Moulds in 2006

[The_Philster]

Forked from: What a tandem (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showpost.php?postid=1291704)


Eric Moulds will always get a bye on his numbers, I will never fault him for putting crap QB's and crap management in place.

He is still a top tier WR. Id take him over Clements anyday.Ditto..I don't see how the guy would be expected to put up spectacular numbers every year when he's been switching offenses and QBs as often as he has. If we get a good OC in here in 2006 and start JP all year (I really think he's on the verge of being something special), Eric's numbers will pick up nicely...even if Lee is JP's #1 option. I just hope he's back :pray:

[Historian]

It's a numbers thing.

You can't afford to pay him top dollar in his 11th year. Especially on this team, with so many other needs.

He'll probably end up on the fish or the Jets.

[don137]

Need to add another option...You want him back only if he takes a paycut....

[Captain gameboy]

Ancestor worship has hurt this and many other franchises.

He has maybe one productive year left.
Let it be somewhere else.

For '06, first, let's zero out the distractions.

[mybills]

I think he'll take a pay cut, and I DO want him to stay. Did I say that backwards? :snicker:

[SeatownBillsFan21]

Pay cut or hes cut

[vicmantak]

Sorry but it's not about if we want Moulds or not.
Evans, Reed, Parrish and co. are simply nothing without him.
Just check what happened when he was SUSPENDED.

[SeatownBillsFan21]

nothing

[HHURRICANE]

Ancestor worship has hurt this and many other franchises.

He has maybe one productive year left.
Let it be somewhere else.

For '06, first, let's zero out the distractions.

Fresh start is what I have been saying all along. Moulds has been by far the best player on this team for along time but it is time to rebuild and change the team chemistry. Releasing Moulds and Williams alone saves us almost 11 million on the cap. I'm pretty sure we can bring some new talent in with that. Evans is our #1 receiver next year and I doubt Eric is going to want to be #2 on this team anyway with JP potentially being the starter.

[Captain gameboy]

I agree.
The more I see of Evans the more I like him.

I think Moulds is quite replaceable.

[X-Era]

Forked from: What a tandem (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showpost.php?postid=1291704)

Ditto..I don't see how the guy would be expected to put up spectacular numbers every year when he's been switching offenses and QBs as often as he has. If we get a good OC in here in 2006 and start JP all year (I really think he's on the verge of being something special), Eric's numbers will pick up nicely...even if Lee is JP's #1 option. I just hope he's back :pray:

The question has ZERO to do with whether we would like to have him. Its Moulds himself that will decide to leave, I guarantee.

To stay, Moulds would need to agree to ALL of the following:

1) A massive salary cut to get way down from 10+ mill next year
2) Agree to become the #2 considering the emergence of Evans as our #1
3) Agree to stick to being the player he was after he was suspended, quiet, happy, and productive
4) Agree to get behind whatever QB is starting
5) Agree to get behind whatever front office and coaches we have

Number 1 and 2 will not be acceptable to Moulds and he will choose to leave, it just my opinion. Id love to have him back, the pas few games showed me what Moulds can be worth to us, but I dont see it happening.

[RedEyE]

I think that he will agree to renegotiate his contract again. He has expressed to the media several times, even after the benching debacle, that he wants to finish his career out in Buffalo.

Ralph has also stated that he wants Eric to finish his career in Buffalo.

So, IMO, it all depends on who is GM in the Spring. I think if TD is still GM that Moulds goes. TD has shown in the past that he is not willing to work with proven veterans. I guess he doesn't like getting into it with the players agent or something. Not sure. Whatever it is, it seems cheap and heartless.

If someone other than TD is in the front office, this deal goes down.

With that being said, there is a 50% chance that he is back next season.

[X-Era]

I think that he will agree to renegotiate his contract again. He has expressed to the media several times, even after the benching debacle, that he wants to finish his career out in Buffalo.

Ralph has also stated that he wants Eric to finish his career in Buffalo.

So, IMO, it all depends on who is GM in the Spring. I think if TD is still GM that Moulds goes. TD has shown in the past that he is not willing to work with proven veterans. I guess he doesn't like getting into it with the players agent or something. Not sure. Whatever it is, it seems cheap and heartless.

If someone other than TD is in the front office, this deal goes down.

With that being said, there is a 50% chance that he is back next season.

I agree with you on TD. The worst part about it is, TD's method is to NOT resign good vets and then NOT replace them either, so we get worse.

[BAM]

I hope he restructures. I like Moulds and I think our receiving corps will be jack without him next year. We need him back, he's still productive IMO.

[The last buffalo fan]

I think that he will agree to renegotiate his contract again. He has expressed to the media several times, even after the benching debacle, that he wants to finish his career out in Buffalo.

Ralph has also stated that he wants Eric to finish his career in Buffalo.

So, IMO, it all depends on who is GM in the Spring. I think if TD is still GM that Moulds goes. TD has shown in the past that he is not willing to work with proven veterans. I guess he doesn't like getting into it with the players agent or something. Not sure. Whatever it is, it seems cheap and heartless.

If someone other than TD is in the front office, this deal goes down.

With that being said, there is a 50% chance that he is back next season.

Reed, wasn't TD the one, who deal with EMo?? I think (and hope), he stays. :peace:

[justasportsfan]

Forked from: What a tandem (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showpost.php?postid=1291704)

Ditto..I don't see how the guy would be expected to put up spectacular numbers every year when he's been switching offenses and QBs as often as he has. If we get a good OC in here in 2006 and start JP all year (I really think he's on the verge of being something special), Eric's numbers will pick up nicely...even if Lee is JP's #1 option. I just hope he's back :pray:Same here Phil. People want to say he's done and yet his nos. says otherwise even with a qb who people say is mediocre like Holcomb. Give KH an OL Moulds will be a probowler again. As soon as JP learns to spread the ball and see what KH sees in Moulds, there's no reason for him to not be one of the better qb's in the league.

[BillsSabresB.C.T. Fan]

I'm :up: & :down: if I want him back or not if he plays like he did before he got suspended then I don't want him back. But if he plays like he has in these past two games I want him back. Since the suspension he's done better. But I think he's gone at the end of the season as a salary cap move.

[chubluv]

I want him to be a Bill next year if he restructures and agrees to be a slot WR. Let Lee & Roscoe stretch the feild and let Eric roam the middle.

[Mr. Cynical]

I don't for two reasons:

1. Too expensive. I just don't see them getting him at a price that is commensurate with his abilities at this point in his career.

2. He obviously has issues w/ JP and that's not what you want if you are trying to build a respectable franchise (which we currently are not). If you want to say JP is a bust from the 10 games he played and that KH will be starting next year, then I guess this point is moot. However, if KH is starting next year the whole season is moot, so take your pick.

(minor additional point) I think deep down he wants to get a shot at the Super Bowl and knows it will not happen in Buffalo before his career is over. So I think he and his agent will sniff around as quietly as possible to gauge interest from a competitive team before heading into negotiations with the Bills.

[Ickybaluky]

I think the "Moulds is done" argument has taken a hit in the last 2 games.

19 catches, 209 Yds.

Those aren't the numbers of a guy who is washed up.

I would think any team would want to keep their good players. How do you get better if you get rid of the guys who can play. The contact can be re-negotiated to pay him more commensurate to his value. It happens all the time in the NFL.

The "doesn't like J.P." argument is hogwash, even if it is true (and nobody knows the real story). They don't have to be best friends, they just have to do their job. I've worked with people I don't like before, as most probably have had to. The idea that he would "undermine" J.P. is laughable, since he would also be undermining his own chances for success.

Whether J.P. succeeds or fails as an NFL QB will be to his own ability, not Moulds.

The Patriots went through something real similar to this last offseason with Troy Brown. Brown's performance as a stopgap in the secondary helped save the Pats 2004 season. However, he had struggled with some injuries in recent years, was getting older, and the thought was his presence would interfere with the development of younger WR's.

Brown could have earned more money elsewhere, but ultimately decided to re-sign with the Pats. Like Moulds, he wanted to stay with NE after spending his entire career here. Like Moulds, he knew he could earn a lot more money outside the game here than anywhere else, and didn't want to destroy that goodwill. Now Brown is performing admirably, still coming up with clutch receptions (38 receptions, 466 Yds, 2 TD in 12 games) as a 3rd down WR.

Moulds should stay in Buffalo as well. Letting him go would be a mistake.

[feelthepain]

I think Moulds best bet will be to restructure and stay in Buffalo.

[Mr. Cynical]

How do you get better if you get rid of the guys who can play.

Coming from a Pats fan, this is pretty funny. How many "guys who can play" did Belichick let out the door and still won super bowls and/or division titles? Milloy, Law, Bledsoe (debatable, yes...but there are those who say he can play)?


The "doesn't like J.P." argument is hogwash, even if it is true (and nobody knows the real story). They don't have to be best friends, they just have to do their job. I've worked with people I don't like before, as most probably have had to. The idea that he would "undermine" J.P. is laughable, since he would also be undermining his own chances for success.

You may think it is "laughable", but show me a #1 WR who openly called out his QB, stayed on the team and had long term success. You should know that QR/WB combinations is largely about chemistry in the long run. No, they don't have to be eating Thanksgiving dinner together, but to think it doesn't impact the team is....laughable.



The Patriots went through something real similar to this last offseason with Troy Brown. Brown's performance as a stopgap in the secondary helped save the Pats 2004 season. However, he had struggled with some injuries in recent years, was getting older, and the thought was his presence would interfere with the development of younger WR's.

Brown could have earned more money elsewhere, but ultimately decided to re-sign with the Pats. Like Moulds, he wanted to stay with NE after spending his entire career here. Like Moulds, he knew he could earn a lot more money outside the game here than anywhere else, and didn't want to destroy that goodwill. Now Brown is performing admirably, still coming up with clutch receptions (38 receptions, 466 Yds, 2 TD in 12 games) as a 3rd down WR.

Complete apples and oranges comparison. Brown decided to return to a perennially competitive, championship team. Not a hard choice to make. Moulds on the other hand left money on the table to play for a team that has won 1 playoff game in his 10 year career. If anything I give more credit to Moulds in that case. But every man has his limits. Moulds is not going to be around long enough until the Bills even get a whiff of the SB. So it's not about money at this point. It's about playing on a championship team for once in his career. And that's not Buffalo, which is why I think he will be gone (unless there are no competitive teams who want him...in that case he'll close out his career here for less money)

[The_Philster]

2. He obviously has issues w/ JP and that's not what you want if you are trying to build a respectable franchise (which we currently are not). If you want to say JP is a bust from the 10 games he played and that KH will be starting next year, then I guess this point is moot. However, if KH is starting next year the whole season is moot, so take your pick.I'm curious what you base this on...since he's stated a few times on his show how well he and JP have gotten along since all that happened earlier in the season...or is he lying to everyone watching the show? :popcorn:

[Mr. Cynical]

I'm curious what you base this on...since he's stated a few times on his show how well he and JP have gotten along since all that happened earlier in the season...or is he lying to everyone watching the show? :popcorn:

What else is he going to say on his show? Moulds is a pretty stand up guy (not a T.O.) so he's not going to intentionally air out the dirty laundry on the air. It would also lower his market value if he was looked upon as a problem player who can't keep it in the family, so to speak.

But hey....it is just my opinion. I don't have any "proof" so who knows. But I do find it interesting that the two best QB/WR combos of the season were JP-Evans and KH-Moulds. All about chemistry...

[The_Philster]

Moulds is a smart guy..we're hoping to see JP hooking up to Lee for TDs for the next decade or so...I don't think he takes it as a personal slight

[Mr. Cynical]

Moulds is a smart guy..we're hoping to see JP hooking up to Lee for TDs for the next decade or so...I don't think he takes it as a personal slight

I agree I don't think he takes it personally but I do think he takes it professionally, which is why he spoke out earlier. JP just wasn't throwing to him and was throwing to Evans. It is not uncommon for WRs to want the ball more. But instead of just blaming the playcalling, Moulds included JP in his complaints which is why I think there is bad blood between them, and why KH-Moulds has worked and JP-Moulds has not.

[Ickybaluky]

Coming from a Pats fan, this is pretty funny. How many "guys who can play" did Belichick let out the door and still won super bowls and/or division titles? Milloy, Law, Bledsoe (debatable, yes...but there are those who say he can play)?

Bledsoe was a backup for them, and they swapped him for a #1 pick. They did want to keep Milloy and Law, just not at their cap numbers. They wanted Milloy to take a paycut from $4M to $3M for 2003, he balked and they cut him. Law had a high cap number ($12M+) and didn't want to sign for what they were offering in a re-negotiation (4 years/$26M). Those guys had the option to re-sign instead of being cut, the team wanted to keep them if they could fit it under the cap.

Moulds has stated he wants to stay in Buffalo and is willing to talk about adjusting the contract, so money isn't going to be the reason if he is gone.

The Pats are one of the better teams in the league at keeping their veterans around in important roles. McGinest's contract is re-done every season, and will have to be again this year if he is to stay (he has a real high cap number). Corey Dillon was re-signed last year to a contract that paid him good money, but gave the team the option of dealing with his contract again after next season. The Pats floated extra money to Seymour and Harrison this year because they were underpaid.

The point is you deal with the contracts of your veteran players routinely to work out compensation that fits in the team's cap and compensates them. You don't necessarily have to get rid of them, just work with them. Moulds falls into that category: a guy to keep around because he is still a good player, but the contract has to work for both sides.


You may think it is "laughable", but show me a #1 WR who openly called out his QB, stayed on the team and had long term success. You should know that QR/WB combinations is largely about chemistry in the long run. No, they don't have to be eating Thanksgiving dinner together, but to think it doesn't impact the team is....laughable.

First of all, there is no proof that Moulds "called out his QB". I'm not sure what you are even talking about. The point is, J.P. is going to succeed or fail based on his own ability, and if he doesn't develop it won't be because of Eric Moulds.

As for WRs grousing about not getting the ball, it happens all the time. Michael Irvin used to rail on the sidelines at Troy Aikman when he wasn't getting the ball. Even Jerry Rice would throw tantrums, especially later in his career, if he wasn't getting the ball. I remember last year that David Givens had 4 straight 100-yard games when Deion Branch was out with injury, and then complained about disappearing from the offense when Branch returned.

News flash: WR's are the prima donnas of the NFL, that isn't limited to just Eric Moulds. Part of the QBs job is to handle those egos. Aikman said he would deal with Irvin's rants by getting him the ball early in the game, because he felt it was his job to get him involved. Marino would deal with it the opposite way, by ignoring the guy if he complained. Either way, the QB handled it, and J.P. needs to take charge if he wants to be an NFL QB. IMO, you help him by keeping players who want the ball and have ability to make plays.


Moulds is not going to be around long enough until the Bills even get a whiff of the SB. So it's not about money at this point. It's about playing on a championship team for once in his career. And that's not Buffalo, which is why I think he will be gone (unless there are no competitive teams who want him...in that case he'll close out his career here for less money)

How do you know what will happen next year? Who is to say Buffalo isn't going to win a Super Bowl anytime soon? Do you have a crystal ball or something? How do you know what Moulds motivations are, and how do you know it isn't important to him to finish his career in Buffalo? How do you know how he feels about his teammates and their ability to win in the near future?

There is little carryover year-to-year in the NFL. Look at the Bears, who thought they would be where they are right now? Look at Denver, how many people thought they would be a #2 seed? I don't know what will happen year to year, but I do know that there isn't that big a difference between the winning teams and losing teams in the NFL. I know that the league makes it a lot harder for teams to sustain success, as scheduling heavily favors the teams that sucked the prior year.

You are turning into Red Sox fan, with a "Woe Me" attitude and resignation to defeat before it even happens. It gets to the point where you can't even enjoy the games and you see threads here like "worst win in Bills history". Say what? You beat a playoff team on the road and it is a bad thing? Why even bother watching the games at that point?

[ScottLawrence]

I don't for two reasons:

1. Too expensive. I just don't see them getting him at a price that is commensurate with his abilities at this point in his career.

2. He obviously has issues w/ JP and that's not what you want if you are trying to build a respectable franchise (which we currently are not). If you want to say JP is a bust from the 10 games he played and that KH will be starting next year, then I guess this point is moot. However, if KH is starting next year the whole season is moot, so take your pick.

(minor additional point) I think deep down he wants to get a shot at the Super Bowl and knows it will not happen in Buffalo before his career is over. So I think he and his agent will sniff around as quietly as possible to gauge interest from a competitive team before heading into negotiations with the Bills.


Well, according to many reports, a majority of the team has a problem with JP.


I guess we should release em all.

[mysticsoto]

One of the problems that I think it showing up is that Mularkey is relatively new and therefore doesn't have any loyalty toward Moulds at all. He wasn't here throughtout all the years where Moulds has produced for us. He's only come at a time when our offense has struggled with a bad Oline, new QB (this year) and therefore hasn't seen Moulds at his best and what he can do.

On the players side, to Moulds, Mularkey is just one of the many coaches he has been through and therefore, Moulds doesn't feel anything special toward him either - especially as a newbie coach that is still making mistakes and losing 21 pt leads. Add to this that Losman favors Evans alot more than Moulds and already you can see why there are problems popping up.

In truth, though I like Moulds and would like him to restructure to remain a Bills for life...I more likely predict that he will be gone. It would be great if we could get something for him and trade him to a team like Philly who really need a WR with experience to replace TO.

[AngryTeste]

I heard that he is going to the Eagles.

Normally I wouldn't say rumors I hear out loud, but this one I believe...

[clumping platelets]

I want Moulds to stay. I've mentioned that many times. He has clearly shown a connection with Holcomb (I'm in the win now camp). E-Mo will need to cut between $2-3 million off his cap hit in both 2006 & 2007 to stay. That means a pay cut but not necessarily in 2006 only 2007.

