Wayne Cubed Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 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". I was never for or against the cut, all I heard about all preseason long was about how much talent he had. I never saw it, not once. I understand why the Bills cut him, they wanted someone on their team that had shown he could work hard at the role he was given, which was a ST position. Loads of guys come out of college with all sorts of talent and upside. There just isn't enough positions on an NFL team for them all or it doesn't work out with the team. Example: Jerry Hughes.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) To the bolded, what if he never looks good again. Is it still a mistake? I think that if you go through the thread everyone arguing for him would say absolutely. That is kind of the point that has been argued throughout. That has been argued since before he caught an NFL pass. There was no risk to keeping him and the worst case scenario was that he couldn't play. I was never for or against the cut, all I heard about all preseason long was about how much talent he had. I never saw it, not once. I understand why the Bills cut him, they wanted someone on their team that had shown he could work hard at the role he was given, which was a ST position. Loads of guys come out of college with all sorts of talent and upside. There just isn't enough positions on an NFL team for them all or it doesn't work out with the team. Example: Jerry Hughes. And it is fine to let those guys go if you have a viable alternative. If you don't it is foolish. Edited December 11, 2013 by Kirby Jackson
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) To the bolded, what if he never looks good again. Is it still a mistake? yes, as myself and several have argued, unless there was more to the story, it was a mistake regardless. Rogers floor was very near hogans ceiling. If I offer you $5 that you can take today, tomorrow, anytime you want but it will never be more than $5, or instead something thats worth anywhere from $4 to $100 - which you can trade it out and take the $5 if you want later, but you cant have both -- would you ever take the $5 today? id add in the discussion of hogan being a special teamer -- when do we start keeping players based on their potential to start at their position of choice instead of their special teams tackling? its been a problem thats plagued this roster for a decade. A dynamic kick returner, sure, makes sense as thats game changing AND often translates to potential at their position - tackling as a tie breaker between two guys with the same upward potential at the position, sure... but to put hogans tackling ability over Daricks WR potential seems crazy... and on that note, shouldnt we atleast expect a good special teams unit if we are making decisions that skew heavily in their favor? I was never for or against the cut, all I heard about all preseason long was about how much talent he had. I never saw it, not once. I understand why the Bills cut him, they wanted someone on their team that had shown he could work hard at the role he was given, which was a ST position. Loads of guys come out of college with all sorts of talent and upside. There just isn't enough positions on an NFL team for them all or it doesn't work out with the team. Example: Jerry Hughes. if you watched his college film, or read the spring reports youd see that talent on display. if all you saw was preseason, its no wonder you dont understand what we are saying. (and i swear i dont mean that as snarky as it might read). the stark contrast even from may/june reports compared to the lack of opportunity seen in august was definitely surprising. the kid is a huge talent, even if he doesnt reach the potential, giving it a real shot seemed quite warranted. Edited December 11, 2013 by NoSaint
Andrew Son Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Maybe he was never going to learn his lesson without being cut... You would think going undrafted would have been a wakeup call. Anyways, I think he'll cause more problems than solutions moving forward- especially if he gets a little taste of success. Also, I'm really excited and looking forward to the weekly updates in this thread...
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Maybe he was never going to learn his lesson without being cut... You would think going undrafted would have been a wakeup call. Anyways, I think he'll cause more problems than solutions moving forward- especially if he gets a little taste of success. Also, I'm really excited and looking forward to the weekly updates in this thread... To the question though, is this franchise in a better place with Chris Hogan than Rogers? That's what it boils down to.
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 To the question though, is this franchise in a better place with Chris Hogan than Rogers? That's what it boils down to. last year when our WR depth included guys like nelson, jones, and ruvell martin I thought it was a good chance to upgrade one of those spots a little bit when we signed hogan this year with woods, and goodwin added to the group, it was a great chance to take a swing for the fences with the 6th guy
starrymessenger Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Some coaches work with "problem" players if they see the talent - Pete Carroll, Marvin Lewis. The Bills could use an OLB to complement Kiko. Vontaze Burfict would look pretty good in a Bills uni. But of course there was never any chance of us signing him, because we are not interested in working with and attempting to develop those types of players. The problem with that is that we turn our backs on a major talent pool because, let's face it, good football players are often immature (especially the younger ones needless to say). I hope Doug Marrone did not simply take the easy way out. I'd much rather chalk this up to inexperience as a professional head coach, and it does look a lot like a college type personnel decision and reaction. But if it's just more of the same old Bills lunch bucket mentality it does not bode well for the future.
stony Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Belichick beat the Bills with Jeff Hostetler! When was he the head coach of the Giants? Read what I responded to. I was alluding to the fact that Belicheck doesn't need good QBs to be successful and pointed out that his coaching as the DC of the Giants stymied a great offense with an average QB on his side. It's generally his defenses that have made him such a great coach.
KOKBILLS Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 To the bolded, what if he never looks good again. Is it still a mistake? That's some serious wishful thinking at this point... How many undrafted WR's EVER have 100 yard plus, 2 TD performances in their rookie year? I think it's pretty safe, based on his athletic talent alone, that Rogers has barely scratched the surface of his potential...If he continues to gain Luck's confidence the sky is the limit...And sure Luck will have a lot to do with Rogers success...But it matters not...If he's relatively successful it's a major black eye to the Bills... But even if he does end up as just an average WR, it's the 6th WR slot on the Bills roster we're talking about...And the fact remains it was a risk that was WELL worth taking for the Bills...But instead they kept a journeyman JAG WR because...well...Lets look at the possibilities here...Maybe they have zero vision and understanding of how to properly build an NFL roster for the future because they're (Marrone, Whaley, Hackett...) a bunch of rookies themselves? Maybe they have limited evaluation skills when under pressure to make a decision on the 45-53 roster slots? Or lastly, maybe they were completely arrogant and over confident about the talent on this team that they had already decided to keep... So arrogant they did not feel like this decision would ever be as big, or as important, as it was to have a 6th WR that was a better Special Teams player at the end of Preseason game #3...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 With all the Rogers did not work hard and talk like that, i wonder why did they keep Stevie? Money, most likely. Gosh knows Stevie is NOT a hard worker, and his play on the field this year proves it.
