Marcus Easley

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Right, because Merriman got injured the first time he ran backwards.

 

[3rdand12]

I worry when no snaps in two years is his history with us and only one productive season in 4 for U conn, so basically only one season worth anthything out of 6? Real risky to me.

You are right to consider this guy risky to become what many hope for including the staff at Bills Central. and alot of fans who have seen him run.

Lets consider this his sophomore year. He should produce. He might be very good. But the three year rule is kinda tossed out on this guy. Lets call it second year and if he looks promising again and actually can produce for us this season well we might have something.

 

 

 

"An often injured 4th round pick who hasn't seen a single snap in a real NFL game isn't going to complain much about being put on IR when a doctor tells him he could die or something to that effect."

gee i suppose a first or udfa should think differently.

oft injured.

lol. thanks for perspective

Edited June 3, 2012 by 3rdand12

[Doc]

You are right to consider this guy risky to become what many hope for including the staff at Bills Central. and alot of fans who have seen him run.

Lets consider this his sophomore year. He should produce. He might be very good. But the three year rule is kinda tossed out on this guy. Lets call it second year and if he looks promising again and actually can produce for us this season well we might have something.

 

 

 

"An often injured 4th round pick who hasn't seen a single snap in a real NFL game isn't going to complain much about being put on IR when a doctor tells him he could die or something to that effect."

gee i suppose a first or udfa should think differently.

oft injured.

lol. thanks for perspective

You know, I've heard that, like concussions, once you've had a heart injury, they're easier to get subsequently.

[Thunderstealer]

Yeah - I think Graham will take over the role that Gailey designed for Roscoe, and when the Bills moved up to get him I think it only showed how badly Roscoe's injury hurt Gailey's ability to call the plays he wanted to call. Our offense was much more dynamic when Roscoe was in the game. I remember clearly the first year Gailey took over and everyone was saying, "wow, finally someone who can use Roscoe's talents" - but, he couldn't stay healthy. Anyway, I think Graham will fall into that role very smoothly and looks to be enough larger in stature that staying healthy shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

Add to all that a legitimate #2 WR like Easley, for instance, and this offense could be a nightmare - should absolutely be a nightmare - for opponents, simply because we should make stopping the run the primary focus for our opponents, and with all the passing weapons (if developed and playing as we're hoping) our opposition should suffer from one or the other. This is going to be a fun season!

 

If Graham's speed can open things up and Fred's running with usual effect, this O will be scary.

 

David Nelson is safety valve receiver.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I didn't say they were "fundamentally incompetent" by putting him on IR so quickly. Just a bit premature after such a workup. And as Buddy is the man who puts players on IR, I should correct myself.

 

"Essentially incompetent...... let's look again at what you said....

 

He developed an arrhythmia in practice right before the start of the season and the medical staff freaked. They tossed him on IR (4 days later) likely before his cardiac workup was complete. His condition was obviously benign but they were stuck with him on IR by the time they figured that out.

 

Saying the medical staff "freaked" and "tossed him on IR before his...workup was complete" for an "obviously benign" condition......"incompetent" seems reasonable as a 1 word summation of what you implied.

 

You respect the lack of speculation yet repeat the campylobacter/myocarditis from chicken wing stuff?? OK.

 

That would be Doc, WEO. Doc refused to speculate, and I respect that - in Doc. One can respect others for choices one doesn't, oneself, make.

I have nothing personal against a bit of speculation, provided it's logical and consistent with known facts. I'd like to hear what Doc thinks, and I respect his choice not to share it. Clear now?

 

Calling the Bills medical staff, essentially incompetent for putting Easely on IR, does not seem logical or consistent with known facts. (Special explanation: saying the medical staff "freaked", "tossed him on IR before his workup was complete" for a "benign" condition is being equated with calling them incompetent by moi, whether or not you actually used the word "incompetent" in your sentence")

Edited June 4, 2012 by Hopeful

[Doc]

"Essentially incompetent...... let's look again at what you said....

 

 

 

Saying the medical staff "freaked" and "tossed him on IR before his...workup was complete" for an "obviously benign" condition......"incompetent" seems reasonable as a 1 word summation of what you implied.

