Arkady Renko Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article541137.ece If moving Evans was only a cost-cutting move, why wouldn't they move Parrish instead at $3.3M a year? Edited September 1, 2011 by johnnyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turn Down For Watkins Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 thats kind of surprising. might not be a bad move but i think i'd rather wait to see if he can stay healthy before extending him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yeah... I never thought trading Lee was a "salary dump." And I never thought Roscoe would be a "surprise cut." Roscoe, in fact, was pretty productive in his 8 games last year. Interesting that the Bills want to extend his contract. Gailey clearly wants big guys on defense. On offense he wants quick guys at the skill positions who have big play potential. Freddie Jackson isn't really Chan's type. But he's too productive to neglect. Parrish is Chan's type. Although we haven't seen him do it enough times recently, Roscoe can turn nothing into something with his burst and athleticism. Would like to see him return punts again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article541137.ece If moving Evans was only a cost-cutting move, why wouldn't they move Parrish instead at $3.3M a year? Impossible. Haven't they heard he's gonna get cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills1960 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm cool with it. The way he looked last year before his injury was eye opening to say the least. Gailey can salvage this guy and make him a serious threat in the slot. Just keep him healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cincinnati Kid Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I never was a Scoe fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouds Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Jauron & his merry band of fools castrated this guy. He had one year with Mularkey, didn't do much but it's hard for a rookie receiver to do much in this league. Guy never developed, he wasted away with Jauron. Imagine if we actually put Steve Johnson on the field, and Roscoe, and used them properly before last season. Have no problem with Roscoe, guy can return kicks, and play a decent slot if last year is any indication. Edited September 1, 2011 by bouds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article541137.ece If moving Evans was only a cost-cutting move, why wouldn't they move Parrish instead at $3.3M a year? All part of the fiendish plot to spend money to hide the fact that Ralph is cheap. Bwah-hah-hah. PTR Edited September 1, 2011 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_red Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 lets see if he can play 16 games for the first time since the 07-08 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article541137.ece If moving Evans was only a cost-cutting move, why wouldn't they move Parrish instead at $3.3M a year? The link you posted says he's now in the last year of a contract that pays him an AVERAGE of $3.3 million/year. That doesn't mean he was scheduled to be paid $3.3 million in 2011. Here's a link to rotoworld's "player page" for Roscoe Parrish: http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3197/roscoe-parrish If you then click on "view contract details" near the top of the page, you get a pop-up that reads as follows: 2011: $1.025 million, 2012: Free Agent. In addition to his $1.025 million base salary, Parrish is due a $500,000 roster bonus during the 2011 offseason. I don't know how accurate rotoworld typically is about contract details, and I don't know when the $500,000 roster bonus was due to be paid (could have already been paid). But if Rotoworld has the details right, if (I said IF) you wanted to get out from under 1 WR contract in 2011 to save money, you would save more by moving Evans than by moving Parrish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan714 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I dont get it, reminds me of extending Kelsay. A 175lb slot receiver who can't stay healthy and will be 30 next year? Here's the reality. Parrish's career stats in 6 years are are 133 receptions for 1486 yards. Thats a per season average of 22 catches for 248 yards. His season high for receiving TD's is a whopping 2, his career high for receiving yards is 400. He does have 13 career fumbles with 6 lost though. His production is as imaginary as Spiller's 50 yard TD runs. He's averaged 11 games played a year for the last 3 years. So actually it makes perfect sense, in a Bills dysfunctional front office way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpcolosi Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 no one ever mentions this, but he was on pace to have a better year than Lee last season (yards and catch wise). Is it entirely possible the coaching staff was sick of Lee not wanting to run quick slants from the slot? I'm sick of guys like Sully constantly saying its "bean counters" and salary dumps. Look at PRODCUTION in Gailey's system. Lee didn't have it, but Roscoe did! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! 2010 RP 8gp 33 400 12.1 37 2 20 1 0 2010 LE 13gp 37 578 15.6 54 4 26 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Further evidence of the "2 second game plan" being by design, not default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) All part of the fiendish plot to spend money to hide the fact that Ralph is cheap. Bwah-hah-hah. PTR Yeah Promo, what a smart move to extend an under productive gadget player! You are right; everything the Bills do is great. Our dismal record is a mere coincidence. Edited September 1, 2011 by Bill from NYC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 a 5'9'' 175lbs often hurt player. Here's hoping at age 29 this guy finds a way out of the trainer's room! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 As long as he stays healthy, I'm fine with keeping him a couple more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsObserver Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 There's no denying what Roscoe was on his way to doing last year under Gailey. They obviously feel he's capable of being a really productive player. Health is his biggest issue. But he landed on his wrist last year, it's not like he blew out his knee. As long as the deal isn't ridiculous, what's the problem? He could/should be a big part of our offense this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article541137.ece If moving Evans was only a cost-cutting move, why wouldn't they move Parrish instead at $3.3M a year? Evans wasn't a cost-cutting move. From no aspect does "saving money" make sense as the main reason to trade him. The link you posted says he's now in the last year of a contract that pays him an AVERAGE of $3.3 million/year. That doesn't mean he was scheduled to be paid $3.3 million in 2011. Here's a link to rotoworld's "player page" for Roscoe Parrish: http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3197/roscoe-parrish If you then click on "view contract details" near the top of the page, you get a pop-up that reads as follows: I don't know how accurate rotoworld typically is about contract details, and I don't know when the $500,000 roster bonus was due to be paid (could have already been paid). But if Rotoworld has the details right, if (I said IF) you wanted to get out from under 1 WR contract in 2011 to save money, you would save more by moving Evans than by moving Parrish. True, Parrish would be paid $1.5M this year. But after getting his $1.1M bonus, Evans only saved the Bills $2.6M this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Not sure if he still is, but before last year he had the highest punt return average in NFL history...I have no problem with extending Parrish, dude can be a game changer and is not afraid to go over the middle. Evans clearly fell out of favor with the coaching staff and tended to pull a disappearing act way too often. Interesting how some of the loudest critics of the Evans trade used to bash him for being a 1 trick pony and question why he disappeared so much, especially Jerry Sullivan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I dont get it, reminds me of extending Kelsay. A 175lb slot receiver who can't stay healthy and will be 30 next year? Here's the reality. Parrish's career stats in 6 years are are 133 receptions for 1486 yards. Thats a per season average of 22 catches for 248 yards. His season high for receiving TD's is a whopping 2, his career high for receiving yards is 400. He does have 13 career fumbles with 6 lost though. His production is as imaginary as Spiller's 50 yard TD runs. He's averaged 11 games played a year for the last 3 years. So actually it makes perfect sense, in a Bills dysfunctional front office way. Depends on the extension. Your allowed to keep guys who aren't the best ever too. If he gets a Kelsey contract I scratch my head. If he gets a little less than brad smith, it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Evans wasn't a cost-cutting move. From no aspect does "saving money" make sense as the main reason to trade him. True, Parrish would be paid $1.5M this year. But after getting his $1.1M bonus, Evans only saved the Bills $2.6M this year. I agree Doc. I think it makes for good cover to say it was "the bean counters." Evans is a straight speed WR, which doesn't fit Gailey's mold. Also, I don't think Evans and Fitz ever really "clicked." While Evans will give you that homerun every so often, guys like Parrish, Roosevelt, Nelson, et al make drive-extending plays more often. How many times did Fitz look for Evans on 3rd down last year? As for Parrish, I think it was neck-and-neck with Johnson for leading receiver before he went down last year. Parrish languished under Jauron and Trent; he's a star with Gailey and Fitz. Good move to extend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 I agree Doc. I think it makes for good cover to say it was "the bean counters." Evans is a straight speed WR, which doesn't fit Gailey's mold. Also, I don't think Evans and Fitz ever really "clicked." While Evans will give you that homerun every so often, guys like Parrish, Roosevelt, Nelson, et al make drive-extending plays more often. How many times did Fitz look for Evans on 3rd down last year? As for Parrish, I think it was neck-and-neck with Johnson for leading receiver before he went down last year. Parrish languished under Jauron and Trent; he's a star with Gailey and Fitz. Good move to extend him. IIRC, Parrish replaced Johnson as the #2 for a couple games early in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcbillsfan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Parrish is everything evans was not , he goes underneath, he runs slants and he is fearless. Chan made it clear many times last year and in the offseason that Lee had to do more. In street talk he thought evans was a P U S S Y . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article541137.ece If moving Evans was only a cost-cutting move, why wouldn't they move Parrish instead at $3.3M a year? The question you should be asking is why in the hell we would resign Parrish who is ALWAYS hurt, and not resign Fitzpatrick? Now I am COMPLETELY convinced they have no future plans that are in any way logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) I dont get it, reminds me of extending Kelsay. A 175lb slot receiver who can't stay healthy and will be 30 next year? Here's the reality. Parrish's career stats in 6 years are are 133 receptions for 1486 yards. Thats a per season average of 22 catches for 248 yards. His season high for receiving TD's is a whopping 2, his career high for receiving yards is 400. He does have 13 career fumbles with 6 lost though. His production is as imaginary as Spiller's 50 yard TD runs. He's averaged 11 games played a year for the last 3 years. So actually it makes perfect sense, in a Bills dysfunctional front office way. +1. It's not like Parrish is a young prospect waiting to "bloom". He's been around, and has done very little so far in his career other than get hurt. The guy is built like a twig, and crumbles under the slightest contact. He's nothing close to a Welker type, who can go across the middle and take a hit. Parish has iffy hands, and short arms as well. Unless the pass is thrown perfectly to him he can't catch it....Oh yeah, there was also the time when he thought he was great and "demanded" more targets in the offense, then hinted that he wanted a trade....PASS.. he couldn't stay healthy for more than a few snaps in the pre-season, so reward him with a contract? Edited September 1, 2011 by Turbosrrgood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 But, but, but... Ralph is cheap, the Bills are racist, and Roscoe is black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I never was a Scoe fan. So let me get this straight- you're a Bills fan but when he was easily the most electrifying punt returner for in the league for 2-3 years and always gave the Bills a distinct field position advantage, you were like, "nah, I don't like this guy." Just checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Now if Roscoe can just get off the line of scrimmage cleanly... That has been his greatest weakness since he joined the team, beating the jam. He looked a bit better last year in this regard. I liked Lee Evans a lot, so I'll defend these things he did better than Roscoe, even while acknowledging that Parrish has his own skills, some where he's better than Lee: Getting off of the LOS cleanly Downfield blocking Fly pattern and catching over-the-shoulder I'm fine with a reasonable extension for Parrish, so long as it's not too big or for too long. We seem to havea few other promising WRs coming up, though most in another mold (bigger and stronger, though isn't everyone?! ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) no one ever mentions this, but he was on pace to have a better year than Lee last season (yards and catch wise). Is it entirely possible the coaching staff was sick of Lee not wanting to run quick slants from the slot? Evans was not the slot receiver. Not sure if he still is, but before last year he had the highest punt return average in NFL history...I have no problem with extending Parrish, dude can be a game changer and is not afraid to go over the middle. Evans clearly fell out of favor with the coaching staff and tended to pull a disappearing act way too often. Interesting how some of the loudest critics of the Evans trade used to bash him for being a 1 trick pony and question why he disappeared so much, especially Jerry Sullivan... Comments like this and the above are endlessly repeated. Are you really saying that Gailey called for Evans to run a crossing route and he refused to do it? That makes sense to you? He seemed to have no problem going over the middle for quick slants for his new team. I agree Doc. I think it makes for good cover to say it was "the bean counters." Evans is a straight speed WR, which doesn't fit Gailey's mold. Also, I don't think Evans and Fitz ever really "clicked." While Evans will give you that homerun every so often, guys like Parrish, Roosevelt, Nelson, et al make drive-extending plays more often. How many times did Fitz look for Evans on 3rd down last year? Roscoe had a total of 17 first down catches last year. The majority were not on 3rd down. Roscoe broke his wrist and missed 8 games for this. He comes to an abreviated offseason and quickly injures his leg to the point he misses nearly all of the preseason. He's not a full season player any more. Why does it makes sense to re-sign him right now? Does anyone think he will play all 16 games? If not then why resign him now? Edited September 1, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcbillsfan Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Some on this board are very funny, If you trade a vetern for a pick Ralph is cheap and Buddy is clueless. On the otherhand if you sign veterns the coaches actually like then it is a waste of money. Signing Parrish to what will be a 3 or 4 year contract is not a major deal. As for Kelsey, it is clear he was not a great fit last year. Two things to consider , 1 maybe as they get better talent they have a several packages in mind to take advantage of his skill set. 2 It could be that Buddy and Chan though they needed what he brought to the team as for as leadership and work ethic. The other thing is nobody seems to know how much of his contract is gauranteed , which is really the only thing that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I dont get it, reminds me of extending Kelsay. A 175lb slot receiver who can't stay healthy and will be 30 next year? Here's the reality. Parrish's career stats in 6 years are are 133 receptions for 1486 yards. Thats a per season average of 22 catches for 248 yards. His season high for receiving TD's is a whopping 2, his career high for receiving yards is 400. He does have 13 career fumbles with 6 lost though. His production is as imaginary as Spiller's 50 yard TD runs. He's averaged 11 games played a year for the last 3 years. So actually it makes perfect sense, in a Bills dysfunctional front office way. This is precisely how I feel. Thank you for surmising my exact feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 +1. It's not like Parrish is a young prospect waiting to "bloom". He's been around, and has done very little so far in his career other than get hurt. The guy is built like a twig, and crumbles under the slightest contact. He's nothing close to a Welker type, who can go across the middle and take a hit. Parish has iffy hands, and short arms as well. Unless the pass is thrown perfectly to him he can't catch it....Oh yeah, there was also the time when he thought he was great and "demanded" more targets in the offense, then hinted that he wanted a trade....PASS.. he couldn't stay healthy for more than a few snaps in the pre-season, so reward him with a contract? I'm sorry - I usually like your posts and agree with them, but this one I have a problem with. Almost everything in it is wrong. Roscoe is one of the toughest players on the team pound-for-pound. There have been many times when he's taken an absolute clobbering, gotten up (with the ball), and lined up for the next play. He goes across the middle and takes hard hits all of the