NoSaint 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? id say no, that we all atleast agree on that, but im honestly not sure based on some of the arguments that have been made. most of us probably agree though.
LB3 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 David Tyree's catch, the music city miracle, the immaculate reception, the 2 auburn plays.... 1 play can't decide a game? Ahem...I believe it's called Forward Pass.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Does anyone one here think that CH will make more of an impact than Rogers either short or long term? It boils down to that. The Bills job is to build a team that can win. They have 53 spots that comprise that roster. They need to select the 53 guys that give them the best chance at winning. The Rogers situation is magnified because of his pedigree and production over the last month of the season. It was the worst roster decision IMO. There are worse decisions that the franchise made like not finding an NFL caliber LG or OL depth in the offseason. In terms of picking 1 player over another this was the worst decision that they made and as time goes on the gap between CH and Da'Rick will only continue to widen. My frustration is that the Bills are not in a position to let talent go unless there is a viable alternative to replace him. No one thinks that he is a HOFer but we do think that he can be a contributing NFL player in a position of need. The other guy does not belong in the league.
HamSandwhich Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 David Tyree's catch, the music city miracle, the immaculate reception, the 2 auburn plays.... 1 play can't decide a game? 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. So you're saying this catch was a TD in the waining seconds of a game that won the game for the Colts? Or that it was one that extended the final drive to win the game? Those are high pressure situations, this was a game that was out of hand, no one thought they would come back. However, the point is moot. At this point, we're just going round and round and round, I'll just have to agree to disagree with you good sir. It's just not going anywhere. We're both strongly positioned in separte camps, and I dont think either of us is going to convince the other. Carry on sir! Does anyone one here think that CH will make more of an impact than Rogers either short or long term? It boils down to that. The Bills job is to build a team that can win. They have 53 spots that comprise that roster. They need to select the 53 guys that give them the best chance at winning. The Rogers situation is magnified because of his pedigree and production over the last month of the season. It was the worst roster decision IMO. There are worse decisions that the franchise made like not finding an NFL caliber LG or OL depth in the offseason. In terms of picking 1 player over another this was the worst decision that they made and as time goes on the gap between CH and Da'Rick will only continue to widen. My frustration is that the Bills are not in a position to let talent go unless there is a viable alternative to replace him. No one thinks that he is a HOFer but we do think that he can be a contributing NFL player in a position of need. The other guy does not belong in the league. Apparently he is and does. Ok done
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Apparently he is and does. Ok done He WAS in the league; he doesn't belong in the league. I suspect that this was his 1 and only NFL season. 10 catches, 83 yards, a couple of drops and miserable ST play. I think that you would have a difficult time convincing me that CH will have a better NFL career. I am more likely to be convinced that Trent Edwards could win a championship as a starter. Edited January 6, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Homey D. Clown Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 this thread really isn't about Da'Rick Rogers at all. It's really a thread about how bad the front office is, and while I think normally this team misses on a lot of talent in years past, I think it's safe to say that any scrub receiver could do what Rogers has done so far, which isn't much by the way, due to Andrew Luck being the QB. Lets also note that the team has a better offense, so the law of averages just about guarantee he'd look better in Indy. now it's time to /thread.
dubs Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The funniest part is he's not even in on the joke. Seriously? I thought that was a joke for sure. I guess one physical play by a WR every two years is good enough.
drnykterstein Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 I think it's safe to say that any scrub receiver could do what Rogers has done so far, which isn't much by the way Did you watch that catch against the Cheifs. That was an amazing catch.
dubs Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The only explanation that people are STILL defending the decision to cut Rogers has to be that they are so dug in on that position. Too much so to admit that they are wrong. As homey said, this is all about roster management, not Da'rick per se. The Bills made a very shrewd move in signing him prior to TC. His skill set filled a role that hasn't been filled on this team since Eric Moulds (although SJ made a physical reception 2 years ago against KC). They brought him in knowing that he was was a work in progress on a team that wasn't going to truly compete this year, so in other words setting up the team for '14 and '15 and beyond. Instead, they cut him and didn't try to sign him to the PS. Then Indy picks him up and stashes him on the PS, twice! Moved him up to the team because of injuries and Rogers fills in nicely. He's obviously not a number one receiver for them, but in limited action makes about 15 catches and a couple TDs. Then in the playoff game makes an outstanding, physical catch. The point is, Indy had enough foresight and patience to say, "this kid has great tools and needs some time to develop. Let's give that to him, give him a chance. If he matures and learns how to be a pro, its a huge win. If not, we cut him and lose nothing". I like Marrone, Whaley, and where this team is going, but it was a mistake, plain and simple.
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 this thread really isn't about Da'Rick Rogers at all. It's really a thread about how bad the front office is, and while I think normally this team misses on a lot of talent in years past, I think it's safe to say that any scrub receiver could do what Rogers has done so far, which isn't much by the way, due to Andrew Luck being the QB. Lets also note that the team has a better offense, so the law of averages just about guarantee he'd look better in Indy. now it's time to /thread. because his two biggest highlights were lucks throws? hes made a couple physical nfl plays that you would never expect out of hogan. with any qb. turning a slant upfield to break tackles and house, and fighting for that ball were real nfl WR plays. they are the types of plays he made frequently in college.
LB3 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) (although SJ made a physical reception 2 years ago against KC). Nice To your point about posters like myself being dug in. That's a gross overstatement. I recognize Rogers has more physical ability. Big whoop. If the team said he just wasn't the right fit, that could likely be coachspeak for "He's an entitled p.o.s. who thinks he can get by on talent alone while higher skilled, proven veterans still work their ass off. We don't think that kind of person in this locker room is a good thing. Especially since he'll only play in a reserve role." ... Am I making an assumption there? Sure. So are the people who think talent equates guaranteed production. It looks to me like everyone lamenting the loss of Rogers must not care about the coach having integrity. Question. If any of you are/were running a business, would you keep a guy who comes in late all the time and constantly misses deadlines because when he occasionally does do the work on time, it's superb? ... exception would be certain posters who seem to have a weirdly unhealthy hatred for CH. Edited January 6, 2014 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The only explanation that people are STILL defending the decision to cut Rogers has to be that they are so dug in on that position. Too much so to admit that they are wrong. As homey said, this is all about roster management, not Da'rick per se. The Bills made a very shrewd move in signing him prior to TC. His skill set filled a role that hasn't been filled on this team since Eric Moulds (although SJ made a physical reception 2 years ago against KC). They brought him in knowing that he was was a work in progress on a team that wasn't going to truly compete this year, so in other words setting up the team for '14 and '15 and beyond. Instead, they cut him and didn't try to sign him to the PS. Then Indy picks him up and stashes him on the PS, twice! Moved him up to the team because of injuries and Rogers fills in nicely. He's obviously not a number one receiver for them, but in limited action makes about 15 catches and a couple TDs. Then in the playoff game makes an outstanding, physical catch. The point is, Indy had enough foresight and patience to say, "this kid has great tools and needs some time to develop. Let's give that to him, give him a chance. If he matures and learns how to be a pro, its a huge win. If not, we cut him and lose nothing". I like Marrone, Whaley, and where this team is going, but it was a mistake, plain and simple. 100% truth
dubs Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Another way to think about it is how the 8 teams left in the playoffs have players that fill that big, physical role. I think we are all in agreement that it's been lacking on the Bills for quite some time. I like the receivers Buffalo has, but the corps is incomplete without a guy that can help his QB out by making 50/50 balls, 80/20 balls. Denver: Loaded. D. Thomas, E. Decker, J. Thomas NE: Gronk (out now, but they have a guy that fills the role) SD: Gates, Ladarius Green Indy: Not much (which is probably a big reason why they are taking a chance on The Rick) Seattle: actually not much. Carolina: Olsen (eh..), 49ers: Boldin, Davis NO: Graham So, the point is that most of the teams left in the playoffs have a player that fills that role. Indy, which doesn't, smartly signed Rogers to perhaps fill that role one day. Nice To your point about posters like myself being dug in. That's a gross overstatement. I recognize Rogers has more physical ability. Big whoop. If the team said he just wasn't the right fit, that could likely be coachspeak for "He's an entitled p.o.s. who thinks he can get by on talent alone while higher skilled, proven veterans still work their ass off. We don't think that kind of person in this locker room is a good thing. Especially since he'll only play in a reserve role." ... Am I making an assumption there? Sure. So are the people who think talent equates guaranteed production. It looks to me like everyone lamenting the loss of Rogers must not care about the coach having integrity. Question. If any of you are/were running a business, would you keep a guy who comes in late all the time and constantly misses deadlines because when he occasionally does do the work on time, it's superb? ... exception would be certain posters who seem to have a weirdly unhealthy hatred for CH. It's a fair point. I don't know if that pertains to Rogers though. I've never read anything or heard anything other than speculation about his work ethic. We've all heard speculation from vested parties. Speculation from the Buffalo side that he's not a hard worker, from the Colts side that he's an extremely hard worker and a very smart football mind. Not surprisingly, those are incongruent points. Buffalo cut him and the Colts have him playing in playoff games. All I can form my opinion on is what I see and what I'd consider reliable information. I see a big, physical, young receiver making contributions to a playoff team. I see a void in Buffalo. To me, that equates to a mistake we made. Edited January 6, 2014 by dubs
