Tim Graham. What do you know that we don't?

[TimGraham]

Wasn't this before Peters reported? If so, it would be harder to cut Murphy when he is a tackle.

 

Peters told the Bills he was reporting the day they signed Costanzo. Again, even more reason to wait. In this case, even a day would have been beneficial. And if not Murphy, then Gibran Hamdan or Xavier Omon or ... Crowell for half a season is more valuable than a full year from a few of the guys on the 53-man roster. Again, they could have used the Ryan Denney's roster spot last year but made do.

[The Dean]

I just wanted to thank everybody for reading my work and then taking the time to digest it and comment. I really appreciate the feedback.

 

The point of my story wasn't the type of surgery Crowell had. The issue is that they put him on IR immediately. They could have waited to see how his knee responded from surgery. A week? Two weeks? Three weeks? Then they would be able to make an educated decisions to see how fast he can come back. If it's determined he won't be useful after he's had the surgery, THEN they could put him on IR. Did they need Blake Costanzo that badly?

 

You're absolutely right that this is not an either-or scenario, which is all the more reason to make an educated decision and not one in the eat of the moment, the very definition of a knee-jerk reaction. The prudent thing would have been to wait just a little while to see how Crowell's knee responded.

 

As mentioned in the story, they went seven weeks last year with Ryan Denney eating a roster spot, and that defense was decimated by injuries. This team doesn't need a 53rd man that badly.

 

 

Excellent points. But, last year's experience just might be the key to why DJ didn't want to go through an unknown number of games with a short roster. Last year, injuries decimated the team, and there were games where Ryan Neil had to play DE, and guys like Leon Joe were being being activated. In any given week, there were probably a couple of guys who were so had been with the team for such a short time, that they were more of a detriment than any real help. If you have two injuries at a position, and can't really use their replacements, then the remaining guys get no rest...can lead to more injuries...and certainly does the team no good. This team might not need a 53rd man, but I'm guessing it needs a 47th.

 

So, if they were uncertain on how long it would be before Peters would be activated, that would be two positions they would be keeping open "indefinitely". A few injuries in game #1, and then for game #2 in Jacksonville, in the heat, you have limited number of bodies to shuffle, and position players have to start playing special teams, in addition to their regular duties. Maybe they start 0-2 (or 1-1), instead of 2-0. Because Blake Costanzo is with the team from the beginning, he is practicing with the team, keeping up with the playbook and such and can actually be put into a game, if necessary.

 

Far fetched? Maybe, but based on last season, maybe not so much. I think DJ believes this team has a chance and doesn't want to go for several weeks minus two roster spots...just in case. I could add, he might feel extra strong about this if he isn't getting any straight answers about Crowell's recovery time.

 

Anyway, while we have your attention. Can you answer any of these questions? I realize some of them you may not be at liberty to fully answer.

 

Did the Bills know that Crowell would likely be ready in 5 weeks, as suggested in the article? (Is this what his agent claims, or did you hear this from the Bills, or were you just estimating on your own?)

 

Was Crowell advised by the Bills doc to get the arthroscopic surgery? Did the Bills have ANY idea that he might require surgery before this announcement?

 

Did Crowell know he might need surgery before deciding right before the season started? Could he have had this in the offseason (in other words is this from last season)?

 

I have more, but that's good for now. Thanks for coming by. I really have been enjoying your coverage and think it has been quite good, overall.

 

One more thing. I love that Blake Constanzo's last name is "Costanzo". But, "Blake"? Not so much.

[TimGraham]

If it was just a matter of taking care of his body, then Crow would have had surgery early in the off-season. That he waited till the guarantee kicked in was all about him, and nothing about the team. Spin as you like, but if this guy was on my payroll and pulled that, I would IR him and do it with pleasure.

 

And then bring him back later "to get value"? Having him play the team and management like that meant that he had more value on IR (as an example) and in FA then he would being carried on the active roster. Rather do without then have the poster boy for a new technique in blackmail.

 

Like any 'old-timer' I have known the Bills/Ralph to be pretty cheap. (Actually, VERY cheap.) But I do not recall them actively screwing players over like that. Granted there are things we do not/will not know about what happened, but from appearances the Bills did the right thing - in spades.

 

Crowell didn't wait until the guarantee kicked in. The guarantee kicks in after the first regular-season game.

 

If he wanted to get one over on the Bills, then he would have played through the injury in Week 1 and then had the surgery. Like Merriman did.

[drnykterstein]

Crowell didn't wait until the guarantee kicked in. The guarantee kicks in after the first regular-season game.

 

If he wanted to get one over on the Bills, then he would have played through the injury in Week 1 and then had the surgery. Like Merriman did.

 

Arghhh... this whole situation makes no sense at all!!!

[TimGraham]

Excellent points. But, last year's experience just might be the key to why DJ didn't want to go through an unknown number of games with a short roster. Last year, injuries decimated the team, and there were games where Ryan Neil had to play DE, and guys like Leon Joe were being being activated. In any given week, there were probably a couple of guys who were so had been with the team for such a short time, that they were more of a detriment than any real help. If you have two injuries at a position, and can't really use their replacements, then the remaining guys get no rest...can lead to more injuries...and certainly does the team no good. This team might not need a 53rd man, but I'm guessing it needs a 47th.

 

So, if they were uncertain on how long it would be before Peters would be activated, that would be two positions they would be keeping open "indefinitely". A few injuries in game #1, and then for game #2 in Jacksonville, in the heat, you have limited number of bodies to shuffle, and position players have to start playing special teams, in addition to their regular duties. Maybe they start 0-2 (or 1-1), instead of 2-0. Because Blake Costanzo is with the team from the beginning, he is practicing with the team, keeping up with the playbook and such and can actually be put into a game, if necessary.

 

Far fetched? Maybe, but based on last season, maybe not so much. I think DJ believes this team has a chance and doesn't want to go for several weeks minus two roster spots...just in case. I could add, he might feel extra strong about this if he isn't getting any straight answers about Crowell's recovery time.

 

Anyway, while we have your attention. Can you answer any of these questions? I realize some of them you may not be at liberty to fully answer.

 

Did the Bills know that Crowell would likely be ready in 5 weeks, as suggested in the article? (Is this what his agent claims, or did you hear this from the Bills, or were you just estimating on your own?)

 

Was Crowell advised by the Bills doc to get the arthroscopic surgery? Did the Bills have ANY idea that he might require surgery before this announcement?

 

Did Crowell know he might need surgery before deciding right before the season started? Could he have had this in the offseason (in other words is this from last season)?

 

I have more, but that's good for now. Thanks for coming by. I really have been enjoying your coverage and think it has been quite good, overall.

 

One more thing. I love that Blake Constanzo's last name is "Costanzo". But, "Blake"? Not so much.

 

I can't disclose everything I know or else I would have put it in the story. But I will say that I spoke to more than just Crowell's agent for the story. I spoke with some Bills employees, too.

 

The original prognosis was four to six weeks. The Bills have a bye in Week 6, so that means 11 games would be left if the surgery went the duration of the estimate. Crowell's agent told me their information was that it was a five-week procedure but that some players have come back as quickly as two weeks. Dick Jauron was quoted at the time that eight weeks would have been a worst-case scenario.

 

From the Buffalo News: Asked if the injury could have stretched into the eight-week range, Jauron said, "Yeah absolutely, bad-case (scenario). And that's where we are. We're in a situation at this time 72 hours prior to game time that we needed a spot. So we took the spot."

 

But there are ways to find a roster spot. Just for sake of discussion, would you feel better about your team knowing you have Gibran Hamdan for a full season or that Angelo Crowel is coming back in Week 6? Or even Week 8?

 

There was talk of having the surgery, but the decision was made to try an experimental gel injection treatment to see if that would help (it's uncertain if Crowell made this decision or the Bills did). From what I understand, this method takes a few days to tell how it will work. Once it was determined his knee wasn't responding, then he made the decision to have surgery.

 

What I found strange was that he didn't appear on the injury report for Week 1. The Bills did know he was hurt. I haven't been able to get a good answer as to why he wasn't on the list.

[alg]

Crowell didn't wait until the guarantee kicked in. The guarantee kicks in after the first regular-season game.

 

If he wanted to get one over on the Bills, then he would have played through the injury in Week 1 and then had the surgery. Like Merriman did.

It was stated earlier in this thread that the guarantee kicked in the Tuesday prior to the Seahawks game. If this in error then so is my take. This is a critical fact in assessing intent.

[The Dean]

I can't disclose everything I know or else I would have put it in the story. But I will say that I spoke to more than just Crowell's agent for the story. I spoke with some Bills employees, too.

 

The original prognosis was four to six weeks. The Bills have a bye in Week 6, so that means 11 games would be left if the surgery went to the duration of the estimate. Crowell's agent told me their information was that it was a five-week procedure. Dick Jauron was quoted at the time that eight weeks would have been a worst-case scenario.

 

From the Buffalo News: Asked if the injury could have stretched into the eight-week range, Jauron said, "Yeah absolutely, bad-case (scenario). And that's where we are. We're in a situation at this time 72 hours prior to game time that we needed a spot. So we took the spot."

 

But there are ways to find a roster spot. Just for sake of discussion, would you feel better about your team knowing you Gibran Hamdan for a full season or that Angelo Crowel is coming back in Week 6? Or even Week 8?

 

There was talk of having the surgery, but the decision was made to try a gel injection treatment to see if that would help. From what I understand, this method takes a few days to tell how it will work. Once it was determined his knee wasn't responding, then he made the decision to have surgery.

 

What I found strange was that he didn't appear on the injury report for Week 1. The Bills did know he was hurt. I haven't been able to get a good answer as to why he wasn't on the list.

 

Thanks. That tells me much of what I wanted to know. The fact that he wasn't on the injury list made it seem as though the Bills were unaware of the severity (or the potential severity) of the problem. But, they did know about it.

 

For me, I would always keep a #3 QB on the roster. The decision to go with two, for a while, last year, was a desperation move due to several last minute injuries. But, I would think that, if I was reasonably sure that I was going to get a fully functional Crowell back, by mid-season, I'd keep him active, too. That's why this was all very confusing to me. In my last post, I simply tried to explain why the Bills might not want to have two unfilled roster spots for two, or more, games. (I don't think they were convinced Peters would be ready by week #2.)

 

But, your article, and your answers, make me believe this wasn't a DJ decision, at all.

 

Thanks, again.

[TimGraham]

It was stated earlier in this thread that the guarantee kicked in the Tuesday prior to the Seahawks game. If this in error then so is my take. This is a critical fact in assessing intent.

 

I'll check into that. CBA legalese isn't my strong suit, and I very well could be wrong. But two NFL personnel men from different teams mentioned to me that if Crowell really wanted to screw the Bills he would have played in Week 1.

[TimGraham]

But, your article, and your answers, make me believe this wasn't a DJ decision, at all.

 

Thanks, again.

 

I don't think it was either.

[TimGraham]

I'll check into that. CBA legalese isn't my strong suit, and I very well could be wrong. But two NFL personnel men from different teams mentioned to me that if Crowell really wanted to screw the Bills he would have played in Week 1.

 

The CBA is a little too heavy for me at 2 a.m., but here is a passage from the National Football Post (a great site, by the way), in which Andrew Brandt is discussing John Lynch's situation after getting cut by the Patriots ...

 

"Due to the vested veteran rules requiring full payment of salary for veterans on the 53-man roster opening day, most of these names will not be signed this week."

 

Brandt is a former player agent and Packers VP who handled all of their player contracts and managed their salary cap from 1999-2007.

