T master Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 (edited) The National Football Post " Marcus Easly recovering nicely from knee surgery, walking with out crutches, source says he could have been back about 1 month into the season !!!What the **** !!!!! Edited August 28, 2010 by T master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 He's already IR'd I think. He can't be back. And he just had surgery a few days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Another well informed journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 It's moves like this that really make you wonder what the front office is doing. They must have known that Easley's injury wasn't a season ending thing when he was IR'd but probably wanted that roster spot and/or didn't think the kid would contribute enough to keep it open. With this team, it makes me seriously consider if this was a cost saving move. Wouldn't be the first time anyway. The Crowell situation, while different, wasn't season ending either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 It's moves like this that really make you wonder what the front office is doing. They must have known that Easley's injury wasn't a season ending thing when he was IR'd but probably wanted that roster spot and/or didn't think the kid would contribute enough to keep it open. With this team, it makes me seriously consider if this was a cost saving move. Wouldn't be the first time anyway. The Crowell situation, while different, wasn't season ending either. How is it cost saving move to put him on IR? He still gets paid his normal salary, AND you have to pay for the guy that takes the additional roster spot. I think it truly might have been the necessity to create more room on the roster. I think the Crowell situation had more to with the timing of his surgery and his lack of informing the Bills of his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 It's moves like this that really make you wonder what the front office is doing. They must have known that Easley's injury wasn't a season ending thing when he was IR'd but probably wanted that roster spot and/or didn't think the kid would contribute enough to keep it open. With this team, it makes me seriously consider if this was a cost saving move. Wouldn't be the first time anyway. The Crowell situation, while different, wasn't season ending either. You do realize Crowell never recovered from his knee injury, right? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 You do realize Crowell never recovered from his knee injury, right? PTR Not quite. He signed with TB in 2009 and proceeded to tear his biceps tendon. TB placed him on IR for this injury and he's now on a UFL Roster. But the point is, the team drafted Easley in the 4th round. And yet, he wasn't valuable enough to carry on the roster for a few weeks when it became clear he'd been injured. It's probably a case of needing a roster spot, but the fact that they IR'd a 4th rounder for a non-season ending injury is very odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Not quite. He signed with TB in 2009 and proceeded to tear his biceps tendon. TB placed him on IR for this injury and he's now on a UFL Roster. But the point is, the team drafted Easley in the 4th round. And yet, he wasn't valuable enough to carry on the roster for a few weeks when it became clear he'd been injured. It's probably a case of needing a roster spot, but the fact that they IR'd a 4th rounder for a non-season ending injury is very odd. 1] I put zero credence in that report since the reporter didnt seem to know he was on IR. Why would we trust that he knows he'll be back in a few weeks when he had surgery a few days ago? And since he is on IR and cannot practice with the team, what is he actually back to? Who told this reporter that he would be back in a few weeks? It makes zero sense. 2] He also missed the entire pre-season. Even if he was back in a few weeks, as a 4th rounder who only started one year of college ball, there is a good chance it would have taken him a full half season to just catch up to where the team will be on opening day. So you want to save a roster spot for a guy who won't be ready until half the season is over? Who hasn't proven he can play in the league yet? Who is not known for being polished? aYou're so quick to badmouth everything the Bills do, why root for the team? How much fun could it be for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 How is it cost saving move to put him on IR? He still gets paid his normal salary, AND you have to pay for the guy that takes the additional roster spot. I think it truly might have been the necessity to create more room on the roster. I think the Crowell situation had more to with the timing of his surgery and his lack of informing the Bills of his decision. Agree -- don't see how this amounts to a cost savings move whatsoever. The bottom line is the team needs to develop players and there is a lot of competition for the available WR positions, so it is only best to let that competition play out and not hold up a spot for a rookie who probably would have only contributed in a limited way his first year anyhow. I think it was probably a wise decision. But it's good news that Easley is walking around. The Bills have kind of been mum on the extent of the injury/surgery. It was interesting how Easley went for a 2nd opinion. What does that mean? Does it mean the Bills wanted him to just rest it and not have the surgery as in a slight tear or cartilage damage only? Perhaps it was Easley himself who opted for the surgery over the Bills doctors initial opinion. I don't know. In any event, there is some good young, but unproven, talent at the WR position and I'm still looking forward to what some of these guys can accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Receivers take the longest to develop into pros anyway...... with the kid only having a year of real football experience, missing all preseason and most of camp, and never setting foot on an NFL field in a game situation, I think they had to IR him. The Bills' receiver position is already thing due to injury, they can't afford this roster spot right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Byrd Man Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Agree -- don't see how this amounts to a cost savings move whatsoever. The bottom line is the team needs to develop players and there is a lot of competition for the available WR positions, so it is only best to let that competition play out and not hold up a spot for a rookie who probably would have only contributed in a limited way his first year anyhow. I think it was probably a wise decision. But it's good news that Easley is walking around. The Bills have kind of been mum on the extent of the injury/surgery. It was interesting how Easley went for a 2nd opinion. What does that mean? Does it mean the Bills wanted him to just rest it and not have the surgery as in a slight tear or cartilage damage only? Perhaps it was Easley himself who opted for the surgery over the Bills doctors initial opinion. I don't know. In any event, there is some good young, but unproven, talent at the WR position and I'm still looking forward to what some of these guys can accomplish. I'm with you. He was inexperienced to begin with, and this gives them an opportunity to evaluate other talent on the roster. This is a make or break year for a couple of wide outs, and this will give them the chance to force the issue one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 How is it cost saving move to put him on IR? He still gets paid his normal salary, AND you have to pay for the guy that takes the additional roster spot. I think it truly might have been the necessity to create more room on the roster. I think the Crowell situation had more to with the timing of his surgery and his lack of informing the Bills of his decision. WHy not the PUP list? Thast good through week 6 I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 [This is an automated response] As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 You're so quick to badmouth everything the Bills do, why root for the team? How much fun could it be for you? Amen to that. Using a lame 'cost savings' excuse (when the player will be paid regardless) speaks to an agenda beyond being a fan of the team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zona Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Receivers take the longest to develop into pros anyway...... with the kid only having a year of real football experience, missing all preseason and most of camp, and never setting foot on an NFL field in a game situation, I think they had to IR him. The Bills' receiver position is already thing due to injury, they can't afford this roster spot right now I think this also. The Bills put him on IR and save a spot on the roster, as well as not exposing him by putting him on the practice squad. IR is just a way to protect their pick since he wasnt going to contribute much this year already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 apoligies if this is well known... Do IR players get to participate in practice ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 With this team, it makes me seriously consider if this was a cost saving move. Wouldn't be the first time anyway. The Crowell situation, while different, wasn't season ending either. How is putting a player on IR a cost saving move? Isn't it an extra expense to put a player on IR? because you not only have to pay the player on IR, but you have to pay the person that replaces him..... I think the bills are pretty cheap overall, but saying putting a player on IR is a cost saving move makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 You're so quick to badmouth everything the Bills do, why root for the team? How much fun could it be for you? You're better than that KFBD. Teams don't IR guys that are going to be out 4-5 weeks. And while you're questioning my like for this team, I'll point out that I as a fan reserve the ability to criticize. If everyone is blindly optimistic, then no one is thinking constructively. I look forward to the season, but will continue to keep things in perspective. 2010 is a rebuilding year and no matter who the coach is, it will probably be a long campaign. Besides, losing is not fun, and the Bills have specialized in that the past decade. At what point do people begin questioning the top of the front office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Not quite. He signed with TB in 2009 and proceeded to tear his biceps tendon. TB placed him on IR for this injury and he's now on a UFL Roster. But the point is, the team drafted Easley in the 4th round. And yet, he wasn't valuable enough to carry on the roster for a few weeks when it became clear he'd been injured. It's probably a case of needing a roster spot, but the fact that they IR'd a 4th rounder for a non-season ending injury is very odd. Perhaps the cost of keeping Easley, cutting Hardy and/or Nelson, plus not having him for the first few weeks made it worth putting him on IR. Especially since he will be back next season rather than off the roster for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 You're better than that KFBD. Teams don't IR guys that are going to be out 4-5 weeks. And while you're questioning my like for this team, I'll point out that I as a fan reserve the ability to criticize. If everyone is blindly optimistic, then no one is thinking constructively. I look forward to the season, but will continue to keep things in perspective. 2010 is a rebuilding year and no matter who the coach is, it will probably be a long campaign. Besides, losing is not fun, and the Bills have specialized in that the past decade. At what point do people begin questioning the top of the front office. Of course teams IR guys that are going to be out 4-5 weeks. And in Easley, it's not 4-5, the way I read it, it's BEST case scenario, 8-9 weeks. He is going to miss the entire pre-season. "Could be back the first month of the season" to me means he MAY be able to start practicing after four games. This is a rookie who only played one year of college ball, and is not in the least bit a polished player. He will have missed so much time being taught and coached fundamentals, with no time when he comes back for the coaches to just give him the kind of coaching he would have received had he played in Rochester and in the pre-season games. And we're going to cut David Nelson or Chad Jackson for this? To keep a guy on the active roster whose best chance, if everything goes right, to be ready after game six or so to run fly patterns? And of course you have the right to criticize. But it's all you do. Not to mention most of the people on this board, myself included, have been criticizing, lambasting and berating the Bills front office for years and years. I don't know what you even mean when you say at what point do people begin questioning the top of the front office? It's all we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts