BB Fan 4 LIFE Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Someone needs to tell Russ Brandon that you need depth to win in this league. Stop F@#%$# releasing/not resiging competent starters dumb@$$ !!!!!!!!!!! I said when we didn't re-sign Crowell it was a bad move. You need AT LEAST 3 starting linebackers to win in this league. By releasing Crowell, we started with 2 (ellison does not count). As we saw this past week, it really sucks not having one starting LB. Way to go Russ. I hope he goes the way of Jaruon, or just quits in shame (because he should).
BarkLessWagMore Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Crowell is on f-in IR too u dumbass. So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid.
bluenews Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid. I believe after week #6 an injury settlement agreement can be met and player released. Not sure if TB would do this....i
John Cocktosten Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid. The OP has a point on signing depth but Crowell is damaged goods. Peterson, Keaho and Pisa would've looked nice in a Bills uniform though.
MRW Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid. No, Crowell's a particularly poor example. When was the last time the guy made it through a high percentage of a football season? The lack of depth on what started the season as an inadequate LB corps is a good point, but Crowell would not have been the answer to this team's woes.
BB Fan 4 LIFE Posted October 12, 2009 Author Posted October 12, 2009 So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid. Thank you. Many kool aid drinkers on this board quick to argue a logical fallacy in support of this team's front office. Why? I don't know. Even if we kept Crowell and he did get hurt...would that not have been the better move? Sure, you could look back and argue his injury, but you can't know that at the time you make the move. You make moves based on info available at the time.
WVUFootball29 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I believe after week #6 an injury settlement agreement can be met and player released. Not sure if TB would do this....i In certain cases yes, but the problem here is a torn biceps and they talk a long time to heal. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1...maximizing.html As much as we are hurting for LB depth, tackling is also a concern and the Bills have a hard enough time bringing people down with 2 good arms let alone only having one.
MarkyMannn Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid. Yeah, possibly, like maybe he is injury prone so why keep him around And Poz is next given a few more years. Can't feel good about a guy who breaks his arm twice like that
Doc Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Crowell's availability was already in-doubt before his torn biceps. Reports are that his knee wasn't healing as fast as they had hoped.
apuszczalowski Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid. And if Crowell signed it would mean that Poz, Mitchell and Buggs wouldn't have become injured? Injuries happen, even to depth guys, sometimes you get snakebitten more then others do, and you don't build your team expecting to have to use your depth players. If so, would Indy have Jim Sorgi as a backup? Or NE having a nobody backing up Brady?
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 So because Crowell got hurt playing for TB means he would have experienced the exact same injury (or any injury) if the Bills signed him? Really?? I think the original poster's point is valid. He never even made it to the first preseason game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Thank you. Many kool aid drinkers on this board quick to argue a logical fallacy in support of this team's front office. Why? I don't know. Even if we kept Crowell and he did get hurt...would that not have been the better move? Sure, you could look back and argue his injury, but you can't know that at the time you make the move. You make moves based on info available at the time. This is not a bad point, that past injuries are not always an accurate predictor of future injuries. That said, Crowell was having difficulty in June with his knee from which he has not fully recovered. He then missed two preseason games with a hamstring injury before his season ending biceps injury. The Bucs took a gamble signing him and they lost. I will agree that the Bills were perilously thin at linebacker (as they are at several positions) and should have made a better effort to land some quality depth. edit-Crowell's contract with Tampa Bay was a one year, $2 million contract...his cost should not have been an issue with any interested team, his health on the other hand was a big question mark.
Recommended Posts