NoSaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Just curious why Rogers is always compared to Hogan and Graham? Both of these guys made the active roster whereas Rogers didn't even make final cuts. I would think he would be compared to guys they signed to the PS? Or are we saying he should have actually made the active roster instead of Hogan or Graham? id say he shouldve made the 53 over hogan. Once discussing the PS you have to take into account he might not have been willing to re-sign with us.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) You can marginalize it if you'd like; I don't think it's necessary in order to make the point you've been making for 10+ pages now (and I happen to think you're above it). Try 53 pages. Some people are still trying to justify a few decisions that made no sense at the time that make even less sense in hindsight. Rogers and Crossman are the two that I am referring to. I am kind of over both conversations though. If someone really thinks that the Bills are in a better place after those decisions there is nothing more that I can do. Statistics, production over an extended period of time (good or bad) and talent are all clearly in one side. The arguments against firing Crossman and cutting Rogers are some of the weakest that I have ever seen on this board. They range from, "don't complain there is nothing that we can do" to "the guy they kept instead caught 3 balls in a blowout win." Really?!? You aren't going to be charged with treason if you disagree. Most topics on here are debatable but these two are so one sided that it is functionally impossible to make a reasonable case. Edited January 10, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
KOKBILLS Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 It's amazing that this thread is still alive. It's clear that the cutting of Rogers was just another dose of Buffalo Bills organizational disfunction. For Pete's sake, there are boarders on here that weren't even alive during the Bills's last winning season, but still people want to give the Bills the benefit of the doubt? It truly amazes me. Could not possibly agree with this statement more...
K-9 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I'm assuming that the Hogan comment is a shot at me. I like to think (and have proven) to be an informed poster. The guy does . not belong in the NFL and he would not be making a positive impact on any team. I don't apologize for holding my team to higher standards than street free agent scrubs. It's not a shot to be taken personally and I appreciate your continued informed contributions to this community. My point is that cutting Rogers had nothing to do with Chris Hogan. It wasn't a choice between Rogers and Hogan. It came down to Rogers and Kaufman. Additionally, and although Rogers didn't prove it on the field and in the classroom when he had the chance, it's not always a question of keeping the better player. It's a question of keeping the better player for your team. That's a coach's prerogative. It's unfortunate that simple age-old idea gets lost today. But it will never change as long as there are coaches that need to make personnel decisions for their teams. GO BILLS!!! Doesn't this kind of say it all? One would think. Then again... GO BILLS!!!
cvanvol Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 It's not a shot to be taken personally and I appreciate your continued informed contributions to this community. My point is that cutting Rogers had nothing to do with Chris Hogan. It wasn't a choice between Rogers and Hogan. It came down to Rogers and Kaufman. Additionally, and although Rogers didn't prove it on the field and in the classroom when he had the chance, it's not always a question of keeping the better player. It's a question of keeping the better player for your team. That's a coach's prerogative. It's unfortunate that simple age-old idea gets lost today. But it will never change as long as there are coaches that need to make personnel decisions for their teams. GO BILLS!!! One would think. Then again... GO BILLS!!! They shouldnt have kept hogan.
K-9 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I agree. When opponents run plain vanilla defenses, like in preseason, it's a little easier for below average receivers to shine. 1.) The charted reps in practice and the subsequent daily breakdowns in the film room mean 1000x more than the action seen in a pre-season game. 2.) If those vanilla defenses allowed a scrub like Hogan to shine, one would think Rogers should have torn it up seven ways to Sunday. Why didn't he? GO BILLS!!!
FireChan Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 It's not a shot to be taken personally and I appreciate your continued informed contributions to this community. My point is that cutting Rogers had nothing to do with Chris Hogan. It wasn't a choice between Rogers and Hogan. It came down to Rogers and Kaufman. Additionally, and although Rogers didn't prove it on the field and in the classroom when he had the chance, it's not always a question of keeping the better player. It's a question of keeping the better player for your team. That's a coach's prerogative. It's unfortunate that simple age-old idea gets lost today. But it will never change as long as there are coaches that need to make personnel decisions for their teams. GO BILLS!!! One would think. Then again... GO BILLS!!! Do you think if Marrone could go back, he would have made a different decision concerning Rogers? I don't.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Do you think if Marrone could go back, he would have made a different decision concerning Rogers? I don't. I don't either. And to K-9's point I understand that the coaches will always make the decision. I know that I was not in the room but I do know that the people that I have talked to at OBD have a certain level of regret (even though they are stubborn in admitting it). To me it seemed like a mistake at the time and my issue is that as time goes on it will keep becoming a bigger and bigger mistake. No, I do not think that Rogers is a HOFer but I think that he can be a productive NFL player.
Bronc24 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Haven't been on this thread for a long time. Now I know why....pretty sure I read these same posts 35 pages ago.
K-9 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 They shouldnt have kept hogan. That may very well be. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have cut Rogers, either. GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I don't either. And to K-9's point I understand that the coaches will always make the decision. I know that I was not in the room but I do know that the people that I have talked to at OBD have a certain level of regret (even though they are stubborn in admitting it). To me it seemed like a mistake at the time and my issue is that as time goes on it will keep becoming a bigger and bigger mistake. No, I do not think that Rogers is a HOFer but I think that he can be a productive NFL player. and ill say that much like i said immediately with K9's while i may not agree with the staffs sentiment, i trust he was accurately portraying what he was told and know he does have some "ins," i likewise will say you have been reliable when you put out your OBD insights
dubs Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) 1.) The charted reps in practice and the subsequent daily breakdowns in the film room mean 1000x more than the action seen in a pre-season game. 2.) If those vanilla defenses allowed a scrub like Hogan to shine, one would think Rogers should have torn it up seven ways to Sunday. Why didn't he? GO BILLS!!! Agreed on point 1. What I meant in point 2 was that a guy who's more heady and knows the offense better is likely to make up the talent gap against plain vanilla defenses. I think the QB position is a perfect example of this point. A guy with limited physical talent can look good when he knows what the defense is going to do. When the live bullets start flying, then you need a guy with both. In Rogers case, I think that the coaching staff needs to understand the kid was playing low level ball and relying solely on his physical talent against low-level competition prior to his entry into TC. Therefore he's going to need some time to acclimate himself to the NFL, and I don't believe a first ever TC is enough time for a guy of his physical talents. Haven't been on this thread for a long time. Now I know why....pretty sure I read these same posts 35 pages ago. I like this conversation. Lots of excellent points, very little snark. It's like being at the bar with a few of your closest and most respected friends and having a meaningful conversation. Many of the other threads are like being on Chipp at 3am trying to navigate the blacked-out drunks (something I haven't done in a couple decades). Edited January 10, 2014 by dubs
YoloinOhio Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Not to get too far off-topic, but it will be critical for the Colts to hit on this signing (Rogers). Their 2013 draft was complete trash and the signings of DHB and TRich were horrible. DHB was supposed to become the #1 WR when Wayne went down and he was their version of TJ Graham before he got hurt. TRich cost them their #1 pick this year and has not helped them - they tried to get him to implement Pep Hamilton's offense, it didn't work, one of the worst trades in memory. They have gotten very little from their draft - the best so far has been Bjorn Werner, their #1 pick, and he had 18 tackles in 13 games! They traded away Jerry Hughes for Kelvin Sheppard which was a very uneven deal for them. They were lucky to be in a bad division and Luck has carried this team. He is throwing to guys signed off the street (Griff Whalen and Rogers). Despite his last game, Hilton has been up and down this year. Not a true #1. Have to credit Pagano as well. Their OL has been in constant flux with injuries and poor production. This will probably be the worst team Luck ever plays with. I don't think they beat NE but with all the bad personnel decisions they have made I am impressed they made it this far, plus beat some of the best teams in the league - Seattle, SF, Denver. They had some really bad games as well, but wow.
KOKBILLS Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Not to get too far off-topic, but it will be critical for the Colts to hit on this signing (Rogers). Their 2013 draft was complete trash and the signings of DHB and TRich were horrible. DHB was supposed to become the #1 WR when Wayne went down and he was their version of TJ Graham before he got hurt. TRich cost them their #1 pick this year and has not helped them - they tried to get him to implement Pep Hamilton's offense, it didn't work, one of the worst trades in memory. They have gotten very little from their draft - the best so far has been Bjorn Werner, their #1 pick, and he had 18 tackles in 13 games! They traded away Jerry Hughes for Kelvin Sheppard which was a very uneven deal for them. They were lucky to be in a bad division and Luck has carried this team. He is throwing to guys signed off the street (Griff Whalen and Rogers). Despite his last game, Hilton has been up and down this year. Not a true #1. Have to credit Pagano as well. Their OL has been in constant flux with injuries and poor production. This will probably be the worst team Luck ever plays with. I don't think they beat NE but with all the bad personnel decisions they have made I am impressed they made it this far, plus beat some of the best teams in the league - Seattle, SF, Denver. They had some really bad games as well, but wow. I know Luck is awful good...But Pagano is one hell of a coach...They turned over 2/3 of their roster in 2012, and outside of Luck and Hilton it's not like they have killed it in the Draft or Free Agency...I just think the guy is the most underrated coach in the NFL...I really, really like him... That's part of the reason why I look at the Rogers situation differently...I have a tremendous amount of respect for Pagano and his ability to get the most out of what he's got...Though I'm still hopeful, I cannot give Marrone the same benefit of the doubt...Marrone came in and got a combined 1040 LESS yards, and 9 LESS TD's from Spiller and Stevie...So which coach would anybody assume has the better methodology, and was more likely to get the best out of Rogers?
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 It is remarkable, the dolts who think this situation is now clarified and a guy with 14 catches on 23 targets is a bonafide star. I further find fascinating the assertion that a "scrub" with 10 catches on 17 targets is a vastly inferior specimen. Blaming Marrone for discarding talent for choir boys is a load of BS. See Kiko Alanzo. He had a background coming into the game too. But he's been a consummate pro from day one. There was speculation from some of the players when Da'Rick was cut, that they hoped that would be the wake up call he needed. Maybe it was. Maybe the guy will wash out of the league in two years as another "$100 talent with a ten cent brain." Saw this about him in Bleacher and thought it was hilarious. Either way, move on. Bills are getting better. This new staff does get the benefit of the doubt. They are a completely new regime. Their first draft was the best I can remember, maybe in my 37 year lifetime. They get to keep who they want, discard who they want and ultimately own the outcomes. We'll see what that brings.
KOKBILLS Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Either way, move on. No... Bills are getting better. Maybe they are...Maybe they're not...This is still WAY up in the air...The Defense does seem like it's at least on the right track...Well...That was until they got run over in NE... This new staff does get the benefit of the doubt. Maybe from some...But I've been down this road enough to be skeptical... They are a completely new regime...Their first draft was the best I can remember, maybe in my 37 year lifetime. They get to keep who they want, discard who they want and ultimately own the outcomes. We'll see what that brings. I'm not really that concerned about Whaley...Marrone/Hackett are another story all together...
Rob's House Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 It is remarkable, the dolts who think this situation is now clarified and a guy with 14 catches on 23 targets is a bonafide star. I further find fascinating the assertion that a "scrub" with 10 catches on 17 targets is a vastly inferior specimen. Blaming Marrone for discarding talent for choir boys is a load of BS. See Kiko Alanzo. He had a background coming into the game too. But he's been a consummate pro from day one. There was speculation from some of the players when Da'Rick was cut, that they hoped that would be the wake up call he needed. Maybe it was. Maybe the guy will wash out of the league in two years as another "$100 talent with a ten cent brain." Saw this about him in Bleacher and thought it was hilarious. Either way, move on. Bills are getting better. This new staff does get the benefit of the doubt. They are a completely new regime. Their first draft was the best I can remember, maybe in my 37 year lifetime. They get to keep who they want, discard who they want and ultimately own the outcomes. We'll see what that brings. I'm not sure I've seen anyone say that in the first 55 pages of this thread, but I'll keep an eye out and let you know if anyone does. You don't want to answer? So it's just a rant... I want to discuss the Bills coaching staff and it's decisions and hear different explanations for why they've done the things they've done. Why? Because it interests and entertains me. If you're taking to an anonymous message board to enact change you're likely to be disappointed.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Agreed on point 1. What I meant in point 2 was that a guy who's more heady and knows the offense better is likely to make up the talent gap against plain vanilla defenses. I think the QB position is a perfect example of this point. A guy with limited physical talent can look good when he knows what the defense is going to do. When the live bullets start flying, then you need a guy with both. In Rogers case, I think that the coaching staff needs to understand the kid was playing low level ball and relying solely on his physical talent against low-level competition prior to his entry into TC. Therefore he's going to need some time to acclimate himself to the NFL, and I don't believe a first ever TC is enough time for a guy of his physical talents. I like this conversation. Lots of excellent points, very little snark. It's like being at the bar with a few of your closest and most respected friends and having a meaningful conversation. Many of the other threads are like being on Chipp at 3am trying to navigate the blacked-out drunks (something I haven't done in a couple decades). I feel the same way. The posters involved are some of the better posters on the board. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant but it has been an interesting conversation on how to build a team.
NoSaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I feel the same way. The posters involved are some of the better posters on the board. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant but it has been an interesting conversation on how to build a team. so interesting that we have decided to have it, start to finish, 6 or 7 times now!
YoloinOhio Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 so interesting that we have decided to have it, start to finish, 6 or 7 times now! It is the way Bills fans pass the time in the postseason.
Recommended Posts