Has Charles Rogers turned it around? (3 Viewers)

[Mimo]

http://www.mlive.com/weblogs/highlightreel..._07.html#163315

The team is very high on Rogers, they think he's turned the corner and that he gets it now. "I'm still skeptical about this because I haven't seen it. I keep hearing about it, but if I see that in the first two weeks... if I see Charles Rogers (like he was) from his first two training camps, then this offense changes dramatically." If Roy Williams and Charles Rogers are your starting WRs, that's incredible. But only if he has turned the corner. That's why he's the player to watch

 

[Ducegonads]

Yes he has Momo, Yes he has.

All kidding aside he's a guy that could be huge if it all the stars align, a rooster crows before dawn on the winter solstice and the war in Iraq ends before Christmas. His value was at a 52 week low but slowly on the rise.

 

[fsufan]

I like Rogers this year as a good value pick. His current ADP from Antsports is in the 15 round.

 

[joffer]

from a different story on that same website

Williams could have some difficulty making the Lions roster this season. Roy Williams and Corey Bradford are expected to be the starting wide receivers with Mike Furrey in the slot and No. 3 position. Because of his kick return abilities, Eddie Drummond will fill the No. 6 receiver spot. That leaves Charles Rogers, Scottie Vines, Glenn Martinez and Mike Williams to battle for the final two roster spots at No. 4 and No. 5 on the depth chart.

 

[LHUCKS]

from a different story on that same website

Roy Williams and Corey Bradford are expected to be the starting wide receivers

Down, Down, Down...Staff is going Down! :cableguy:

 

[EBF]

Is this the same Corey Bradford who has a career high of 697 receiving yards in his 8 NFL seasons? If Charles Rogers can put down the hash pipe for a few weeks then he should be able to beat out Bradford. Bradford has always been a mediocre player whose main value lies in his ability to hit the occasional home run. He'll help Detroit win, but I'm not buying his sudden FF revival.

 

[Spartans Rule]

A tidbit I thought was interesting:

One of the things I had a problem with the old offensive line coaching staff, they made Dominic Raiola blocking Grady Jackson one-on-one. That's a product of coaching. You don't have a player do what he can't do. I asked Beightol about that, and he said there are certain situations where you have to help him, but in some certain situations you have to just do it. The player has to play. The coaches have to make sure he can do it.

Some linemen complained about the blocking schemes last year and I believe Raiola was part of that. I've always thought he sucked because when he's not getting knocked on his ### he's getting called for holding, but if they're asking him to move 3-4 NTs by himself, that would explain a lot of it.The O-line is the area that worries me most this season for the Lions. I'd like to believe that coaching can fix it.

 

[Traders2001]

Bradford STARTER , gimme a break .

 

[renesauz]

 

[Browns Rule!]

Does Charles Rogers stand a better chance of starting then Mike Williams?

 

[AB in DC]

I've heard nothing but bad news on Mike Williams. Charles Rogers will be a mystery until training camp gets rolling, but at least he has a chance of being in the starting lineup. I see no chance that Mike Williams will be. He'll be lucky to be activated in a majority of the games.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Turned what around?

Who is Charles Rogers?

He used to be a pretty good wideout at Michigan State - he's been MIA since.

 

[The Finist]

Oh yeah....Charles Rogers has mos def turned it around. It all started when he bought that treadmill this offseason.

 

[slayer666]

Does Charles Rogers stand a better chance of starting then Mike Williams?

Yes

 

[BigRed]

Turned what around?

Who is Charles Rogers?

lol - was thinking that myself

 

[LHUCKS]

Turned what around?

Who is Charles Rogers?

lol - was thinking that myself

There was a stretch of games in his rookie season where he was very impressive. The talent isn't the question here IMHO.

 

[IndyHavoc]

Oh yeah....Charles Rogers has mos def turned it around.  It all started when he bought that treadmill this offseason. 

exactly what I was thinking. Best fluff article of the summer, hands down. Need to dig it up, so anyone that missed it can get a good laugh.Edit: found it

Charles Rogers rededicated! Thread

 

[bueno]

If Rogers can't beat out Vines and Bradford he ought to give back part of his salary. I usually don't carry a lot of WRs, but if he's there in the last round of any of my drafts, I'll give it some thought.

 

[BigRed]

There was a stretch of games in his rookie season where he was very impressive. The talent isn't the question here IMHO.

Rogers' rookie best game:4-62-1

wow

 

[B Maverick]

-- Lions Have Given Up on Rogers --

Fri Jul 21, 2006 --from FFMastermind.com

Peter King, speaking on The Dan Patrick Show, said the Detroit Lions have already given up on WR Charles Rogers.

For what its worth...

 

[MLBrandow]

There was a stretch of games in his rookie season where he was very impressive.  The talent isn't the question here IMHO.

Rogers' rookie best game:4-62-1

wow

I was thinking the same thing myself when I read that. Would have responded with an equally wise-### remark.

I think what LHUCKS meant was that he showed a lot of potential and a lot of promise as a rookie in those five games.

It would be great to see the Old Rogers become the New Rogers and start opposite Roy Williams. He has much better potential than either Bradford or Mike Williams IMO.

 

[Spartans Rule]

-- Lions Have Given Up on Rogers --

Fri Jul 21, 2006 --from FFMastermind.com

Peter King, speaking on The Dan Patrick Show, said the Detroit Lions have already given up on WR Charles Rogers.

For what its worth...

It ain't worth much when it conflicts with what Kowalski's saying. Not that I'm a big fan of Kowalski, but he's a lot more in touch with the Lions than Peter King.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Does Charles Rogers stand a better chance of starting then Mike Williams?

Much better. Rogers is a mystery, and he could even be cut. But he could crack the lineup too.There's no mystery about Mike Williams. He's not in the team's plans.

 

[BigRed]

I think what LHUCKS meant was that he showed a lot of potential and a lot of promise as a rookie in those five games.

I'd say some, not a "lot." I think the "lot of potential" is based on what he did in college. I'm not saying no way, but I sure as flip won't draft him.

 

[agent 86]

Not a Lions fan or expert, but It looks like Roy will see as much double coverage as any WR in the league. Looking at some of the pass defenses in the Norris, somebody on that team should come from nowhere to be a pretty good sleeper. I'm not sure I'd trust Rogers though b/w his injury history and assorted baggage. I'm not sure MW fits the offense either. I would expect either Furrey or Drummond to possibly be the guy. That team is going to throw an aweful lot.

 

[MLBrandow]

I think what LHUCKS meant was that he showed a lot of potential and a lot of promise as a rookie in those five games.

I'd say some, not a "lot." I think the "lot of potential" is based on what he did in college. I'm not saying no way, but I sure as flip won't draft him.

I think for having Harrington at QB, his numbers were pretty damn good.If Rogers gets his act together and does start, does he cap 1k?

Not a Lions fan or expert, but It looks like Roy will see as much double coverage as any WR in the league. Looking at some of the pass defenses in the Norris, somebody on that team should come from nowhere to be a pretty good sleeper. I'm not sure I'd trust Rogers though b/w his injury history and assorted baggage. I'm not sure MW fits the offense either. I would expect either Furrey or Drummond to possibly be the guy. That team is going to throw an aweful lot.

Wonder if Williams could really be cut? I know one team that would love to pick him up for dirt cheap (Tampa).

 

[Couch Potato]

Does Charles Rogers stand a better chance of starting then Mike Williams?

Much better. Rogers is a mystery, and he could even be cut. But he could crack the lineup too.There's no mystery about Mike Williams. He's not in the team's plans.

FBG Redraft WR Rankings - M. Williams #67 (including a #32 by Mike Brown, what an embarrassment)

Rogers #69

Bradford #75 (should be about #45)

As of now, Williams and Rogers both are at best WR4 on their own team.

These rankings are pathetic. Just pathetic.

 

[LHUCKS]

I'm telling you guys, there aren't many deep fliers that have the upside of Charles Rogers in a Martz system.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think what LHUCKS meant was that he showed a lot of potential and a lot of promise as a rookie in those five games.

I'd say some, not a "lot." I think the "lot of potential" is based on what he did in college. I'm not saying no way, but I sure as flip won't draft him.

I think for having Harrington at QB, his numbers were pretty damn good.If Rogers gets his act together and does start, does he cap 1k?

Not a Lions fan or expert, but It looks like Roy will see as much double coverage as any WR in the league.  Looking at some of the pass defenses in the Norris, somebody on that team should come from nowhere to be a pretty good sleeper.  I'm not sure I'd trust Rogers though b/w his injury history and assorted baggage.  I'm not sure MW fits the offense either.  I would expect either Furrey or Drummond to possibly be the guy.  That team is going to throw an aweful lot.

Wonder if Williams could really be cut? I know one team that would love to pick him up for dirt cheap (Tampa).

Even if the Lions wanted to, from a cap standpoint they cannot cut BMW, the hit would be like 12 mill

 

[Spartans Rule]

I think what LHUCKS meant was that he showed a lot of potential and a lot of promise as a rookie in those five games.

I'd say some, not a "lot." I think the "lot of potential" is based on what he did in college. I'm not saying no way, but I sure as flip won't draft him.

I think for having Harrington at QB, his numbers were pretty damn good.If Rogers gets his act together and does start, does he cap 1k?

Not a Lions fan or expert, but It looks like Roy will see as much double coverage as any WR in the league.  Looking at some of the pass defenses in the Norris, somebody on that team should come from nowhere to be a pretty good sleeper.  I'm not sure I'd trust Rogers though b/w his injury history and assorted baggage.  I'm not sure MW fits the offense either.  I would expect either Furrey or Drummond to possibly be the guy.  That team is going to throw an aweful lot.

Wonder if Williams could really be cut? I know one team that would love to pick him up for dirt cheap (Tampa).

Even if the Lions wanted to, from a cap standpoint they cannot cut BMW, the hit would be like 12 mill

This is true and it creates a weird situation.Roy Williams and Corey Bradford are the 1 and 2 wide receivers and will be on the roster. Charles Rogers, Mike Furrey and Scotty Vines would probably be the 3, 4 and 5, but...

Mike Williams can't be cut because of the cap, and Eddie Drummond won't be cut because he's the return man. Even though Drummond has shown no real WR ability, he'll probably be the #5 by default.

So unless the team wants to carry 7 wideouts, one of Rogers, Furrey or Vines is on the outs.

 

[JayMan]

I think what LHUCKS meant was that he showed a lot of potential and a lot of promise as a rookie in those five games.

I'd say some, not a "lot." I think the "lot of potential" is based on what he did in college. I'm not saying no way, but I sure as flip won't draft him.

I think for having Harrington at QB, his numbers were pretty damn good.If Rogers gets his act together and does start, does he cap 1k?

Not a Lions fan or expert, but It looks like Roy will see as much double coverage as any WR in the league.  Looking at some of the pass defenses in the Norris, somebody on that team should come from nowhere to be a pretty good sleeper.  I'm not sure I'd trust Rogers though b/w his injury history and assorted baggage.  I'm not sure MW fits the offense either.  I would expect either Furrey or Drummond to possibly be the guy.  That team is going to throw an aweful lot.

Wonder if Williams could really be cut? I know one team that would love to pick him up for dirt cheap (Tampa).

Even if the Lions wanted to, from a cap standpoint they cannot cut BMW, the hit would be like 12 mill

Not to mention that Mike Williams is bringing the Lions over 400,000$ per year...

 

[joffer]

I think what LHUCKS meant was that he showed a lot of potential and a lot of promise as a rookie in those five games.

I'd say some, not a "lot." I think the "lot of potential" is based on what he did in college. I'm not saying no way, but I sure as flip won't draft him.

I think for having Harrington at QB, his numbers were pretty damn good.If Rogers gets his act together and does start, does he cap 1k?

Not a Lions fan or expert, but It looks like Roy will see as much double coverage as any WR in the league.  Looking at some of the pass defenses in the Norris, somebody on that team should come from nowhere to be a pretty good sleeper.  I'm not sure I'd trust Rogers though b/w his injury history and assorted baggage.  I'm not sure MW fits the offense either.  I would expect either Furrey or Drummond to possibly be the guy.  That team is going to throw an aweful lot.

Wonder if Williams could really be cut? I know one team that would love to pick him up for dirt cheap (Tampa).

Even if the Lions wanted to, from a cap standpoint they cannot cut BMW, the hit would be like 12 mill

This is true and it creates a weird situation.Roy Williams and Corey Bradford are the 1 and 2 wide receivers and will be on the roster. Charles Rogers, Mike Furrey and Scotty Vines would probably be the 3, 4 and 5, but...

Mike Williams can't be cut because of the cap, and Eddie Drummond won't be cut because he's the return man. Even though Drummond has shown no real WR ability, he'll probably be the #5 by default.

So unless the team wants to carry 7 wideouts, one of Rogers, Furrey or Vines is on the outs.

what's the cap hit if Rogers is cut?

 

[Couch Potato]

Not to mention that Mike Williams is bringing the Lions over 400,000$ per year...

Oh, that was beautiful.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'm telling you guys, there aren't many deep fliers that have the upside of Charles Rogers in a Martz system.

Seriously.All this talk of Corey Bradford being the #2 has me . Bradford = Az-Zahir Hakim.

 

[faulkfan]

My prediction is that Rogers will crack the starting line-up by week 3 because he is a superior WR compared to the other options the Lions have. As a starter in week three he will go crazy for the 1st series of downs as Williams draws all the double teams. He'll catch a 12 yard TD and every FF league website in the nation will be humming as he is added to about a million rosters simultaneously. After a strong defensive stand on 3rd and short, the Lions will get the ball back on a punt and as Rogers runs out to the huddle he'll trip over a yard marker break his ankle and his season will be over.

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong. It could be week 4 and he could wait to get hurt til the 2nd quarter.

 

[BigRed]

If Rogers gets his act together and does start, does he cap 1k?

Roy Wms is likely to get 1000 (injuries notwithstanding).....do you see 2 DET WRs getting 1000? If so I suggest glasses.

 

[Chris Smith]

WR Corey Bradford has been around for 8 years now. Perhaps we need an

'Eight-year WR Breakout article' ...

Bradford has had many opportunities to break out thus far in his career. This is the problem.

He isn't very good!

He has great speed and a knack for getting deep against nickel and dime coverage. He is a sub-par route runner and simply isn't consistent enough to slot in as a true #2 for the Lions.

I still believe, at least in part that naming him the #2 is a way to apply pressure to the both Rogers and M. Williams to attempt to light a fire under their butt.

However this is Mike Martz we are talking about and he always does march to the beat of his own drum. Perhaps he does believe that Bradford can indeed step up into the starting receiver role. I do not see Bradford eclipsing 800 receiving yards however even if that does happen. He will struggle against CB1 and CB2 players.

Training camp will be very important in 2006.

 

[Michael Brown]

Does Charles Rogers stand a better chance of starting then Mike Williams?

Much better. Rogers is a mystery, and he could even be cut. But he could crack the lineup too.There's no mystery about Mike Williams. He's not in the team's plans.

FBG Redraft WR Rankings - M. Williams #67 (including a #32 by Mike Brown, what an embarrassment)

You might be looking at the free rankings, which are now outdated. It's true I was extremely high on Williams heading into the off-season, but there has been nothing but negative news surrounding him. I tend to leave my rankings alone until right before training camp when I make any big overhauls.In my latest rankings, I have Williams at WR53 and Rogers at WR54. By the time preseason games start, there's no chance either of them will be at that spot. I'll either be blown away and impressed by the conditioning and move them up or I'll see that it just isn't going to happen for either and I'll remove them from my rankings. That high ranking (was originally top-20) was from March when I expected Williams to start opposite Roy Williams. It wasn't so much being high on Mike as it was being high on the Lions WR2. Sorry for any perceived idiocy on my part.

 

[Couch Potato]

Does Charles Rogers stand a better chance of starting then Mike Williams?

Much better. Rogers is a mystery, and he could even be cut. But he could crack the lineup too.There's no mystery about Mike Williams. He's not in the team's plans.

FBG Redraft WR Rankings - M. Williams #67 (including a #32 by Mike Brown, what an embarrassment)

You might be looking at the free rankings, which are now outdated. It's true I was extremely high on Williams heading into the off-season, but there has been nothing but negative news surrounding him. I tend to leave my rankings alone until right before training camp when I make any big overhauls.

I was not looking at the free rankings. As of my post yesterday, 7/21, Williams was at WR32. You made the change today, 7/22, presumably after reading my post.No major harm done. It's just that a lot of subscribers who don't do their own research rely on those rankings. Williams' situation has been known and discussed for over two months and you've updated your rankings a few times during that period, continuing to keep him at WR32 until my post (maybe you've just been putting a new date on the same rankings so they don't fall off the 'current' list).

By the way, when I said "including a #32 by Mike Brown, what an embarrassment" I meant that specific ranking, not you Mike. I like your writings, and your rankings are generally OK, and I'd never intentionally say you are an embarrassment. I'm sorry if it may have read that way.

 

[Michael Brown]

Does Charles Rogers stand a better chance of starting then Mike Williams?

Much better. Rogers is a mystery, and he could even be cut. But he could crack the lineup too.There's no mystery about Mike Williams. He's not in the team's plans.

FBG Redraft WR Rankings - M. Williams #67 (including a #32 by Mike Brown, what an embarrassment)

You might be looking at the free rankings, which are now outdated. It's true I was extremely high on Williams heading into the off-season, but there has been nothing but negative news surrounding him. I tend to leave my rankings alone until right before training camp when I make any big overhauls.

I was not looking at the free rankings. As of my post yesterday, 7/21, Williams was at WR32. You made the change today, 7/22, presumably after reading my post.No major harm done. It's just that a lot of subscribers who don't do their own research rely on those rankings. Williams' situation has been known and discussed for over two months and you've updated your rankings a few times during that period, continuing to keep him at WR32 until my post (maybe you've just been putting a new date on the same rankings so they don't fall off the 'current' list).

By the way, when I said "including a #32 by Mike Brown, what an embarrassment" I meant that specific ranking, not you Mike. I like your writings, and your rankings are generally OK, and I'd never intentionally say you are an embarrassment. I'm sorry if it may have read that way.

Thanks for clearing that up. I do want to address your first statement, however. I didn't make the change after reading your post. I made the changes last night. That might be why today's date is on the timestamp, but on our administration page the most recent update to my rankings is 12:36 a.m. Anyway, just didn't want you thinking it was a knee-jerk reaction to drop him just because of reading your post. I take my rankings seriously, and while it's true I didn't move him down enough yet (and yes in a lot of cases I simply kept my rankings current, you're right), I hope that I have rectified that by this ranking. Every year, I wait until just before the first teams break for camp before any huge changes. I've found in the past that updating things too much based on knee-jerk reaction from reading "breaking news" has hurt me more than helped, and I always err on the side of caution.In this case though, I admit that I should have done it sooner than yesterday.

 

[Couch Potato]

Cool Mike, thanks.

Generally, I think there's not another team in the league that has been as poorly understood and ranked in 2006 as Detroit. From Dodds' projections (on the low side by about 300 total yards passing, and showing Williams with nearly as many catches as Bradford) on down , staff and ff players just aren't getting it. With Harrington gone at QB, Marinelli's no nonsense expectations replacing Mariucci's budy-buddy approach, Martz' system, insistence on the details, work ethic, conditioning, and offensive creativity, this team will exceed people's expectations.

To those who scoff at Bradford as a WR2, this isn't some motivational ploy for Rogers and Williams. Again, folks aren't getting it. Implementing the Martz system requires some serious hard work and conditioning, and Bradford has that work ethic. At this point there is no way Rogers or Williams will catch up in 2006. Bradford's skills have been knocked way too harshly. He was the 50th ranked WR in Green Bay as the WR3, he was the 43rd ranked WR in 2002 for the horrid expansion Texans, and he was the 54th ranked WR last year sharing time with Johnson and Gaffney, again for a horrid Texans offense. I believe he will be firmly entrenched as the WR2 in Detroit, will have a lot of opportunity in the Martz system, and will go for 55/800/6 in this system. That is actually about WR32 in the league (I have him at #45 in my own rankings, discounting for the uncertainty factor) for a WR draftable very late in drafts.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I understand I'm a lone voice that few will listen to. I'm putting it out there, because it seems no one else has, for those who will listen.

 

[Michael Brown]

Cool Mike, thanks.

Generally, I think there's not another team in the league that has been as poorly understood and ranked in 2006 as Detroit. From Dodds' projections (on the low side by about 300 total yards passing, and showing Williams with nearly as many catches as Bradford) on down , staff and ff players just aren't getting it. With Harrington gone at QB, Marinelli's no nonsense expectations replacing Mariucci's budy-buddy approach, Martz' system, insistence on the details, work ethic, conditioning, and offensive creativity, this team will exceed people's expectations.

To those who scoff at Bradford as a WR2, this isn't some motivational ploy for Rogers and Williams. Again, folks aren't getting it. Implementing the Martz system requires some serious hard work and conditioning, and Bradford has that work ethic. At this point there is no way Rogers or Williams will catch up in 2006. Bradford's skills have been knocked way too harshly. He was the 50th ranked WR in Green Bay as the WR3, he was the 43rd ranked WR in 2002 for the horrid expansion Texans, and he was the 54th ranked WR last year sharing time with Johnson and Gaffney, again for a horrid Texans offense. I believe he will be firmly entrenched as the WR2 in Detroit, will have a lot of opportunity in the Martz system, and will go for 55/800/6 in this system. That is actually about WR32 in the league (I have him at #45 in my own rankings, discounting for the uncertainty factor) for a WR draftable very late in drafts.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I understand I'm a lone voice that few will listen to. I'm putting it out there, because it seems no one else has, for those who will listen.

All very good points. Bradford is definitely one of those guys I plan on giving a closer look to during camp. At this point, I still think the upside (if not the contracts) of the other guys has to count for something so I still have them higher. But if it becomes more and more apparent that Bradford is the no-doubt WR2 in Detroit, he'll be getting a sizable bump in my rankings. As I said before, it's not so much that I love Mike W or Rogers, I just agree with you 100% that fantasy owners who get on Detroit guys will reap the rewards. WHOEVER the #2 guy is there stands to do a great deal in the system.

 

[AB in DC]

Bradford's skills have been knocked way too harshly. He was the 50th ranked WR in Green Bay as the WR3, he was the 43rd ranked WR in 2002 for the horrid expansion Texans, and he was the 54th ranked WR last year sharing time with Johnson and Gaffney, again for a horrid Texans offense.

But you're missing the obvious question here -- if Bradford could barely crack the starting lineup in the "horrid" Texans offense (6 starts last year, 22 starts over three years), what makes him good enough to start in Detroit?

 

[Couch Potato]

Bradford's skills have been knocked way too harshly. He was the 50th ranked WR in Green Bay as the WR3, he was the 43rd ranked WR in 2002 for the horrid expansion Texans, and he was the 54th ranked WR last year sharing time with Johnson and Gaffney, again for a horrid Texans offense.

But you're missing the obvious question here -- if Bradford could barely crack the starting lineup in the "horrid" Texans offense (6 starts last year, 22 starts over three years), what makes him good enough to start in Detroit?

I don't know. Call up Martz and ask. He wanted Bradford signed in the offseason. He sees him every day. He's the one making him the starter. He apparently thinks Bradford is the right choice. Good enough for me.That may seem like a smart aleck answer, but how am I supposed to answer? A consensus of fantasy football geeks isn't consulted to determine who a team's starters are. I don't have to justify why Bradford should be the starter. He IS the starter.

You see, Bradford is illustrative of something I see a lot. Everyone just loves to see themselves as 'sharks,' yet any time there is a true opportunity to see something that isn't obvious to the masses, the so-called 'sharks' simply prove they ARE the masses. Sadly, only two staff members even rank Bradford (#56 and #57), and the rest stay away until everything becomes obvious to the average fan. How is that being a leader? How is that being a shark? How is that giving their readers an edge on draft day? Oh, but they rank Chris Henry and Mike Williams and Charles Rogers and Ashley Lelie above him in redraft rankings, proving they aren't leading their subscribers to value but are falling in line with the rest of the masses who will waste picks based on a player's hype, or last year's stats, or draft pick status, regardless of developing facts. How long did people keep wasting picks drafting David Terrell? Then, when Bradford does have a good year, everyone will come out of the woodwork telling us they knew it would happen and he was one of their big sleepers. Amazing how EVERYBODY seems to have been high on Galloway last year now that he's had a great year, isn't it?. But how then did I get him in 3 leagues for cheap? Easy. No one else wanted him, that's how. So you guys go ahead and draft Chris Henry's 6 TDs last year even though they don't count this year, and watch him not play because he's a punk. I'll take Bradford's 6-7 PPG at the end of a draft instead.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

There was a stretch of games in his rookie season where he was very impressive.  The talent isn't the question here IMHO.

Rogers' rookie best game:4-62-1

wow

Sounds more like a 'stretch of fact' vs. a stretch of very impressive games to me too BigRed.LHUCKS = King of Low Expectations

Rogers Game Logs against some of the most pathetic secondaries in the NFL in '03

Missed '05 and damned pathetic last year

 

[veto87]

There's a very good conversation on Rogers on one of the first few pages of the forums , can't remember who wrote it but I copied it and tucked it away in my sleeper file, I usually add to these files with info throughout training camps and have a few pagaes of info. here it is ( this is a copy and paste from another forum topic)

--read this online last night, pretty interesting----

As I have stated in the past I have a good friend who is tight with a couple of Lion ### coaches, he coaches their kids in high school.

Last year they said Rogers was pure junk and could be cut. I just saw my buddy at a golf outing on Saturday and he said he was told that "so far" Chuck has been very, very impressive. Like all of a sudden something clicked.

Mike Martz has taken a special interest in Rogers dues to his field stretching speed.

Personally I will believe it when I see it, but there is no doubt that Rogers has the talent, maybe now he is realizing what it takes to be a pro player.

What he told me was that last year Rogers would not watch film, would do his weight and conditioning training half assed, and practice when he felt like it.

This year he has not missed a conditioning session, has been in all the time doing the film work needed.

That in itself has to help. I was also told the reason he was not playing that much last season was because after 3-4 plays he was gassed, not that he was not good enough as a wR , he was just never in good enough game shape after his suspension.

Again, after 3 seasons I will believe when I see it on the field, but keep an eye on him in pre-season for sure.

This is the same guy who told me after the first mini-camp three years ago that Roy Williams was going to blow away Rogers and I did not believe him.

I posted that here and was laughed out of the forum, because Rogers scored a TD in 4 of his first 5 games before getting hurt and people were still high on him.

With Rogers it has never been about talent, the guy was as immature as they come getting of of college.

I think he has three kids by three different mothers 2 in HS and one in college, has been smoking pot since who knows when.

Rogers needed a wake up call, like he may be out of this league soon like David Terrell and many other talented WRs who never quite get what it means to be a pro.

Hopefully in his fourth season he has finally grown up a bit and it putting forth the effort needed.

 

[wannabee]

Lions | Millen insists the team could cut Rogers

Published Wed Jul 26 10:31:00 p.m. ET 2006

(KFFL) Nicholas J. Cotsonika, of the Detroit Free Press, reports Detroit Lions president Matt Millen insists the team could cut WR Charles Rogers, regardless of his draft status, financial commitment or salary cap implications. Millen said, "I think we would be willing to cut anybody. I think we just have to be. There's realities of where we're at, but ... everybody has a chance to define what they are. Here we go." However, Millen praised Rogers' offseason work earlier and said he "made great strides." Millen added, "He was catching everything with his hands. He was running excellent routes. He was going full speed all the time."

And he said the same about MWilliams

 

[veto87]

that post I pasted was from Da Guru

titled Charles Rogers looking impressive

guess it doesn't mean much if they're cutting him though

 

[AB in DC]

Bradford's skills have been knocked way too harshly. He was the 50th ranked WR in Green Bay as the WR3, he was the 43rd ranked WR in 2002 for the horrid expansion Texans, and he was the 54th ranked WR last year sharing time with Johnson and Gaffney, again for a horrid Texans offense.

But you're missing the obvious question here -- if Bradford could barely crack the starting lineup in the "horrid" Texans offense (6 starts last year, 22 starts over three years), what makes him good enough to start in Detroit?

I don't know. Call up Martz and ask. He wanted Bradford signed in the offseason. He sees him every day. He's the one making him the starter. He apparently thinks Bradford is the right choice. Good enough for me.[rant deleted]

Being a starter in July is not the same as being a starter in September, or November.Do you believe that Arlen Harris will be the #2 RB throughout the season? That's where Martz has him right now. Do you believe that Mike Furrey will be the #3 WR throughout the season? If not, then why believe that Bradford will be the #2 WR all season?