time, which is amazing considering his stature. I don't know where you get the "iffy hands" comment - the dude makes very difficult catches look easy. And as for him demanding the ball more - he was RIGHT about that, he was being under-utilized under Jauron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yeah Promo, what a smnart move to extend an under productive gadget player! You are right; everything the Bills do is great. Our dismal record is a mere coincidence. How does extending a WR (who was the #3 WR on the team statistically despite only playing half the season), qaulify as extending a "gadget player"? Just because jauron was too big of an idiot to use the guy at WR doesn't mean Gailey is. I'd hazard a bet that if he's healthy for 16 games, Roscoe will be the #2 WR on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalopdc Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) no one ever mentions this, but he was on pace to have a better year than Lee last season (yards and catch wise). Is it entirely possible the coaching staff was sick of Lee not wanting to run quick slants from the slot? I'm sick of guys like Sully constantly saying its "bean counters" and salary dumps. Look at PRODCUTION in Gailey's system. Lee didn't have it, but Roscoe did! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! 2010 RP 8gp 33 400 12.1 37 2 20 1 0 2010 LE 13gp 37 578 15.6 54 4 26 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 1 I AGREE Completely. Lee was a one trick pony. He runs a great go route but that is about it. He dissapaeared against physical corners that could lay a lick off the line and is an undersized WR as a red zone target. Gailey made it clear that he expected more from Lee and I do not think Lee wanted to do that so there was a mutual parting of ways. Roscoe while undersized is a physical reciever (ergo the injuries) and can run slants, intermediate, and deep routes. He also is an asset in the return game and can run reverses and other "trick plays". These are all things that Lee did not do. Who cares what he is paid in a new contract if he helps win games. Sometimes I appearsthat the bipolar posters on here act like it is their money. The Bills have money to spend and are methodically spending it, BE HAPPY. This team is not run by "bean counters" and I know Ralph cares about the product on the field. Several friends of mine met him at Danny's during the Donahoe Era and you could tell he was passioniate about winning (Picture is hanging at Danny's) and he was not pleased with the start that year. It was not lip service. Edited September 1, 2011 by buffalopdc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm sorry - I usually like your posts and agree with them, but this one I have a problem with. Almost everything in it is wrong. Roscoe is one of the toughest players on the team pound-for-pound. There have been many times when he's taken an absolute clobbering, gotten up (with the ball), and lined up for the next play. He goes across the middle and takes hard hits all of the time, which is amazing considering his stature. I don't know where you get the "iffy hands" comment - the dude makes very difficult catches look easy. And as for him demanding the ball more - he was RIGHT about that, he was being under-utilized under Jauron. You are more than welcome to your opinion, but just because yours is different doesn't mean mine is "wrong". Roscoe will go over the middle I never disputed that, however it usually ends up with him leaving the game....The guy HAS iffy hands, if you don't agree with that I understand. He has made some pretty nice catches, I will admit. He also has dropped many catches that other receivers would normally make. This isn't a talent thing, he is short, has short arms, and small hands...he can only do so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yeah Promo, what a smnart move to extend an under productive gadget player! You are right; everything the Bills do is great. Our dismal record is a mere coincidence. Bill, you're another one I respect greatly here. But I don't get this post. Roscoe is not a "gadget player." He is our starting slot receiver, he brings much-needed speed to the offense, and he happens to be one of the greatest punt returners in NFL history. As long as the extension doesn't prohibit them from addressing other needs, I can't see why anyone would complain about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitz's Beard Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I would rather them extend Stevie and Freddy first, but as long as the Bills get contracts for the right players, I really cannot complain. Roscoe is definitely ballsy with the routes he runs across the middle, but he is injury prone because of it. He is a great punt returner, and wasn't appreciated under DJ. I'm glad to see him develop more under Chan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yeah Promo, what a smnart move to extend an under productive gadget player! You are right; everything the Bills do is great. Our dismal record is a mere coincidence. Sure, under DJ he was a gadget player, but not in chans system. Did you watch the first 8 games last year? He was not an under productive gadget player. He was a productive slot Wr. Like it or not. The only problem I have with extending him is his health. When on the field in chans system, he'll move the chains. When hurt, he's useless. All in all, I like him and am happy to extend him. It's not my money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It is so insane to me, that we can pay a gimmick player like Brad Smith 4 mil a year to come here, can pay a seldom-used slot reciever another couple million, but wont pony up the dough for a RT who is going to play EVERY OFFENSIVE SNAP. With the offer they made Clabo, they shoulda tacked on the money they gave to Brad Smith and blew his socks off with their offer to have him come play here. Hell throw in Parrish's and kelsay's contract ammounts too. We would be a better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 reward him a new contract for being injured all the time?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts