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

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I'ts also possible that Angelo was going to have the scaled back version and come back in 5 weeks or so, but the Bills doctors felt he needed the "works" so their opinion was if he had the scaled back version and came back in five weeks, he still wouldn't be playing a very high level. The fact that after he went on IR, he delayed the surgey, got second. maybe even third opinions, then ends up having the "works" makes me believe that may have more been the case. I definitely think there is more to this and likely he would have bee nout longer and/or returned on a borken wheel. It's real easy for his agent now to claim all he needed and was going to have was the scaled down version. That may have been what he was going to do, but everyone recommended more.

 

It's funny too how his agent claimed Angelo wasn't going to comment on this, but take the "high road" Meanwhile his agent had no trouble blasting the Bills. (not that it's surprising)

 

It's noteworthy that Crowell had what Graham termed "the works" version of surgery when he went to see Dr. Andrews. Sounded as though he elected this because he had the time to heal. Had he not been on IR, he could have elected to have a scaled down version of surgery. I'm not a MD, so I can't elaborate further.

[Corp000085]

My take is that one of two things happened (pure speculation here. I do not know the facts):

 

 

1) Crowell's contract extension talks hit an impasse. He had some knee issued which he could have played through, but he did his thing till the contract stalled. Then he got his knee evaluated and came back to the bills with a diagnosis of surgery. Bills IR'd him to spite him and to free up a roster spot.

 

2) Crowell's injury diagnosis was far more serious than what was let on. He attempted to play through the pain but couldn't. He had the choice of a small scale surgery with the 2 month recovery time or the full blown season ender. The Bills IR'd him, took some lumps from the media, but shielded Crowell from criticism because he tried to play through...

 

 

In reality it probably was a little bit of both. Crow tried to play out during the contract talks with the injury, when they broke down, he decided to have the surgery. In this situation, you can't really fault either side for the way it was handled... You can fault both sides for not being clear and forthcoming with the media. In the end, Crowell is probably a broken player at this point. He'll still get his one last contract, but whether it be with the Bills or someone else, he's probably relegated to being a situational player.

[Steely Dan]

AFAIK, Crowell and the team knew about the injury during the preseason. He said he was willing to play through the pain. However, he decided to have the surgery (news broke on the thursday before the Seahawks game).

 

The thought is that he waited untill after the Tuesday before before the Seahawks game to have the surgery. Because after that day, his contract for this season became gauranteed. If he would of had the surgery in the preseaon, he would have only missed 1-2 games. Instead he waited to make sure he would get payed.

 

The Bills pretty much sent him a big F.U. for being greedy.

 

That makes a lot of sense.

 

Adding to the odd situation, though, was the fact Crowell practiced the day before he revealed his intention to have surgery and was not listed on the injury report.

 

I think that's the catalyst for Ralph's quit on me response.

[RuffMuff]

Good point! I say that article and thought of the same stuff, but it sounds like only one side of the story, the players. You and I may never know but I know some of the facts:

 

Crowell requested to have surgey days before the season.

The Bills put him on IR.

The Bills are 2-0.

 

I am not worried. Sucks for Crowell, maybe he shoulda been more of a team player.

[The Dean]

Good point! I say that article and thought of the same stuff, but it sounds like only one side of the story, the players. You and I may never know but I know some of the facts:

 

Crowell requested to have surgey days before the season.

The Bills put him on IR.

The Bills are 2-0.

 

I am not worried. Sucks for Crowell, maybe he shoulda been more of a team player.

 

 

Look at what Merriman got for trying to be a "team player". When it's someone else's body, it's easy to risk it.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Look at what Merriman got for trying to be a "team player". When it's someone else's body, it's easy to risk it.

 

 

You make an excellent point there, and I do not think it makes sense to be too hard on Crowell, who obviously tried to play through the pain and only submitted to the necessity of surgery at the last possible minute. What bugs me about Tim G's reporting is that he continues to use the "5 weeks" theme as if it is a given, without appearing to consider the possibility that team doctors felt his recovery would take longer. Without that assumption, the argument that this had to be some kind of "FY" (which, as someone who once taught at an "F.U.", I prefer to use) by the Bills has much less foundation.

 

It is quite possible that a quick scope would have healed in that short period of time, but it is also possible that he would never be all the way back until he had the "works," which he is having now. Graham appears to realize that, but his recent article suggests that Crowell is just getting the works now because the Bills were big meanies who put him on IR. How do we know that his doctors did not tell him this was his only real option?

 

This does not have to be a story that reflects negatively on either Crowell or the Bills, but Tim Graham and various posters to this board appear determined to make it so, one way or the other.

[The Dean]

This does not have to be a story that reflects negatively on either Crowell or the Bills, but Tim Graham and various posters to this board appear determined to make it so, one way or the other.

 

 

Which is why I started to thread. I find it hard to believe that either party in this could be THAT wrong/bad.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Which is why I started to thread. I find it hard to believe that either party in this could be THAT wrong/bad.

 

 

I am with you completely on this, Dean, and I share your frustration that the reporting seems to be skating over what should be the crucial facts of the story.

[jarthur31]

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?

 

Crow only had that surgery yesterday or the day before. Nobody was certain as to the prognosis until after the surgery right? I read an article saying that Angelo played with this discomfort for most of last year. The pain must've been unbearable so he decided to do this right before the regular season as opposed to the Spring. You can't blame Bills management on this last part.