Rob's House Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 This reminds me of Bull Durham when Kevin Costner tells Tim Robbins that if you have fungus in your flip flops the press will think your a slob, but if you win 20 games and have fungus on your flip flops the press will think you're colorful. It's kind of the same thing as a coach. If you cut a player with 1st rd talent for immaturity and go 12-4 you're a hard nosed, no-nonsense coach. If you cut that guy and go 4-12 you're an idiot.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 It's kind of the same thing as a coach. If you cut a player with 1st rd talent for immaturity and go 12-4 you're a hard nosed, no-nonsense coach. If you cut that guy and go 4-12 you're an idiot. There is certainly some truth to that. I still think that it comes down to risk reward. If you had to cut Goodwin to find a spot for Rogers I don't think that anyone would have cared (even if he went on to be better). They would have said that you took a chance on the Olympic speedster vs. the big physical WR and it didn't work out. The fact that they cut the big physical WR for a guy without any discernible skills is what is frustrating. The Bills are just not in a position to let guys like Rogers walk for no reason. They need to do whatever they can to stop these years of losing.
Coach Tuesday Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 There is certainly some truth to that. I still think that it comes down to risk reward. If you had to cut Goodwin to find a spot for Rogers I don't think that anyone would have cared (even if he went on to be better). They would have said that you took a chance on the Olympic speedster vs. the big physical WR and it didn't work out. The fact that they cut the big physical WR for a guy without any discernible skills is what is frustrating. The Bills are just not in a position to let guys like Rogers walk for no reason. They need to do whatever they can to stop these years of losing. And I will add one more point to that which I haven't seen in nearly 20 pages of thread: Think about the message that cutting him sends to agents of highly-coveted future UDRFAs. I'm guessing it's less likely we win the beauty pageant next time. Yet another reason that the move was short-sighted.
Rico Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 That's some serious wishful thinking at this point... How many undrafted WR's EVER have 100 yard plus, 2 TD performances in their rookie year? I think it's pretty safe, based on his athletic talent alone, that Rogers has barely scratched the surface of his potential...If he continues to gain Luck's confidence the sky is the limit...And sure Luck will have a lot to do with Rogers success...But it matters not...If he's relatively successful it's a major black eye to the Bills... But even if he does end up as just an average WR, it's the 6th WR slot on the Bills roster we're talking about...And the fact remains it was a risk that was WELL worth taking for the Bills...But instead they kept a journeyman JAG WR because...well...Lets look at the possibilities here...Maybe they have zero vision and understanding of how to properly build an NFL roster for the future because they're (Marrone, Whaley, Hackett...) a bunch of rookies themselves? Maybe they have limited evaluation skills when under pressure to make a decision on the 45-53 roster slots? Or lastly, maybe they were completely arrogant and over confident about the talent on this team that they had already decided to keep... So arrogant they did not feel like this decision would ever be as big, or as important, as it was to have a 6th WR that was a better Special Teams player at the end of Preseason game #3... Maybe keeping a high-motor lunch pail WR who would be a feel-good story to a big part of the fan-base outweighed keeping a potential problem child.
Wayne Fontes Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 And the Bills still lack a quarterback who can consistently hit the open receivers already on the roster. On the Bills, Da'Rick would have been as useful this year as Brandon Kaufman. No qb, no bueno.
NoSaint Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 And the Bills still lack a quarterback who can consistently hit the open receivers already on the roster. On the Bills, Da'Rick would have been as useful this year as Brandon Kaufman. No qb, no bueno. ill say it again... in the spring write ups, who was the name EJ seemed to be hitting deep most often?
26CornerBlitz Posted December 11, 2013 Author Posted December 11, 2013 (edited) With all the Rogers did not work hard and talk like that, i wonder why did they keep Stevie?Money, most likely.Gosh knows Stevie is NOT a hard worker, and his play on the field this year proves it. Fans who say that have zero evidence to back it up. Here's a guy who as a 7th round pick had to work his butt off to make it in the NFL, yet people persist in posting these things that in my estimation are totally unfounded. Edited December 11, 2013 by 26CornerBlitz
KOKBILLS Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Maybe keeping a high-motor lunch pail WR who would be a feel-good story to a big part of the fan-base outweighed keeping a potential problem child. True...Because I'm feeling great about it right now...
Rob's House Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 There is certainly some truth to that. I still think that it comes down to risk reward. If you had to cut Goodwin to find a spot for Rogers I don't think that anyone would have cared (even if he went on to be better). They would have said that you took a chance on the Olympic speedster vs. the big physical WR and it didn't work out. The fact that they cut the big physical WR for a guy without any discernible skills is what is frustrating. The Bills are just not in a position to let guys like Rogers walk for no reason. They need to do whatever they can to stop these years of losing. Don't misunderstand. I think if a coach makes that move and goes 4-12 (especially if the passing game is the biggest weakness on the team) it's highly likely that he is in fact an idiot. I make no excuse for Marrone. Until further notice you can put me in the Marrone is an idiot camp.
KOKBILLS Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 And I will add one more point to that which I haven't seen in nearly 20 pages of thread: Think about the message that cutting him sends to agents of highly-coveted future UDRFAs. I'm guessing it's less likely we win the beauty pageant next time. Yet another reason that the move was short-sighted. This move was the very definition of short-sighted...
Recommended Posts