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...
Recommended Posts