[TimGraham]

This is from the San Francisco Chronicle about the Raiders beating out the Panthers to sign recently released WR Ashley Lelie:

 

"The Panthers, however, were more inclined to sit tight before making a contract offer to Lelie, even at the six-year veteran minimum of $605,000.

 

"That's because they would have avoided making that $605,000 guaranteed by waiting until the 1 p.m. PDT Saturday deadline to add Lelie to the opening-day roster. As a vested veteran with four or more years in the NFL, Lelie's salary for 2008 becomes guaranteed at that point. Vested veterans who are not on the roster for an NFL team's opening game do not have their salaries guaranteed."

[Fan in Chicago]

I don't think it was either.

 

From what I have heard from several sources (my boss even met Jauron at a Bears camp when he was the HC here), DJ is a player's coach. It seems highly unlikely that he would take any action with his player that would be the equivalent of an 'FU'.

[drnykterstein]

F'n Ralph. Such a bittersweet thing with him. He's the owner, and the reason we have the team, but then he also does weird crap like this that makes no sense.

[DonInBuffalo]

Tim, thanks for following up with all the additional information. To clarify, my previous post was critical of your article for this specific reason: IMO an article of that length should have at least mentioned Jauron's explanation to the media for why they put Crowell on IR. Of course in an op-ed piece it's typical to disagree with someone else's opinion, but to not even have it there for others to consider?

 

As far as other roster options, you haven't come close to convincing me yet either:

- Gilbran Hamdan? get real. During the first two regular season games, Losman has been standing on the sidelines not talking to anyone during the entire game. Hamdan has been wearing the headset and interacting with other coaches/players.

- Xavier Oman? are you kidding me? What if either Lynch or Jackson got hurt? The Bills would be totally screwed.

[kota]

The bills need 6 linebackers on their team. By keeping Angelo around and not playing that leaves them with 5 LB's for 5ish weeks. It cuts into special teams and backups if someone else gets hurt. The bills were not comfortable with that scenario so Angelo got put on IR. It's that simple.

[Lori]

The bills need 6 linebackers on their team. By keeping Angelo around and not playing that leaves them with 5 LB's for 5ish weeks. It cuts into special teams and backups if someone else gets hurt. The bills were not comfortable with that scenario so Angelo got put on IR. It's that simple.

But, again, there were other places to open that 53rd spot. For example, although he has gotten some game time, I was surprised to see them keep a fifth DE, Copeland Bryan. (We knew Ellis would stick.) No, actually SIX ends, since that's technically long-snapper Ryan Neill's position.

 

Tim makes a good point about Denney, I think. When they were scrambling to put 11 healthy D-men on the field early last season, putting him on IR and filling that roster spot would have made sense. As it was, they got less than half a season -- and one sack -- from him. On the other hand, a lot of us thought they moved Posluszny to IR too quickly, too.

 

Just my opinion, but I have to believe that Crowell's upcoming free agency played a role in the decisions made by both sides.

 

Thanks for stopping to clarify your position, Tim.

[bladiebla]

Just for sake of discussion, would you feel better about your team knowing you have Gibran Hamdan for a full season or that Angelo Crowel is coming back in Week 6? Or even Week 8?

 

Well, for me that's an easy one... Rather have Gibran on the team, a quarterback we can be comfortable with next season as 2nd QB and has been creditted a couple of times by DJ after important wins for his great way of leading the scout team and prepping the first team for what to expect during the game. In his current role Hamdan sort of fills a playing coach as I understand it. Listen back to DJs press conference after the Seahawks game, he cleary calls Gibran out there as contributor to the win.

 

Crowell on the other hand, his injury aside, was being childish over loosing his captianship plus that it was clear that he wanted money for next season the Bills thought he wouldnt be worth, so why not say goodbye to him now and instead invest the full season in Constanzo and Corto to see if we will need to pick an LB at our first draft pick next year.

 

Winning championships (jeah) is about team chemistry for a big part as well, it could have been that Crowell was felt to be disruptive to it. Then again maybe the Bills are just fed up with the constant dollar battle and wanted to send a firm message not to mess with the team.

[billsrcursed]

Why is this being brought up now, going into week 3 with a chance to be 3-0?

 

The decision's been made, and frankly, while AC played pretty well last year for us, he's not our best player. Everyone wishes they could be the owner and make decisions, but when it comes down to crunch time, situations like this are never easy. Ralph did what he felt was best for the team at the time. Accept, and move on. Letting this linger could hurt the team, and I think it needs to die.... just my 2 cents

 

Tim-sorry for being so harsh in the comments section of your piece. It got me upset and I should have just walked away from the computer. I don't really think you're a Dolphins fan trying to stir up the pot Seriously, sorry for that.

[BillsNYC]

I think the Crowell situation was

 

- part key learning from last year, you need healthy guys on your roster

 

- part new GM, I think agents are testing the green Brandon, and he is making it clear he's not a bender

 

- part Ralph Wilson, I think he's fed up with the egos of this decade, encouraged by ESPN

 

- part selfishness, Crowell shouldn't have kept this quiet and made this decision without the team involved.

 

Overall, if any one of us went into our jobs and told them we were taking off 4-6 weeks the day before a major project without discussing it with them first, we'd be fired. That's what this comes down to. I'm sure if Crowell would have consulted with the team first, he might not be on IR. Problem is, NFL players today think teams revolve around them, which ESPN has been encouraging lately (TO coverage for example.) The Bills in one swoop made it clear, team first, not player.

 

In the end, Crowell was likely not going to be here next year, and this isn't a one season playoff run. The Bills might still have 2-3 years until they peak, so why not bring in younger talent now that can grow during this "ramp up" period. I'd obviously like to have Crowell, but this may be a better long term move.

[eball]

Interesting discussion. Thanks, Tim, for taking the time to actively participate.

 

What do folks make of the fact there have been no player quotes about the situation? Did I just miss those articles? I guess there could be a gag order at OBD about this, but I honestly believe at the end of the day that Crowell was simply a "decent" player on a pretty bad defense over the past few seasons, and his presence (or lack thereof) on the roster wasn't a big deal. Does anyone believe the Bills would have made this move (placing him on IR) if they really felt he was a vital cog for a late season playoff run?

 

I also am not buying the "vindictive decision by Ralph" argument. Ralph is a pretty shrewd businessman, and even if Crowell's late decision pissed him off, he would have asked his coaches if Crowell is a necessary piece of the puzzle. At this stage in his life, Ralph wants to win -- he has nothing else to prove.

 

I think this all boils down to the value of the player to this year's team. Why no discussions about an extension?

[Nanker]

Couldn't agree with you more Bill. I'd bet the first words out of Russ Brandon's mouth when he put the phone down from calling the team's orthopod were, "Put him on IR." Crowell's decision was unilateral and the new Sheriff in town has consistently sent the same, clear message: "Get on the team bus - or get out."

 

That said, I have to think that had AC made his decision earlier - or had engaged the team in his decision making process earlier, he'd likely still have a roster spot. “The timing had some impact because it was the only thing we had to deal with,” said Jauron. “Seventy-two hours before a game is certainly different than three weeks prior to your opener in training camp. So the timing is part of every situation and it was part of this one.”

 

The comment attributed to Ralph after the Seahawks game reminds me of Leon Hess' quote when he finally fired Rich Kotite. "I'm 90 years old and I'm entitled to a little enjoyment."

 

Go Bills!

[The Senator]

Quite!

 

And I wouldn't be surprised if somehow RB managed to send the same message to Parker and PayMe Peters - this team is way bigger than any one player...

 

19 and 0 baby!!!

 

GO BILLSSSS!!!!

 

PosLUSZny!!!!!

[Steely Dan]

Chargers docs told him NOT to play, Dean. That was totally his call.

 

But you're right -- Angelo's the only one who should be deciding what happens to Angelo's knee.

 

The Chargers could have put him on IR despite his wanting to play. It was a selfish decision by Chargers management to let him play especially after every doctor told him not to play.

 

 

If it was just a matter of taking care of his body, then Crow would have had surgery early in the off-season. That he waited till the guarantee kicked in was all about him, and nothing about the team. Spin as you like, but if this guy was on my payroll and pulled that, I would IR him and do it with pleasure.

 

And then bring him back later "to get value"? Having him play the team and management like that meant that he had more value on IR (as an example) and in FA then he would being carried on the active roster. Rather do without then have the poster boy for a new technique in blackmail.

 

Like any 'old-timer' I have known the Bills/Ralph to be pretty cheap. (Actually, VERY cheap.) But I do not recall them actively screwing players over like that. Granted there are things we do not/will not know about what happened, but from appearances the Bills did the right thing - in spades.

 

It seems to me that Crowell could have had the surgery in the offseason or near the beginning of camp. If this is something that bothered him last year why didn't he do it in the offseason?

 

To quote Tim's article:

 

Crowell became an afterthought. The Bills moved his locker stall from a place of prominence to a corner location befitting practice squad players, and everybody went about their business in Orchard Park.

 

"No one is going to quit on me," Bills owner Ralph Wilson said with no elaboration after the Seahawks victory.

 

Here's my guess at what happened. Crowell's agent was trying to work out a deal with Buffalo for a contract. The two sides weren't close on numbers and Crowell's agent probably told him it would be best to have the surgery and come back later in the year than to let the knee ruin his stats for an entire season and to have other teams know he's damaged goods. So he elected to have the surgery and that incensed Ralph because it looked like a totally selfish act because he could have elected to have this surgery much sooner. Hence Ralph's comment about quitting.

 

 

I can't disclose everything I know or else I would have put it in the story. But I will say that I spoke to more than just Crowell's agent for the story. I spoke with some Bills employees, too.

 

The original prognosis was four to six weeks. The Bills have a bye in Week 6, so that means 11 games would be left if the surgery went the duration of the estimate. Crowell's agent told me their information was that it was a five-week procedure but that some players have come back as quickly as two weeks. Dick Jauron was quoted at the time that eight weeks would have been a worst-case scenario.

 

From the Buffalo News: Asked if the injury could have stretched into the eight-week range, Jauron said, "Yeah absolutely, bad-case (scenario). And that's where we are. We're in a situation at this time 72 hours prior to game time that we needed a spot. So we took the spot."

 

But there are ways to find a roster spot. Just for sake of discussion, would you feel better about your team knowing you have Gibran Hamdan for a full season or that Angelo Crowel is coming back in Week 6? Or even Week 8?

 

There was talk of having the surgery, but the decision was made to try an experimental gel injection treatment to see if that would help (it's uncertain if Crowell made this decision or the Bills did). From what I understand, this method takes a few days to tell how it will work. Once it was determined his knee wasn't responding, then he made the decision to have surgery.

 

What I found strange was that he didn't appear on the injury report for Week 1. The Bills did know he was hurt. I haven't been able to get a good answer as to why he wasn't on the list.

 

Thanks for coming by Tim to explain the article in greater detail. I wish every writer would do that. My guess as to why he wasn't on the list is because he'd been playing all pre-season practices and the Bills doctors may have told the FO that he could play, it would be painful, but it wouldn't cause any lasting damage. Since that was the case Crowell decided to suck it up and play but when his contract came into play he elected to have the surgery.

 

 

Well, for me that's an easy one... Rather have Gibran on the team, a quarterback we can be comfortable with next season as 2nd QB and has been creditted a couple of times by DJ after important wins for his great way of leading the scout team and prepping the first team for what to expect during the game. In his current role Hamdan sort of fills a playing coach as I understand it. Listen back to DJs press conference after the Seahawks game, he cleary calls Gibran out there as contributor to the win.

 

Crowell on the other hand, his injury aside, was being childish over loosing his captianship plus that it was clear that he wanted money for next season the Bills thought he wouldnt be worth, so why not say goodbye to him now and instead invest the full season in Constanzo and Corto to see if we will need to pick an LB at our first draft pick next year.

 

Winning championships (jeah) is about team chemistry for a big part as well, it could have been that Crowell was felt to be disruptive to it. Then again maybe the Bills are just fed up with the constant dollar battle and wanted to send a firm message not to mess with the team.

 

The captainship is voted by the team so I don't think he'd take that out on the FO. I think Ralph's decision was a message to the team that selfish acts won't be tolerated. If a player wants the Bills to foot the Bill for the surgery so he can get a better contract when he leaves is not cool and to do it just before the beginning of the season is intolerable.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Tim, thanks for following up with all the additional information. To clarify, my previous post was critical of your article for this specific reason: IMO an article of that length should have at least mentioned Jauron's explanation to the media for why they put Crowell on IR. Of course in an op-ed piece it's typical to disagree with someone else's opinion, but to not even have it there for others to consider?

 

As far as other roster options, you haven't come close to convincing me yet either:

- Gilbran Hamdan? get real. During the first two regular season games, Losman has been standing on the sidelines not talking to anyone during the entire game. Hamdan has been wearing the headset and interacting with other coaches/players.

- Xavier Oman? are you kidding me? What if either Lynch or Jackson got hurt? The Bills would be totally screwed.

George Wilson? Bryan Scott? As Lori pointed out, Copeland Bryan? Steve Johnson?

 

If they wanted to give Crowell a chance to come back, they could have found a way.

[eball]

Here's some new and interesting information regarding this situation, from this article in this morning's Buffalo News:

 

-------------------------------------

 

Sympathy from Spikes

 

Former Bills linebacker Takeo Spikes, now starting for San Francisco, sympathizes with his former teammate and friend, Angelo Crowell, who is lost to the Bills for the year after being put on injured reserve.

 

Spikes and Crowell talk regularly during the football season. Spikes said there was no minimizing the problem Crowell faced with his knee, which prompted him to decide he needed surgery the Thursday before the opener.

 

“I just told him that it was all about what he wanted to do,” Spikes said. “I was going to support whatever he decided to do because we all know it’s a business. And at the same time, there were so many factors he had going into the situation. It was a contract year for him, so that was tough. He had not only been battling that knee for this offseason, but this is something that’s been going two years and on. So it was something similar to what I dealt with with my Achilles.”

 

Spikes said he knew Crowell’s knee was a problem when he heard he wasn’t practicing during training camp.

 

“That isn’t like Cro, that isn’t like Cro,” Spikes said. “He’s old school. If he’s not in there, something’s wrong. I was very surprised to see that they put him on IR like that.”

 

---------------------------------------

 

Contract year + lingering injury + no guarantee he comes back healthy = IR. I think this is a lot simpler than some are trying to make it. The timing of Crowell's decision was irritating to the Bills, I'm sure, but this was not a "vindictive" move.

[d_wag]

Interesting discussion. Thanks, Tim, for taking the time to actively participate.

 

What do folks make of the fact there have been no player quotes about the situation? Did I just miss those articles? I guess there could be a gag order at OBD about this, but I honestly believe at the end of the day that Crowell was simply a "decent" player on a pretty bad defense over the past few seasons, and his presence (or lack thereof) on the roster wasn't a big deal. Does anyone believe the Bills would have made this move (placing him on IR) if they really felt he was a vital cog for a late season playoff run?

 

I also am not buying the "vindictive decision by Ralph" argument. Ralph is a pretty shrewd businessman, and even if Crowell's late decision pissed him off, he would have asked his coaches if Crowell is a necessary piece of the puzzle. At this stage in his life, Ralph wants to win -- he has nothing else to prove.

 

I think this all boils down to the value of the player to this year's team. Why no discussions about an extension?

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/431291.html

 

“It’s a pretty big surprise,” said Keith Ellison, who will replace Crowell on the strong side. “Cro has been practicing pretty well the last few weeks. I guess his knee just was bothering him a little too much to keep playing on it. The biggest thing is get him healthy and get him back as soon as possible.”

 

“The way we do things is our backers always have to be prepared because you never know what’s going to happen,” Ellison said. “Any one play somebody can go down and you’ve got to step in and be ready. I’ll be ready to go.”

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=6540

 

“As a whole it was a shock to everybody because it was so sudden and he had practiced the day before,” said Whitner. “Then all of a sudden he was lost for the season. We’re going to miss Angelo. He was a captain last year. He’s a great player and we’re going to miss him. But Keith Ellison is going to step in and do a great job. Last year Keith got a lot of playing experience. So he’s going to show what he can do and we believe he’s going to do a great job.”

 

“You’ve got to move forward with the guys you have and we feel very good about the guys we have,” said fellow defensive captain Chris Kelsay. “It’s not a good thing to get used to, but I suppose if any team has any kind of experience with this it’s us.”

 

Whitner spoke with Crowell by phone Thursday as he was still dealing with the emotion of realizing his season was over before it started.

 

“I talked to him yesterday and it’s tough for him,” said Whitner. “Going through training camp and offseason conditioning and three days before the opening game you’re out for the season? That’s tough mentally and physically because of all the hard work you put in running, lifting and film study. It’s like it’s all for nothing now and he expressed that to me yesterday. We’re going to help him get through it. As time goes on he’ll be able to cope with it a little better.”

 

Crowell explained to Whitner that they were trying to get the knee well enough to play on, but that apparently never happened.

 

“They were really trying to see if the knee would get better without the surgery, as far as strengthening it and different things they were doing in the training room,” said Whitner. “But it wasn’t getting better. So it’s time that he goes and gets it cleaned out.”

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Contract year + lingering injury + no guarantee he comes back healthy = IR. I think this is a lot simpler than some are trying to make it. The timing of Crowell's decision was irritating to the Bills, I'm sure, but this was not a "vindictive" move.

 

That is my feeling too, eball. I really appreciate Tim's willingness to join in the discussion as he has, but still think that it is a big leap to assume vindictiveness as he appears to do in his article. Crowell is a good, perhaps even very good, football player, but it looks as though the Bills did not have him in their long term plans, and when you combine that with eball's equation, the explanation for putting him on IR is not so hard to figure out, and requires no dark conspiracies to explain.

[Dawgg]

Well, for me that's an easy one... Rather have Gibran on the team, a quarterback we can be comfortable with next season as 2nd QB and has been creditted a couple of times by DJ after important wins for his great way of leading the scout team and prepping the first team for what to expect during the game. In his current role Hamdan sort of fills a playing coach as I understand it. Listen back to DJs press conference after the Seahawks game, he cleary calls Gibran out there as contributor to the win.\

 

You're a joke.

 

A 3rd string QB over a veteran leader on the defense who is a tackling machine for 11 games + playoffs. Really???

 

Ellison's a pretty good player. But if he gets injured, the Bills will pay the price, and it won't be pretty.

 

Tim, Bills fans are the greatest fans in the world. No matter what move their team makes, they march in full support. If the Bills replaced Marshawn Lynch with Dwayne Wright, posters would rush to the front office's defense!

[The Dean]

That is my feeling too, eball. I really appreciate Tim's willingness to join in the discussion as he has, but still think that it is a big leap to assume vindictiveness as he appears to do in his article. Crowell is a good, perhaps even very good, football player, but it looks as though the Bills did not have him in their long term plans, and when you combine that with eball's equation, the explanation for putting him on IR is not so hard to figure out, and requires no dark conspiracies to explain.

 

 

It's still odd, in a way, that if they really thought he was going to come back by mid-season, that they wouldn't save him a roster spot, as he is, at the very least the 3rd best LB on the team. So, it might not have been vindictive, but was it smart?

 

I have some mixed feelings.

[Dawgg]

That is my feeling too, eball. I really appreciate Tim's willingness to join in the discussion as he has, but still think that it is a big leap to assume vindictiveness as he appears to do in his article. Crowell is a good, perhaps even very good, football player, but it looks as though the Bills did not have him in their long term plans, and when you combine that with eball's equation, the explanation for putting him on IR is not so hard to figure out, and requires no dark conspiracies to explain.

 

If it wasn't vindictive, it was just plain dumb.

 

If he wasn't in their long-term plans, they should have cut him in the offseason so that they don't have to pay him. With this boneheaded move, they are paying him to comfortably sit on his butt at home. Not to mention it's a contract year, when they could probably squeeze out a very good season out of him... this was a pretty piss poor decision by management.

 

He had 100% attendance in OTAs -- missed only one workout so that he could get married.

 

He was team captain last year.

 

He led the team in tackles.

 

There is absolutely no reason to NOT want him back for the final 11 games of the season.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

It's still odd, in a way, that if they really thought he was going to come back by mid-season, that they wouldn't save him a roster spot, as he is, at the very least the 3rd best LB on the team. So, it might not have been vindictive, but was it smart?

 

I have some mixed feelings.

 

 

I know what you mean about mixed feelings, but that "if" is at the heart of the problem. Did they really think he was going to come back by mid-season? Or did they realize that it was more likely that he was going to need more time? We will never actually know, of course, since it is impossible to re-play history. If it was a matter of a few weeks, then it is a real shame that Crowell did not have the "clean up" done in the spring, or even at the start of camp. It was a tough situation all around.

[Paup 1995MVP]

According to this article, the Bills put Crowell on IR out of anger and spite, and knew his recovery would take 5 weeks, at the most:

 

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-3-122...aunt-Bills.html

 

I was going to start a thread about this very topic last week, and decided to let it go. Besides, I figured it was likely discussed during my absence. But, I will take Tim's article as an opportunity to bring it up now.

 

I, too wondered why Crowell was put on IR, for arthroscopic surgery. Typically the down time is about 4-6 weeks. Surely, I figured, they would wait for Angelo to heal and join the team, mid-season. I knew they were probably upset that he made the decision to have the surgery days before the start of the season, but would that be enough to make a move that hurts the team, down the road?

 

Then I read (or heard) some remarks from Jauron which claimed, when he inquired as to how long Crowell's recovery would take, he was told something to the effect of "We don't know". I figured that "we don't know" is a hell of a lot different than "probably 4-6 weeks", and DJ figured he couldn't let that spot sit unfilled for an undisclosed amount of time. I'm not suggesting that some anger didn't play a role, but certainly he wouldn't bite off his nose to spite his face", would he?

 

Tim's article is causing me to wonder, again: what exactly went on, here?

 

I think this situation has a lot of layers and issues surrounding it (particularly in light of the Merriman situation). I'm sure there will be the usual "DJ's an idiot" and "Crowell screwed the team, he makes too much $$ and should just play" comments from the resident trolls and tough-guys, but that's not really what I am looking for. I'd love to know:

 

1. What do we really KNOW. Anyone have any real info on how this went down? When did Crowell first get injured (or realize he was injured)?

 

2. In the absence of real knowledge (from all sides of the issue) what do we think happened here? Why did Crowell wait until the last minute to take action? Were the team doctors discouraging him from surgery? (That could go under #1, too if anyone has real info.)

 

3. In the final analysis, did DJ really simply put Crowell on IR because he was pissed off? Given the Bills' team oriented management system, I would think that a stupid rash decision would be tempered with reasonable discussion, before taking an action like this. Was this Ralph's call? Tim has a quote in his article that makes me suspect this was a RW edict. That make more sense to me than believing DJ made this decision out of anger and spite.

 

So, that's it. WTF really went on here?

