it, that sounds like a waste of a roster spot. Better WR than CH? Certainly. Higher value to the position he's filling (ST), I don't think so. weve circled back to the hogan is a special teams ace argument?
K-9 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 If Rogers main job as a #5 or #6 receiver is to play special teams and he was not good at that job or just didn't/couldn't care to learn it, that sounds like a waste of a roster spot. Better WR than CH? Certainly. Higher value to the position he's filling (ST), I don't think so. Rogers got some reps as a gunner in both camp and pre-season game action. It didn't go well. He seemed to lack the fire necessary. Being a gunner is ALL about desire. GO BILLS!!!
prissythecat Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not to play devil's advocate but how do you explain the Marcus Lattimore situation? He was a leading SEC rusher, like Rogers was WR. He has had 2 major knee surgeries in the last 3 years, equivalent to a pot suspension 3 years ago. He was drafted late and sat throughout the year. Does it matter to SF what he did in college? Apparently it must or they wouldn't be working to rehab him. Good teams stockpile talent and add value guys to their roster. This is what the Bills had a chance to do and chose to keep CH. It is not surprising, that a playoff team ended up adding the value guy in Da'Rick. It's not so much Da'Rick, the player, it's more about that type if player. The Bills are in no position to cut a rookie that once led he SEC in receiving. They are even in less of a position to cut him because they did not have an NFL quality player to use that spot on. No, but he made a big play that spun the momentum of a playoff game. What did the guy that they kept ahead of him do all season??? As a previous poster said, this is a big stretch. Its almost like a now famous post from a few years back that claimed that Lee Evan single-handled altered the dynamic in the AFC central between the Ravens and Steelers ;-)
Turbosrrgood Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) he was saying that hed obviously keep a guy like goodwin over rogers and not think twice but given that it was hogan, or as K9 is arguing kaufman or streeter that it should have been an obvious choice to keep rogers based on his potential and our lack there of. Ahh yes, I misread his statement. In that case I would have kept Rogers over Graham, although I would have kept just about anyone over Graham. weve circled back to the hogan is a special teams ace argument? Yeah Hogan was far from an ace (as I believe you were saying). Actually Hogan looked terrible at times on ST's, despite a couple of nice plays in the preseason. Rogers may not have been a great ST's option, but it's not like he'd be replacing an ace. Besides, gunners can come from many positions, especially DB's and LB's. Edited January 6, 2014 by Turbosrrgood
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 As a previous poster said, this is a big stretch. Its almost like a now famous post from a few years back that claimed that Lee Evan single-handled altered the dynamic in the AFC central between the Ravens and Steelers ;-) Go back and rewatch that colts game and see when the game turned. Both Nantz and Simms talked about it later in the game as the point where it started to shift.
LB3 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 weve circled back to the hogan is a special teams ace argument? Did I say "ace"? I guess I'll take a guy willing to play his hardest at a position that's all about heart and effort over a guy who couldn't be bothered to care. He was probably too busy preparing to dominate this league and make us Bills fans rue the day we ever got rid of Da'Rick "the Messiah" Rogers.
GG Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 he was saying that hed obviously keep a guy like goodwin over rogers and not think twice but given that it was hogan, or as K9 is arguing kaufman or streeter that it should have been an obvious choice to keep rogers based on his potential and our lack there of. For Pete's sake, it wasn't only based on potential. It was a decision made by the entire organization that said at that point, Rogers would not be a good fit for the team. There was little to be gained by allowing Rogers to live by a different set of rules than other rookies. He did not have a good camp and was invisible in the preseason games. To me it indicates that he also didn't establish any rapport with the QBs, unlike the other youngsters who were actually fighting for the roster spot. Who cares what he did in his one season in the SEC. Josh Reed also led the SEC at one point, and he was just ok. So far, Rogers has been ok, when Luck decides to give him the 5th look. But he is not the reason that the Bills have been mired in suckitude. The lack of a decent QB is that reason, and passing on a talented, but not dedicated player was the right move at the right time for the rookie head coach. If you guys ever ran an organization that doesn't only include the domain of a keyboard with an internet connection, you'd realize that this was the proper organizational move.
prissythecat Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Go back and rewatch that colts game and see when the game turned. Both Nantz and Simms talked about it later in the game as the point where it started to shift. I watched the whole game. It turned because of a combination of poor coaching from Reid and losses of key KC players on offense and defense , not some magical Da'Rick catch. Edited January 6, 2014 by prissythecat
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) It's about building a roster that can compete for a championship. That's all that matters. I strongly believe that taking a talented guy with some character concerns is a much better way to do that than to keep a guy that will be in the CFL next year. No one has any idea if Rogers can play but his pedigree and performance to date say that he has a much better chance than the alternative. I watched the whole game. It turned because of a combination of poor coaching from Reid and losses of key KC players on offense and defense , not some magical Da'Rick catch. I must not have been paying attention. I was under the impression that that was a big play in the game. I was too busy watching the highlights of all of the big plays that CH has made in his career. Edited January 6, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
HamSandwhich Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 How (and which part)? If you are talking about the game changing play, Nantz and Simms talked about it during the broadcast. If you are talking about the Lattimore part, which statements that I made were a reach? The catch that changed the game. It's a stretch by and standards. Its also a stretch to say that Marrone and Co. were wrong in cutting a person who showed nothing to them during training camp just because of one catch or one good game in the NFL. As I've stated earlier, even if he does become the next Jerry Rice, it does not make sense to say that this coaching staff was wrong. This kind of thing happens in the NFL. Players get cut and do better in other systems. Again, we're arguing over a player who's proved NOTHING in the NFL. Yes, that's on par with Hogan . I watched the whole game. It turned because of a combination of poor coaching from Reid and losses of key KC players on offense and defense , not some magical Da'Rick catch. This is what I've been trying to say. A play that didn't even end in a TD no less. Not 10 mins later, Rodgers dropped a catchable ball in the same type of play. Why didn't that play turn the tide the other way? BECAUSE ONE PLAY DOESNT DECIDE A GAME! Capital letters used for emphasis, not cause I'm mad
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The Bills need to get better - more strategic, thoughtful, and determined - when it comes to player development. Is there anyone in this 42-page thread who disagrees with that statement?
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 This is what I've been trying to say. A play that didn't even end in a TD no less. Not 10 mins later, Rodgers dropped a catchable ball in the same type of play. Why didn't that play turn the tide the other way? BECAUSE ONE PLAY DOESNT DECIDE A GAME! Capital letters used for emphasis, not cause I'm mad David Tyree's catch, the music city miracle, the immaculate reception, the 2 auburn plays.... 1 play can't decide a game? The Bills need to get better - more strategic, thoughtful, and determined - when it comes to player development. Is there anyone in this 42-page thread who disagrees with that statement? I strongly disagree. We need to find more guys from Monmouth that can get 10 catches for 83 yards, drop a couple balls and miss some assignments on ST. We need less 6'3 WR that led the SEC in receiving.
Recommended Posts