BeastMode54 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I know the Bills defense played superb in their first game. Mitchell and Poz looked fast, Stroud was a beast, Williams and Johnson played well, etc., etc. I know what Crowell did to the team sucks, and I do think this defense will be very good, I just can't help but think that they would be that much better, even if a slight bit, if Crowell was playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_red Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 you are always going to miss a starting LBer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I know the Bills defense played superb in their first game. Mitchell and Poz looked fast, Stroud was a beast, Williams and Johnson played well, etc., etc. I know what Crowell did to the team sucks, and I do think this defense will be very good, I just can't help but think that they would be that much better, even if a slight bit, if Crowell was playing Sure, he'd add another dimension. He was named the starter for a reason, afterall. My take on the situation after pondering it for a bit last night: Crowell wants to stay. He's got a few ticks on the odometer, sees the upside of the team, may be his family (wife, kids) are nice and settled in Buffalo and he'd prefer to re-up with the organization before next season. He may even be willing to take a pay cut. Perhaps he expressed this desire to the team, and they decided it would be best if he chose to have the surgery now, get healthy, and then sign an extension which keeps him in WNY for the rest of his professional career. Is this completely out of the question? And did I just skew this thread away from the OP's intent? If so, sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I know the Bills defense played superb in their first game. Mitchell and Poz looked fast, Stroud was a beast, Williams and Johnson played well, etc., etc. I know what Crowell did to the team sucks, and I do think this defense will be very good, I just can't help but think that they would be that much better, even if a slight bit, if Crowell was playing Of course they would, Crowell is a good football player and its to bad we lost him for the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Why would our defense miss our starting LB that lead the team in tackles last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastMode54 Posted September 11, 2008 Author Share Posted September 11, 2008 Why would our defense miss our starting LB that lead the team in tackles last year? I understand he was our leading tackler, but what I'm asking is will we lose a game that maybe we should have won without him there, or all we alright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I was surprised how negatively he was viewed by this board. I always liked his level of play, definitely a very good lb and very versatile. He's been hurt a lot in the past couple years and maybe that's why he hasn't been offered an extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsObserver Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 He may even be willing to take a pay cut. I seriously doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I was surprised how negatively he was viewed by this board. I always liked his level of play, definitely a very good lb and very versatile. He's been hurt a lot in the past couple years and maybe that's why he hasn't been offered an extension. From what I've heard, the coaches were never high on him, both on and off the field. They feel he didn't give his all and thus were never going to offer him an extension. I suspect that the Bills told him all off-season (since his knees have been a problem for awhile now) to have surgery and he refused, looking to play through it and get that big contract. But it backfired. The same can be said for Merriman, although he's definitely a great player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 From what I've heard, the coaches were never high on him, both on and off the field. They feel he didn't give his all and thus were never going to offer him an extension. I suspect that the Bills told him all off-season (since his knees have been a problem for awhile now) to have surgery and he refused, looking to play through it and get that big contract. But it backfired. The same can be said for Merriman, although he's definitely a great player. that certainly makes sense, except I didn't get the feeling that they told him to have surgery, but that's a total perception on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 From what I've heard, the coaches were never high on him, both on and off the field. They feel he didn't give his all and thus were never going to offer him an extension. I suspect that the Bills told him all off-season (since his knees have been a problem for awhile now) to have surgery and he refused, looking to play through it and get that big contract. But it backfired. The same can be said for Merriman, although he's definitely a great player. Where/when did you hear that the organization wasn't high on Crowell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 that certainly makes sense, except I didn't get the feeling that they told him to have surgery, but that's a total perception on my part. Jauron made a comment how having surgery 72 hours before the first game, versus 3 weeks, and the fact that they were PO'd at him, suggested to me that they told him as recently as 3 weeks ago to have surgery, but he refused. I don't know for sure, it's just a hunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Where/when did you hear that the organization wasn't high on Crowell? http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2008/9/5/6...ared-to-move-on I know it's a fan website. But given that there has been ZERO talk of him getting an extension, I think it (them not being that high on him) is the most reasonable explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I understand he was our leading tackler, but what I'm asking is will we lose a game that maybe we should have won without him there, or all we alright? If anyone knows of a game we are losing because Crowell isn't there, let me know so I can bet on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender51 Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 And here's my take on the Crowell situation, which is actually just asking a question. The Bills played a lot of nickel on Sunday, negating the third linebacker, anyway. Even if Crowell is playing, you're gonna keep Poz and Mitchell on the field, leaving Crowell as the benched man in nickel. So, my question is, did the Bills play a lot of nickel because Crowell wasn't there, or was it going to be gameplanned that way, anyway? A lot of teams play the nickel as their primary scheme. Maybe we can....or should, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 And here's my take on the Crowell situation, which is actually just asking a question. The Bills played a lot of nickel on Sunday, negating the third linebacker, anyway. Even if Crowell is playing, you're gonna keep Poz and Mitchell on the field, leaving Crowell as the benched man in nickel. So, my question is, did the Bills play a lot of nickel because Crowell wasn't there, or was it going to be gameplanned that way, anyway? A lot of teams play the nickel as their primary scheme. Maybe we can....or should, for that matter. We certainly have enough CB talent to use Nickel as a feature package. Many speculated that the CB frenzy this off season was in preparation for the pass happy Pats*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I felt Crowell was poised for a big year. We'll miss him, but we can recover I think. A young Puz in the middle and a vet in Mitchell outside, I think we could manage a rookie on the other side. But who knows what free agency will bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 i always liked crowell's game and was all for giving him an extension.........but now the bridge has truly been burned and i don't think there is a chance he'll be back life goes on - ellison may do the job and keep the role next year, or they may look at a FA or the draft..........regardless of how it turns out, the bottom line is this is the #3 LB we are talking about and that is the first guy off the field in nickel situations, which the bills will play plenty of......we'll be alright considering this spot only sees the field about 50% of the time (although i'm a fan of getting mitchell off the field in nickel before ellison more, based on mitchell's play in coverage last week - however mitchell's pass rush abilities likely dictate he'll continue to see more time there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 My issue is that Crow was the biggest LB and would be responsible for TEs, etc. I think strong side LB is a weakness of Bills but I am sure they are looking at options even putting Aaron in and having another DE take his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts