No I dont think so. Calling Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, or his teachings by the name crypto-Sāṅkhya would imply there was an early-Sāṅkhya apart from early-Buddhism. That is not what I’ve suggested.
I think Early-Buddhist Texts and doctrine may have been originally called Sāṅkhya (literally means “the enumerating” or “numerically ordering” philosophy) by the non-Buddhist Indian philosophical schools (that are comprised within the umbrella term ‘Hinduism’ - such as Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, Yoga, Vaiśeṣika, Nyāya etc). I know for sure that the yoga school and the vedanta school recognize early-Sāṅkhya as one of the most important early philosophies. But we dont have any surviving texts of early-Sāṅkhya. It appears that early-Sāṅkhya had texts described as Sāṅkhya-sūtras (not extant today), but they could have very well been describing sūtras/suttas from EBTs
Those other early-philosophies and philosophers may not have seen the founder of Buddhism as a ‘Buddha’ as that would appear to acknowledge/accept his claim to enlightenment which they wouldnt have accepted as the EBTs patently contain a lot of unverifiable (very likely exaggerated) claims. So for these co-eval early philosophers/philosophies describe it as a “bauddha-darśana” (“buddhist philosophy”) would not have been acceptable to them. So they possibly invented the name Sāṅkhya to accurately describe early Buddhist texts and doctrine, as no other Indic philosophy enumerates or numerically orders its philosophical elements like EBTs.
Need to check what the early-Jains and early-Ājīvakas called early-Buddhism.