JStranger76 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I just don't see Crowell as being big enough to play the position. Yes, he is very good in coverage, but don't think he can hold the point of attack well enough to be a true starter there. His extension was insurance just in case Spikes doesn't make it back and be able to work him back slowly if need be. I wouldn't mind a trade down and a Chad Greenway selection in the draft. So many possibilities this offseason........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffaloed in Pa Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I just don't see Crowell as being big enough to play the position. Yes, he is very good in coverage, but don't think he can hold the point of attack well enough to be a true starter there. His extension was insurance just in case Spikes doesn't make it back and be able to work him back slowly if need be. I wouldn't mind a trade down and a Chad Greenway selection in the draft. So many possibilities this offseason........... 607067[/snapback] Where have I heard this before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 You dont have to be "big" to play sslb, especially in a cover 2, what you should have is adequate coverage ability and decent speed, which I think crowell posesses. With an improved line Crowell can make the switch to sslb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStranger76 Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 I know, it's all over everybodys mock offseason. Just wondering why so many people think we could just move Crowell to the other side and, presto, Posey is gone. LB is a position that could get some surprising attention, and yeah, some around here are aware of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I think Crowell was extended because first he can play the game. He showed he can be a positive force as an ST player, as a credible fill-in as a starter in mu;tiple games for Spikes, and in the difficult position of calling defensive signals as a credible back-up for the speedy but aging London Fletcher. Before this thread digresses into folks attacking the general quality of Crowell's developing play as the attempt to demonstrate he cannot play SLOB. If any do not agree that his signing was a good idea given his age, development as a strong ST player, his being a credible fill-in after the devastating loss of Spikes and also a credible back-up for Fletcher who will not last forever, the please say so now and let folks judge your football judgment. Second, I think Crowell was extended because he has shown good play at two of the three LB positions. Can he play the third position? Maybe or maybe not, but given what he has shown it is not irrational that he might well be able to play the strong side even if he is not the prototypical strongside guy in terms of his height and weight. Fletcher for example is a bit short for the typical MLB, yet he has led the NFL intackles credited to him for the past five years and his also the team D captain. Playing the strongside is far from a guarantee in terms of Crowell, but in fact if Spikes comes back flipping him to the other side to see how he does is far from an irrational idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I think Crowell was extended because first he can play the game. He showed he can be a positive force as an ST player, as a credible fill-in as a starter in mu;tiple games for Spikes, and in the difficult position of calling defensive signals as a credible back-up for the speedy but aging London Fletcher. Before this thread digresses into folks attacking the general quality of Crowell's developing play as the attempt to demonstrate he cannot play SLOB. If any do not agree that his signing was a good idea given his age, development as a strong ST player, his being a credible fill-in after the devastating loss of Spikes and also a credible back-up for Fletcher who will not last forever, the please say so now and let folks judge your football judgment. Second, I think Crowell was extended because he has shown good play at two of the three LB positions. Can he play the third position? Maybe or maybe not, but given what he has shown it is not irrational that he might well be able to play the strong side even if he is not the prototypical strongside guy in terms of his height and weight. Fletcher for example is a bit short for the typical MLB, yet he has led the NFL intackles credited to him for the past five years and his also the team D captain. Playing the strongside is far from a guarantee in terms of Crowell, but in fact if Spikes comes back flipping him to the other side to see how he does is far from an irrational idea. 607119[/snapback] you have been posting great insightful stuff. Welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I just don't see Crowell as being big enough to play the position. Yes, he is very good in coverage, but don't think he can hold the point of attack well enough to be a true starter there. His extension was insurance just in case Spikes doesn't make it back and be able to work him back slowly if need be. I wouldn't mind a trade down and a Chad Greenway selection in the draft. So many possibilities this offseason........... 607067[/snapback] can you imagine adding aj hawke to our linebacking core???????????? i am just not sure if you have great linebackers ,but you have a aging dt in sam adams you would be able to stop the run.now if we could do aj in the 1st and find another dt in free agency to help sam out or if tim anderson can finially improve a little we could have a good defense again...trade off would be we didnt address the oline again though.you have to have a balanced team unless your defense is #1 and totally dominate.if you go crazy defense then you need a elite punter/field goal kicker so u can win those 9-6 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millstone twnsp nj bills fan Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 can you imagine adding aj hawke to our linebacking core???????????? i am just not sure if you have great linebackers ,but you have a aging dt in sam adams you would be able to stop the run.now if we could do aj in the 1st and find another dt in free agency to help sam out or if tim anderson can finially improve a little we could have a good defense again...trade off would be we didnt address the oline again though.you have to have a balanced team unless your defense is #1 and totally dominate.if you go crazy defense then you need a elite punter/field goal kicker so u can win those 9-6 games. 607305[/snapback] The way that Marv used to stockpile linebackers back in the old days it would not surprise me at all if we selected AJ Hawk, assuming he's available. I would love that! I think that linebackers are the soul of your football team, you can't have too many. That being said, you still need o-line help. I always think you are better off getting o-line help via free agency. The draft picks take too long to learn how to play o-line. Get impact help on D in the draft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts