Peter Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 I never understood the Roscoe hate by some on this board. Periodically the haters come out of the woodwork. At least it is not as frequent as it used to be.
3rdand12 Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 On 9/1/2011 at 2:51 PM, Doc said: The reason why Fitz isn't being extended yet is the Bills want to see if last year was a fluke or not, and because re-signing him, a QB, is an order of magnitude higher in money than Roscoe would be. Speaking of which, I'm all for a reasonable deal for Roscoe. But anything more than what he was making ($3.3M/year) is overpaying, unless there are provisions for missing games due to injury. yep! i agree with all points, but especially the healthy, being on the field incentives. The man does have some wheels and does a decent job with those tiny hands.
EC-Bills Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) That's what you think. Extending Roscoe and then cutting him only adds more to the surprise! Edited September 1, 2011 by EC-Bills
RealityCheck Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Judging by the KW deal, I would not be concerned about what the Bills pay him, besides, it's not my money. Roscoe is a good player and I hope we extend him.
Mark Long Beach Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Gailey likes explosive players. Roscoe has that, and Gailey has shown that he can make Roscoe a productive slot receiver. Something the previous coaching staff could not do. Yes he's an injury risk as is the WR position in general. That's why teams carry a lot of WRs (5-8 wr's for nominally 2 starting jobs). IMO, Roscoe is a very good slot receiver who even if he only lasts 8 games, is worth having on our team. I'll take the mis-matches he gives us during his time on the field.
Recommended Posts