Bills vets on the bubble

[NoSaint]

 

You know what's funny about the Da'Rick thread? Both sides were right (eventually).

 

The side that said "you keep Da'Rick because he's got a much higher ceiling than Hogan" was 100% correct. He was a much more skilled player.

 

The side that said "you keep Hogan instead because he can help on ST, is less likely to get in trouble off the field, and can be a fringe #3 WR in a good offensive attack" was 100% right. He's done that.

Yup - I'll stand by the philosophy and still admit in this example we probably would've ended up behind with hindsight

[dave mcbride]

 

You know what's funny about the Da'Rick thread? Both sides were right (eventually).

 

The side that said "you keep Da'Rick because he's got a much higher ceiling than Hogan" was 100% correct. He was a much more skilled player.

 

The side that said "you keep Hogan instead because he can help on ST, is less likely to get in trouble off the field, and can be a fringe #3 WR in a good offensive attack" was 100% right. He's done that.

exactly!

[RI Bills Fan]

Again, no need to be passive aggressive. If you have an issue with what I said you can address me on here or feel free to shoot me a PM.

I'm not trying to be passive agressive and I never called anyone out by name. I'm simply amused by the fact that the same posters who were outraged by Hogan being kept over D'rick and never miss a chance to post negative opinions about Hogan are now championing a reciever who cannot seem to stay healthy as a better option to keep on this year's roster.

 

IMHO

[Kirby Jackson]

I'm not trying to be passive agressive and I never called anyone out by name. I'm simply amused by the fact that the same posters who were outraged by Hogan being kept over D'rick and never miss a chance to post negative opinions about Hogan are now championing a reciever who cannot seem to stay healthy as a better option to keep on this year's roster.

 

IMHO

Thats pretty much the definition of being passive aggressive. I certainly fall in that category. There are 7 pages here explaining why some people feel that way and there are 100 pages in the Da'Rick thread explaining the same thing. It isn't about the players and about the types of players. I believe that the bottom of your roster should be guys with a unique skill set or huge upside. I don't see a ton of value in guys that on their best day are going to be a worse version of the guys above them. It is the same reason that I liked giving guys like Mike Jasper a shot. If he didn't work out you could find 10 guys capable of being a 5th DT. If he did pan out you have a potential difference maker. I would always protect a potential difference maker until I was sure that he couldn't be developed.

[thebandit27]

I'm not trying to be passive agressive and I never called anyone out by name. I'm simply amused by the fact that the same posters who were outraged by Hogan being kept over D'rick and never miss a chance to post negative opinions about Hogan are now championing a reciever who cannot seem to stay healthy as a better option to keep on this year's roster.

 

IMHO

 

I think you're mis-characterizing the situation a bit.

 

For one, why wouldn't it make sense for the folks that felt that Hogan was limited athletically to still feel the same way, and prefer to keep more athletic players on the roster?

 

Also, the point, I feel, has been made quite clear: there are plenty of players that offer the ability to be a possession-style player that can amass 40 catches and 4 TDs. There are 3 players in the NFL, total, that can blaze their way past a CB that runs a 4.35 in the 40 and leave him eating dust. Goodwin is one of those guys (the others are Dri Archer of Pittsburgh, and Chris Johnson, who's currently a street FA), which means he brings a dimension to the offense that simply cannot be found on the waiver wire.

Edited May 14, 2015 by thebandit27

[dave mcbride]

Thats pretty much the definition of being passive aggressive. I certainly fall in that category. There are 7 pages here explaining why some people feel that way and there are 100 pages in the Da'Rick thread explaining the same thing. It isn't about the players and about the types of players. I believe that the bottom of your roster should be guys with a unique skill set or huge upside. I don't see a ton of value in guys that on their best day are going to be a worse version of the guys above them. It is the same reason that I liked giving guys like Mike Jasper a shot. If he didn't work out you could find 10 guys capable of being a 5th DT. If he did pan out you have a potential difference maker. I would always protect a potential difference maker until I was sure that he couldn't be developed.

I disagree with this philosophy. You need difference makers, to be sure, but you have to assume that you will not have a team full of them and hence that guys like John Holocek (a good but physically limited player in 1999-2000) and Pete Metzelaars (one of the slower players I've ever watched) will be reliable, productive players in units that are talented overall. Kevin Faulk and Troy Brown are other such players. They weren't t that talented (they were drafted very, very late for a reason), but they were far more valuable than any number of athletes with high prospective upsides.

 

On a team like the 2010 Buffalo Bills, which had very little talent, I agree with you. But on a team with a lot of talent, you need some reliable pluggers who are adequately talented and play smart football. That's why the good teams always seem to have a couple of them. The area where this is most apparent is offensive line. There are a lot of more talented guys who sit on the bench behind the equivalents of Troy Brown throughout the league to this day.

 

As for Hogan, I think he's a better athlete than many here give him credit for.

Edited May 14, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Nanker]

Mike Williams is a prime example of this. Sometimes I thought Marrone traded for him just so he could punish him for the SU days and make him sit every week.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that angle, but it does fit.

 

i'm not a Goodwin fan. i think he is just a fast guy and he is susceptible to injury. Hogan is more of a sure thing and would be one heck of a slot receiver if he played the Edelman role like in NE.

Except he's not nearly as explosive as Edelman, not as elusive as Edelman, and not as quick as Edelman. Other than that, he's a damn clone of Edelman.

[RI Bills Fan]

 

I think you're mis-characterizing the situation a bit.

 

For one, why wouldn't it make sense for the folks that felt that Hogan was limited athletically to still feel the same way, and prefer to keep more athletic players on the roster?

 

Also, the point, I feel, has been made quite clear: there are plenty of players that offer the ability to be a possession-style player that can amass 40 catches and 4 TDs. There are 3 players in the NFL, total, that can blaze their way past a CB that runs a 4.35 in the 40 and leave him eating dust. Goodwin is one of those guys (the others are Dri Archer of Pittsburgh, and Chris Johnson, who's currently a street FA), which means he brings a dimension to the offense that simply cannot be found on the waiver wire.

I'd love to know where the Hogan is limited athletically stuff comes from. The only reason he ever made the Dull Fins roster (and later our roster) was his freak athleticism. Yes he's slower than Goodwin (who isn't) but he's a certified athletic freak as far as the rest of his measurables go.

[thebandit27]

I'd love to know where the Hogan is limited athletically stuff comes from. The only reason he ever made the Dull Fins roster (and later our roster) was his freak athleticism. Yes he's slower than Goodwin (who isn't) but he's a certified athletic freak as far as the rest of his measurables go.

 

Yes, he's a good athlete. No question.

 

The point is that all NFL players are good athletes. What Hogan offers in terms of athleticism isn't rare by NFL standards. There are dozens of guys with his athletic ability that have gone undrafted in the last few years. Off the top of my head I can name guys like Austin Willis, T.J. Moe, and Nathan Slaughter that scored as well as Hogan in the measurables columns but didn't get drafted, and aren't currently on NFL rosters.

 

By contrast, what Goodwin brings to the table is incredibly uncommon. We're not talking about the type of skill set or athletic ability that you can find in 3 or 4 UDFAs every single offseason (as is the case with Hogan). We're talking about a guy with the type of speed that the NFL has only seen in 2 other guys in history.

 

It's totally fine if you value those two sets of skills differently. To deny, however, the rarity in one skill set versus the other would be missing the point IMO.

Edited May 14, 2015 by thebandit27

[Storm Front]

 

How did you come to that conclusion? I don't think I've ever seen him drop a ball.

Lol. You probably haven't seen him catch too many, either..

 

Dropping passes is his MO.

 

http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/2/23/4020412/nfl-draft-2013-marquise-goodwin-scouting-report"He also drops some balls in traffic and when he is wide open."

 

NFL Stats:

2013: 32 targets, 17 catches

2014: 9 targets, 1 reception

 

Conclusion: Dude is a TJ Graham clone and never should never have been drafted, let alone in the 3rd round by Bills.