LB3 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 It's a fair point. I don't know if that pertains to Rogers though. I've never read anything or heard anything other than speculation about his work ethic. We've all heard speculation from vested parties. Speculation from the Buffalo side that he's not a hard worker, from the Colts side that he's an extremely hard worker and a very smart football mind. Not surprisingly, those are incongruent points. Buffalo cut him and the Colts have him playing in playoff games. All I can form my opinion on is what I see and what I'd consider reliable information. I see a big, physical, young receiver making contributions to a playoff team. I see a void in Buffalo. To me, that equates to a mistake we made. Fair enough.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) It looks to me like everyone lamenting the loss of Rogers must not care about the coach having integrity. Question. If any of you are/were running a business, would you keep a guy who comes in late all the time and constantly misses deadlines because when he occasionally does do the work on time, it's superb? ... exception would be certain posters who seem to have a weirdly unhealthy hatred for CH. I just hate that CH took a roster spot from a guy that could have potentially helped the team both short and long term. To me it was a total waste and you might as well have kept 52 guys. If it was CH or Ruvell Martin he may have been a better option. No, I do not care about my Marrone's integrity. The worst people (ie Belicheck) often make the best coaches. I care about wins and losses. I have run a few different sales teams over 10 people and I do not treat them all the same. Production is ultimately what matters. The top guy that I ever managed was a huge pain in the butt. I had to give him a little more leash because he played an important role in us attaining our goals. I am not sure how this is different? Edited January 6, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Boatdrinks Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 because his two biggest highlights were lucks throws? hes made a couple physical nfl plays that you would never expect out of hogan. with any qb. turning a slant upfield to break tackles and house, and fighting for that ball were real nfl WR plays. they are the types of plays he made frequently in college. Right. When that highlight played on ESPN, Dilfer commented on what a great play it was by Rogers, not Luck. That's coming from a QB. He said Luck just threw it up there for grabs and gave his physical WR a chance to make a play on the ball. This was a HUGE mistake by the FO/Marrone , who should have seen what all us fans saw. This WR corps lacks physical play. Rogers could have provided it. Instead we get a "mediocre white guy" playing WR. Rogers looks like a stud in the making, I mean the guy is an Adonis. The Bills had a diamond with some off field issues that they got for essentially nothing. They should have had the patience with him that was obviously going to be required. This isn't college, where you just bring in the next batch of recruits. A player of Rogers physical talents will cost a draft pick, and may not pan out. This was a zero risk, high reward situation for the Bills and they screwed the pooch.
LB3 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 I have run a few different sales teams over 10 people and I do not treat them all the same. Production is ultimately what matters. The top guy that I ever managed was a huge pain in the butt. I had to give him a little more leash because he played an important role in us attaining our goals. I am not sure how this is different? I agree on different leashes for different people. The example you gave is a good one. You gave your top guy the longest leash, which I agree should be done in situations like that. But this, IMO, wasn't one of those situations. It's not like it is FJ, CJ, or SJ we're taking about, it was a candidate for last spot on the roster. I would not give that guy extra room on his leash. He never earned it and thus doesn't deserve it. I respect your opinion and I want to win games as well, I just think our philosophies differ here.
NoSaint Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) I agree on different leashes for different people. The example you gave is a good one. You gave your top guy the longest leash, which I agree should be done in situations like that. But this, IMO, wasn't one of those situations. It's not like it is FJ, CJ, or SJ we're taking about, it was a candidate for last spot on the roster. I would not give that guy extra room on his leash. He never earned it and thus doesn't deserve it. I respect your opinion and I want to win games as well, I just think our philosophies differ here. i think where you diverge reading this is thinking that rogers was a standard issue number 6 guy like hogan, or roosevelt, or aiken or ruvell martin, or about 100 others that bounce around the league and never have a shot to be a CJ, or stevie, or.... while he was low on the depth chart he was probably our most physically talented guy in the entire stable of WRs and TEs not just this year but over the last several as well - and hes shown football production at a high level with that talent. he has the ability to be our #1 some day, if he can get his act together and THAT does earn a lot of guys around the league longer leashes than you would see your average #6 getting. would he have ever reached it - who knows, but kirby and i, and i think even you, agree hogan wont. Edited January 6, 2014 by NoSaint
Recommended Posts