 

Good topic for discussion. I think something that a lot of people are forgetting about is what value the Bills placed on Crowell. He is in his 5th or 6th year with the team. I have said this several times before, and will say it again, the guy has no upside from where he has played the past couple of seasons. While he does not suck, I think he plays real stiff and is not a great tackler or just a very good instinctual player for his position. I strongly believe the Bills knew this and were not planning on giving him an extention. I believe they liked Keith Ellison and John D. just as much if not more than Crowell. But given the lack of studs at linebacker on our team, he was probably going to be given a chance to start if healthy, but would most likely be heavily rotated.

 

Once he pulled this crap of surgery right before the opener, it was all the Bills needed to dump him. I am not an orthopedic surgeon, but I deal with knee injuries a lot in my business. When your knee is constantly swelling over a long period of time such as Crowell's, it is likely a degenerative condition with arthritis involvement. Even with surgery, Crowell will likely have continued problems in the future. It is the nature of his condition. I am sure the Bills doctors know this. I just don't see him ever being a big time starter in this league for anybody else. Conversely, the Bills' doctors must have known that Ryan Denny's injury would heal back to normal in due time. And the Bills placed more value on what Denny brought to the team, so he was not placed on IR. Take the nature of the injury, and combine it with the value the team places on that particular player, and you come up with why Crowell was placed on IR.

 

Football is a brutal business because of the violent nature of the game. The Bills knew this, and saw what they had in Crowell. Having surgery right before the season just made the Bills decision that much easier to get rid of him.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

If it wasn't vindictive, it was just plain dumb.

 

If he wasn't in their long-term plans, they should have cut him in the offseason so that they don't have to pay him. With this boneheaded move, they are paying him to comfortably sit on his butt at home. Not to mention it's a contract year, when they could probably squeeze out a very good season out of him... this was a pretty piss poor decision by management.

 

He had 100% attendance in OTAs -- missed only one workout so that he could get married.

 

He was team captain last year.

 

He led the team in tackles.

 

There is absolutely no reason to NOT want him back for the final 11 games of the season.

 

 

If he would indeed be back for those 11 games... which is precisely the question.

 

The "knee-jerk" decision that Graham mentions in his title would more appropriately be applied to the rush by so many to label the decision vindictive or dumb.

 

There is a third option beyond vindictive and dumb (indeed, there are many gradations between those poles).. One could, for example, taking your positive statements about what Crowell has done for the team, argue that this is neither vindictive nor dumb, but rather a favor to Crowell. Other posters have noted that the Bills may have seen this as the end of the road for him. Such predictions have their dangers, but teams need to think about the future when it comes to 6-year veterans. Cutting him was not likely, and was impossible if there is an injury, but keeping him on the roster had its costs too. By putting him on IR, the Bills have to pay him, which is a partial reward for his services. This way he gets to rehab, and try for a contract next year with someone. If he does indeed recover quickly, then he can negotiate a settlement with the Bills and take his chances this season.

 

Just a thought.

[The Dean]

I know what you mean about mixed feelings, but that "if" is at the heart of the problem. Did they really think he was going to come back by mid-season? Or did they realize that it was more likely that he was going to need more time? We will never actually know, of course, since it is impossible to re-play history. If it was a matter of a few weeks, then it is a real shame that Crowell did not have the "clean up" done in the spring, or even at the start of camp. It was a tough situation all around.

 

 

No kidding. If it's a matter of scoping something, get it done and do it ASAP. Why miss any games?

[The Dean]

If he would indeed be back for those 11 games... which is precisely the question.

 

The "knee-jerk" decision that Graham mentions in his title would more appropriately be applied to the rush by so many to label the decision vindictive or dumb.

 

There is a third option beyond vindictive and dumb (indeed, there are many gradations between those poles).. One could, for example, taking your positive statements about what Crowell has done for the team, argue that this is neither vindictive nor dumb, but rather a favor to Crowell. Other posters have noted that the Bills may have seen this as the end of the road for him. Such predictions have their dangers, but teams need to think about the future when it comes to 6-year veterans. Cutting him was not likely, and was impossible if there is an injury, but keeping him on the roster had its costs too. By putting him on IR, the Bills have to pay him, which is a partial reward for his services. This way he gets to rehab, and try for a contract next year with someone. If he does indeed recover quickly, then he can negotiate a settlement with the Bills and take his chances this season.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

Judging by Ralph's, lone out-of-context quote, from the article, there is something going on, here. Sometimes the head guy has to make a statement move that, might hurt a little in the short term, but has bigger upside potential. If the team suspected that Crowell was jerking them around a little, due to no progress on renegotiation (something could have been said, or hinted at, from agent to Brandon, for example) Ralph may have thought he had to make it clear that the Brandon, and the Bills, were not going to be screwed with. As the Sen says, he was likely pissed at Peters and his agent, but you can't make a statement move with Peters, as he is simply too valuable to the team. Peters is signed for more years, and the Bills will surely redo his deal.

 

If it looked like agents were targeting Brandon as a guy to mess with (in a way they wouldn't with a more experienced GM), and if Ralph had a suspicion that the timing of Crowell's decision was related to the renegotiation, he may have simply decided: NO MORE!

 

Moves like that are always risky and controversial in any organization, but sometimes the boss has to trust his instincts, have the back of his management team, and make a move that sends a message. IF that's what happened, Crowell was a perfect opportunity to send that message.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

I have to admit that I do find the "challenging Brandon" story line to be intriguing, and I will wager that IF (there's that word again!) the Bills end up having a good year, there will be a wave of stories about the "next Scott Pioli." (Am I correct in remembering that Pioli was a business guy, and not a football guy, when he started as Pats GM?) IF the Bills falter, well, that's another story...

 

This certainly has been a challenging summer for the Bills organ-eye-zation. So far the team has done well, and Brandon deserves credit in there somewhere. Only time will tell, of course, how much credit for how much good, and there is no way to make the future hurry up and tell us anything.

 

As experienced Bills fans, though, we never forget that catastrophe is always just around the corner. If not that one there... then the next one....

 

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly to TSW.

 

 

Judging by Ralph's, lone out-of-context quote, from the article, there is something going on, here. Sometimes the head guy has to make a statement move that, might hurt a little in the short term, but has bigger upside potential. If the team suspected that Crowell was jerking them around a little, due to no progress on renegotiation (something could have been said, or hinted at, from agent to Brandon, for example) Ralph may have thought he had to make it clear that the Brandon, and the Bills, were not going to be screwed with. As the Sen says, he was likely pissed at Peters and his agent, but you can't make a statement move with Peters, as he is simply too valuable to the team. Peters is signed for more years, and the Bills will surely redo his deal.

 

If it looked like agents were targeting Brandon as a guy to mess with (in a way they wouldn't with a more experienced GM), and if Ralph had a suspicion that the timing of Crowell's decision was related to the renegotiation, he may have simply decided: NO MORE!

 

Moves like that are always risky and controversial in any organization, but sometimes the boss has to trust his instincts, have the back of his management team, and make a move that sends a message. IF that's what happened, Crowell was a perfect opportunity to send that message.

[kota]

But, again, there were other places to open that 53rd spot. For example, although he has gotten some game time, I was surprised to see them keep a fifth DE, Copeland Bryan. (We knew Ellis would stick.) No, actually SIX ends, since that's technically long-snapper Ryan Neill's position.

 

Tim makes a good point about Denney, I think. When they were scrambling to put 11 healthy D-men on the field early last season, putting him on IR and filling that roster spot would have made sense. As it was, they got less than half a season -- and one sack -- from him. On the other hand, a lot of us thought they moved Posluszny to IR too quickly, too.

 

Just my opinion, but I have to believe that Crowell's upcoming free agency played a role in the decisions made by both sides.

 

Thanks for stopping to clarify your position, Tim.

 

Need to consider that last year and this year are completely different. It's my opinion that the Bills learned something from last years injury plagued season. I don't really think that the Denny argument or the fact that there are 6 DE's on this team is reason to believe that the Bills put Crowell on IR because of contract disputes.

 

1) Ryan Denney - Not put on IR last year because the Bills early on were short Defensive Linemen. There was much talk before the first game that Kelsey and Shoebel would be playing alot of snaps. Based upon what i remember from the coaches and the players were that they were going to try and stick it out before bringing someone else in. They also started using DT's at DE etc... I think they learned from last year that it wasn't a good idea. Hence we have 6 DE's on this years squad. I think Copeland was on the practice squad and not NFL ready yet. We obviously didnt' have Ellis. Neil should just stick to long snapping.

 

2) Special Teams - Special teams players are picked based upon ability not what position they play. The Bills lost a ton of players in the off season who played special teams. April had to rebuild his squad. This could attribute to having 6 DE's on the roster.

 

I just refuse to believe that the Bills would put someone on IR out of spite. It wouldn't sit well with coaches, or players. You would also hear more facts about the situtation and not theories if this was true. Crowell's injury was barely covered by the national media and if anyone actially believed the bills did this out of spite it would have been a story. Plus the players association would be all over it.

 

I believe that the Bills wanted Crowell to have surgery he said no due to it being a contract year. He tried to play through the pain and couldn't do it. If the player is telling the coaches, players, medical staff one thing and then does a 180 why do you think everyone was suprised. 3 days before the first game didn't leave the Bills many options and even Jauron said it was extreme but the timing was bad.

[bladiebla]

You're a joke.

 

A 3rd string QB over a veteran leader on the defense who is a tackling machine for 11 games + playoffs. Really???

 

Ellison's a pretty good player. But if he gets injured, the Bills will pay the price, and it won't be pretty.

 

Tim, Bills fans are the greatest fans in the world. No matter what move their team makes, they march in full support. If the Bills replaced Marshawn Lynch with Dwayne Wright, posters would rush to the front office's defense!

 

From Dj himself: "We had good preparation. Gibran (Hamdan) has been with them in their system. Our look squad on offense came at our defense fast all week. Not as fast as they do, but fast. So every day, our guys were made aware that you’ve got to be ready. You have to get the calls in, we have to be set to go, because they are coming to that line of scrimmage and they’ll snap the ball."

 

It's not the first time he has made comments to that extent, he did so a couple of times last season as well.

 

IMHO getting our entire D prepped very well > one single player. Sure Lossman could do it but can he? The Bills record sure changed for the better even through last years misery once Hamdan was leading the scout/lookteam.

 

Keep your eyes on the sideline next game, you'll see that Hamdan is very actively involved more so then JP by the looks of things.

 

On top of that, we need a second QB next year and we need one with experience, we have one in our 3rd who has led a proffesional football team to two consecutive championship seasons and who has been to the Superbowl with the Seahawks. Call me crazy but the magic spirit was exactly what was on those three teams and now it's with the Bills. In todays game he walked up to TE, said something and TE stood up and gave the entire offense a fire speech, the scoreboard went from 16-7 to 23-24. Do not underestimate the role Hamdan has with the team. Also normally inactives don't travel with the team do they? Hamdan was on the sideline in Jacksonville as well.

 

Tim has press access, let him pop the simple question to DJ: "How important is Hamdan's role with the team".

 

A thing we're all forgetting in this discussion is that not so much this year but the future of the Bills may have been part in the decision making, as it didn't look like the Bills would retain Crowell for next season.

[The Dean]

You're a joke.

 

A 3rd string QB over a veteran leader on the defense who is a tackling machine for 11 games + playoffs. Really???

 

 

If that were the real trade off, you would be right. In fact it is trading your 3rd string QB for every game over a player that MAY be back week 4 or 5 or 6 or never, that may, or may not be close to the player he was, last year.

 

With that said, I think that without the issues that we obviously no only some of, the Bills would have (and should have) found someone else for move for the weeks Crowell would miss. But, I doubt that guy would have been Hamdan.

[HurlyBurly51]

I thought of this article today when Ellison went down.