RI Bills Fan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I've been trying to get an answer to this very question. For whatever reason, Rogers was removed from the game in the second quarter and wasn't seen again until the game was out of hand. That doesn't reflect well at all. He was thrown to twice in the 1st Qtr. Two very catch-able balls that would have extended drives. He dropped both passes. After the 2nd drop he was replaced by Whalen... End Thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well .. we can pick this thread back up next season. Why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 If you go back to any of the last 50 some odd pages you will hear me saying over and over that it is not the player. I said it was a mistake in August and believe that it is a mistake now. I would have said the same thing if it was Mike Jasper or Jason Peters. When you have a talented player with question marks you weigh the cost of keeping him vs. cutting him. As I have said 1,000 times or more I did not think that there was a viable NFL option ahead of him on the depth chart which made the decision an easy one. If he never catches another ball in the league it was the wrong decision because of the depth chart. I am in no way back pedaling on my stance. The conversation is about roster building, not the player. The player should have been on this roster because a perennial 6-10 team does not need to use the 6th WR spot on a low upside scrub. They might as well use that spot on someone who in all likelihood would give you at least as much production (he contributed more to his team than CH did to ours). If he happens to develop the gap between the two could be substantial. I am not sure what you are not agreeing with? I have asked the question a few times if the Bills are in a better place with Chris Hogan than they would have been with Da'Rick Rogers? Not one person, including yourself has made a case that they are. That is what opportunity cost is. In this case it was an easy decision IMO. It was easy at the time and it is easy as a MMQB. 1st bolded - what question marks did Jason Peters come in with? Jasper's questions were about his weight. Neither of them had a history of trouble/getting kicked out of school in college. As I have stated several times don't you think the Bills did weigh the cost of keeping him vs. cutting him? They made their decision and it is clear you don't agree with it. 30 pages after one catch though? I don't think his 1 catch is enough proof to say it was a mistake. I also don't think his 3 drops in the next game say it wasn't. 2nd bolded - what if he doesn't develop and the Bills wasted a roster spot? That would be okay because maybe he might develop? If he never catches another ball it was the wrong decision? Are you serious? Wouldn't that prove their decision correct? Wouldn't that let you know that they knew what they were doing? 3rd bolded - many people in this thread have wondered if he was cut for attitude purposes and laziness. Yes then they are in a better place with Hogan on the roster. If you go back to page 27-29 k9 posted a comment which you quoted in which he stated the final roster spot actually came down to Hogan vs. Kaufman. That is actual insight into the team. Opportunity doesn't cost potentially put a cancer who hasn't earned his way onto the team on the roster because he dominated the SEC 2 years ago (if that is even the case). Easy: 1) I said before the game my position was not dependant on his play this coming week. 2) The verdict on Rogers as a player in the NFL won't come for a while. Likely a couple years. 3) pointing out his catch in the wild card game was just an example of the talent he has. 4) A team desperate for legit playmakers on the outside has nothing to lose by keeping a guy who has that potential instead of a almost any other deep depth player on the team. 5) it's no risk because if he refuses to work hard or becomes trouble again, you cut him and lose nothing. TC (IMHO) is not enough time to make that assessment. 1) Nice way to cover yourself. How does the sword not cut both ways though? If that 1 catch was such a great example of his talent, how was dropping 2 balls and then getting yanked not an example of how far he has yet to go? 2) I agree completely. Some people already have their mind made up that this was a colossal mistake. I can't get on board with that rationale. 3) As I said earlier pointing out his 3 drops is an example of why he may not end up doing anything in this league and that it was a correct decision. 4) Unless that player is lazy, aloof, above playing special teams, or a distraction. Rogers may not be any of these things or he may be all of these things. 5) Marauders Micro did a great job of debunking this point but I would like to pile on. There is much to lose. The respect of your team or the roster spot that is used for a special teams contributor. Do you not see the irony in your comment that the Bills did exactly what you are talking about? They brought him in, had him for all off-season workouts (not just tc) and decided to cut him loose. They lost nothing for doing this. Simpletons abound who see Da'rick is Da'not all that. Name calling over 7th string wideout? Awesome. It is just because we're just not some of the better posters on this board and can't grasp why 59 pages on a UDFA WR is completely necessary. There are so many examples of the Bills being an inept organization, this one isn't... yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) 1st bolded - what question marks did Jason Peters come in with? Jasper's questions were about his weight. Neither of them had a history of trouble/getting kicked out of school in college. As I have stated several times don't you think the Bills did weigh the cost of keeping him vs. cutting him? They made their decision and it is clear you don't agree with it. 30 pages after one catch though? I don't think his 1 catch is enough proof to say it was a mistake. I also don't think his 3 drops in the next game say it wasn't. 2nd bolded - what if he doesn't develop and the Bills wasted a roster spot? That would be okay because maybe he might develop? If he never catches another ball it was the wrong decision? Are you serious? Wouldn't that prove their decision correct? Wouldn't that let you know that they knew what they were doing? 3rd bolded - many people in this thread have wondered if he was cut for attitude purposes and laziness. Yes then they are in a better place with Hogan on the roster. If you go back to page 27-29 k9 posted a comment which you quoted in which he stated the final roster spot actually came down to Hogan vs. Kaufman. That is actual insight into the team. Opportunity doesn't cost potentially put a cancer who hasn't earned his way onto the team on the roster because he dominated the SEC 2 years ago (if that is even the case). 1) Peters was a great athlete without a position. He was a college TE. That's why he went undrafted. Rogers made a bunch of plays over the last month (not just 1 catch). To that end though it isn't about the player to me. It is about risk/reward. 2) It still is a mistake because they did not have a viable alternative. If he didn't work out they could have signed Hogan off the street or Kauffman, etc... They did not need to keep that spot to protect those guys. 3) If it is from laziness that is fine. My sources have told me that there are some differing opinions regarding the situation. There is certainly some regret from those that I have spoken with. I have not talked with them since the Ike Hilliard firing so I do not know how those two are linked. I would say that leading the SEC in receiving is dominating the SEC. Some of the other receivers that year were Alshon Jeffrey & Justin Hunter off the top of my head. Lastly the notion that an undrafted rookie could be a cancer is absurd. If you want to pin it on laziness fine but he does not have any juice in that locker room let alone enough to influence anyone. Edited January 14, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 He was thrown to twice in the 1st Qtr. Two very catch-able balls that would have extended drives. He dropped both passes. After the 2nd drop he was replaced by Whalen... End Thread. Addendum Graham cost us multiple games with this kind of bad play. He still started for us. Colts>Bills for a reason in 2013. NOW End Thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 He was thrown to twice in the 1st Qtr. Two very catch-able balls that would have extended drives. He dropped both passes. After the 2nd drop he was replaced by Whalen... End Thread. That was the point of my rhetorical question: that Rogers' performance and performance alone, is what prompted Pagano and Co. to remove him from the lineup. The very same reasons Marrone and Co. saw fit to cut him. Rogers will have an uphill battle next year, coming in as the 5th or 6th receiver and trying to make that squad. And as much as some tried to make Pagano and his staff the great miners of untapped, undeveloped talent by giving Rogers an opportunity, even they aren't going to wait forever for Rogers' switch to go on. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Front Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 So, the question becomes was Rogers dogging it in a playoff game? If that's the case, maybe Marrone's decision was the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 That was the point of my rhetorical question: that Rogers' performance and performance alone, is what prompted Pagano and Co. to remove him from the lineup. The very same reasons Marrone and Co. saw fit to cut him. Rogers will have an uphill battle next year, coming in as the 5th or 6th receiver and trying to make that squad. And as much as some tried to make Pagano and his staff the great miners of untapped, undeveloped talent by giving Rogers an opportunity, even they aren't going to wait forever for Rogers' switch to go on. GO BILLS!!! That's all that I wanted K-9. A one year tryout to determine if he will tap into that potential or not. If he does he will be a productive NFL player and if he does not it isn't hard to find 6th receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 So, the question becomes was Rogers dogging it in a playoff game? If that's the case, maybe Marrone's decision was the correct one. I wouldn't say he was dogging it. It's hard to tell watching on TV. But drops are often a result of lapses in concentration. Something Rogers exhibited a lot of while in Buffalo. And given the short leash the other night, I have a feeling Pagano and Co. have seen that same lack of focus from Rogers previously. Two drops or not, that's a pretty quick hook for a WR. I don't think it was just the drops, though. Rogers seems to have a tendency to wear his heart on his sleeve out there and perhaps those drops affected other portions of his game. GO BILLS!!! That's all that I wanted K-9. A one year tryout to determine if he will tap into that potential or not. If he does he will be a productive NFL player and if he does not it isn't hard to find 6th receivers. I hope Rogers gets his shot, but I don't blame organizations who may decide a player just isn't worth the time and trouble of the investment in that player. 6th receiver or not, resources need to be devoted to those players as well. Regardless of how easy they are to acquire and replace. When you're an UDFA, you have extremely limited opportunities to impress those you need to impress. Contrast Rogers to a player like Robey, where the latter came in, made an immediate impression early, and continued to build on it. He kept giving the staff a reason to see more. Whereas Rogers was up and down the entire time. It's a cruel business where cutting bait and moving on is the norm. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) It's a cruel business where cutting bait and moving on is the norm. GO BILLS!!! which i guess comes to the fundamental question that even if its the norm, is the norm typically right? and particularly is it right given the situation we faced? there are a lot of traditionally held football beliefs that end up not being right across the board, or even sometimes end up being generally wrong. it seems like from our discussion, as well as even you and kirbys insights into the organization - it wasnt considered an obvious choice. ill leave the door open that they got it right based on their added information that we will never see, but on a fundamental level there are things that make it seem like they very easily may have simply gotten the evaluation and/or decision wrong. based on what we know, i dont like it, but we surely dont know the whole story. if it was one where there was debate on the decision, id like to think the tie goes to the immense upside here, but thats me. i dont think ive strayed tooooo far from that sentiment, and i think kirby among several of the others that have been vocal that they didnt like the call will generally agree there. Edited January 14, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Addendum Graham cost us multiple games with this kind of bad play. He still started for us. Colts>Bills for a reason in 2013. NOW End Thread. The reason was Graham? He cost us multiple games? Graham is not a great NFL WR. But I don't hang any of the losses solely on his play. Colts>Bills in 2013 because of Andrew Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) 1) Peters was a great athlete without a position. He was a college TE. That's why he went undrafted. Rogers made a bunch of plays over the last month (not just 1 catch). To that end though it isn't about the player to me. It is about risk/reward. 2) It still is a mistake because they did not have a viable alternative. If he didn't work out they could have signed Hogan off the street or Kauffman, etc... They did not need to keep that spot to protect those guys. 3) If it is from laziness that is fine. My sources have told me that there are some differing opinions regarding the situation. There is certainly some regret from those that I have spoken with. I have not talked with them since the Ike Hilliard firing so I do not know how those two are linked. I would say that leading the SEC in receiving is dominating the SEC. Some of the other receivers that year were Alshon Jeffrey & Justin Hunter off the top of my head. Lastly the notion that an undrafted rookie could be a cancer is absurd. If you want to pin it on laziness fine but he does not have any juice in that locker room let alone enough to influence anyone. 1) Peters risk reward was player based and not behavior. Bad behavior imo will get you a much quicker hook if there is potential. A problem employee has to prove that they are worth it much quicker than someone who isn't. 2) Rogers sat out as a free agent for a couple of weeks, nobody scooped him immediately off of waivers. The demand wasn't very high for him either. He got snatched up by a team that can afford to wait on developing players as well as a team with playoff experience. I agree with the sentiment that if it wasn't Marrone's first year and we weren't 14 years out from our last playoff appearance maybe the leash can be let out a bit longer for developmental projects. 3) I would think the Hilliard firing may have something to do with it as well. Maybe it wasn't laziness, maybe they decided that he can't cut it in the NFL. Maybe the light really did come on after he was cut. It is all speculation but without any info it is hard to bang the drum one way or another that this was the right or wrong decision. bolded - that was a poorly worded sentence on my part "Opportunity doesn't cost potentially put a cancer who hasn't earned his way onto the team on the roster because he dominated the SEC 2 years ago (if that is even the case)." Even reading it makes my head hurt . If that is even the case is referring to him being a cancer as we genuinely don't know. Maybe he just wasn't that good. He indeed did dominate the SEC, I won't argue that, but SEC receivers don't necessarily have the best track record of translation to the NFL. In 2011 he was the 3rd ranked receiver in the SEC behind Ryan Swope (retired/injury) and Jairus Wright who hasn't set the NFL on fire. Every year a few of the top 5 receivers are studs but they are mixed in with names like Jeff Fuller, TJ Moe, Shay Hodge, Darvin Adams, Chase Coffman, etc... Dominating the SEC at receiving (especially for only one year) doesn't guarantee anything in the NFL. edit: I would like to add in I'm appreciating this DISCUSSION because it is just that. Edited January 14, 2014 by section122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 which i guess comes to the fundamental question that even if its the norm, is the norm typically right? and particularly is it right given the situation we faced? there are a lot of traditionally held football beliefs that end up not being right across the board, or even sometimes end up being generally wrong. it seems like from our discussion, as well as even you and kirbys insights into the organization - it wasnt considered an obvious choice. ill leave the door open that they got it right based on their added information that we will never see, but on a fundamental level there are things that make it seem like they very easily may have simply gotten the evaluation and/or decision wrong. based on what we know, i dont like it, but we surely dont know the whole story. if it was one where there was debate on the decision, id like to think the tie goes to the immense upside here, but thats me. i dont think ive strayed tooooo far from that sentiment, and i think kirby among several of the others that have been vocal that they didnt like the call will generally agree there. I don't want to rehash old ground. It was a simple decision for the coaching staff to make at the time. I'll let it go at that. I think the comparison to Robey is valid. What did he do as an UDFA that Rogers didn't? Especially keeping in mind the limited opportunity an UDFA has in the first place to make an impression? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The reason was Graham? He cost us multiple games? Graham is not a great NFL WR. But I don't hang any of the losses solely on his play. Colts>Bills in 2013 because of Andrew Luck. Colts>Bills because they recognized that having Rogers on the field HURT their team, unlike the Bills with Graham. That's what that meant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 This thread is not just slowing down the board performance, but doing so with epic uselessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 This thread is not just slowing down the board performance, but doing so with epic uselessness. Last post wins, baby. Idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Colts>Bills because they recognized that having Rogers on the field HURT their team, unlike the Bills with Graham. That's what that meant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homey D. Clown Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 60 pages for a guy who will more than likely be bagging groceries in 2 years time.... good grief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 60 pages for a guy who will more than likely be bagging groceries in 2 years time.... good grief! Eh. With self checkout now, the grocery bagging field is a dying economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts