26CornerBlitz Posted December 10, 2013 Author Posted December 10, 2013 He didn't start realizing until week 14 that practice is beneficial? Yes, I am the naive one. Is that really the inference you are drawing from the Luck quote? Next you'll be telling me Bills' fans are blaming Toronto for the team's misfortunes.....Oh wait.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Maybe because according to Luck he is just now realizing, in week 14, that "practice" pays dividends. At least he is figuring it out - I hope he helps them and they help him. I am not in either one of the crowds you mention. I don't see why he would be a cancer, but I do think he was given a chance by 1 team, the Bills, and he couldn't figure out how to make the team or the PS. So I don't "blame" them, especially because I don't know the whole story. It sounds like you are in the "he was given a chance crowd" then -no?
KOKBILLS Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 He didn't start realizing until week 14 that practice is beneficial? Yes, I am the naive one. OK i'm confused... So you're assuming by that little quote that he just discovered practice was important last week? Or should I ask...You're assuming anything from that little quote? Seriously...The kid passed Easley and Hogan combined this season in a single game performance...What are you missing here? Who cares how long it took him to catch on as a Rookie...He caught on...And it should have been in Buffalo...
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 I am sorry but here we are 14 or so pages in and yet to see a legit argument as to why he wasn't at least kept on the practice squad. -The "he was given a chance" crowd cannot at this point believe that it was wise to keep Chris Hogan over him for this particular team. You can find a lot of hustling players with minimal talent. It was a zero risk proposition. -The "he's a cancer crowd" have never answered the question of which locker room was ever influenced by an undrafted rookie? The answer is none. IMO, this decision was a microcosm for the last 14 years. You have a chance to develop a talented guy at the expense of camp fodder. Instead, you kept the scrub. In the talented guy's first start he had 100 yards and 2 TDs. Hogan may not have that in his career. The only thing I can say is we didnt have behind the scenes access - if there were incidents we didn't know about, it's possible the move was justified (still having drug issues as a possible example) I can find ways to get to "fiiiine, I get it" but I agree most of the arguments here are frustrating.... And I'm rarely the one to advocate for a guy that's a handful.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 I am sorry but here we are 14 or so pages in and yet to see a legit argument as to why he wasn't at least kept on the practice squad. -The "he was given a chance" crowd cannot at this point believe that it was wise to keep Chris Hogan over him for this particular team. You can find a lot of hustling players with minimal talent. It was a zero risk proposition. -The "he's a cancer crowd" have never answered the question of which locker room was ever influenced by an undrafted rookie? The answer is none. IMO, this decision was a microcosm for the last 14 years. You have a chance to develop a talented guy at the expense of camp fodder. Instead, you kept the scrub. In the talented guy's first start he had 100 yards and 2 TDs. Hogan may not have that in his career. Well said, brother.
YoloinOhio Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 It sounds like you are in the "he was given a chance crowd" then -no? Yes, but your two crowds were he wasn't given a chance or he was a cancer. You wrote "he was given a chance" but that didn't make sense with the rest of the context with that one. I get your points, but I just don't see the outrage... not that I don't wish we had a tall, dynamic #1 WR (if that is what he turns out to be) on our team but I just don't blame the team for not keeping him based on what they had seen and known about him to that point. A relative of mine in an NFL personnel dept said that there are two reasons a player gets cut from camp - he can't run or he can't learn. It appears he was in the latter group. He has changed - good for him. I would not have been against him being on the PS, I don't have the info to know who belongs there. I just am not upset about the decision based on the intel they had.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Yes, but your two crowds were he wasn't given a chance or he was a cancer. You wrote "he was given a chance" but that didn't make sense with the rest of the context with that one. I get your points, but I just don't see the outrage... not that I don't wish we had a tall, dynamic #1 WR (if that is what he turns out to be) on our team but I just don't blame the team for not keeping him based on what they had seen and known about him to that point. A relative of mine in an NFL personnel dept said that there are two reasons a player gets cut from camp - he can't run or he can't learn. It appears he was in the latter group. He has changed - good for him. I would not have been against him being on the PS, I don't have the info to know who belongs there. I just am not upset about the decision based on the intel they had. Fair enough and NoSaint touched on the same thing. There is potentially information that we are not aware of. From a football standpoint there is no chance that they could have viewed Hogan as a better long term option than Rogers. If they did believe that then it is time to start questioning the talent evaluators. This holds especially true in a rebuilding situation. You try to hit some home runs and if you strike out you are in the same place that you were. The he's a bad guy argument or the new staff trying to teach a lesson I wasn't buying either. What better way to prove your merit as a coaching staff than by cutting him for the scrubs they kept? How will people look at this staff if Rogers does work out? That is how you get fired in 3 years not how you send a message.
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Yes, but your two crowds were he wasn't given a chance or he was a cancer. You wrote "he was given a chance" but that didn't make sense with the rest of the context with that one. I get your points, but I just don't see the outrage... not that I don't wish we had a tall, dynamic #1 WR (if that is what he turns out to be) on our team but I just don't blame the team for not keeping him based on what they had seen and known about him to that point. A relative of mine in an NFL personnel dept said that there are two reasons a player gets cut from camp - he can't run or he can't learn. It appears he was in the latter group. He has changed - good for him. I would not have been against him being on the PS, I don't have the info to know who belongs there. I just am not upset about the decision based on the intel they had. If he ummm learned the colts system and is working hard.... Might that imply that "he can't learn" isn't really accurate? More aptly, we couldn't teach him, perhaps?
YoloinOhio Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 If he ummm learned the colts system and is working hard.... Might that imply that "he can't learn" isn't really accurate? More aptly, we couldn't teach him, perhaps? I said that there are usually two reasons a player gets cut after camp. Meaning that at that point in time, he may have fallen into that latter category, yes, based on his camp performance. I also added that it appears he may have changed, so yes, it can be accurate. I don't know (and I doubt anyone else does either if they aren't on staff) whether they couldn't teach him, he couldn't learn, didn't want to learn, etc. Even if the Colts coaching staff is far superior and has done a better job teaching him, he still would have had to change enough to want to be taught and care about the result. Luck's comment, regardless of how much one thinks it means, speaks to that. Again, I hope he helps them and they help him.
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 I said that there are usually two reasons a player gets cut after camp. Meaning that at that point in time, he may have fallen into that latter category, yes, based on his camp performance. I also added that it appears he may have changed, so yes, it can be accurate. I don't know (and I doubt anyone else does either if they aren't on staff) whether they couldn't teach him, he couldn't learn, didn't want to learn, etc. Even if the Colts coaching staff is far superior and has done a better job teaching him, he still would have had to change enough to want to be taught and care about the result. Luck's comment, regardless of how much one thinks it means, speaks to that. Again, I hope he helps them and they help him. My point remains, if someone reached him, he wasn't unreachable. Somewhere along the line it looks like there's a good chance we misplayed the hand we were dealt. He might never be a great player but how things played out indicate atleast a good chance that if we went with a different approach to managing him, perhaps he'd be making plays for us. Beyond can't run and can't learn- sometimes there are just flat mistakes and mishandled opportunities- which I'm guessing the personnel guy left off the list. As much as people talk about how he would've ruined the locker room, I wonder what ej thinks about losing a guy he had big play chemistry with, what defenders feel about losing a guy that was making plays on them regularly in the spring.... Depending on how he was perceived by his peers, the message that was sent might not be the intended one. It's an interesting situation to watch unfold.
Prickly Pete Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Da'Rick Rogers has opportunity to help Colts' offense With Reggie Wayne and Dwayne Allen out for the season, the Indianapolis Colts' lack of firepower was abundantly evident in Sunday's 38-8 blowout loss to the Rams. The coaching staff moved to address that need for a playmaker on Monday, elevating enigmatic wide receiver Da'Rick Rogers from the practice squad. Although Rogers is no sure bet to be active for Thursday's game versus the Titans, coach Chuck Pagano hinted Tuesday that the gifted rookie will given a chance to compete for a significant role down the stretch. "You've got a talented football player," Pagano said, citing Rogers' size, speed and big-play ability. "Now we are going to give him an opportunity because he's earned it." Although Rogers failed to endear himself to the Bills coaching staff before his late August release, Pagano noted that he's already picked up the Colts offense by arriving early and staying late since landing in Indianapolis two months ago. I can't stand this whining about players the Bills have released. Maybe being released was the kick in the pants that he needed? Maybe he thought he could coast? he acted like a jack ass whenever he made a play in pre-season, that's what I remember most about Da'Rick. At any rate, NONE of the players that the Bills have recently released would have turned this team around.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 At any rate, NONE of the players that the Bills have recently released would have turned this team around. This I do agree with. With that being said however, you cannot possibly say that they better off with Hogan. That is the crux of the argument. This rebuilding team was afforded an opportunity when Rogers chose Buffalo as an UDFA and they blew it. They mismanaged him and made the most shortsighted foolish decsion. He had a chance to be a good NFL player or he had a chance to flame out because of his character concerns. Let's call it 50/50. The guy(s) that they kept over him had no chance to ever be more than hustling scrubs. There was a zero percent chance that Hogan would make an impact. I will give you an analogy that I think is the equivalent. I look at it like a basketball team (the Bills) is down 3 points and has the last possession. They decide instead of attempting a 3 (Rogers) they will dribble out the clock (Hogan). Attempting the 3 may or may not work but dribbling out the clock certainly won't. It was always a mistake (not just in hindsight).
Prickly Pete Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Fretting over these guys (how many have really had big success? Maybe Marshawn Lynch, but he had/has problems. Would keeping him over Hogan been better? Maybe, but we also don't know what has happened behind the scenes. Regardless, it's not worth fretting over at this point, they have way bigger problems.
thewildrabbit Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 I am sorry but here we are 14 or so pages in and yet to see a legit argument as to why he wasn't at least kept on the practice squad. -The "he was given a chance" crowd cannot at this point believe that it was wise to keep Chris Hogan over him for this particular team. You can find a lot of hustling players with minimal talent. It was a zero risk proposition. -The "he's a cancer crowd" have never answered the question of which locker room was ever influenced by an undrafted rookie? The answer is none. IMO, this decision was a microcosm for the last 14 years. You have a chance to develop a talented guy at the expense of camp fodder. Instead, you kept the scrub. In the talented guy's first start he had 100 yards and 2 TDs. Hogan may not have that in his career. And yet TJ Graham starts every game.... To me this shows another failure of this coaching staff to evaluate and determine who the best players are on the team. This same coaching staff went into the season with Colin Brown at LG and an equally bad backup at guard in Sam Young. Both have been benched and cut after week five. The Bills now have scrubs right off the waiver wire as backups. They went into the season with a PS QB in Jeff Tuel as the primary backup QB... how moronic was this move? This HC keeps allowing his OC to repeatedly call the same running plays up the middle, and when they don't work they force the rookie QB to try and win the game. A bunch of games were lost this season just due to the stupidity of this new coaching staff. I don't know about you guys, but I've seen enough stupidity with Marrone to know we have another Jauron / Gailey coaching staff of tools.GM Doug Whaley needs to go to Brandon and say we can do better then these coaches. I find them talent and they are screwing them up. They are going to ruin EJ before he has a chance to become a decent player. I honestly wanted Marrone to be "the guy", a man who succeeds where the stupids the past 7 years failed. Now, I just don't see it with this many mistakes in their first year.
Dibs Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 .....To cut an undrafted rookie because he didn't learn the playbook is crazy.... I'm sure that there is another thread about this. I think it has "accountability" in the title.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Fretting over these guys (how many have really had big success? Maybe Marshawn Lynch, but he had/has problems. Would keeping him over Hogan been better? Maybe, but we also don't know what has happened behind the scenes. Regardless, it's not worth fretting over at this point, they have way bigger problems. 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.
FireChan Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Fretting over these guys (how many have really had big success? Maybe Marshawn Lynch, but he had/has problems. Would keeping him over Hogan been better? Maybe, but we also don't know what has happened behind the scenes. Regardless, it's not worth fretting over at this point, they have way bigger problems. Whatever happened behind the scenes wasn't enough to worry the Colts. You know, that winning-tradition franchise?
boyst Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 A WR in the 3rd or lower spot must be willing and able to play special teams. It did not seem Rogers was too comfortable or happy on special teams. Likely he probably never played ST in his amateur career. This is a pretty big factor on Hogan over Rogers.
Storm Front Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Da'Rick will probably become the next T.O. He reminds me a lot of him. Marrone is a moron.
GG Posted December 11, 2013 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. 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.
Recommended Posts