BeastMode54 Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 With pizza man looking like he might be out for quite some time, it makes the decision to IR Crowell look even worse. I understand the Bills were mad, but he would have been back around now, and our depth at LB would have been much better.
DrDawkinstein Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 With pizza man looking like he might be out for quite some time, it makes the decision to IR Crowell look even worse. I understand the Bills were mad, but he would have been back around now, and our depth at LB would have been much better. would he be?
dollars 2 donuts Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 With pizza man looking like he might be out for quite some time, it makes the decision to IR Crowell look even worse. I understand the Bills were mad, but he would have been back around now, and our depth at LB would have been much better. Ralph was really, really, REALLY mad at him. However, it doesn't make your point any less true. Yeah, it would have been better to have him right about now.
BeastMode54 Posted October 20, 2008 Author Posted October 20, 2008 would he be? It was a 4-6 week injury with the chance at it being 8. We're going into week 8, so he should have been back by now, if not coming back this week
VOR Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 The decision to have surgery 3 days before the start of the season hurt Crowell a lot more than it has the Bills...so far. And who's to say he would have been effective immediately after coming back?
BeastMode54 Posted October 20, 2008 Author Posted October 20, 2008 The decision to have surgery 3 days before the start of the season hurt Crowell a lot more than it has the Bills...so far. And who's to say he would have been effective immediately after coming back? His decision was very stupid, and who knows about what shape he'd be in. But we need to have depth and he would have provided it.
BillsWatch Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 Whenever you state that the Bills should have taken a chance on Crow you need to specify who you would have cut to allow him to be on inactive list. Third QB Hamdan, Omon, Bell, Fine?
Hazed and Amuzed Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 It was a 4-6 week injury with the chance at it being 8. We're going into week 8, so he should have been back by now, if not coming back this week Why not 3, 5 or 7 weeks?
BeastMode54 Posted October 20, 2008 Author Posted October 20, 2008 Whenever you state that the Bills should have taken a chance on Crow you need to specify who you would have cut to allow him to be on inactive list. Third QB Hamdan, Omon, Bell, Fine? maybe corto
DrDawkinstein Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 there is a whole lot of guessing and assuming going on in here. even if he was healthy, im not a big crowell fan. as pointed out in film study, Crowell was an "ok" lb who too often tried to do too much and ended up out of position.
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 Whenever you state that the Bills should have taken a chance on Crow you need to specify who you would have cut to allow him to be on inactive list. Third QB Hamdan, Omon, Bell, Fine? How about Bryan Scott? Justin Jenkins? Copeland Bryan? Pick one. Either could have been stored on the PS. I would think that a starting OLB for the second half of the season is worth more than a 6th WR, 5th/6th DE, or 5th S.
marauderswr80 Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 I see plenty of LB's in the 2009 draft that will make us all forget about Crowell. USC has a couple, Ohio St has one. And ever take notice of the kid at Boston College.........crazy good. My only fear is having Poz, Mitch, or Ellison go down then we are REAL thin.....
Recommended Posts