GG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 See it is about Da'Rick, and not about a type player. Because another player in Da'Rick's spot would also bust his hump to make special teams, which Hogan did and Da'Rick did not. So you're asking the coaching staff to keep a roster spot for an erratic rookie who refused to learn special teams play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) For kikos sake, as i think you are actually curious to see him beyond the couple colts highlights we all know heres a tennessee highlight reel... big catch radius, physical, and the position seems to come natural in a way it doesnt for hogan... probably a gift and a curse: the td he scores in this one about 2 weeks after joining tennessee tech, and facing a top 5 oregon team is the type of play i just dont see hogan having in his repertoire: Thanks. The one handed catch on the fade where he got turned around was incredible. The play in the Oregon game where he almost had his head taken off was incredible. Those were 2 plays i couldn't see a lot of WR's making. The rest were for the most part good plays that I think a lot of guys could make. He was really good shielding the ball from defenders when catching. I was suspicious of the argument that he was good against top college talent so I checked and what I found is that Rogers beat up on scrubs and played poorly against the top talent. VS Elite: Fla - 5/62 1 td Georgia - 5/71 0 td LSU - 3/63 0 td Bama - 2/32 0 td S. Car - 4/35 0 td Ark - 5/106 0 td Total - 24/369 1 td Vs Non elite: Vanderbilt - 10/116 2 tds Buffalo - 7/180 2 tds Montana - 5/100 1 td Cinci - 10/1000 2 tds Mid Tenn - 9/137 1 td Kentucky - 3/38 0 td Total - 44/671 8 tds My argument is that I just don't think Rogers is all that special. I think Hogan contributes more. Yes, Hogan's interchangeable with the Kauffman's and Roosevelt's of the world as far as receiving goes. But, if he's significantly better on special teams (just guessing) than them, he's worth keeping. Da'Rick was awful on special teams and, in my mind, interchangeable with other athletic wr's available. Edited October 1, 2014 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) See it is about Da'Rick, and not about a type player. Because another player in Da'Rick's spot would also bust his hump to make special teams, which Hogan did and Da'Rick did not. So you're asking the coaching staff to keep a roster spot for an erratic rookie who refused to learn special teams play? Hogan played opposite a great ST player (Easley) on one the worst ST units in franchise history. Just a because he played ST doesn't mean he did it well. The whole "plays hard" thing really drives me nuts too (more of a pet peeve). I don't care if a guy plays like Rudy or like James Harden on defense. I care that he plays well. Effort means so little to me at that level. Results are all that matter. You give some rope to talented players until they either develop or you need that spot. This keeps going round and round but you think the team is better off with Hogan for the last 15 months and I think that they would have been better off taking a chance with Rogers (until this week) and now TJ Graham. That is the crux of this conversation. Both NoSaint and I have tried to use other examples so that everyone follows that we are not focused on a specific guy. In this case that is how I would have done it. I also would have kept Jasper over Corbin Bryant, Seantrel over Welch, Hopkins over Lindell, Schmidt over Moorman, etc... I would always take the higher ceiling guy if I could find a guy on the open market equivalent to the guy that I am keeping (especially at the bottom of my depth chart). If the guy that I am keeping over the high ceiling guy provides more value than what is on the open market then I keep him. Edited October 1, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Your ceiling analogy ignores the floor. While Hopkins could hit the ball further, are you better off if his FG % is ten points below Lindell? If Bryant is not spectacular, he wouldn't crap the bed against big boys like Jasper did. Nothing like seeing a 400 pounder flopping aroun don the carpet. Same with Da'Rick & TJ. You're not accounting for the times they're a liability on the field that offset the rare positive contributions, that in the end yield a negative return. That's how I do my asset management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Your ceiling analogy ignores the floor. While Hopkins could hit the ball further, are you better off if his FG % is ten points below Lindell? If Bryant is not spectacular, he wouldn't crap the bed against big boys like Jasper did. Nothing like seeing a 400 pounder flopping aroun don the carpet. Same with Da'Rick & TJ. You're not accounting for the times they're a liability on the field that offset the rare positive contributions, that in the end yield a negative return. That's how I do my asset management. The point is that the floor is not that different in a lot of cases. Is Hogan's floor that much higher than Rogers? Could Rogers be worse than zero catches? Was Moorman's floor higher than anyone late last year? All players at the bottom of your depth chart have low floors. It's the ceilings that separate them. EDIT: For the record I think that a high floor is imperative to the first guys off your bench. The Preston Brown, Kraig Urbik, Manny Lawson types is who I am referring to. If you have an injury you can't have a huge dropoff. The guys behind them are the guys that I would try to develop to potentially surpass them based on talent (Kuoandjio, Randell Johnson, etc...). If you are all the way to your Ty Powell's and Hogan's it doesn't matter how high their floor is because you are in trouble anyways if those guys are playing. Edited October 1, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Same with Da'Rick & TJ. You're not accounting for the times they're a liability on the field that offset the rare positive contributions, that in the end yield a negative return. That's how I do my asset management. you framed it your way, and we see it closer to finding a lottery ticket on the ground and simply holding on to it to see if its a winner. theres no real cost, odds of success are low, but whatever maybe you win something.... you find out its worthless, oh well, you have no cost. if hes unable to perform when you need that 6th guy off the bench - go sign hogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 you framed it your way, and we see it closer to finding a lottery ticket on the ground and simply holding on to it to see if its a winner. theres no real cost, odds of success are low, but whatever maybe you win something.... you find out its worthless, oh well, you have no cost. if hes unable to perform when you need that 6th guy off the bench - go sign hogan. But there is a cost in terms of a roster spot. So in your example, you didn't find the lottery ticket, you bought one. And you picked a lottery game with much lower odds of winning, but with a bigger payoff if you win. That's the analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) But there is a cost in terms of a roster spot. So in your example, you didn't find the lottery ticket, you bought one. And you picked a lottery game with much lower odds of winning, but with a bigger payoff if you win. That's the analogy. what you now seem to disagree on is the value of the 53rd roster spot. i contend there are about 500 guys that are six of one or a half dozen of the other with regards to value, so its really no cost to fill it with something that could have more upside. the guy that has a rare unrealized gift, or will shine in a specific role is the one you have to protect, not the warm body that you could sign in november anyway (as we did sign hogan in november). as kirby said, we arent talking backup qb, first lb off the bench and roster slots 30-35... we are talking literal last couple guys to make the team. Edited October 1, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) you framed it your way, and we see it closer to finding a lottery ticket on the ground and simply holding on to it to see if its a winner. theres no real cost, odds of success are low, but whatever maybe you win something.... you find out its worthless, oh well, you have no cost. if hes unable to perform when you need that 6th guy off the bench - go sign hogan. I don't understand the fixation on Da'Rick. Those who are arguing that based on his physical abilities he should have made the roster over a less physical player who demonstrably outperformed him in practice makes little sense. Da'Rick was an undrafted free agent prospect. Prior to the draft he was interviewed by almost all the teams interested in him. Not one team was willing to use a pick on him. What does that say about their collective wisdom over a player that got cut by a coaching staff that had a close up opportunity to evaluate him? It confirms their assessment of the player. I distinctly remember when Paul Hamilton on WGR was asked about him. He stated that he simply couldn't grasp the offense and had an inability to play within the confines of an offense. DR is the type of player who could go long and once in a while make the big catch. The problem with him as a receiver is that he couldn't run routes with any discipline or be where the qb expected him to be. As others have previously stated under Whaley this organization is not afraid to take risks with problem prospects. Henderson is a good example of that. He was given an opportunity to produce and he did. Does anyone really believe that a new coaching staff is willing to pass on a player that can in any way help a mediocre team? DR may have some physical tools but he didn't have the maturity and mental wherewithal to play for the Bills. This staff on a daily basis saw what he had to offer in camp and preseason. They let him go. It was the right move regardless who they kept in his spot. Edited October 1, 2014 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 As far as I'm concerned it's not the "red flags" concerning his behavior that had the Colts worried, it was the fact he wasn't a very good receiver. There are more important elements to the position than running fast, jumping high, and being strong enough to break tackles. He wasn't benched in the most important game of the year last season and then relegated to the inactive list to start this season because he was a "behavior" risk. He was benched and deactivated because he wasn't good enough at the position to deserve an active role, let alone game time, let alone starting. His DUI just made the decision to release him a no brainer GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) I almost got Da Ricks autograph on Chippawa but a large crowd sweeped me away I think it was him............ Edited October 1, 2014 by HOUSE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I almost got Da Ricks autograph on Chippawa but a large crowd sweeped me away I think it was him............ i bet he looked really good . I have heard he looked really good. Haven't actually seen him play. Potential has become a dirty word for Bills fans i would guess. I don't like potential any more. Proven sounds much better to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmalibu Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Hogan 2 catches for 27. Rogers watching TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Hogan 2 catches for 27. Rogers watching TV. Hogan has to be closing in on 100 career yards by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Why was Hogan even playing? Was someone hurt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Why was Hogan even playing? Was someone hurt? He got reps in 3 wide sets last week too.... He's up to like 10 catches now though?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 Hogan 2 catches for 27. Rogers watching TV. So Hogan now has more catches than Kirby this season. All is right in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 He got reps in 3 wide sets last week too.... He's up to like 10 catches now though?!? i must have missed it since I was covering my eyes that whole game. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts