Angelo Crowell started in Spikes' stead in 2005, and there is talk that he might move to the inside, but he's a useful fourth/fifth linebacker being stretched into a starting role.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6684832
It appears the writer Bill Barnwell / FootballOutsiders.com thinks he is no better than a #4 LB. Is he good enough to start on other teams? I think so.
Perhaps Bill should have watched a few games.
ESPN last year had a story on him that he was an up and coming star... It is just weird how one writer will say he is great the next says he sucks. From what I saw of him he is a very good player but does seem fragile....
and how credible is espn anymore?Originally Posted by THATHURMANATOR
unless he changed his name to lavar arrington or brian urlacher they wont care.
BUT i believe he is an up and coming star and if he can stay healthy this year he's guna break out.
Sec 241 row 12 seat 23
Funny because ESPN had him on the front page a few months ago talking about how he is an up and coming possible star in the league one day.
let's not forget that the stupid writer works for a site called "footballoutsiders". It is now blatantly obvious while they are called that.
That's ridiculous... maybe he was talking about Ellison... or even Coy Wire, but Crowell? My guess is he would start for most teams in the league. I could see saying he's not a #1 yet although he's expected to fill that role, but a #4? Crack kills, brother.
No offense guys but Crowell is above average, not a super star. A little too much homerism. I watched him play and make his share of mistakes.
The problem around here is that because our team is weak at certain positions, like LB, the players that do play look way better than they should.
Last edited by HHURRICANE; 04-17-2007 at 08:18 AM.
I don't understand this statement.
Wake up, brush your teeth, and get ready for a day of hating the Dolphins. Or the Pats? How to choose?
Our best players wouldn't be that good on better teams.
We did have the 28th ranked D in the league?
I haven't read anything in this thread that claims that Crowell is a superstar. The consensus seems to be that he is a legit starter with some upside. I wouldn't argue with that at all.
that's what I think. He's a good starter on most teams, but not a star.
the unfortunate part is he's currently our best linebacker, which is part of why I think its probably our biggest area of need. more importantly, we currently have 2 starters, when we need three.
I believe the phrase ESPN was using was Below the Radar.
www.gamersconspiracy.com - where gamers conspire
I agree with both you and Jeff on your assessments. The sad part is that we are super weak here and Crowell shouldn't be our best LB. Personally I could see many teams where he would be #4.
Re: Angelo Crowell fourth/fifth linebacker?
As The Answer alluded to in another LB thread - yes at one point we were so loaded at the LB position that Crowell was nothing more than a 3rd string LB lingering around on the depth chart. But when TKO went down in 2005, he emerged as a rock solid player.
Just typical Bills hate in this one.
~The Answer
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