[thebandit27]

Lol. You probably haven't seen him catch too many, either..

 

Dropping passes is his MO.

 

http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/2/23/4020412/nfl-draft-2013-marquise-goodwin-scouting-report"He also drops some balls in traffic and when he is wide open."

 

NFL Stats:

2013: 32 targets, 17 catches

2014: 9 targets, 1 reception

 

Conclusion: Dude is a TJ Graham clone and never should never have been drafted, let alone in the 3rd round by Bills.

 

He scored 3 TDs as a rookie on 32 targets. Graham has 4 in his career on 123 targets.

 

Not even close to the same.

[Storm Front]

Dude, Graham has way more receptions and yardage than Goodwin, not even close.

They're both terrible wastes of third round picks.

[DrDawkinstein]

Lol. You probably haven't seen him catch too many, either..

 

Dropping passes is his MO.

 

http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/2/23/4020412/nfl-draft-2013-marquise-goodwin-scouting-report"He also drops some balls in traffic and when he is wide open."

 

NFL Stats:

2013: 32 targets, 17 catches

2014: 9 targets, 1 reception

 

Conclusion: Dude is a TJ Graham clone and never should never have been drafted, let alone in the 3rd round by Bills.

 

Those stats dont prove anything, especially when you consider that Watkins had the 2nd most uncatchable targets last season, and Goodwin was playing with those same QBs. Not to mention how "well" those QBs threw the deep ball.

 

As a matter of fact, it was a horribly placed throw that knocked him out of the San Diego game.

[RI Bills Fan]

 

Yes, he's a good athlete. No question.

 

The point is that all NFL players are good athletes. What Hogan offers in terms of athleticism isn't rare by NFL standards. There are dozens of guys with his athletic ability that have gone undrafted in the last few years. Off the top of my head I can name guys like Austin Willis, T.J. Moe, and Nathan Slaughter that scored as well as Hogan in the measurables columns but didn't get drafted, and aren't currently on NFL rosters.

 

By contrast, what Goodwin brings to the table is incredibly uncommon. We're not talking about the type of skill set or athletic ability that you can find in 3 or 4 UDFAs every single offseason (as is the case with Hogan). We're talking about a guy with the type of speed that the NFL has only seen in 2 other guys in history.

 

It's totally fine if you value those two sets of skills differently. To deny, however, the rarity in one skill set versus the other would be missing the point IMO.

Let me be clear on this, if I thought that Goodwin could stay healthy I would be in favor of him over Hogan. But as many others have said Availability is the best Ability. Sub 4.35 speed only kills if it's on the field. As things stand I'm in favor of the player who is available to play and has shown a marked improvement in his game year to year.

[thebandit27]

Dude, Graham has way more receptions and yardage than Goodwin, not even close.

They're both terrible wastes of third round picks.

 

Goodwin had a far, far greater impact his rookie season than Graham did in his rookie season.

 

Graham managed only 31 catches on 59 targets as a rookie, gained 14 first downs and got in the end zone 1 time.

Goodwin managed 17 receptions on 32 targets as a rookie, yet gained 13 first downs and scored 3 times.

 

And in Goodwin's rookie year, Graham had 23 catches (6 more than Goodwin) on 56 targets (23 more than Goodwin), gained 13 first downs (same as Goodwin) and scored 2 TDs (one less than Goodwin). That's despite the fact that Graham played in all 16 games, whereas Goodwin played in only 12.

 

Again, in terms of impact and performance when given the opportunity, it's not even close. Goodwin is the better player.

Edited May 14, 2015 by thebandit27

[dave mcbride]

 

Goodwin had a far, far greater impact his rookie season than Graham did in his (or in that season, while playing on the same team by the way).

 

Graham managed only 31 catches on 59 targets as a rookie, gained 14 first downs and got in the end zone 1 time.

Goodwin managed 17 receptions on 32 targets as a rookie, yet gained 13 first downs and scored 3 times.

 

And in Goodwin's rookie year, Graham had 23 catches (6 more than Goodwin) on 56 targets (23 more than Goodwin), gained 13 first downs (same as Goodwin) and scored 2 TDs (one less than Goodwin). That's despite the fact that Graham played in all 16 games, whereas Goodwin played in only 12.

 

Again, in terms of impact and performance when given the opportunity, it's not even close. Goodwin is the better player.

People will laugh, but I'm going with the ol' eyeball test with regard to these two. Goodwin is a lot more promising than Graham ever was in that regard.

[thebandit27]

People will laugh, but I'm going with the ol' eyeball test with regard to these two. Goodwin is a lot more promising than Graham ever was in that regard.

 

 

Dave, this is one case where the eyeball test is incredibly obvious IMO

[Kirby Jackson]

I disagree with this philosophy. You need difference makers, to be sure, but you have to assume that you will not have a team full of them and hence that guys like John Holocek (a good but physically limited player in 1999-2000) and Pete Metzelaars (one of the slower players I've ever watched) will be reliable, productive players in units that are talented overall. Kevin Faulk and Troy Brown are other such players. They weren't t that talented (they were drafted very, very late for a reason), but they were far more valuable than any number of athletes with high prospective upsides.

 

On a team like the 2010 Buffalo Bills, which had very little talent, I agree with you. But on a team with a lot of talent, you need some reliable pluggers who are adequately talented and play smart football. That's why the good teams always seem to have a couple of them. The area where this is most apparent is offensive line. There are a lot of more talented guys who sit on the bench behind the equivalents of Troy Brown throughout the league to this day.

 

As for Hogan, I think he's a better athlete than many here give him credit for.

Hogan is definitely a better athlete than he gets credit for. He just isn't a better athlete than Rogers or Goodwin which is probably why it feels like his athleticism gets downplayed. If you compare him to Ruvell Martin or Derek Hagan or David Nelson he is a far superior athlete.

 

In terms of the philosophy it really is kind of "to each his own." There are a lot of people at the highest level that would agree with either of our stances on this. Where you stand on this topic probably indicates where you stand on the bottom of the roster.

 

As an example I am hoping that Cyril Richardson grabs a spot over Chris Williams if it comes down to that. Richardson is a physical freak that was a dominant player in college. He looked lost last year and is certainly a project. I would like to see if Kromer can harvest that talent over a guy like Williams who is a little more limited and polished. If either Williams or Richardson was the "next man up" I may feel differently. If Urbik is the 1st reserve as I expect I prefer Richardson. If someone above those guys are injured I would prefer the conservative route with Williams.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Kirby Jackson

[Storm Front]

 

Goodwin had a far, far greater impact his rookie season than Graham did in his rookie season.

 

Graham managed only 31 catches on 59 targets as a rookie, gained 14 first downs and got in the end zone 1 time.

Goodwin managed 17 receptions on 32 targets as a rookie, yet gained 13 first downs and scored 3 times.

 

And in Goodwin's rookie year, Graham had 23 catches (6 more than Goodwin) on 56 targets (23 more than Goodwin), gained 13 first downs (same as Goodwin) and scored 2 TDs (one less than Goodwin). That's despite the fact that Graham played in all 16 games, whereas Goodwin played in only 12.

 

Again, in terms of impact and performance when given the opportunity, it's not even close. Goodwin is the better player.

Wow, you think those are good stats? They are both terrible WR's who catch less than 50% of passes thrown to them. Goodwin caught one pass all of last year. That is just plain terrible. My point was that Goodwin can't catch well. By the way you are defending him, I guess you think he is a great pass catcher or something?

[DrDawkinstein]

Wow, you think those are good stats? They are both terrible WR's who catch less than 50% of passes thrown to them. Goodwin caught one pass all of last year. That is just plain terrible. My point was that Goodwin can't catch well. By the way you are defending him, I guess you think he is a great pass catcher or something?

 

The amount of variables, nuances, and outside factors that you are ignoring in your statements is almost unbelievable.