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?