NoSaint Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 There are plenty of players on the active roster, as well as the practice squad, who are here because of future potential rather than their imediate impact in 2013. If the release of Rogers was due simply to the inability of the of the organization to "consider the long view" and their tunnel vision in regard to 2013 production...then how do you explain their decision to keep any players that clearly were not going to make any type of significant contribution in 2013? all you made me realize is how frustrated i am the we kept jeff tuel on the 53 all season, when i tried to think of good examples of what you are presenting.
K-9 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 You're so right because it was all about the Bills' 2013 Super Bowl readiness. No consideration for the long view should have entered into the equation with Rogers because the team was complete, mature, and poised for multiple years of deep playoff runs with the hope of finally grasping the Lombardi and holding a long awaited WNY parade in February. With all due respect, 26, that is absurd. Marrone and staff have commitments to the short view, middle view, AND long view. But none of that mattered in Rogers' case. He failed to make the team. Perhaps Rogers should have had more appreciation for his own short term. GO BILLS!!! There are plenty of players on the active roster, as well as the practice squad, who are here because of future potential rather than their imediate impact in 2013. If the release of Rogers was due simply to the inability of the of the organization to "consider the long view" and their tunnel vision in regard to 2013 production...then how do you explain their decision to keep any players that clearly were not going to make any type of significant contribution in 2013? The explanation is that those players deserved to make the team by virtue of their performance. Rogers didn't. Pretty simple really. GO BILLS!!!
Kirby Jackson Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 all you made me realize is how frustrated i am the we kept jeff tuel on the 53 all season, when i tried to think of good examples of what you are presenting. Ha ha, Tuel at best will be a backup. They were worried that if they tried to PS him someone may take him. Rogers at best is a #1 WR and at worst a functioning NFL player. The roster management just frustrated me more so this year than in years past. The positive is that in large part I believe that the Bills are close and small decisions at the time will become magnified. I feel the same way about Crossman. When you are playing for something the margin of error is smaller and those types of decisions may matter. If you are competing for 5-11 or 6-10 it doesn't make a difference.
drnykterstein Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) With all due respect, 26, that is absurd. Marrone and staff have commitments to the short view, middle view, AND long view. But none of that mattered in Rogers' case. He failed to make the team. Perhaps Rogers should have had more appreciation for his own short term. You seem to be blaming Rogers getting cut on Da'Rick Rogers himself. The rest of us are blaming it on the coaches. We are saying the coaches made the mistake. Marrone, Hackett, and Hilliard are the guys who screwed up, not Da'Rick Rogers. Edited January 8, 2014 by conner
NoSaint Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Ha ha, Tuel at best will be a backup. They were worried that if they tried to PS him someone may take him. Rogers at best is a #1 WR and at worst a functioning NFL player. The roster management just frustrated me more so this year than in years past. The positive is that in large part I believe that the Bills are close and small decisions at the time will become magnified. I feel the same way about Crossman. When you are playing for something the margin of error is smaller and those types of decisions may matter. If you are competing for 5-11 or 6-10 it doesn't make a difference. im so back and forth on this regime. i feel like they do some things really well and we are headed in the right direction, and then i feel like the just totally blow something so obvious that i get real skeptical again. so my optimism trends up, and up and up, then a rug pulled out, then it starts returning, and then a rug pulled out. cutting tjax waaaaaay before you had to still bugs me given we had kolb as our only vet (fine, cut him before the season but save it for mid august), the crossman decision etc....
K-9 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Ha ha, Tuel at best will be a backup. They were worried that if they tried to PS him someone may take him. Rogers at best is a #1 WR and at worst a functioning NFL player. The roster management just frustrated me more so this year than in years past. The positive is that in large part I believe that the Bills are close and small decisions at the time will become magnified. I feel the same way about Crossman. When you are playing for something the margin of error is smaller and those types of decisions may matter. If you are competing for 5-11 or 6-10 it doesn't make a difference. I'd say at worst, Rogers is a two time roster cut from NFL teams, as already evidenced. At best, he's a first ballot HOFer. GO BILLS!!!
Kirby Jackson Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 The explanation is that those players deserved to make the team by virtue of their performance. Rogers didn't. Pretty simple really. GO BILLS!!! I just don't understand that argument. What did Willis do in his rookie year to warrant a spot? What about Marcus Lattimore this year? Sometimes you take talented players and develop them in the hope that they can contribute. Even a team like SF who is and has been a title contender understands that. As I have said a thousand times on here if you have a viable NFL option then fine. I am not advocating a project over someone that will give you more production. If neither is going to help you this year why not take the guy that may help you long term?
K-9 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 You seem to be blaming Rogers getting cut on Da'Rick Rogers himself. The rest of us are blaming it on the coaches. We are saying the coaches made the mistake. Marrone, Hackett, and Hilliard are the guys who screwed up, not Da'Rick Rogers. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Certainly you're not suggesting the bills cut Rogers because he made the team, are you? Do you honestly feel Rogers didn't contribute to his being released by the Bills? How about Miami? GO BILLS!!!
Kirby Jackson Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I'd say at worst, Rogers is a two time roster cut from NFL teams, as already evidenced. At best, he's a first ballot HOFer. GO BILLS!!! So you think that the team is better off with CH than Da'Rick? If so, based on what? Size, speed, talent, pedigree and production are all in Da'Rick's favor. It was a mistake in August and as time goes on it will become a bigger and bigger mistake.
GG Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Certainly you're not suggesting the bills cut Rogers because he made the team, are you? Do you honestly feel Rogers didn't contribute to his being released by the Bills? How about Miami? GO BILLS!!! Welcome to conner's logic. So you think that the team is better off with CH than Da'Rick? If so, based on what? Size, speed, talent, pedigree and production are all in Da'Rick's favor. It was a mistake in August and as time goes on it will become a bigger and bigger mistake. You know, there are crusades and there are crusades. How many times can you ask the same question and get the same answer?
Kirby Jackson Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Welcome to conner's logic. You know, there are crusades and there are crusades. How many times can you ask the same question and get the same answer? Until someone gives a valid reason as to why they are better off with CH than Da'Rick. No one has even tried. Did that decision make them better this year or moving forward?
GG Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Until someone gives a valid reason as to why they are better off with CH than Da'Rick. No one has even tried. Did that decision make them better this year or moving forward? Honest question, have you ever run an organization or been part of an organization that was going through a turnaround with new management? Because if you have, you would see clearly why Bills parted ways based what was known to them and how Rogers performed in August. The issue is not and has never been Chris Hogan vs Da'rick Rogers. It was Da'rick playing himself off an NFL roster.
uncle flap Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I'm sure it's been mentioned here already, but not only am I blaming the coaches and FO for their shortsightedness, but for their inability to get a guy like Da'Rick to conform. It's one thing to preach that they only want players who "buy in," but to what degree can we blame the coaches for not getting the likes of Da'Rick to "buy in." Certainly there are lost causes and players who can or will never "buy in." I think many here are saying, "Well, maybe he never will "buy in," but isn't worth Chris Hogan's roster spot to find out over the course of the year?"
K-9 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 So you think that the team is better off with CH than Da'Rick? If so, based on what? Size, speed, talent, pedigree and production are all in Da'Rick's favor. It was a mistake in August and as time goes on it will become a bigger and bigger mistake. Chris Hogan has nothing to do with it. Hogan wasn't kept at the expense of Rogers. Not even close. Of course, it would have helped Rogers if he actually outperformed Hogan and Kaufman or any of the other wideouts when he had the opportunity. He didn't. That's on him. As to your previous argument about Willis his rookie year, it would have definitely helped Rogers if a team invested a 1st round pick in him. McGahee was considered a franchise RB who would have gone at or near the top of the draft if he hadn't gotten hurt. Rogers, while showing great potential in his short-lived SEC stint, didn't come close to what McGahee showed in college. Same could be said for Lattimore. But you'd have to ask those teams' staffs and FOs what their thinking was. SF is a SB contender stocked with great players. Easy to see why they'd take a flyer. GO BILLS!!!
uncle flap Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Honest question, have you ever run an organization or been part of an organization that was going through a turnaround with new management? Because if you have, you would see clearly why Bills parted ways based what was known to them and how Rogers performed in August. The issue is not and has never been Chris Hogan vs Da'rick Rogers. It was Da'rick playing himself off an NFL roster. I do clearly see why they would part ways, and I think everyone else does too. I think they are saying it's still the wrong decision.
GG Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I do clearly see why they would part ways, and I think everyone else does too. I think they are saying it's still the wrong decision. In retrospect it may be a wrong decision, because the light seems to finally gone off in Rogers' head - after the Bills cut, the Miami snub and not getting reps on Indy's PS. You are blaming the coaches, I am blaming Da'Rick for lack of enthusiasm to the opportunity Bills gave him.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Honest question, have you ever run an organization or been part of an organization that was going through a turnaround with new management? Because if you have, you would see clearly why Bills parted ways based what was known to them and how Rogers performed in August. The issue is not and has never been Chris Hogan vs Da'rick Rogers. It was Da'rick playing himself off an NFL roster. The answers to your first 2 questions are yes and yes. When there is 1 spot that needs to be filled you are selecting 1 candidate and not another. I have hired many people (probably 50ish) and it comes down to the candidates that will make my team and my business the most successful. So you, you still have not answered the question of if it put the Bills in a better position this year or moving forward? If it did not, it has to be considered a poor decision. I do clearly see why they would part ways, and I think everyone else does too. I think they are saying it's still the wrong decision. Exactly. Their job is to build the best team that they possibly can. If they make decisions that do not make the team better either short or long term - it is a mistake. Edited January 8, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
uncle flap Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Basically what I'm saying is that even if Da'Rick didn't do anything to earn his roster spot, aren't the coaches partly to blame for not bringing out his talent? Isn't that their job, to get the most out of their players? I'm not completely absolving Rogers, but I'm still baffled that they would give up on a guy who would seemingly fit the bill of what they're lacking at the WR position after the preseason. Couple that with Baghdad Chris Brown writing an article this week about how Kevin Elliot and Cordell Roberson could be the big WR prospects the Bills could be looking for. Whaley himself said they need that big threat. I have to wonder how he felt about the Da'Rick situation.
GG Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 The answers to your first 2 questions are yes and yes. When there is 1 spot that needs to be filled you are selecting 1 candidate and not another. I have hired many people (probably 50ish) and it comes down to the candidates that will make my team and my business the most successful. So you, you still have not answered the question of if it put the Bills in a better position this year or moving forward? If it did not, it has to be considered a poor decision. I answered the question several times - for 2013 Chris Hogan was the better option, because despite his meager stats he contributed to the team, while the best that would have come out of Rogers would have been PS and potential for next year. As for the future, we have no idea of how next season is going to work out, and what the Bills are going to do. You also don't know if Rogers will self-destruct again. And if you have hire over 50 people, I'm sure it was a great working environment when you hired a guy with no experience and gave him far greater latitude for not performing than for the rest of the employees. I'm sure productivity went through the roof.
uncle flap Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 In retrospect it may be a wrong decision, because the light seems to finally gone off in Rogers' head - after the Bills cut, the Miami snub and not getting reps on Indy's PS. You are blaming the coaches, I am blaming Da'Rick for lack of enthusiasm to the opportunity Bills gave him. I'm not totally blaming the coaches, since I wasn't privy to all the information that they were. It very well could have appeared to be a hopeless scenario. It could also be that they truly did everything they could to get Rogers to buy in, and he still wouldn't. It could also be the case that it took those cuts and snubs to give Da'Rick a wake up call. Certainly plausible, even likely, considering it wasn't like the Bills were the only team to say, "No thanks." I guess I'm just lamenting "the one that got away." WRs are typically said to need some seasoning, so I'm questioning the coaches/FO for letting a guy that certainly has some talent (and "plenty of upside") go, when even if he turned out to be a bust, it wouldn't have negatively impacted the team, IMO. I'm worried that Marrone decided to make an example out of Rogers at the expense of a possible long/medium term payoff. He got his "quick win" by showing that he "means business," but to what end? He apparently had problems with Stevie all year and Ike Hilliard was fired. Apparently they didn't get the message.
Recommended Posts