K-9 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 There is a thousand page thread to talk Da'Rick. My issue (a stated many times there) was that the Bills released an NFL caliber WR for an AFL caliber WR (or WRs). No one believes that Da'Rick is a Hall of Famer but believe that he could have been a rotational player. The Bills kept Hogan, Graham and Easley ahead of him. Easley is a great ST player at least. Does anyone believe that Hogan or Graham will have a better career than Da'Rick? Of course not. He had more yards in 1 game than Hogan will have in his whole career!! I firmly believe that (I can't see Hogan eer appearing on an active NFL roster with the depth of this WR class). That was my issue anyways. Why waste a spot in a guy that has no chance to be anything but horrible? I will leave the Da'Rick talk to that thread from here on out though -I promise. The decision to cut Rogers had nothing to do with Hogan, Graham, Easley or any other receiver on the team. He had proven himself incapable. In OTAs and earlier in camp, he was given more reps than those others except Graham, and he couldn't take advantage. Coaches don't have the luxury of waiting for players like this to snap out of their funk. Especially a new staff trying to establish something, not the least of which is credibility with the players. And getting benched in the playoff game vs. the Pats* should tell you all you need to know. I agree with leaving the Da'Rick Rogers talk to the other thread. Let's make this about Sammy Wadkins. The kid has "it" imo, and I think he's gonna be special. GO BILLS!!!
CountryCletus Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Kirby, I will agree with the fact that Rogers probably had more raw talent than Hogan... Raw talent means little if the player can't realize that talent...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) The decision to cut Rogers had nothing to do with Hogan, Graham, Easley or any other receiver on the team. He had proven himself incapable. In OTAs and earlier in camp, he was given more reps than those others except Graham, and he couldn't take advantage. Coaches don't have the luxury of waiting for players like this to snap out of their funk. Especially a new staff trying to establish something, not the least of which is credibility with the players. And getting benched in the playoff game vs. the Pats* should tell you all you need to know. I agree with leaving the Da'Rick Rogers talk to the other thread. Let's make this about Sammy Wadkins. The kid has "it" imo, and I think he's gonna be special. GO BILLS!!! While I disagree on the Rogers point in that you keep "X" number of receivers and cut "Y" number. We have already been around this block a million times so no need to beat a dead horse. It is just not something that we will agree on. However, Sammy Watkins seems to be a topic that we definitely agree on. He is a high floor, high ceiling guy with an elite skill set. He high points well, is tough as nails, great production and has good speed. He is one of those prospects with very few holes IMO. If the Bills landed him we should be thrilled. Kirby, I will agree with the fact that Rogers probably had more raw talent than Hogan... Raw talent means little if the player can't realize that talent... Then they should have kept Kaufman. I guess that my point is more about Hogan. There is no reason to ever keep a guy that will never help you in any way. Go find some Mike Jasper talent for that roster spot then. Find someone with the physical skills to help a football team. If the guy turns out to be terrible he is still no worse than some guy that will never be better than terrible. It is my general roster building philosophy I guess. I don't think that you football team is ever better by giving the last roster spot to Rudy. If you are ever considering keeping Rudy go find a project for that spot. Edited April 30, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
NewEra Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Let the Sammy talk commence. This thread has been railroaded. If we trade up, I think it's for Robinson or Mack
Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I dont think we trade up. I think the asking price is too steep CBF
YoloinOhio Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I love Sammy Watkins as a player and a talent. I love his approach to the game and I think he will be dynamic. I of course love that he is a Bills fan. My one concern with taking him is that he is a screen machine. His success is mainly off of screens. That doesn't mean he can't beat a DB deep, high point a ball, make contested catches. But he is not a tall guy. We have a fast guy from Clemson already who is a screen machine, yet we didn't use him that way last year and aside from injury it is not an unreasonable question to ask if we would be able to fully utilize Sammy's talents with this coaching staff. If we were to take Evans, we add a player that we currently do not have anyone like on the roster. We have some tall WRs in our depth group but not one with the overall pedigree of Evans. Evans doesn't turn 21 until late August. He is only going to get better. I would be excited about adding either player to this offense, but have the concern that Watkins is the one we should give up picks for.
BuffaloBaumer Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Shouldn't they find out if they even have a QB worth keeping before mortgaging the future on a WR? Draft one at 9 if Evans is there but giving up a 2nd when QB is still a BIG ?- no thanks
BigBuff423 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Shouldn't they find out if they even have a QB worth keeping before mortgaging the future on a WR? Draft one at 9 if Evans is there but giving up a 2nd when QB is still a BIG ?- no thanks Not that I disagree with there being some questions about EJ, but according to DW, they've already found their QB of the future...therefore, to THEM, it's all about surrounding him with the talent needed to produce a high-scoring Offense....can't wait to see if / when that happens...
YoloinOhio Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Not that I disagree with there being some questions about EJ, but according to DW, they've already found their QB of the future...therefore, to THEM, it's all about surrounding him with the talent needed to produce a high-scoring Offense....can't wait to see if / when that happens... I don't know if they think he is that for sure at this early stage... but that they want to find out if he IS, so they need to provide him with as much as they can to help him develop and succeed. If they don't, they may never know for sure. I think this is what they're thinking is from what I have heard them say.
SBUffalo Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Watch the Sport Science episode with EJ Manuel. The best ever on their show with accuracy Sport science has nothing to do with actual sports. It doesn't translate to the field. For everybody mentioning how deep the draft is at WR - The Bills have all the depth they need. The only need at WR is a true number one. The chances of finding one drop the lower you go. If they don't get one in the first two rounds then I see no reason to get one, at all.
Maury Ballstein Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Shouldn't they find out if they even have a QB worth keeping before mortgaging the future on a WR? Draft one at 9 if Evans is there but giving up a 2nd when QB is still a BIG ?- no thanks Huh ? We have a first round draft pick qb. Face the facts he gets another year or two unless he totally poops the bed.
YoloinOhio Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Sport science has nothing to do with actual sports. It doesn't translate to the field. For everybody mentioning how deep the draft is at WR - The Bills have all the depth they need. The only need at WR is a true number one. The chances of finding one drop the lower you go. If they don't get one in the first two rounds then I see no reason to get one, at all. I agree with this. We have lots of #2 and #3 WRs. Take a stud who can be a legit #1 WR or don't waste a pick on that position
BigBuff423 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I don't know if they think he is that for sure at this early stage... but that they want to find out if he IS, so they need to provide him with as much as they can to help him develop and succeed. If they don't, they may never know for sure. I think this is what they're thinking is from what I have heard them say. Yeah, but when DW says they're "all in" on EJ, to me that means in their mind, there is no doubt....that is NOT to say they wouldn't re-evaluate that position next year if EJ sh*ts the bed, but right now, they've made up their mind....that was more my point...I'm not entirely sold on EJ, I'm more in the "wait and see" mode...but by the way DW was talking, QB isn't even on the radar for consideration in the Draft, unless something truly spectacular happens and even then, if they're "all in" on EJ, wouldn't make any sense...THIS year anyways...I get your point, I was just clarifying mine.
CountryCletus Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Kirby, I understand what you are saying, and for the most part, I agree. I don't think that the coaching staff was sold on the WR's we had so they chose to keep the guy with lower upside, but ahead of the high upside guy in terms of current production/system knowledge.. Still not the way to build a team... If you keep one of those project guys every year, eventually you will hit on one and it will pay BIGTIME dividends!!
K-9 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Kirby, I understand what you are saying, and for the most part, I agree. I don't think that the coaching staff was sold on the WR's we had so they chose to keep the guy with lower upside, but ahead of the high upside guy in terms of current production/system knowledge.. Still not the way to build a team... If you keep one of those project guys every year, eventually you will hit on one and it will pay BIGTIME dividends!! Da'Rick Rogers just wasn't that project guy last year. Not even close. From EVERY conceivable viewpoint except for physical talent. Unfortunately, the country is littered with physically superior athletes who didn't have what it takes. There is no telling if Rogers will have that, if ever. And you can't blame a coaching staff, especially a new one, for taking it no further than they did. He got the lion's share of reps vs. ANY free agent last year during OTAs and camp and they steadily decreased as his grasp of the game became more apparent. GO BILLS!!!
Kirby Jackson Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Da'Rick Rogers just wasn't that project guy last year. Not even close. From EVERY conceivable viewpoint except for physical talent. Unfortunately, the country is littered with physically superior athletes who didn't have what it takes. There is no telling if Rogers will have that, if ever. And you can't blame a coaching staff, especially a new one, for taking it no further than they did. He got the lion's share of reps vs. ANY free agent last year during OTAs and camp and they steadily decreased as his grasp of the game became more apparent. GO BILLS!!! Those project guys are rarely more than physical talents. I know this Rogers made a huge play in a playoff game and had a dominant game in the regular season. That is more than the guys that I mentioned will have in their careers. It could have been anyone not just Rogers. There is no reason to ever keep a guy without talent. Hogan, Colin Brown, Lee Smith and Sam Young (despite being a big recruit) have no business being on a NFL roster ever. Go find a guy that has some question marks (character, injury, inexperience) and take a flier on them. You can always find scrubs on the street to perform like Hogan, Brown, Smith or Young. Those guys are never going to make you better. The guys with the question marks may develop and they may not. There is no risk in trying. You can't teach talent. Edited April 30, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
K-9 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Those project guys are rarely more than physical talents. I know this Rogers made a huge play in a playoff game and had a dominant game in the regular season. That is more than the guys that I mentioned will have in their careers. It could have been anyone not just Rogers. There is no reason to ever keep a guy without talent. Hogan, Colin Brown, Lee Smith and Sam Young (despite being a big recruit) have no business being on a NFL roster ever. Go find a guy that has some question marks (character, injury, inexperience) and take a flier on them. You can always find scrubs on the street to perform like Hogan, Brown, Smith or Young. Those guys are never going to make you better. The guys with the question marks may develop and they may not. There is no risk in trying. You can't teach talent. And in Rogers' case, the Bills felt they couldn't teach him football after several months of trying. Why do you think he got benched vs. the Pats* in the playoffs? There were at least two plays that I saw, while watching on TV and having no clear context of the Colts' offensive design, where he was CLEARLY out of position and Luck's body language suggested frustration with him. How about that Sammy Wadkins, though? GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I like Watkins, but quite frankly, I'd rather the Bills trade up for Mack, Clowney, Robinson or Matthews. In that order. Buffalo wouldn't have to trade up that far (if at all) for Matthews. This WR class is so stacked that if they really want a WR, there will be a really good one there at 41 (IMO). They also could stay put in the 1st, take BPA, and then sell out to move back into the 1st for Cody Lattimer. Here I think the issue isn't a lack of good to very good WRs but that they want a guy like aj green that makes the qb look better and potentially the offense can really revolve around. We have woods, Williams, Goodwin and currently Stevie are all good role players - as is chandler even but if you look at qb, WR, TE.... Not one spot has a single guy that's top ten at his position. Arguably you'd hit close to 20 before you called Stevie or chandler and you'd be later for ej currently. I really think that adding a dynamic playmaker to the passing game is high on the bills list, but adding just a good player to it would be passed on.
yungmack Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Da'Rick was highly touted at TN before his fall from grace...on pace to be a premiere draft pick...same size, quickness and aggressiveness. We let him slip away. We will regret not keeping him (just like if we don't draft Ebron). You may be correct the Bills may regret not taking Ebron (if they don't, that is). But they will also regret not taking Richardson, Matthews, Lewan, Evans, Bortles, Carr or anyone else. Unfortunately for the Bills, they can take only one player at #9. The NFL always finds a way to screw Buffalo.
Kirby Jackson Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Here I think the issue isn't a lack of good to very good WRs but that they want a guy like aj green that makes the qb look better and potentially the offense can really revolve around. We have woods, Williams, Goodwin and currently Stevie are all good role players - as is chandler even but if you look at qb, WR, TE.... Not one spot has a single guy that's top ten at his position. Arguably you'd hit close to 20 before you called Stevie or chandler and you'd be later for ej currently. I really think that adding a dynamic playmaker to the passing game is high on the bills list, but adding just a good player to it would be passed on. I think that you are spot on NoSaint. Watkins to me is special. He and Mack are my two favorite players in this draft.
Recommended Posts