 

 

 

That would be Doc, WEO. Doc refused to speculate, and I respect that - in Doc. One can respect others for choices one doesn't, oneself, make.

I have nothing personal against a bit of speculation, provided it's logical and consistent with known facts. I'd like to hear what Doc thinks, and I respect his choice not to share it. Clear now?

 

Calling the Bills medical staff, essentially incompetent for putting Easely on IR, does not seem logical or consistent with known facts. (Special explanation: saying the medical staff "freaked", "tossed him on IR before his workup was complete" for a "benign" condition is being equated with calling them incompetent by moi, whether or not you actually used the word "incompetent" in your sentence")

My diagnosis would be an arrhythmia, with the one at the top of the list being a re-entrant one from WPW, and that he had an ablation, which has a 95% cure rate. I'd definitely have put him on IR since it involved his heart, but also since I'd have wanted to evaluate him for several months after the ablation and he'd have missed too much time by then. I'll ask one of my cardiology friends what he thinks, but I doubt any reasonable doc would have just put him back out on the field soon after the procedure. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[ChevyVanMiller]

Easley is big, fast, strong but has very little experience at both the NFL level and College level. Yes, he has the tools, but it is a matter of putting it all together in order to be successful in the NFL. Remember this, there were a bunch of WR's everyone (most) wanted Buffalo to draft rounds 1-7 and a bunch of those guys had the same characteristics as Easley. Now, that happens every year, as a matter of fact, Buffalo has another "Easley" on the roster in Hagan. Hagan basically has the same frame (maybe a little lighter) but a way more productive college career on a much bigger stage. He was taken in the 3rd round and really has not been able to solidify himself in the NFL. Hagan is an example and one of many WR's along the same lines. Another perfect example is the year that Buffalo took Hardy, Pittsburg took Sweed and the Redskins took Kelly. As you may recall everyone pretty much wanted Sweed or Kelly but Buffalo ended up with Hardy. In the end did it really matter? All 3 were spectacular college WR's at big time programs (IU is at least Big Ten) and all 3 have failed miserably in the NFL. Again, this happens every year and will continue to do so. Heck, look at this year and Buffalo's 3rd round pick. A very RAW WR with speed who not many had going before round 6 or 7. Not many people are giving TJ Graham much more credit other than his speed and Graham is a Fresh 3rd round pick vs Easley as a stale (2 years on IR) 4th round pick. He is a project, maybe a little bit of a reach, but that seems to be what it takes to find your NFL caliber WR's. A team needs to have a bunch in the hopes that 1 or 2 can actually be productive enough to help the team win. In Easley Buffalo took a flier on an athletic WR who was a little under the radar due to low production in college. They had/have the hope that he could maybe transition his athletic ability to the NFL but really cannot tell since he keeps landing on the IR. At this point Easley is no different than all 40 WR's that were taken this year, last year, the year before, etc.

 

 

 

 

Now, I am a huge fan and of course want Easley to succeed and be the best he can be. I hope he turns into an All Pro WR and Buffalo is set at the position for years to come. However I believe I am on the side of "Logical Optimisim" vs. "Delusional Placement". Unfortunately I believe many fans think Easley is the answer due to the fact they have kept him around, the fact he was a Buffalo draft pick and that his characteristics are more apparent since he was broken down a ton on draft day. Lets just hope he can put it all together on the NFL field.

 

 

 

 

What an incredibly logical and on-point response from a guy named Booger.

 

Well said, Sir.

Edited June 4, 2012 by ChevyVanMiller

[Mr. WEO]

"Essentially incompetent...... let's look again at what you said....

 

 

 

Saying the medical staff "freaked" and "tossed him on IR before his...workup was complete" for an "obviously benign" condition......"incompetent" seems reasonable as a 1 word summation of what you implied.

 

 

 

That would be Doc, WEO. Doc refused to speculate, and I respect that - in Doc. One can respect others for choices one doesn't, oneself, make.

I have nothing personal against a bit of speculation, provided it's logical and consistent with known facts. I'd like to hear what Doc thinks, and I respect his choice not to share it. Clear now?

 

Calling the Bills medical staff, essentially incompetent for putting Easely on IR, does not seem logical or consistent with known facts. (Special explanation: saying the medical staff "freaked", "tossed him on IR before his workup was complete" for a "benign" condition is being equated with calling them incompetent by moi, whether or not you actually used the word "incompetent" in your sentence")

 

You are determined to argue agaisnt something I didn't say. Again, I never said (in this case) they were incompetent. Medical incompetence is defined as diagnoses that are missed, delayed, ignored or mistreated. The decision as to when to fill out the guy's return to work slip cannot therefore fall anywhere near "incompetence", medically speaking. It would more likely fall under the notion of defensive medicine, which is widespread and not de facto imcompetence. My guess is that in those 4 days, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis were not complete. I think they jumped the gun.

 

There are no "known facts" (that we know anyway) so I'm not sure how my opinion seems illogical with these nonexistent facts. It is, I believe, more likely than rumors of a chicken wing contest wiping out Easley's season.

 

My diagnosis would be an arrhythmia, with the one at the top of the list being a re-entrant one from WPW, and that he had an ablation, which has a 95% cure rate. I'd definitely have put him on IR since it involved his heart, but also since I'd have wanted to evaluate him for several months after the ablation and he'd have missed too much time by then. I'll ask one of my cardiology friends what he thinks, but I doubt any reasonable doc would have just put him back out on the field soon after the procedure. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

You could be right about WPW. But a task force report in JACC syas this about return to sports after ablation:

 

After successful ablation of the arrhythmia, a return to athletics can be within days for those in whom repeated attempts at tachycardia induction during isoproterenol administration is unsuccessful, and in whom the tachycardia was easily induced prior to ablation. For those in whom such provocative testing is not performed, waiting two to four weeks seems advisable.

 

Your staement of "that's a lawsuit waiting to happen" is exactly what the staff likely told Buddy and proves my point. Maybe they should have picked up a copy of the JACC, or doen a little CME.

 

Hopefully the cardiologist buddy of yours is more astute than your "Kobe will be out 3 weeks with this type of wrist injury" orthopod bud.

 

All he needed to say was "I was good to go after a couple weeks," but he never said anything remotely close to that. Neither did his agent.

 

Why on earth would he say that?? What would be the point?

 

 

Right, because Merriman got injured the first time he ran backwards.

 

Essentially, yes. He came onto the field, day 1. Did a backpedaling execercise and went down.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

You could be right about WPW. But a task force report in JACC syas this about return to sports after ablation:

 

Your staement of "that's a lawsuit waiting to happen" is exactly what the staff likely told Buddy and proves my point. Maybe they should have picked up a copy of the JACC, or doen a little CME.

"[W]aiting two to four weeks seems advisable." So you wait 4 weeks AFTER the ablation (whenever that would have been performed), he misses probably half the season because he's behind the other WR's, while you need the roster spot now. I'd also have put him on IR.

Hopefully the cardiologist buddy of yours is more astute than your "Kobe will be out 3 weeks with this type of wrist injury" orthopod bud.

Kaplan doesn't get any extra information than what he hears reported. And advising conservative treatment won't get him into trouble. Similar to the tack the Bills took with Easley. Assuming it was WPW.

Why on earth would he say that?? What would be the point?

Maybe to dispel rumors that he's "oft-injured" because he could have been back on the field in no time. But they IR'd him for no reason at all?

Essentially, yes. He came onto the field, day 1. Did a backpedaling execercise and went down.

Can't argue with that proof!

[Mr. WEO]

"[W]aiting two to four weeks seems advisable." So you wait 4 weeks AFTER the ablation (whenever that would have been performed), he misses probably half the season because he's behind the other WR's, while you need the roster spot now. I'd also have put him on IR.

 

Kaplan doesn't get any extra information than what he hears reported. And advising conservative treatment won't get him into trouble. Similar to the tack the Bills took with Easley. Assuming it was WPW.

 

If he needed ablation, it is very simple to assume he could get it that week in about any EP lab in the country (I mean his workup was completed in 4 days, right?). He would have been back by week 5 or 6, , conservatively. A guy with that much talent, having such an outstanding preseason and who would be able to attend every meeting in that 2 to 4 weeks isn't going to fall "behind the other receivers (who?). If the diagnosis is WPW and the ablation is successful and your subspecialty guidelines say it's OK for him to return to football after 2 to 4 weeks, you would ingore all that and keep him out all 5 months of the season??

 

Of course you wouldn't. There would be no justification, based on the scenario you provided.

 

 

Maybe to dispel rumors that he's "oft-injured" because he could have been back on the field in no time. But they IR'd him for no reason at all?

 

Those were obviously not "rumors" and the best way to dispel such talk (not that there was much anyway) is to appear in a football game. And of course they IR'd him for some reason, but if your scenario is correct then the reason was not medical neccessity, as has been shown. Docs make questionable decisions all the the time that bring no actual benefit to a patient, but it makes them feel like they have insulated themselves from blame if something goes wrong. You certainly know this, yet you are arguing the opposite.

 

 

Can't argue with that proof!

 

Yet you still do. Go figure.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

If he needed ablation, it is very simple to assume he could get it that week in about any EP lab in the country (I mean his workup was completed in 4 days, right?). He would have been back by week 5 or 6, , conservatively. A guy with that much talent, having such an outstanding preseason and who would be able to attend every meeting in that 2 to 4 weeks isn't going to fall "behind the other receivers (who?). If the diagnosis is WPW and the ablation is successful and your subspecialty guidelines say it's OK for him to return to football after 2 to 4 weeks, you would ingore all that and keep him out all 5 months of the season??

 

Of course you wouldn't. There would be no justification, based on the scenario you provided.

Almost every team would have done the same. I don't know of a single player who has had a heart condition, who returned that season. The closest thing I can recall is Bruschi having his mild stroke in February of 2005, and it taking him 8 months to receive clearance to play again after a catheter-based repair of his PFO.

Those were obviously not "rumors" and the best way to dispel such talk (not that there was much anyway) is to appear in a football game. And of course they IR'd him for some reason, but if your scenario is correct then the reason was not medical neccessity, as has been shown. Docs make questionable decisions all the the time that bring no actual benefit to a patient, but it makes them feel like they have insulated themselves from blame if something goes wrong. You certainly know this, yet you are arguing the opposite.

LOL! An ACL tear and a freak heart condition doesn't make one "oft-injured." And if the Bills' docs panicked and put Easley on IR for no good reason, when he could have played after a few weeks, he had no choice in being able to play, did he? BTW, there's this thing called "defensive medicine." I do it, you do it, we all do it. It's easier to talk tough when it's not your ass on the line.

Yet you still do. Go figure.

I'll make sure to use the rolleyes emoticon next time.

[Mr. WEO]

Almost every team would have done the same. I don't know of a single player who has had a heart condition, who returned that season. The closest thing I can recall is Bruschi having his mild stroke in February of 2005, and it taking him 8 months to receive clearance to play again after a catheter-based repair of his PFO.

 

LOL! An ACL tear and a freak heart condition doesn't make one "oft-injured." And if the Bills' docs panicked and put Easley on IR for no good reason, when he could have played after a few weeks, he had no choice in being able to play, did he? BTW, there's this thing called "defensive medicine." I do it, you do it, we all do it. It's easier to talk tough when it's not your ass on the line.

 

I'll make sure to use the rolleyes emoticon next time.

 

 

The circumstances of injury don't really matter. The guy has yet to earn a game check. I, like you, am hoping he does this year.

 

Look, you picked the heart disease, WPW, not me. And if, as you and others are saying, he had his workup doen in 4 days followed by his ablation, there is a consensus statement by the ACC that he can go back to football in a month, at most. In order to support your argument, you now have to say that you would ignore that and keep him out for the season---and that "almost every team would have" agreed with your medical judgement. That conclusion is beyond ridiculous. If you now want to change your diagnosis to PFO and perc repair,then I will agree with your decision to keep the kid out for the year.

 

As for defensive medicine, I'm familiar with it--in fact, I mentioned it in my last post to Hopeful:

 

The decision as to when to fill out the guy's return to work slip cannot therefore fall anywhere near "incompetence", medically speaking. It would more likely fall under the notion of defensive medicine, which is widespread and not de facto imcompetence.

 

Though we all do it to some degree, you would have to acknowledge by its definition that defensive medicine treats the doctor, not the patient. The aptient receives an unnecessary test or procedure or, in this case, misses the bulk of the season so that the doc can sleep better at night.

 

All of this brings us to you agreeing to my point--that the decision to put him on IR was likely (especially given your WPW diagnosis) an act of defensive medicine that the kid was stuck with. If you are correct, he could have, based on standard consensus, been back on the field last year.

[Turbosrrgood]

Easley does not have hands of stone he was lighting it up in pre season before getting IR'd. It will be really fun to see him again this year. Hopefully he can stay off the PUP list and show us what he can do.

 

Actually, he made a perfectly valid point. People get all hyped up about young players and tend to notice the good, and conveniently ignore the bad...Easley seemed to me to have A LOT of trouble holding on to balls in his limited chances in training camp/preseason last year. He had one nice TD catch, other than that looked average at best...And yes, whether or not you saw it, or just don't want to admit it, Easley dropped a bunch of very catchable balls last camp. That is actually the thing about him that stood out the most to me last year.

 

I'd love for Easley to step up and be the man, hopefully he will. Let's not ignore reality though, he has yet to see an NFL game, and has done very little to impress in a Bills uniform. Heck it's not like he even had a good college career, he was a walk on at UCONN and had a career total of 53 receptions, and became a 4th rnd pick. Easley is another one of those baseless TBD hall of famers, like Aurthur Moats, Danny Batten, ect...

 

Like it or not, Hagan and Jones are probably the top candidates for that #2 spot to start the season. I'm not a Jones fan, but I think Hagan could be decent.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Turbosrrgood

[Doc]

The circumstances of injury don't really matter. The guy has yet to earn a game check. I, like you, am hoping he does this year.

 

Look, you picked the heart disease, WPW, not me. And if, as you and others are saying, he had his workup doen in 4 days followed by his ablation, there is a consensus statement by the ACC that he can go back to football in a month, at most. In order to support your argument, you now have to say that you would ignore that and keep him out for the season---and that "almost every team would have" agreed with your medical judgement. That conclusion is beyond ridiculous. If you now want to change your diagnosis to PFO and perc repair,then I will agree with your decision to keep the kid out for the year.

 

As for defensive medicine, I'm familiar with it--in fact, I mentioned it in my last post to Hopeful:

 

 

 

Though we all do it to some degree, you would have to acknowledge by its definition that defensive medicine treats the doctor, not the patient. The aptient receives an unnecessary test or procedure or, in this case, misses the bulk of the season so that the doc can sleep better at night.

 

All of this brings us to you agreeing to my point--that the decision to put him on IR was likely (especially given your WPW diagnosis) an act of defensive medicine that the kid was stuck with. If you are correct, he could have, based on standard consensus, been back on the field last year.

Of course defensive medicine is treating the doctor more than the patient. But that's the price you pay for the legal system we have. Being conservative isn't being a wimp or panicky: it's protecting your livelihood at least, and may be protecting the patient. I've cancelled several patients where the surgeon pissed and moaned about it, and within a day or so something happened to the patient. No one can predict the future, and when I talk to a surgeon about cancelling a case, I tell them that if it was their relative, they'd want me to do the same (knowing full well that if they were in my shoes, they'd do the same, and if something went wrong, they'd sell me down the river in a heartbeat). Easley had a problem with his heart. Being aggressive when there is no call for it is foolish. Easley still got paid for the year, and at most missed 1/2 - 2/3 of the season. And it doesn't really matter what he had. To me, you don't push things when it comes to the heart, especially when playing a demanding sport like pro football.

[Mr. WEO]

Of course defensive medicine is treating the doctor more than the patient. But that's the price you pay for the legal system we have. Being conservative isn't being a wimp or panicky: it's protecting your livelihood at least, and may be protecting the patient. I've cancelled several patients where the surgeon pissed and moaned about it, and within a day or so something happened to the patient. No one can predict the future, and when I talk to a surgeon about cancelling a case, I tell them that if it was their relative, they'd want me to do the same (knowing full well that if they were in my shoes, they'd do the same, and if something went wrong, they'd sell me down the river in a heartbeat). Easley had a problem with his heart. Being aggressive when there is no call for it is foolish. Easley still got paid for the year, and at most missed 1/2 - 2/3 of the season. And it doesn't really matter what he had. To me, you don't push things when it comes to the heart, especially when playing a demanding sport like pro football.

 

Following the guidelines of your subspecialty field is never "being aggressive". With such sub specialty questions as this, specialists and generalists are guided by the recommendations of experts who convene at national meetings and develop and issue consensus statements such a the one I cited. If you chose to ignore them, your are not demonstrably helping your patient. Quite simply, you are making up a treatment on your own despite best evidence to the contrary. This is what I said the med staff did with Easley--he was on IR 4 days after he walked off the field. It you have the correct diagnosis, the standard practice recommendation is known. By saying you agree they were simply practicing defensive medicine (we all say the patient "might benefit" from our deviation form the recommended care, doc), you are agreeing with my original premise.

 

See, you do come around!

[Meathead]

Agreed.

 

At WR its all about plan B.

 

Stevie Jounson is clearly plan A (a reasonable one given two straight productive seasons and some specific play such as his undressing of a best in the NFL CB Revis in a couple of games). However he simply has shown a couple of cases of utter immaturity which makes him a bet to be a deserved #1 simply a bet we hope we win rather than a sure thing. The Bills have publicly bet a lot on Johnson as seen by him getting the prominent role in Bills commercials, but as we seen with the all too prominent quandary of injury which wiped out the season of last year's promo poster boy Fred Jackson that this is just a high stakes bet.

 

Fortunately in the Jax case we had a plan B of Spiller whose resume made him a not unreasonable choice to step into the #1 RB slot. He even pproduced at the end of the season like he is the real deal and the Nills have to be feeling good about the uncertainties which simply come with the NFL these days at all positions at RB.

 

However, at WR, we not only have the reasonable uncertainties with the #1, but the #2 role is up in the air.

 

The situation MIGHT work out to be fine. However, it really is going to take at least two players stepping up to occupy roles they never have produced at as NFL players for this to work smoothly.

 

With the ASSUMPTION that Stevie J. has a not unreasonable (but in no way gauranteed maturity transplant and makes sure he does not let down his teammates with mental antics which get him benched (his benching last year after a T-Shirt demo was more than reasonable as he called out both the HC and refs with its innocuous taunt. He really let down his teammates with the selfish antics. Maybe he can reasonably show boat when he (earn a Pro Bowl level berth or even better lead a winning team, but for now he has something to prove.

 

He has the talent to be a legit #1, and he has also shown he is a gamer playing well through injury but the juvenalia has to stop. I think he can do it and apparently the Bills have shown him the money and promoted him prominently as a team leader that they believe in him too. If Johnson fails through injury its a tough break but if he fails through immaturity its on him.

 

Donald Jones- on depth chart as #2, but this is likely in name only as if he performed at the level of a good #4 40+ catches this would be a reasonble step up for him in performance. Has shown none of the mutant production of a traditional #3 like toughness and production in the slot(Parrish actually showed some potential for this mentally but his body could not cash checks his mind wrote)or dynamic speed (another Parrish virtue but again he just got too damaged to be relied upon). Jones to me is a reasonable but in no way gauranteed plan C and as our plan B while stranger things have happened it is nothing at all to depend on.

 

Nelson- I actually like him as the potential big surprise at a plan B level. The problem is that this would be a surprising and enormous step up for him. He had some nice highlights last year and a couple of his grabs showed some bigtime potential. However, the distance betweem doing this in nice episodes and doing thie consistently is huge. Here is another player who would be nicely advancing his career and play if he turned out to be a solid #3 at the end of the season, but we are looking for a #2.

 

Marcus Easley- potential simply means you have not done anything yet. Nice demographics in terms of sixe, speed, and college resume, but how someone can count on him to be the @2 seems little more than wishful hoping.

 

TJ Graham- An interesting pick and it really is impossible to accuratelu predict what will happen until we see not only whether the raw talent which both saw the Bills trade up to get him but many pundit idiots had him as a probable 6th round pick. One cannot teach speed (without regard to what Don Beebe makes nickels doing and Graham's collegiate record gives some credibility that IF the scouts saw something he MIGHT be a credible pick by the Bills. However, even this is a big MAYBE and again counting on any rook to be the #2 WR is a huge longshot at best.

