26CornerBlitz Posted November 15, 2013 Author Posted November 15, 2013 This thread has become mind numbing because everyone keeps distorting the issue. I have yet to read anyone on here that says that Da'Rick is going to be a star. The argument that I have read is that if all it costs you is Chris Hogan you should have kept him. A lot of people have said that he is dumb, lazy, etc... I still have not seen someone make the argument that Hogan is going to be the better player or in the team's long term plans. Not 1 person has said how much better Hogan is than David Nelson or any other street free agent. Can someone make an argument that on a rebuilding team you were better off keeping Chris Hogan??? Does he fit into their long term plans?!? I sure hope not. NoSaint said if best when he said if they are both 3s why keep the guy whose ceiling is a 3 over the guy whose ceiling is a 9? That is what is frustrating to me and I am sure the rest of us in the Da'Rick camp. It really did not cost you ANYTHING to keep him around for a year and see if he developed. Not only what you're saying, but the Bills keep trotting TJ Graham out on the field week after week with little production. With a little more patience, it would have been good to see if they could mold an obviously talented, but immature, player into a viable player that could have filled a major void.
Billadelphia Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 This guy reminds me of Mike Jasper & Gibran Hamdan on here....his legend preceeds him. Has he been on the field yet this year?
26CornerBlitz Posted November 15, 2013 Author Posted November 15, 2013 This guy reminds me of Mike Jasper & Gibran Hamdan on here....his legend preceeds him. Has he been on the field yet this year? No, but TJ Graham and Chris Hogan have. They'll be on the field even more this weekend against the Jets. Hope we like what we see.
HamSandwhich Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 How could they deactivate Rogers and expect to win? I don't get it. Did the Titan's leave after the 3rd quarter? Was there an act of God? Something had to have happened that Rogers didn't play and the colts somehow pulled it off.
YoloinOhio Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 This thread has become mind numbing because everyone keeps distorting the issue. I have yet to read anyone on here that says that Da'Rick is going to be a star. The argument that I have read is that if all it costs you is Chris Hogan you should have kept him. A lot of people have said that he is dumb, lazy, etc... I still have not seen someone make the argument that Hogan is going to be the better player or in the team's long term plans. Not 1 person has said how much better Hogan is than David Nelson or any other street free agent. Can someone make an argument that on a rebuilding team you were better off keeping Chris Hogan??? Does he fit into their long term plans?!? I sure hope not. NoSaint said if best when he said if they are both 3s why keep the guy whose ceiling is a 3 over the guy whose ceiling is a 9? That is what is frustrating to me and I am sure the rest of us in the Da'Rick camp. It really did not cost you ANYTHING to keep him around for a year and see if he developed. Because he wasn't good enough to make the team. Roster spots are earned on performance. At some point these guys are going to be expected to take the field now, as Hogan will need to on Sunday,not whenever they get around to wanting to learn the system and work hard. Maybe he has more natural physical talent. But he didn't show enough of it to make the team this year. That is what TC is for - evaluating which players they can depend on to make plays for the team. No one gets a pass becuase he might be better 2 or 3 years from now. They don't have a crystal ball to know when or if the light will ever go on. They gave him an opportunity and he didn't do anything with it. Not their fault. I don't know enough of Hogan to say why they prefer him, but they do.
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Because he wasn't good enough to make the team. Roster spots are earned on performance. At some point these guys are going to be expected to take the field now, as Hogan will need to on Sunday,not whenever they get around to wanting to learn the system and work hard. Maybe he has more natural physical talent. But he didn't show enough of it to make the team this year. That is what TC is for - evaluating which players they can depend on to make plays for the team. No one gets a pass becuase he might be better 2 or 3 years from now. They don't have a crystal ball to know when or if the light will ever go on. They gave him an opportunity and he didn't do anything with it. Not their fault. I don't know enough of Hogan to say why they prefer him, but they do. Completely disagree. Rogers was amazing 3 years at Tennessee before he got kicked out. If you are good in college for a year, you should be promised a spot on a NFL roster. Fact: all guys who have good freshman years in college become good NFL players.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 This guy reminds me of Mike Jasper & Gibran Hamdan on here....his legend preceeds him. Has he been on the field yet this year? It kind of does. The point of the argument though is wasn't it worth giving Mike Jasper a chance if all that it costs you was Kellen Heard, Jay Ross or someone like that? If he develops great and if not you go find some guy with a good motor on someone's PS or Canada or wherever. You are right though that it really isn't about Da'Rick specifically. It is about how a rebuilding team should roll the dice more than they have. The analogy to me is that if you get free slot play at the casino you should use it. The odds of Da'Rick being a player are probably no better than your odds of winning on a slot machine but it was still free to try.
NoSaint Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) Completely disagree. Rogers was amazing 3 years at Tennessee before he got kicked out. If you are good in college for a year, you should be promised a spot on a NFL roster. Fact: all guys who have good freshman years in college become good NFL players. id guess its a high percentage of guys that put up like 70 catches, 1,000 yards and lead the SEC in receiving as a sophomore while being built like julio jones that go on to more prolific careers than hogans. whether rogers will, who knows... Edited November 15, 2013 by NoSaint
YoloinOhio Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Completely disagree. Rogers was amazing 3 years at Tennessee before he got kicked out. If you are good in college for a year, you should be promised a spot on a NFL roster. Fact: all guys who have good freshman years in college become good NFL players. Unfortunately, he wasn't good enough once he got to the NFL.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Completely disagree. Rogers was amazing 3 years at Tennessee before he got kicked out. If you are good in college for a year, you should be promised a spot on a NFL roster. Fact: all guys who have good freshman years in college become good NFL players. Ha ha, you are making the point for us!! Guys that dominated in the SEC are much more likely to be productive pros. Does that mean that he will be? No, but again no one has said that he will be great.
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 id guess its a high percentage of guys that put up like 70 catches, 1,000 yards and lead the SEC in receiving as a sophomore while being built like julio jones that go on to more prolific careers than hogans. whether rogers will, who knows... To quote Parcells, "potiental means you haven't done "squat." That year was 3 years ago. What people fail to understand is there is so much more to making in the NFL than physical talent. IT's why a guy like Fitz has a much better career than Ryan Leaf. Rogers doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. He should have been the hardest worker in training camp. I think like some of the fans here, he believes he actually is really NFL good. Also, what message do you send to your team that a guy who actually works hard and produces during camp gets cut for a talented slacker? Trust me, I don't care about Hogan at all and he is very replacable. but let's not confuse Rogers with Randy Moss. There's a reason Rogers wasn't drafted and has gotten cut twice already.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 To quote Parcells, "potiental means you haven't done "squat." I totally agree with Parcells. I wonder what he says about no potential? Maybe, "No potential means that you won't do squat"
K-9 Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) This thread has become mind numbing because everyone keeps distorting the issue. I have yet to read anyone on here that says that Da'Rick is going to be a star. The argument that I have read is that if all it costs you is Chris Hogan you should have kept him. A lot of people have said that he is dumb, lazy, etc... I still have not seen someone make the argument that Hogan is going to be the better player or in the team's long term plans. Not 1 person has said how much better Hogan is than David Nelson or any other street free agent. Can someone make an argument that on a rebuilding team you were better off keeping Chris Hogan??? Does he fit into their long term plans?!? I sure hope not. NoSaint said if best when he said if they are both 3s why keep the guy whose ceiling is a 3 over the guy whose ceiling is a 9? That is what is frustrating to me and I am sure the rest of us in the Da'Rick camp. It really did not cost you ANYTHING to keep him around for a year and see if he developed. Talk about distorting the issue. You keep bringing up Chris Hogan in the same breath as Da'Rick Rogers. Hogan has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROGERS NOT BEING ON THE TEAM! Nothing at all. Rogers was cut because he didn't exhibit what was necessary to make the team. Period. The Bills did not agonize between Hogan and Rogers and Rogers and Hogan when they made their decision to cut Rogers. Neither Hogan or Rogers was ever considered a foundation block for the rebuild. There is no argument to be made there. Hogan simply showed more command over the course of OTAs, training camp, and pre-season than did Rogers. It was an easy decision for the Bills. It doesn't matter one bit whose ceiling is higher. There is no question that Rogers' possesses superior physical and athletic talent. Hell, no current WR on the squad possesses more. Why keep Woods or Goodwin over Rogers then? If a player doesn't show a grasp for the game, all the physical skill in the world won't help him. So far, that has been the case with Rogers. GO BILLS!!! Edited November 15, 2013 by K-9
NoSaint Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Talk about distorting the issue. You keep bringing up Chris Hogan in the same breath as Da'Rick Rogers. Hogan has NOTHING because the opportunity cost of keeping rogers is chris hogan. the two are very much tied together in that sense.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Talk about distorting the issue. You keep bringing up Chris Hogan in the same breath as Da'Rick Rogers. Hogan has NOTHING That's the point. If that was the cost to keep Da'Rick why not? He is no better than some guys on the street.
26CornerBlitz Posted November 15, 2013 Author Posted November 15, 2013 because the opportunity cost of keeping rogers is chris hogan. the two are very much tied together in that sense. Love the Business Development/Portfolio Management Terminology.
K-9 Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 because the opportunity cost of keeping rogers is chris hogan. the two are very much tied together in that sense. Disagree entirely. In order to quantify an "opportunity cost" you have to know the VALUE of that opportunity. Tell me, in terms of VALUE, what is Da'Rick Rogers' opportunity cost? Did he outperform Hogan in OTAs, mini-camp, training camp, and pre-season? Did he show the same grasp of the playbook? Did he show the same level of concentration in his assignments? Did he show the same compete level? Please, I'm dying to know what Rogers' VALUE is so that I can determine "opportunity cost" of keeping Hogan or ANY OTHER receiver. This argument is beyond my comprehension because nobody seems to want to deal in anything other than some long ago demonstrated physical dominance in college vs. what he ACTUALLY demonstrated when given the opportunity at the pro level. When Da'Rick Rogers realizes his vast potential, let me know. GO BILLS!!!
Jauronimo Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Disagree entirely. In order to quantify an "opportunity cost" you have to know the VALUE of that opportunity. Tell me, in terms of VALUE, what is Da'Rick Rogers' opportunity cost? Did he outperform Hogan in OTAs, mini-camp, training camp, and pre-season? Did he show the same grasp of the playbook? Did he show the same level of concentration in his assignments? Did he show the same compete level? Please, I'm dying to know what Rogers' VALUE is so that I can determine "opportunity cost" of keeping Hogan or ANY OTHER receiver. This argument is beyond my comprehension because nobody seems to want to deal in anything other than some long ago demonstrated physical dominance in college vs. what he ACTUALLY demonstrated when given the opportunity at the pro level. When Da'Rick Rogers realizes his vast potential, let me know. GO BILLS!!! In this case, the opportunity cost could be quantified as a roster spot and league minimum salary which is what both Hogan and Da'Rick were commanding. On the subjective side you could add a premium to Da'Rick for whatever the hell his upside is. You could just as easily discount him for his diminished professionalism, maturity, ability to learn an offense and contribute now. Basically, you've got a pick 'em situation involving two players who can't get on the field.
GG Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Basically, you've got a pick 'em situation involving two players who can't get on the field. Technically, Hogan has been infinitely more productive in the NFL.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) Disagree entirely. In order to quantify an "opportunity cost" you have to know the VALUE of that opportunity. Tell me, in terms of VALUE, what is Da'Rick Rogers' opportunity cost? Did he outperform Hogan in OTAs, mini-camp, training camp, and pre-season? Did he show the same grasp of the playbook? Did he show the same level of concentration in his assignments? Did he show the same compete level? Please, I'm dying to know what Rogers' VALUE is so that I can determine "opportunity cost" of keeping Hogan or ANY OTHER receiver. This argument is beyond my comprehension because nobody seems to want to deal in anything other than some long ago demonstrated physical dominance in college vs. what he ACTUALLY demonstrated when given the opportunity at the pro level. When Da'Rick Rogers realizes his vast potential, let me know. GO BILLS!!! Just when I thought you were coming over to the dark side, ha ha. The opportunity cost has to do with the roster spot. You had that spot earmarked for a WR. A WR that was never intended to see much/any action. They made the decision that they could not risk losing Hogan at the expense of Da'Rick. That is the exact issue that we have a problem with. It really is not about Da'Rick the player as much as it is about the fact that it cost you nothing to give a physically gifted player a chance. Someone above brought up Mike Jasper and it is very similar (same goes for Jason Peters by the way). Keep around a talented guy and if he turns into Peters great and if he turns into Jasper cut your losses. If all that you are risking to see which player he becomes is Chris Hogan -who cares. To use another gambling analogy it is like being in the chip lead in poker and limping in to see a flop. Maybe you flop 3 of a kind? If not, fold but it was not going to damage you too much to take a look. Technically, Hogan has been infinitely more productive in the NFL. He has like 4 catches and a few drops. If that is the production that they couldn't be without it is no wonder that they are 3-7. Edited November 15, 2013 by Kirby Jackson
Recommended Posts