[Lori]

It is quite possible that a quick scope would have healed in that short period of time, but it is also possible that he would never be all the way back until he had the "works," which he is having now. Graham appears to realize that, but his recent article suggests that Crowell is just getting the works now because the Bills were big meanies who put him on IR. How do we know that his doctors did not tell him this was his only real option?

I'm assuming that if that had been the case, France might have adopted a different tone when he talked to Graham. But you know what they say about the word "assume" ...

[Lori]

Look at what Merriman got for trying to be a "team player". When it's someone else's body, it's easy to risk it.

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 Dean]

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.

 

 

I thought the team doctor originally told him to give it rest, and he went and got a second (and third, and fourth...) opinion and THOSE doctors told him to get an operation. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

Anyway, I am assuming that Crowell's doctors recommended an operation. Who gets surgery (other than cosmetic) if a doctor didn't suggest it was necessary?. But, if no doctors told Angelo he needed to get the operation, I can see the Bills being a little upset, especially with the timing. But, if it is only going to be a relatively certain 5 weeks, do you cut him?

 

Bottom line, of course...Never trust the team doctor. They don't work for you.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

I'm assuming that if that had been the case, France might have adopted a different tone when he talked to Graham. But you know what they say about the word "assume" ...

 

 

Too true!

 

Heck, I do not begrudge an agent his right to spin things any way that helps his client, and I am no orthopaedist, so maybe Crowell would have been good as new in four weeks. But Graham and France are not doctors either, and we know that Crowell had several consultations once he decided to have surgery, resulting in this decision to go for the works. How can anyone write a story on this topic and not at least consider that the works is the surgery that Crowell would have ended up needing all along? It is that particular assumption, that it was obviously going to be 4-5 weeks and, paraphrasing Graham, the Bills would have had 11 weeks of their leading tackler if they had not inexplicably gotten all mean and petty, that continues to bug me—not because I believe that the Bills front office is perfect in this, but because questions of surgery, especially knee surgery, are often too complex to be jammed into either/or categories.

[Lori]

RJ, you'll have to ask Tim that. He does know about this thread, and I'm hoping he gets a chance to check in here before the gameday stuff pushes this down the board.

 

Speaking of gameday, my alarm is set for 5:30 a.m. Long day today, long drive tomorrow. G'night, all.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

RJ, you'll have to ask Tim that. He does know about this thread, and I'm hoping he gets a chance to check in here before the gameday stuff pushes this down the board.

 

Speaking of gameday, my alarm is set for 5:30 a.m. Long day today, long drive tomorrow. G'night, all.

 

Thanks Lori.

 

Pleasant dreams... and Go Bills!

[DonInBuffalo]

I was less than impressed with the "journalism" in that article. Graham leaps to some conclusions that don't have any factual support, and avoids mentioning some other key issues.

 

Did Peters' holdout affect this decision by the Bills? Yes, but not in the way that he implies. They didn't put Crowell on IR because they were "fuming" about Peters. They did it because they were thin on roster spots. Crowell was essentially the victim of a numbers game. Just take a close look at the actives/inactives for the first two games. You honestly believe it wouldn't have hurt the Bills to carry Crowell as an inactive and have one player who wound up participating in the game inactive? Jauron when asked said basically what I'm saying here. They put Crowell on IR because they needed the roster spot for a backup LB who plays ST.

[TimGraham]

Too true!

 

Heck, I do not begrudge an agent his right to spin things any way that helps his client, and I am no orthopaedist, so maybe Crowell would have been good as new in four weeks. But Graham and France are not doctors either, and we know that Crowell had several consultations once he decided to have surgery, resulting in this decision to go for the works. How can anyone write a story on this topic and not at least consider that the works is the surgery that Crowell would have ended up needing all along? It is that particular assumption, that it was obviously going to be 4-5 weeks and, paraphrasing Graham, the Bills would have had 11 weeks of their leading tackler if they had not inexplicably gotten all mean and petty, that continues to bug me—not because I believe that the Bills front office is perfect in this, but because questions of surgery, especially knee surgery, are often too complex to be jammed into either/or categories.

 

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.

[TimGraham]

I was less than impressed with the "journalism" in that article. Graham leaps to some conclusions that don't have any factual support, and avoids mentioning some other key issues.

 

Did Peters' holdout affect this decision by the Bills? Yes, but not in the way that he implies. They didn't put Crowell on IR because they were "fuming" about Peters. They did it because they were thin on roster spots. Crowell was essentially the victim of a numbers game. Just take a close look at the actives/inactives for the first two games. You honestly believe it wouldn't have hurt the Bills to carry Crowell as an inactive and have one player who wound up participating in the game inactive? Jauron when asked said basically what I'm saying here. They put Crowell on IR because they needed the roster spot for a backup LB who plays ST.

 

Then you cut Matt Murphy and add Blake Costanzo until you see how Crowell responds from surgery.

[Arkady Renko]

Then you cut Matt Murphy and add Blake Costanzo until you see how Crowell responds from surgery.

 

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

[alg]

Look at what Merriman got for trying to be a "team player". When it's someone else's body, it's easy to risk it.

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.