 

A cast of others- There are a number of guys who might contribute on ST or career reliable back-ups who are late season fill-ins when injury bites like a Namaan Roosevelt but I see nothing here that excites me as potential A, B. Cs, or even plan D players.

 

I think this might work if a couple of guys really step up. I just doubt that it will work bacl in reality.

 

one word: close paren

[rstencel]

Actually, he made a perfectly valid point. People get all hyped up about young players and tend to notice the good, and conveniently ignore the bad...Easley seemed to me to have A LOT of trouble holding on to balls in his limited chances in training camp/preseason last year. He had one nice TD catch, other than that looked average at best...And yes, whether or not you saw it, or just don't want to admit it, Easley dropped a bunch of very catchable balls last camp. That is actually the thing about him that stood out the most to me last year.

 

I'd love for Easley to step up and be the man, hopefully he will. Let's not ignore reality though, he has yet to see an NFL game, and has done very little to impress in a Bills uniform. Heck it's not like he even had a good college career, he was a walk on at UCONN and had a career total of 53 receptions, and became a 4th rnd pick. Easley is another one of those baseless TBD hall of famers, like Aurthur Moats, Danny Batten, ect...

 

Like it or not, Hagan and Jones are probably the top candidates for that #2 spot to start the season. I'm not a Jones fan, but I think Hagan could be decent.

 

Cant really argue on showing suspect hands, but seems to get open so often, that if can stay healthy, think he'll get a lot of chances on the field, even if he doesnt start.

 

Agree that Hagan is more likely to win the 2 spot, but wouldnt be surprised if Easley gets more balls thrown his way during season, atleast till he proves one way or other if can hold onto ball.

[Doc]

Following the guidelines of your subspecialty field is never "being aggressive". With such sub specialty questions as this, specialists and generalists are guided by the recommendations of experts who convene at national meetings and develop and issue consensus statements such a the one I cited. If you chose to ignore them, your are not demonstrably helping your patient. Quite simply, you are making up a treatment on your own despite best evidence to the contrary. This is what I said the med staff did with Easley--he was on IR 4 days after he walked off the field. It you have the correct diagnosis, the standard practice recommendation is known. By saying you agree they were simply practicing defensive medicine (we all say the patient "might benefit" from our deviation form the recommended care, doc), you are agreeing with my original premise.

 

See, you do come around!

As I said before doc, assuming it was WPW and he had an ablation, using JACC's recommendation, Easley's looking at missing almost the first half of the season as he's held out for precautionary reasons and as he gets up to speed. It's very likely that the call didn't even come from the team's doc's and Gailey did it because he needed the roster space immediately (which is why the new rules allowing players to come back from IR after 8 weeks). Futhermore, there is no harm being done to Easley by putting him on IR.

[Mr. WEO]

As I said before doc, assuming it was WPW and he had an ablation, using JACC's recommendation, Easley's looking at missing almost the first half of the season as he's held out for precautionary reasons and as he gets up to speed. It's very likely that the call didn't even come from the team's doc's and Gailey did it because he needed the roster space immediately (which is why the new rules allowing players to come back from IR after 8 weeks). Futhermore, there is no harm being done to Easley by putting him on IR.

 

 

They needed the roster spot, huh? To sign Easley's replacement-- a number 5 or 6 WR (Ruvell Martin that same day). Yeah, good thing they huslted the guy they were super high on in preseason to IR--good point! And even if he was out the full 4 weeks (he's not on bedrest for that long, doc), he would have been back in mid October--less time than if he had a high ankle sprain.

[8-8 Forever?]

I think I must have a differ perception from others. My recollection is he was hurt early in the preaseason his first year in the league. Then last year when there was basically no training camp and OTAs he had 2 decent preseason games. I happened to be at the Denver game because my brother lives there and he did a good job of separating and made the catches that he could. Then next was the Jacksonville game in which he also looked very good where he was 5/51 yds and a TD. Unfortunately after that he was shutdown with the heart ailment.

 

To me, from the limited times that I seen him, he's big,fast and runs sharp routes. I don't recall him having stone hands, too be honest I seen Stevie drop a helavu lot of easy catches and we know just how good he is.

easley is a beast. crazy combo of speed and size. get your popcorn ready