Colts Elevate Da'Rick Rogers to the Active Roster

[Saint Doug]

 

 

I guess this is when I ask, how are the Bills being hurt by this? I mean other than in your imagination?

 

Is it my imagination or are the Bills sitting pretty at 3-7, last in their division, 23rd in passing yards? When your team hasn't even sniffed the playoffs in the 21st century, perhaps they should had taken some chances to perhaps gain a quality starter. Who knows if Rodgers will work out, but in regards to the Bills beggars can't be choosers.

Edited November 13, 2013 by kas23

[K-9]

Is it my imagination or are the Bills sitting pretty at 3-7, last in their division, 23rd in passing yards? When your team hasn't even sniffed the playoffs in the 21st century, perhaps they should had taken some chances to perhaps gain a quality starter. Who knows if Rodgers will work out, but in regards to the Bills beggars can't be choosers.

 

Ok, after this, I'm really out of this mess, but I have to ask. Are you seriously suggesting that if the Bills had kept DaRick Rogers they wouldn't be 3-7 and 23rd in passing yards? That DaRick Rogers is the difference maker we are lacking? I'm sorry, but that's how that sentence reads to me.

 

You've seen the QB play we've gotten most of the year, haven't you?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

 

 

Ok, after this, I'm really out of this mess, but I have to ask. Are you seriously suggesting that if the Bills had kept DaRick Rogers they wouldn't be 3-7 and 23rd in passing yards? That DaRick Rogers is the difference maker we are lacking? I'm sorry, but that's how that sentence reads to me.

 

You've seen the QB play we've gotten most of the year, haven't you?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Probably would still be 3-7 but you've also seen our WR play right? A well placed catch or two and we could be a game or two better. That's not to say we couldn't also be 2-8 but I suspect the possible gains outweigh the risk here.

 

I think we can all agree his success will be questionable at best even with the pair I've comments today but even if he failed I'm not sure the message sent keeping him is any worse than keeping a guy like hogan over him. Is hogans best case any better than Rogers worst? Unless there was something going on we weren't privy to, I don't think so.

Edited November 13, 2013 by NoSaint

[fridge]

Ok, after this, I'm really out of this mess, but I have to ask. Are you seriously suggesting that if the Bills had kept DaRick Rogers they wouldn't be 3-7 and 23rd in passing yards? That DaRick Rogers is the difference maker we are lacking? I'm sorry, but that's how that sentence reads to me.

 

You've seen the QB play we've gotten most of the year, haven't you?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

The point was, if you're a 3-7 football team without WR success. How exactly does a flier on a talented young kid make your record any worse?

 

If anything he would see Easley/Hogan time out there and use the season to get experience and learn how to patiently wait his number. If he acts up or can't handle it when its his turn (when Stevie's hurt, Woods' hurt and there's a chance), then move on...you'd still be 3-7 so who cares?

[Dibs]

I'll never understand these sort of threads. 5 pages on an undrafted player who hasn't caught a ball or even played a down in the NFL. Crazy.

[Leelee Phoenix]

What's with the Hogan hate... he was clearly the better player all camp and preseason. Although, I don't like that they're barely using him. Would be preferable having a young talent in that role.

 

Rogers' value is way, WAY overstated due to a few games he had 2 years ago. And it's not like he earned another call-up due to great play, the Colts are getting decimated at WR.

 

And note that Rogers was on the PS behind Griff Whalen, another guy who's a "dime-a-dozen", i.e. white and slow.

[....lybob]

I liked Rodgers and thought he was a good pickup because physically he has just about everything you want in a WR but he did not run NFL routes, seemed a little immature, a slow learner and I would have put him on the practice squad anyways but I'm not going to make a big deal about the Bills cutting him because I wanted the Bills to keep Richie Incognito so sometimes it's more than on field ability going into decisions.

[YoloinOhio]

I liked Rodgers and thought he was a good pickup because physically he has just about everything you want in a WR but he did not run NFL routes, seemed a little immature, a slow learner and I would have put him on the practice squad anyways but I'm not going to make a big deal about the Bills cutting him because I wanted the Bills to keep Richie Incognito so sometimes it's more than on field ability going into decisions.

The Bills, and 31 other teams, all have enough info on Ridgers to stay away regard;ess of WR injuries around the league. That tells me everything. Yes, I say 32 teams b/c 32 passed on him in the draft, the Biklls actually gave him a chance and kept him all the way until last cuts, then Indy cut him at the end of Sept and then let him pass thru waivers (where once again no one picked him up) then re-signed him to the PS (where once again no one picked him up). They are activating him because they are a SB contender that is scraping ther barrel at WR right now. Maybe he has shown improvement, I hope he turns it around, but to criticize the Bills for not keeping him? Sorry, I don't get that at all. The same people criticize the Bills for thinking they are smarter than everyomne else for taking EJ in the 1st while lother trams had him graded lower. They have piles of info on everyone that we don't have as fans

[atlbillsfan1975]

It proabaly opened his eyes up when the Bills cut him. Hopefully he realizes how fortunate he is and has a great career that never costs the Bills too much!

[NoSaint]

I'll never understand these sort of threads. 5 pages on an undrafted player who hasn't caught a ball or even played a down in the NFL. Crazy.

 

because its little to do with Darick rogers himself, and much more to do with roster building and team philosophy at this point.

[YoloinOhio]

because its little to do with Darick rogers himself, and much more to do with roster building and team philosophy at this point.

No one else - great, good, average, bad... thought they should build the roster with him either. Colts are playing him because they have to.

[Kirby Jackson]

No one else - great, good, average, bad... thought they should build the roster with him either. Colts are playing him because they have to.

 

So to be clear you think that Chris Hogan will have a better career than Da'Rick Rogers? In reality, that's what this whole thread boils down too. The point that the rest of us were trying to make is that guys like Hogan are so replaceable. Is he better than David Nelson for example (he was out on the street)? I don't think so but maybe you do. If Da'Rick failed after the year you could write him off and find some "Hogan type" WR to be your 6th or 7th.

 

If Da'Rick ever lives up to even some of his potential he will have a better career than Hogan.

If he lives up to all of his potential he will end up being the big, athletic WR that many of us are clamouring for. If he lives up to none of his potential you cut him loose and grab some other Hogan type guy.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Kirby Jackson

[K-9]

because its little to do with Darick rogers himself, and much more to do with roster building and team philosophy at this point.

 

Gotta disagree here. It's all about DaRick Rogers, whom the Bills would have loved nothing more than to be a piece of the puzzle for them. It didn't work out.

 

And just like that I broke that promise I made myself.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

No one else - great, good, average, bad... thought they should build the roster with him either. Colts are playing him because they have to.

 

and the same could be said about hogan, who was available last november as well.

 

so do you take the hard worker with limited upside or the guy with huge physical talent that has to learn to be a professional. like i said upthread, in this case, because i think rogers on his worst day is as talented as hogan on his best day -- i lean towards the guy that isnt near his ceiling.

 

if they are both 3s on a 1-10 scale, and 3s are readily available every day of the year, why not atleast have the one that could be a 9 some day. i sometimes fall on the other side of it depending on the baggage the player carries, or how close it is in his past, or where i see his potential. i keep hearing we would be no better if we kept rogers, which may be true, but i dont think we could possibly be worse for it, so why not take the shot.

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

and the same could be said about hogan, who was available last november as well.

 

so do you take the hard worker with limited upside or the guy with huge physical talent that has to learn to be a professional. like i said upthread, in this case, because i think rogers on his worst day is as talented as hogan on his best day -- i lean towards the guy that isnt near his ceiling.

 

if they are both 3s on a 1-10 scale, and 3s are readily available every day of the year, why not atleast have the one that could be a 9 some day. i sometimes fall on the other side of it depending on the baggage the player carries, or how close it is in his past, or where i see his potential. i keep hearing we would be no better if we kept rogers, which may be true, but i dont think we could possibly be worse for it, so why not take the shot.

I do see your point and it is very fair to think that... something makes me wonder though if there is more than meets the eye about the guy that we don't even know? Otherwise like you said, with his potential (his combine results were very good) other teams who are thin at WR would have brought him in. JMO.

[NoSaint]

I do see your point and it is very fair to think that... something makes me wonder though if there is more than meets the eye about the guy that we don't even know? Otherwise like you said, with his potential (his combine results were very good) other teams who are thin at WR would have brought him in. JMO.

 

its definitely possible theres more, and theres a reason i hedge my comments on him with some sort of disclaimer. im certainly not raging over the decision, but given the limited bit of what we do know, i dont think i agree with it.

[RyanC883]

I think it was a fairly arrogant move on the Bills part. It had little to do with skill or potential on the field and had everything to do with "I'm in charge now, you're not, you're cut". This team couldn't (and still can't) afford to make personnel decision based on teaching players a "lesson".

 

I actually think this is exactly what happened. Marrone did the same thing at Syracuse when he became HC. Excusable there because he was coaching college kids who some may argue need to be taught a lesson. Totally inexcusable here.

 

So to be clear you think that Chris Hogan will have a better career than Da'Rick Rogers? In reality, that's what this whole thread boils down too. The point that the rest of us were trying to make is that guys like Hogan are so replaceable. Is he better than David Nelson for example (he was out on the street)? I don't think so but maybe you do. If Da'Rick failed after the year you could write him off and find some "Hogan type" WR to be your 6th or 7th.

 

If Da'Rick ever lives up to even some of his potential he will have a better career than Hogan.

If he lives up to all of his potential he will end up being the big, athletic WR that many of us are clamouring for. If he lives up to none of his potential you cut him loose and grab some other Hogan type guy.

 

No, we need a team full of no-nonsense, everyone get along type of guys, like the Bickering-Bills of the early 90's. Those guys never won anything. Oh, wait....

 

It proabaly opened his eyes up when the Bills cut him. Hopefully he realizes how fortunate he is and has a great career that never costs the Bills too much!

 

I think he could also have had his eyes opened by being on the roster and not playing for a few weeks, or put on the PS.

[peterpan]

Not one mention that he will have Andrew Luck passing to him?

 

Nobody thinks that will make a difference?

 

Not when we cut him before even trying to use him.

 

If we used him and he didn't produce maybe, but we didnt use him period. We need help at WR. If he helps a better team at WR then the Bills messed up again.

[atlbillsfan1975]

I actually think this is exactly what happened. Marrone did the same thing at Syracuse when he became HC. Excusable there because he was coaching college kids who some may argue need to be taught a lesson. Totally inexcusable here.

 

 

 

No, we need a team full of no-nonsense, everyone get along type of guys, like the Bickering-Bills of the early 90's. Those guys never won anything. Oh, wait....

 

 

 

I think he could also have had his eyes opened by being on the roster and not playing for a few weeks, or put on the PS.

 

maybe.

But being out of work for a couple days probably did him some good. Who knows really?

You would have thought his eyes would have been opened when he went undrafted.

maybe he 'gets it'. Maybe Luck will help him turn into a good WR.

[dubs]

I think the point of cutting him was more to not let what they perceived as a poor work ethic/attitude infect the rest of the team. I suspect that they also believed he was plenty talented, but could not risk undermining the culture of effort, dedication, professionalism and team work that they are trying to build.

 

I totally agree that this is likely the reason he got cut.

 

I would also agree with the posters who have said you gotta take a chance on a guy with that type of talent by at least stashing him on the PS. Especially on a team that is lacking a big body receiver like that. If he turns into the next T.O., I'll be very disappointed with that decision.