Reference Eric Moulds Cap Situation thread

While his cap number is $10,855,667 , the actual money he will receive in 2006 is $7.189 million. Bills can drop the salary down to say $3 million in both 2006 & 2007. Give him a 2 yr extension with a signing bonus of say $3 million. Give him his reporting bonus of $1 million and workout bonus of $100,000. He still gets $7.1 million cash in 2006 but his new cap number is $8,416,667 for a cap savings of $2.139 million in 2006. No changes to 2007 except the salary decrease from $7.25 million to $3 million. 2007 cap savings is $3.5 million (salary cut - new amortization). His pay cut of $4.25 million comes in 2007 but he still gets his $$ in 2006, just massaged a bit to save cap space.

Let's get it done :type:

[Ebenezer]

you don't cut your best playerers....period.

[Patrick76777]

The Pats are one of the better teams in the league at keeping their veterans around in important roles. McGinest's contract is re-done every season, and will have to be again this year if he is to stay (he has a real high cap number). Corey Dillon was re-signed last year to a contract that paid him good money, but gave the team the option of dealing with his contract again after next season. The Pats floated extra money to Seymour and Harrison this year because they were underpaid.




Exactly! Good teams don't cut solid vet players. It's stupid!

Adams and Moulds Stay. CP summed it up nicely. And if the Tag number is low, bring Clements back for one year. Stl. does it with Pace, Seattle did it with I think Alexander and Jones before him.

Keep your good players. You don't get better by cutting talent.

[Mr. Cynical]

Bledsoe was a backup for them, and they swapped him for a #1 pick. They did want to keep Milloy and Law, just not at their cap numbers. They wanted Milloy to take a paycut from $4M to $3M for 2003, he balked and they cut him. Law had a high cap number ($12M+) and didn't want to sign for what they were offering in a re-negotiation (4 years/$26M). Those guys had the option to re-sign instead of being cut, the team wanted to keep them if they could fit it under the cap.

Moulds has stated he wants to stay in Buffalo and is willing to talk about adjusting the contract, so money isn't going to be the reason if he is gone.

The Pats are one of the better teams in the league at keeping their veterans around in important roles. McGinest's contract is re-done every season, and will have to be again this year if he is to stay (he has a real high cap number). Corey Dillon was re-signed last year to a contract that paid him good money, but gave the team the option of dealing with his contract again after next season. The Pats floated extra money to Seymour and Harrison this year because they were underpaid.

The point is you deal with the contracts of your veteran players routinely to work out compensation that fits in the team's cap and compensates them. You don't necessarily have to get rid of them, just work with them. Moulds falls into that category: a guy to keep around because he is still a good player, but the contract has to work for both sides.

That's all well and good but your original statement was:


How do you get better if you get rid of the guys who can play?

To which my point still stands - the Pats have gotten rid of guys who can play and have managed to keep winning by signing/trading/drafting others. We just don't have a front office that is capable of doing the same thing.


As for WRs grousing about not getting the ball, it happens all the time. Michael Irvin used to rail on the sidelines at Troy Aikman when he wasn't getting the ball. Even Jerry Rice would throw tantrums, especially later in his career, if he wasn't getting the ball. I remember last year that David Givens had 4 straight 100-yard games when Deion Branch was out with injury, and then complained about disappearing from the offense when Branch returned.

News flash: WR's are the prima donnas of the NFL, that isn't limited to just Eric Moulds. Part of the QBs job is to handle those egos. Aikman said he would deal with Irvin's rants by getting him the ball early in the game, because he felt it was his job to get him involved. Marino would deal with it the opposite way, by ignoring the guy if he complained. Either way, the QB handled it, and J.P. needs to take charge if he wants to be an NFL QB. IMO, you help him by keeping players who want the ball and have ability to make plays.

Newsflash: The Bills are not the 90s Cowboys nor the 00s Patriots. We are not good enough to absorb any BS issues between QB/WR.


How do you know what will happen next year? Who is to say Buffalo isn't going to win a Super Bowl anytime soon? Do you have a crystal ball or something? How do you know what Moulds motivations are, and how do you know it isn't important to him to finish his career in Buffalo? How do you know how he feels about his teammates and their ability to win in the near future?

There is little carryover year-to-year in the NFL. Look at the Bears, who thought they would be where they are right now? Look at Denver, how many people thought they would be a #2 seed? I don't know what will happen year to year, but I do know that there isn't that big a difference between the winning teams and losing teams in the NFL. I know that the league makes it a lot harder for teams to sustain success, as scheduling heavily favors the teams that sucked the prior year.

You are turning into Red Sox fan, with a "Woe Me" attitude and resignation to defeat before it even happens. It gets to the point where you can't even enjoy the games and you see threads here like "worst win in Bills history". Say what? You beat a playoff team on the road and it is a bad thing? Why even bother watching the games at that point?

Unfortunately there wasn't an internet forum like this when the Patriots sucked from '87-'93 and missed the playoffs during that time. I don't know your age, but I highly doubt after 6 years of no playoffs you would have been posting, "Hey, it's okay. We can do it!".

The bottom line - this team is in bad shape and has been for 5 years. The reason - Tom Donohoe and his coaching/player choices. I will NOT blow sunshine up anyone's ass nor will I put on rose colored glasses and believe things are going to turn around after half a decade of crap. If and when TD and Co. are gone, THEN I will look forward to the season. Sorry, but I'm a realist not a dreamer.

[HHURRICANE]

I want Moulds to stay. I've mentioned that many times. He has clearly shown a connection with Holcomb (I'm in the win now camp). E-Mo will need to cut between $2-3 million off his cap hit in both 2006 & 2007 to stay. That means a pay cut but not necessarily in 2006 only 2007.

Reference Eric Moulds Cap Situation thread

While his cap number is $10,855,667 , the actual money he will receive in 2006 is $7.189 million. Bills can drop the salary down to say $3 million in both 2006 & 2007. Give him a 2 yr extension with a signing bonus of say $3 million. Give him his reporting bonus of $1 million and workout bonus of $100,000. He still gets $7.1 million cash in 2006 but his new cap number is $8,416,667 for a cap savings of $2.139 million in 2006. No changes to 2007 except the salary decrease from $7.25 million to $3 million. 2007 cap savings is $3.5 million (salary cut - new amortization). His pay cut of $4.25 million comes in 2007 but he still gets his $$ in 2006, just massaged a bit to save cap space.

Let's get it done :type:

What is Eric worth on the open market?! Is he worth 4.1 million sigining bonus and 4 years at 3 millioin a year?! Is he worth a cap hit of 8.5 Million. If we cut him what do we save?! I like Eric and all but this reminds me of the Drew Bledsoe issue. Drew is playing well in Dallas, not great. I doubt if we had kept him that he would have done any better than JP or Holcomb. Are there free agents out there, besides TO, that can come in and play for the same and are younger?!

[Ickybaluky]

To which my point still stands - the Pats have gotten rid of guys who can play and have managed to keep winning by signing/trading/drafting others. We just don't have a front office that is capable of doing the same thing.

The Pats didn't "get rid" of them. They tried to make it work on the cap but were forced to cut them. They made efforts to keep Milloy and Law, but both players decided they didn't want the cut in pay. Moulds has already said he is willing to deal with the contract, so the Bills should at least try to keep him. He has value.

What about all the veterans with bad contracts the Pats kept? What about McGinest, Bruschi, Ted Johnson, Troy Brown and Adam Vinatieri? Was Belichick supposed to get rid of those guys and just start from scratch with his new program? No, because those guys could play and it didn't matter if they inherited them.


Newsflash: The Bills are not the 90s Cowboys nor the 00s Patriots. We are not good enough to absorb any BS issues between QB/WR.

What issues? Eric seems to be working fine the last couple weeks. I fail to see any issues that would cause a problem. If the guy wants the ball, throw it to him.
That is the QBs job.


Unfortunately there wasn't an internet forum like this when the Patriots sucked from '87-'93 and missed the playoffs during that time. I don't know your age, but I highly doubt after 6 years of no playoffs you would have been posting, "Hey, it's okay. We can do it!".

I was a season tickey holder from '90 to '95, only stopping after my first child was born. Sure they sucked, but I loved the game and enjoyed when they did win. I certainly didn't call for them to get rid of their best players. Rather I directed my displeasure more toward the real problems, like Victor Kiam and Sam Jankovich.

But that isn't the issue, the issue is whether the Bills should keep Moulds or get rid of him, and I don't see how the Bills missing the playoffs for 6 straight years is relevant. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


The bottom line - this team is in bad shape and has been for 5 years. The reason - Tom Donohoe and his coaching/player choices. I will NOT blow sunshine up anyone's ass nor will I put on rose colored glasses and believe things are going to turn around after half a decade of crap. If and when TD and Co. are gone, THEN I will look forward to the season. Sorry, but I'm a realist not a dreamer.

OK, but we are talking about Moulds, lets not could the issue with other things. EM is still a good player, although perhaps not as good as he once was, but he makes too much money. That doesn't mean he should go, especially given the fact he has a history here which is worth something.

Thus, the smart move for any franchise is to work with him and try to reach a contract accord that is agreeable to both sides. Cut his pay and provide incentives in return, and bring him back. Seems to me the Bills are better with him than without him.

[Mr. Cynical]

The Pats didn't "get rid" of them. They tried to make it work on the cap but were forced to cut them. They made efforts to keep Milloy and Law, but both players decided they didn't want the cut in pay.

Tomato, tomahto, it's the same end result. They were cut one way or the other because of money vs. upside. Let's agree to disagree on this one and move on.


What about all the veterans with bad contracts the Pats kept? What about McGinest, Bruschi, Ted Johnson, Troy Brown and Adam Vinatieri? Was Belichick supposed to get rid of those guys and just start from scratch with his new program? No, because those guys could play and it didn't matter if they inherited them.

And the result? Championship team. You can keep guys with bad contracts if you are a winning team. We are not. Again, let's agree to disagree. Saying the Pats and the Bills are the same in this situation is like comparing Filet Mignon to horse meat.


What issues? Eric seems to be working fine the last couple weeks. I fail to see any issues that would cause a problem.

That's because the last couple of weeks KH has been the QB, not JP. Different situation. So, if KH is the future of the team, then by all means overpay Eric to stay. He works well with KH. (of course it is my belief that if KH is our starter next year it won't matter who our WRs are...we will not make the playoffs again.) But if it is JP, then IMO you try to get something for him.


..the issue is whether the Bills should keep Moulds or get rid of him, and I don't see how the Bills missing the playoffs for 6 straight years is relevant.

It is relevant because you said I was turning into a Bosox type fan giving up on the Bills in general, not just Moulds. So I replied. Re-read your last post.


OK, but we are talking about Moulds, lets not could the issue with other things. EM is still a good player, although perhaps not as good as he once was, but he makes too much money. That doesn't mean he should go, especially given the fact he has a history here which is worth something.

You don't make player decisions based on history. That's the fastest way to building a losing team. This is a business first and foremost and if you aren't worth it (and the team is losing and in need of major changes) then you get cut. Happens all the time in the NFL and has for years.


Thus, the smart move for any franchise is to work with him and try to reach a contract accord that is agreeable to both sides. Cut his pay and provide incentives in return, and bring him back. Seems to me the Bills are better with him than without him.

That's your opinion of course but unless he were to come back for some insanely cheap price (say $2M), I'd cut him and move on. Evans is looking like a stud and 2nd WRs are not that hard to find. And let's face it, Moulds is a #2 at this point, not a #1.

[Ickybaluky]

And the result? Championship team. You can keep guys with bad contracts if you are a winning team. We are not. Again, let's agree to disagree. Saying the Pats and the Bills are the same in this situation is like comparing Filet Mignon to horse meat.

I don't think people were comparing the Pats to Filet Minon when Belichick arrived. The facts are he kept a lot of the players, he didn't just get rid of guys because they were veterans and he was putting in a new program.


That's because the last couple of weeks KH has been the QB, not JP. Different situation. So, if KH is the future of the team, then by all means overpay Eric to stay. He works well with KH. (of course it is my belief that if KH is our starter next year it won't matter who our WRs are...we will not make the playoffs again.) But if it is JP, then IMO you try to get something for him.

This makes no sense. Whoever the QB is, he needs good players to throw the ball to, which is why it makes sense to keep Moulds.

Whether or not J.P. develops is not relevant to Moulds. You seem to think the two are intertwined. If J.P. can play, he will get Eric the ball. We already know Eric can play.

Whether Moulds is a #1 or a #2 or whatever is not relevant either. The fact is, the Bills are better with him. He is still a good player, as he has shown these last couple weeks.

The contract is an issue, he makes too much money. However, that is similar to a lot of veterans in the NFL who have larger contracts. At some point, the team has to deal with them. However, you are assuming that means he has to be cut, which is silly. Why? Why cut him? Why not work on a new contract that pays him commensurate to his value? Doesn't it make sense to work out the contract and keep the player?

First of all, Eric is still a very good player and there is not certainty whomever is brought in will be as good. Also, if you work out the contract with him, then that is one less need to fill and you can concentrate your remaining resources (draft picks/free agents) in other areas. It makes far more sense to keep him.

Keep in mind, if you cut Eric he will count for $5.3M in dead money on your cap. He will eat up that much cap room, yet he will not be on the team any more. If you work out a contract that pays him $3M in salary plus incentives (NLTBE, based on this years numbers), his cap number will be $6.67M, but he will be on the team as a starting WR. Do you think you will be able to sign a starting-caliber WR as good as Moulds for the $1.37M difference? If so, you are living in a fantasy world, because top WR command $5M per season and an average starter earns over $2M.

It just makes more sense to keep him. Because:

- They are a better team with him on it
- It allows them to use resources to fill other needs
- He is popular with the fans and marketable in the area
- It shows other players the Bills are still trying to win and it is easier to sign FA

It just makes sense. After 2006 you can cut him and the dead money hit is halved.

Or, you could cut him and replace him with some FA schmoe or rookie, and still have E-Mo on the cap for $5.3M. That way Evans can get frustrated by the triple-coverage he sees and can become frustrated.


It is relevant because you said I was turning into a Bosox type fan giving up on the Bills in general, not just Moulds. So I replied. Re-read your last post.

No, that isn't what I said. I never said anything about giving up on the team. I compared you to a BoSox fan because you are so busy waiting for the next bad thing to happen you can't even enjoy the game. I never said you give up, I just wonder why you wallow in pity so much.

[Mr. Cynical]

I don't think people were comparing the Pats to Filet Minon when Belichick arrived. The facts are he kept a lot of the players, he didn't just get rid of guys because they were veterans and he was putting in a new program.

Who said anything about 6 years ago when BB arrived? He had one losing year in his first season and has never looked back. You seem to forget TD has been here for 5 years and we're 31-48. So obviously he doesn't know who to keep and who to cut.

P.S. I see you didn't disagree with my comment about keeping players for historical value.


This makes no sense. Whoever the QB is, he needs good players to throw the ball to, which is why it makes sense to keep Moulds.

You're skipping around. You said you didn't see any issues with Eric in the last few weeks. I said it was because KH was starting and not JP, so obviously he is not going to have any issues with JP. Your comment is off the subject.


Whether or not J.P. develops is not relevant to Moulds. You seem to think the two are intertwined. If J.P. can play, he will get Eric the ball. We already know Eric can play.

He may or may not, depending on his level of trust and chemistry. If he has the choice to throw to Moulds or Evans, he will throw to Evans every time. And not only for chemistry reasons but because Evans is a gamebreaker, Moulds is a possession receiver.


Whether Moulds is a #1 or a #2 or whatever is not relevant either.

This one is way off. It is completely relevant what slot he is capable of playing for two reasons:

1. Money
2. What other WRs you keep/cut/draft/FA

If he was a #1, we look for a #2. Or vice versa. Since most feel we have a #1 in Evans, we need a #2 and should pay that #2 accordingly. It also impacts our gameplan and formations. So it is very relevant where he would slot in.


It just makes more sense to keep him. Because:

- They are a better team with him on it
- It allows them to use resources to fill other needs
- He is popular with the fans and marketable in the area
- It shows other players the Bills are still trying to win and it is easier to sign FA


Let's take a look....

- They are a better team with him on it. Better? We haven't been in the playoffs in 5 years. Seems to me he is not making that much of a difference. He is not a gamebreaking, special WR and after 10 years is expendable. He is only going to get slower.

- It allows them to use resources to fill other needs. That depends on what deals are made. Also I would rather have someone younger with more upside.

- He is popular with the fans and marketable in the area. Many "popular" players are cut from teams. It is a fact of life. Fans would rather see wins than a favorite player on a losing team. I think you are way overvaluing his popularity. Fans are finicky. They want wins. How many NE fans bemoaned the loss of Milloy and Law while the team kept winning? Sure, if the Pats started losing then you would hear the cries. But winning cures all.

- It shows other players the Bills are still trying to win and it is easier to sign FA. That ship has long since sailed. No veteran FAs are coming here with the thought we are going to the SB. It's all about the money or lack of options if someone comes here. That might change if we get a competent GM but right now no quality vet is that stupid.


Or, you could cut him and replace him with some FA schmoe or rookie, and still have E-Mo on the cap for $5.3M. That way Evans can get frustrated by the triple-coverage he sees and can become frustrated.

Or......we could get someone who ISN'T a schmoe, right?


No, that isn't what I said. I never said anything about giving up on the team. I compared you to a BoSox fan because you are so busy waiting for the next bad thing to happen you can't even enjoy the game. I never said you give up, I just wonder why you wallow in pity so much.

But you were the one who brought up a subject outside of Moulds and I replied. Then you said:


OK, but we are talking about Moulds, lets not could the issue with other things

So please be consistent if you are going to say it was me who changed topics.

The bottom line is that this team sucks. It needs alot of changes and Moulds is expendable. He is on the tail end of his career, he is expensive and contrary to what you may think, is very likely frustrated winning one playoff game in his entire 10 year career. As such I'm sure he would go to a champ team if the deal came along. Who wants that on a team that needs to rebuild? Add that all up and it makes sense to trade or cut him.

[DaBills]

Keep him. His comments earlier in the year notwithstanding. He obviously can still put up numbers as he's shown with KH. IF, and it's a big if, MM (or whoever), actually committs to making him a bigger part of the WR corps. Maybe next year Head Idiot will say 'we're going to have a new air attack' – then run the ball all year.

Forget in this thread who said it, but I would HATE to see him go to the Eagles. They'll have their #2 in Pinkston back healthy, along with McNabb, and the TO mess behind them. That could be a dangerous team once again if Moulds ends up there.

[Ickybaluky]

Who said anything about 6 years ago when BB arrived? He had one losing year in his first season and has never looked back. You seem to forget TD has been here for 5 years and we're 31-48. So obviously he doesn't know who to keep and who to cut.

OK, but lets deal with the Moulds thing separately. If there is new management or not, the question is whether to keep Moulds or not.


You're skipping around. You said you didn't see any issues with Eric in the last few weeks. I said it was because KH was starting and not JP, so obviously he is not going to have any issues with JP. Your comment is off the subject.

OK, then we both have strayed. I promise to stick to just this question: Should the Bills keep Moulds or get rid of him?


He may or may not, depending on his level of trust and chemistry. If he has the choice to throw to Moulds or Evans, he will throw to Evans every time. And not only for chemistry reasons but because Evans is a gamebreaker, Moulds is a possession receiver.

I don't disagree that Moulds may be possession WR at this point, but is that a bad thing? Aren't good possession WR valuable, and doesn't he complement Evans skills nicely?


This one is way off. It is completely relevant what slot he is capable of playing for two reasons:

1. Money
2. What other WRs you keep/cut/draft/FA

The fact is the guy is still a good player. Money is a factor, but in the NFL every veteran player reaches a point where he gets too expensive. The smart teams try to work out a restructured contact to keep the player. Buffalo should do this as well.

If Moulds wants too much money, then let him talk to other teams and find out his value.

The Pats did this with Ted Johnson. Remember Johnson walked out of training camp to start the 2002 season? He was pissed at being demoted, and wanted to quit. He came back when the team talked to him, told him he would have a chance to compete for his job, and that they would release him after the season if that was his wish.

After the season he talked to Green Bay, who was willing to sign him to a new deal. Ultimately, he decided his best choice was to stay with NE. They didn't need to cut him, it was just a matter of the team working with him to work on the cap numbers. He ended up signing a new, adjusted contract and the Pats were able to keep a valuable player who helped them win 2 more Super Bowls. That is the smart thing to do, and the Bills should handle Moulds in a similar manner.


- They are a better team with him on it. Better? We haven't been in the playoffs in 5 years. Seems to me he is not making that much of a difference. He is not a gamebreaking, special WR and after 10 years is expendable. He is only going to get slower.

OK, so Anquan Boldin sucks because the Cardinals do? Spikes was a warrior in Cincinnati, was it his fault they were losing? That is a silly argument. The fact is the guy can still play the game, as 19 catches in the last 2 games prove. Wasn't that a valuable contribution? You don't get better by getting rid of the guys who can play, you get better by replacing the guys who can't.

Right now, Moulds can still play. We are not talking about signing a long-term deal here, we are talking about a restucture of his existing contract. He can help the team in 2006, so they should keep him.


- It allows them to use resources to fill other needs. That depends on what deals are made. Also I would rather have someone younger with more upside.

Young guys like Josh Reed and Sam Aiken? Neither of those guys have proven they can play like Moulds can. You know what you have in Moulds, you would just be replacing him with an unknown.


- He is popular with the fans and marketable in the area. Many "popular" players are cut from teams. It is a fact of life. Fans would rather see wins than a favorite player on a losing team. I think you are way overvaluing his popularity. Fans are finicky. They want wins. How many NE fans bemoaned the loss of Milloy and Law while the team kept winning? Sure, if the Pats started losing then you would hear the cries. But winning cures all.

OK, but you don't start winning by getting rid of your good players. You have Moulds and he can contribute. If you work out a resturctured contract, then it is a no-brainer to keep him. Certainly the team is helped when good players are kept.


- It shows other players the Bills are still trying to win and it is easier to sign FA. That ship has long since sailed. No veteran FAs are coming here with the thought we are going to the SB. It's all about the money or lack of options if someone comes here. That might change if we get a competent GM but right now no quality vet is that stupid.

Who thought vets would sign with Cincinnati, like John Thornton did? Who thought the Bears would be able to sign Mushin Muhammed or Fred Miller? Who thought the Dolphins would be able to sign a guy like Kevin Carter?

The fact is, it is easier to sell your program if you have respected veteran players to sell the program. if you cut guys like Eric Moulds, it is going to harder to convince guys to come be a part of a program.


Or......we could get someone who ISN'T a schmoe, right?

Perhaps, but it is less likely given the amount of money you have saved. People talk about how much cap room Moulds takes up, but if he is cut he will take up $5.3M in cap room and he won't be on the team anymore.

So the fact is, the smart cap move is to work out a restuctured deal with Moulds, save some money, but still have him on the team contributing. He is still able to contribute and be a good, starting-caliber player, but and the cap savings achieved are greater than cutting him outright and signing a comparable starting-caliber player.

Otherwise, you are just signing an unknown and praying. You know what you have in Moulds. Plus, instead of using a draft pick or free agent signing to replace him, you use it to fill another need.

That is just a smarter move, I'm not sure how you see it any other way.


The bottom line is that this team sucks. It needs alot of changes and Moulds is expendable. He is on the tail end of his career, he is expensive and contrary to what you may think, is very likely frustrated winning one playoff game in his entire 10 year career. As such I'm sure he would go to a champ team if the deal came along. Who wants that on a team that needs to rebuild? Add that all up and it makes sense to trade or cut him.

You don't think Moulds can be a soliid contibutor for a couple more years? Are you saying you think he is washed up now? If so, how has he been so productive the last couple weeks? Right now, he is has 73 receptions, 17th in the NFL.

You don't get better by cutting a guy who can still play, especially since it makes the most sense cap-wise to keep him with a restructured contract.

It also makes the most sense from Moulds perspective. He has built up a lot of goodwill in Buffalo, so there is more value post-career in his finishing here than elsewhere. He has already stated he would like to stay. You don't know what he is thinking, but you can't deny that it isn't at least in the Bills best interest to try and keep him.

I think it is laughable that you are already writing off the 2006 season. The league if full of teams that turn things around quickly, it is built just to make that possible.

[Devin]

Dude you should be nominated for zoner of the year.

Great post man :bf1:

[clumping platelets]

:bow: NE39

[Mr. Cynical]

I don't disagree that Moulds may be possession WR at this point, but is that a bad thing? Aren't good possession WR valuable, and doesn't he complement Evans skills nicely?

When JP was the QB, Moulds had less than 1/4 the catches/yards than Evans. Is that a good complement in your mind?


The fact is the guy is still a good player. Money is a factor, but in the NFL every veteran player reaches a point where he gets too expensive. The smart teams try to work out a restructured contact to keep the player. Buffalo should do this as well.

If Moulds wants too much money, then let him talk to other teams and find out his value.

I agree and I have said this as well. However, I do not believe that he will take a pay cut that would be commensurate with his level of play. There are other possession WRs on the market that could play just as well for much less IMO.


The Pats did this with Ted Johnson. Remember Johnson walked out of training camp to start the 2002 season? He was pissed at being demoted, and wanted to quit. He came back when the team talked to him, told him he would have a chance to compete for his job, and that they would release him after the season if that was his wish.

After the season he talked to Green Bay, who was willing to sign him to a new deal. Ultimately, he decided his best choice was to stay with NE. They didn't need to cut him, it was just a matter of the team working with him to work on the cap numbers. He ended up signing a new, adjusted contract and the Pats were able to keep a valuable player who helped them win 2 more Super Bowls. That is the smart thing to do, and the Bills should handle Moulds in a similar manner.

Do you have the numbers of Ted's contract? I have a feeling his numbers are very far from Moulds' which makes this argument sort of weak. In addition, deciding to eat crow and return to a team that is winning super bowls for less money is entirely different than returning to the Bills.


The fact is the guy can still play the game, as 19 catches in the last 2 games prove. Wasn't that a valuable contribution? You don't get better by getting rid of the guys who can play, you get better by replacing the guys who can't.

Here we go again with that argument. I have stated three times now that Belichick is a prime example of getting rid of "guys who can play" and still won championships. He proved you don't need to pay out the nose for older vets as he ably replaced Milloy and Law. I don't care if he "tried" to keep them - the bottom line is he refused to pay them what they wanted and they were cut. Unless Moulds takes something like a 50% cut it doesn't make sense. And just to note - his 19 catches were against the 29th and 23rd ranked passing defenses respectively. Not exactly stiff competition.


Young guys like Josh Reed and Sam Aiken? Neither of those guys have proven they can play like Moulds can. You know what you have in Moulds, you would just be replacing him with an unknown.

That's fine. We suck and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Risk is part of the game.


OK, but you don't start winning by getting rid of your good players. You have Moulds and he can contribute. If you work out a resturctured contract, then it is a no-brainer to keep him. Certainly the team is helped when good players are kept.

As I mentioned it would take a tremendous cut for me to want him back. And I still think his lack of chemistry with JP will hurt the team if JP is the starter. And if KH is the starter, this whole thread is moot. The team will not make the playoffs.


Who thought vets would sign with Cincinnati, like John Thornton did? Who thought the Bears would be able to sign Mushin Muhammed or Fred Miller? Who thought the Dolphins would be able to sign a guy like Kevin Carter?

The fact is, it is easier to sell your program if you have respected veteran players to sell the program. if you cut guys like Eric Moulds, it is going to harder to convince guys to come be a part of a program.

How do you know it was "the vets" that sold those guys? I can just as easily argue it was either about money or lack of other options.


Perhaps, but it is less likely given the amount of money you have saved. People talk about how much cap room Moulds takes up, but if he is cut he will take up $5.3M in cap room and he won't be on the team anymore.

So the fact is, the smart cap move is to work out a restuctured deal with Moulds, save some money, but still have him on the team contributing. He is still able to contribute and be a good, starting-caliber player, but and the cap savings achieved are greater than cutting him outright and signing a comparable starting-caliber player.

Otherwise, you are just signing an unknown and praying. You know what you have in Moulds. Plus, instead of using a draft pick or free agent signing to replace him, you use it to fill another need.

That is just a smarter move, I'm not sure how you see it any other way.

You keep saying we know what we have in Moulds. I can argue that as a negative just as easily as you can argue it as a positive. He is slow. He tends to lose yards after the catch by doing a loop back (thinking he has the speed to outmanuever the CBs) and has cost the team 1st downs as a result. I've seen it happen more than a few times. So that's how I see it. An aging vet who can contribute, yes, but is nothing special and I would rather have someone on the field who is a serious threat to complement Evans. If that means taking a chance, fine. I think you fail to realize that we have missed the playoffs for 5 years. If now isn't a time to take a chance, it never will be.



You don't think Moulds can be a soliid contibutor for a couple more years? Are you saying you think he is washed up now? If so, how has he been so productive the last couple weeks? Right now, he is has 73 receptions, 17th in the NFL.

You don't get better by cutting a guy who can still play, especially since it makes the most sense cap-wise to keep him with a restructured contract.

It also makes the most sense from Moulds perspective. He has built up a lot of goodwill in Buffalo, so there is more value post-career in his finishing here than elsewhere. He has already stated he would like to stay. You don't know what he is thinking, but you can't deny that it isn't at least in the Bills best interest to try and keep him.

We've gone over this in the prior paragraphs so I won't re-hash.


I think it is laughable that you are already writing off the 2006 season. The league if full of teams that turn things around quickly, it is built just to make that possible.

I don't know if you are doing intentionally or not, but I really wish you would stop with that word "laughable". It is very antagonizing and comes off as arrogant and condescending.

Yes teams can turn things around in a short period of time. But this team will not make the playoffs next year if TD/MM are still here. You need to realize that our situation will not improve under their leadership. Hence, I will be negative until that situation changes.

[Ickybaluky]

When JP was the QB, Moulds had less than 1/4 the catches/yards than Evans. Is that a good complement in your mind?

You are basing all that on one game, the Miami game where Moulds hardly played after the first quarter. If you remove the Miami game Moulds has 25 catches/224 Yds from J.P. vs. Evans 24 catches for 377 Yds for Evans from J.P.. Sounds about right, considering Evans in the deep threat, no?

The QB is not relevant anyway, since Moulds has shown he can play with a number of different QB. That would say more about the QB than Moulds.


I agree and I have said this as well. However, I do not believe that he will take a pay cut that would be commensurate with his level of play. There are other possession WRs on the market that could play just as well for much less IMO.

How do you know he won't take a paycut? Don't you think they should at least try?

The argument is keeping Moulds with a paycut vs. cutting Moulds and having $5.3M in dead money and still having to pay a replacement. You don't want to seem to acknowledge the dead money, but it is a factor when considering the cap impact.

Moulds is 17th in the NFL in receptions despite missing a game. You think that will be easy to replace? Don't you think he is at least an above average possession WR?

According to the NFLPA the average starting WR had a cap value of slightly over $2M. That means an average replacement will really count $7.3M in 2006, when you add in Moulds dead money. Compare that to Moulds, who you could pay $3M in salary next season and he would have a cap value of $6.7M next year, meaning it would be cheaper to keep him and you would know what you had.

Don't you think the offer should at least be made?


Do you have the numbers of Ted's contract? I have a feeling his numbers are very far from Moulds' which makes this argument sort of weak. In addition, deciding to eat crow and return to a team that is winning super bowls for less money is entirely different than returning to the Bills.

Ted was on the back end of a 5 year/$25M contract, but his play had declined dramatically after tearing the biceps in both arms in consecutive seasons. He was injury prone and not an every down LB any more, and the sentiment among fans was just to cut him and save the cap space.

However, Belichick convinced him he would play a valuable role as a run-stuffing ILB on running downs, but his contract was an issue as he was still being paid as an every-down player. They let him look elsewhere and he had an offer from GB, but decided to return to the Pats where he had spent his entire career. The contract was re-worked.

That is a perfect example of a guy who had a bad contract, but the team worked with him to keep him and pay him more comensurate in his role. Willie McGinest is another. You don't just have to get rid of a player because he isn't what he once was, if he can still be a valuable player.

I can give you examples from other teams as well.


Here we go again with that argument. I have stated three times now that Belichick is a prime example of getting rid of "guys who can play" and still won championships. He proved you don't need to pay out the nose for older vets as he ably replaced Milloy and Law. I don't care if he "tried" to keep them - the bottom line is he refused to pay them what they wanted and they were cut. Unless Moulds takes something like a 50% cut it doesn't make sense. And just to note - his 19 catches were against the 29th and 23rd ranked passing defenses respectively. Not exactly stiff competition.

Belichick tries to keep all the guys who can play, he just tries to do it at the value he sees for them. The Patriots have more veteran role players than most teams, which is a big reason they win. You make it sound like he got rid of everyone, he has kept a ton of guys and worked out the contract. He tried to do that with both Milloy and Law, but wasn't able to work out the money. The Bills should at least try to work out the money with Moulds, he has said he is willing to talk.

You can poo-poo Moulds numbers all you want, but he is still 17th in the NFL in catches despite missing a game (and most of another). Don't other players play against some bad teams? You still have to throw the ball to someone, and Moulds is still a valuable possession WR. A veteran to boot, a proven guy.


That's fine. We suck and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Risk is part of the game.

You are not trying to make an omelet, you are trying to build a football team. You do that by getting good players, not getting rid of them.


As I mentioned it would take a tremendous cut for me to want him back. And I still think his lack of chemistry with JP will hurt the team if JP is the starter. And if KH is the starter, this whole thread is moot. The team will not make the playoffs.

What "lack of chemistry". There is no proof of that.

Are you saying that the Bills shouldn't even try? Are you advocating getting rid of everyone and starting over?

The Bills aren't as bad off as you think. As depressed as you might be over current management, they aren't that much different from a lot of teams. Add a few players and they could make a run.


How do you know it was "the vets" that sold those guys? I can just as easily argue it was either about money or lack of other options.

Moulds is respecteda around the NFL, his presense is part of the reason the Bills were able to attract guys like Takeo Spikes.


You keep saying we know what we have in Moulds. I can argue that as a negative just as easily as you can argue it as a positive. He is slow. He tends to lose yards after the catch by doing a loop back (thinking he has the speed to outmanuever the CBs) and has cost the team 1st downs as a result. I've seen it happen more than a few times. So that's how I see it. An aging vet who can contribute, yes, but is nothing special and I would rather have someone on the field who is a serious threat to complement Evans. If that means taking a chance, fine. I think you fail to realize that we have missed the playoffs for 5 years. If now isn't a time to take a chance, it never will be.

17th in the NFL in receptions, despite playing in a crap offense that can't get the ball downfield without their QB getting killed. You can't argue that. You laugh that off as nothing, yet it isn't as easy as you think.

David Givens has 58 receptions in 12 games, playing in a much better offense with a much better QB. Givens is going to sign for a lot of money this offseason.

Can Keenan McCardell still play? He is older than Moulds and has 64 catches, playing in a much better offense with a much better QB. He just signed a 2 year extension with San Diego that came with a $4.1M signing bonus.

Those are the types of guys you are looking at to replace Moulds, and they are more expensive than you think. You can replace him with a rookie, but you aren't going to get near the production.


I don't know if you are doing intentionally or not, but I really wish you would stop with that word "laughable". It is very antagonizing and comes off as arrogant and condescending.

OK, it is arrogant. But it is laughable in today's NFL to say next year is lost. The league favors quick turnarounds. Argue it all you want, but it is a fact.


Yes teams can turn things around in a short period of time. But this team will not make the playoffs next year if TD/MM are still here. You need to realize that our situation will not improve under their leadership. Hence, I will be negative until that situation changes.

First of all, it may change. Second, you still have to try either way.

Besides, we are just discussing Moulds here, remember?

I see our basic difference as you think Moulds isn't very good anymore and want to cut him to save money. I think Moulds is still a valuable player, albeit a possession WR, and it makes more sense from a cap perspective to keep him and concentrate your resources (cap space and draft picks) in other areas.

However, you need to acknowledge that you don't save money cutting Moulds, because of his dead money hit and the fact you still need a replacement. People are throwing around numbers, but you could cut his salary next year to $3M and still have it be cap-friendly vs. cutting him outright and signing a replacement.

Does that sound about right? If so, we will have to agree to disagree.

[Mr. Cynical]

I see our basic difference as you think Moulds isn't very good anymore and want to cut him to save money. I think Moulds is still a valuable player, albeit a possession WR, and it makes more sense from a cap perspective to keep him and concentrate your resources (cap space and draft picks) in other areas.

However, you need to acknowledge that you don't save money cutting Moulds, because of his dead money hit and the fact you still need a replacement. People are throwing around numbers, but you could cut his salary next year to $3M and still have it be cap-friendly vs. cutting him outright and signing a replacement.

Does that sound about right? If so, we will have to agree to disagree.

It's not only about money. What if the replacement played better? What if he actually could be part of the future when the Bills are competitive? Moulds doesn't have alot of time left and I'd rather make the change sooner than later. We've sucked long enough.

Anyway, rather than respond point by point again it's pretty clear that neither of us is going change our minds. So let's agree to disagree.

Bottom line - I won't be upset if Moulds is here next year. But I think it would be better to take a chance on a younger player who can stay here for more than a year and be here when the team is competitive, because unless TD/MM are gone and we get a world class GM/coach, we're not going to be a threat next year. Why should we be? The fact is nothing will have changed and we've been crappy for years.

[dolphinssuck]

I kinda have mixed emotions about this one. I mean he really is a great player but he did act selfishly earlier this season but it happens and hes not really been a distraction this season. If I had to decide I guess I want him to come back in 06.

[Marvelous]

He is hands down my fav BILL. It's such a shame the bad timing of his career. I hope he's smart enough to understand how much he will regret it if he leaves Buff for a couple seasons, when he could finish with us.......Please stay!!!!

[J-Dog]

First off, Moulds is not a possession WR, he takes the double coverage away from Evans. If Evans does not have Moulds he is going to be a non-factor, trust me I live in Wisconsin and have followed Evans ever sence he was a Badger. Second, If we let Moulds go our piss-poor pass offense gets even worse!! Moulds still has wheels, I think he has shown that this year by outrunning New England and Cinnci's secondary. I honestly think he will stay because he has Ralph on his side. And I am confident we will make the playoffs in 06 just by our weak schedule alone.

[gr8slayer]

Anyone who has a brain wants Moulds back next year. Its not that the guy doesnt have "it". It has nothing to do with his heart, work ethic or anything football related. It all comes down to $ signs. If he is willing to re-work his deal the HELL YES we keep Eric Moulds. If not, we need that money for younger talent.

[dolphinssuck]

Yeah we need Moulds back and I posted earlier about how he was selfish earlier in the season but after some thought on this with the crappy coaching and GM who can blame him. The orginization has been selfish and penny pinching for years it bound to rub off eventually.

[Philagape]

If he takes a pay cut.


Six monosyllabic words :D

[tat2dmike77]

I would like to see him come back in 06. But i think everyone's mind is already made up in the organization.

Moulds will more then likely not take a pay cut. Why i dunno you hear players say they wanna finishe thier career where it started and the team ask them to take a pay cut. They don't want to. Why i dunno ego maybe, it's hard to feed your family on 6 or 7 million a year instead or 11 million a year.

I like Moulds i think he has been a good reciever here in buffalo. But the fact is he makes to much money. He's is starting to enter the down side of his career. Obviously these past two games don't show it. But he is considered old in the NFL. We all know anyone over 30 in the NFL is considered old. Don't bring up Rice cause he was a freak of nature in the first place.

Anyway i'm not saying that Moulds is washed up or anything. I'm saying his body is going to be more prone to injury. He's going to loose some production. But of course i could be wrong and i would be me more then happy to admit i was wrong.

I have always like moulds and i would like to see him come back. But the sad thing is he more then likely won't because of a cash issue. That's the sad fact in today's NFL.

[Mr. Cynical]

I'm saying his body is going to be more prone to injury.

:goodpost:

That's a great point that nobody has mentioned (at least not that I can remember). What happens if they sign him and he gets injured? We're back to Aiken & Co. Granted anyone at any age can be hurt so there are no guarantees. But it is a fact that the older you get, the more prone you are to injury and longer recovery times. Moulds' groin is not the most stable...I think he's injured it twice in the last two years.

[Historian]

On the other hand...he could end up going elsewhere and being for his new team (God, I hope it's not the fish!) what Lofton was for us.

He had Lofton-like talent, IMO.

And if Mularkey stays, I think it's a foregone conclusion that he's gone.

[Ickybaluky]

If the final 3 games were Moulds trying out for his next team, he made a strong impression.

27 catches, 305 Yds, 1 TD.

That projects to 144 catches, 1,627 Yds, 5 TD over the course of a full season.

I hope the Patriots were watching, because he would undoubtedly be a better player in the Patriots offense with Tom Brady throwing him the ball.

[Mr. Cynical]

If the final 3 games were Moulds trying out for his next team, he made a strong impression.

27 catches, 305 Yds, 1 TD.

That projects to 144 catches, 1,627 Yds, 5 TD over the course of a full season.

I hope the Patriots were watching, because he would undoubtedly be a better player in the Patriots offense with Tom Brady throwing him the ball.

All against the 23rd, 26th and 29th ranked passing defenses (not to mention 1 TD in 3 games sucks). We can spin the bottle forever on this one, so....

However I do not want him on the Pats because BB can work magic by the virtue of his genius gameplanning and the faith the team has in him and in itself.

And to put a final point on that move....

F**K THE PATS.

I hope with every fibre of my being they lose in the first round. I will pop the cork on a bottle of '95 Dom sitting in my fridge just to see that.

[Ickybaluky]

All against the 23rd, 26th and 29th ranked passing defenses (not to mention 1 TD in 3 games sucks). We can spin the bottle forever on this one, so....

However I do not want him on the Pats because BB can work magic by the virtue of his genius gameplanning and the faith the team has in him and in itself.

And to put a final point on that move....

F**K THE PATS.

I hope with every fibre of my being they lose in the first round. I will pop the cork on a bottle of '95 Dom sitting in my fridge just to see that.

I didn't figure you would be rooting for them, but again that is off-subject.

You can belittle Moulds play down the stretch all you want, but he played great during that stretch. He finished the year with 81 catches in 15 games, despite not getting consistent play from the QB position. You can't belittle 81 catches, not matter how you try.

BTW, Lee Evans had 9 receptions, 129 Yds, 1 TD in that same 3 game stretch against those same 3 defenses. I guess you don't think he is that good.

The Bills should keep Moulds, the guy is still a very good player and a perfect complement across from Evans. You can "get younger" all you want, but chances are you will be younger and suckier.

Whether he ends up on the Pats or elsewhere, the Bills are going to regret it if they let the guy go. He just knows how to play the game and can produce. He will make big catches and keep the chains moving. It makes more sense on the cap to re-work his deal than to just let him go. More importantly, it makes a ton more sense in terms of building a winning team that the Bills keep him.

I'd love for him to come to the Patriots. I think he would have a similar effect on their offense to what Corey Dillon brings.

[Mr. Cynical]

Well I guess we can continue to spin the bottle round and round and round and roiund and round and round and round and round. Although I do find it amusing that a Pats fan would spend this much time on one topic on a Bills board.


I didn't figure you would be rooting for them, but again that is off-subject.

That only shows your short-sightedness, but that is also off-subject.


You can belittle Moulds play down the stretch all you want, but he played great during that stretch. He finished the year with 81 catches in 15 games, despite not getting consistent play from the QB position. You can't belittle 81 catches, not matter how you try.

I can and I did.


BTW, Lee Evans had 9 receptions, 129 Yds, 1 TD in that same 3 game stretch against those same 3 defenses. I guess you don't think he is that good.

This is a good one. I suppose the fact that our passing offense is ranked 29th doesn't play into this stat, right? Newsflash: when your offense sucks, there aren't that many balls to go around. But I suppose the fact that Evans has twice as many TDs and a 15.8 vs. 9.9 YPC doesn't mean anything either, right?


You can "get younger" all you want, but chances are you will be younger and suckier.

Most silly post yet. There is absolutely no rationale to back this up. There is no evidence to say chances of being "sucker" (nice word, btw) are greater with younger players.


Whether he ends up on the Pats or elsewhere, the Bills are going to regret it if they let the guy go. He just knows how to play the game and can produce. He will make big catches and keep the chains moving. It makes more sense on the cap to re-work his deal than to just let him go. More importantly, it makes a ton more sense in terms of building a winning team that the Bills keep him.

Well we've all heard this comment ad infinitum. It's redundant. You don't need to keep saying it.


I'd love for him to come to the Patriots. I think he would have a similar effect on their offense to what Corey Dillon brings.

As I posted before,

F**K THE PATS.

Nuff said on that topic.

So, go ahead and spin the bottle again. I can keep this going as long as you like. You seem to love talking about Moulds so we can do this until he is either cut, traded or retired. Up to you. :up:

[Ickybaluky]

Well I guess we can continue to spin the bottle round and round and round and roiund and round and round and round and round. Although I do find it amusing that a Pats fan would spend this much time on one topic on a Bills board.

I'm presenting a counter-argument. It is a message board.

As for my being a Pats fan, again that isn't really relevant to the argument.


I can and I did.

But you did so without any basis. You degrade Moulds performance, but the fact is he caught 81 passes in a sub-par offense. He led Buffalo in receptions (and receiving yardage) and will finish in the top-20 in the NFL in receptions. That shows the guy can stil play, especially given how strong he finished.


This is a good one. I suppose the fact that our passing offense is ranked 29th doesn't play into this stat, right? Newsflash: when your offense sucks, there aren't that many balls to go around. But I suppose the fact that Evans has twice as many TDs and a 15.8 vs. 9.9 YPC doesn't mean anything either, right?

It means he is a deep threat. It means he runs deep routes more often because he is suited to doing that, while EM does a lot of the dirty work underneath. They aren't the same kind of players, and Buffalo is a better team with both of them. Just because Evans is there doesn't mean Moulds should be let go. In fact, there really isn't another proven receiver on the roster, so letting him go leaves Buffalo dangerously thin.

Besides, the fact the Bills offense isn't good makes Moulds production that much more impressive, so it only supports the point.

Also, the point about Moulds numbers being far superior to Evans the last 3 weeks was not meant as a hack on Evans, but rather to counter your point that Moulds production over that stretch was somehow demeaned because of the defenses they faced. I mean, Evans was playing against the same defenses, right?


Most silly post yet. There is absolutely no rationale to back this up. There is no evidence to say chances of being "sucker" (nice word, btw) are greater with younger players.

Actually, the word I used was suckier, and thanks.

The facts are it is hard to find receivers who are good. Look around the league, at the number of players drafted at WR each year and signed in FA. Look at the number of those who make an impact equal to the performance of Moulds. You wont find many. There just aren't many rookies who make an impact, and only about 2-3 free agents. It is going to be hard to find another guy, so why get rid of the guy you already have.


, go ahead and spin the bottle again. I can keep this going as long as you like. You seem to love talking about Moulds so we can do this until he is either cut, traded or retired. Up to you. :up:

I just can't believe you want to get rid of the guy so bad, when it makes no sense to do so. I'm just waiting for one good reason why the team should release him.

So far, I've seen people list 4 reasons to get rid of him:

1) His cap number is too high

Yet, the smartest move from a cap perspective is to try and re-do his deal and keep him. If you cut him, he takes up $5.3M in cap space and is playing for someone else. If you can re-structure his deal, then you still have him as one of your best offensive players and you can achieve about the same cap savings.

The added benefit cap-wise is you don't have to spend the cap dollars replacing him. instead, you can funnel that money to a greater need, like the OL and DL, or TE (all of which are areas of great need).

2) You want younger players

OK, so draft them. Why does Eric have to go? Most WR in the NFL take 2-3 years to establish themselves. The position is one of the hardest for players to make the adjustment from college, so why throw them into the lineup prematurely? You think that is helping the team?

It isn't like the WR corps is all greybeards. Keeping Eric around helps keep a veteran presence to teach the guys how to play the game. He adds value in that regard.

3) He is undermining J.P.'s development.

First of all, all sorts of unsubstantiated rumors in this regard have arisen to the point where EM has been demonized well beyond anything reasonable. Basically, it all has arisen from the Eric speaking out about putting in the veteran Holcomb when Losman was struggling.

So what, the guy wants to win. The fact is if J.P. is struggling it isn't because of Moulds. You seem to want to put the blame elsewhere because you are trying to make excuses for J.P. struggling.

If you are looking to blame someone, look at Losman first. He is responsible for his own performance. Second, blame the coaching staff for handing the job to Losman without any competition, which put the young QB in a difficult position and created the natural opporunity for the exact scenario to arise when the team struggled.

Do you remember when Ben Roethlisberger first was thrust into the starting lineup and Jeff Hartings was critical of the decision to play the rookie? Ben won over his teammates with his play, which is what Losman has to do. If Losman doesn't, it isn't Moulds fault.

The ironic part is thinking you are going to help Losman by getting rid of one of the best offensive players on the team.

4) The Bills aren't going to contend next year or anytime soon anyway, so why keep a veteran like Moulds.

This, to me, is the most incredulous idea of all. I understand you are bitter about the year the Bills had, and are down on the people currently running the team, but this statement is silly.

First of all, even if the Bills are facing a rebuilding that will take some time, isn't there some value in keeping a veteran like Moulds around to show the younger players how a professional prepares and plays? Lee Evans, among others, has stated on many occasions how valuable Moulds has been in his own development.

Secondly, the NFL is built to allow teams to turn things around quickly, and to make it harder for the teams who won last year to repeat. Just look at the current playoffs, where 7 of the 12 particpants where not in the playoffs a year ago. It is that way every year. There are too many stories like Chicago or Tampa Bay this year where team who were not expected to even contend end up winning their divisions. It is that way every year, so why do you write the Bills off?


So, that is why I am so adamant about this post. It makes no sense, on any level, to get rid of Moulds unless he is unwilling to adjust his contract in any way, which he has stated he is willing to discuss.

Think about it:

1) The cap is helped more by working out a contract adjustment and keeping him than by taking the $5.3M dead money hit to get rid of him. He could earn as much as $3M-$3.5M in salary and still have it be cap neutral to cutting him and replacing him with a player who makes the average of what a starting NFL WR made in 2005. Cutting him is not good cap management.

2) Your young QB's development will be helped because one of the best offensive players on the team stays. I just don't see how getting rid of one of the few guys who can catch the ball can help J.P. If anything, you should be looking to bring in more guys who can catch the ball.

3) He gets to stay around and assist in developing the young WR corps, which only makes sense. Don't veterans have a purpose showing younger players the way to prepare and play? Hasn't Moulds been lauded in the past for the assistance he has provided young players, like Lee Evans, in this regard?

4) The team doesn't have to spend cap dollars or high draft picks to replace him, so those resources can be directed to fill greater needs, like OL, DL or TE.

5) The guy is still a productive player, as witnessed by his strong finish and 81 catches this year in a sub-par offense. His willingness to work the underneath routes complements your deep threat, Lee Evans.

I have yet to see you present one substantial argument to counter any of those points. The only thing you offer is "he hates J.P." or "we are going to suck anyway". Those arent' arguments, they are generalities that have no supporting evidence.

(Thanks for the neg, btw)

[Spiderweb]

Even though I believe it wasn't Moulds place to push the JP-Holcomb issue, I can say no matter what happens, I wish him well. If he can be brought back (at reasonable numbers), great. If not, it would be his due to end up somewhere where they have a legit chance of winning. If that's Philly, so be it.

I'm in the "bring him back" or the "please stay" camps, but no hard feelings for Mouldsie if it doesn't work out for him to remain a Bill.

[venis2k1]

http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/msu_memo/1995/9-11-95/moulds.gif

You will be missed...please dont go to the pats.

[Ickybaluky]

Moulds finished with 81 catches, 15th in the NFL. Only 14 players had more receptions. How do you plan on replacing those receptions?

Further, Losman's poor play early was directly responsible for Moulds slow start. Through the first 4 games, Moulds only had 10 catches for 80 yards and no TDs. For the remaining 11 he played he caught 71 passes for 736 yards and 4 TD. That is a pace for a 97 catch/1000 yard season (even accounting for the game he missed).

Evans was hurt by Losman's poor play early as well. through the first 4 games, Evans only had 8 catches for 114 yards and no TDs. For the remaining 12 games he caught 40 passes for 629 yards and 7 TD.

Moulds was targeted 129 times and caught 62.8% of those passes, with 2 drops and 81 receptions. 24 of his receptions were for first downs, about 29.5%.

That means Moulds was responsible for 24 of Buffalo's 118 receiving first downs, which is about 20%. You feel you are going to make the team better by dropping the guy who made the most first downs receiving?

Evans was targeted 92 times and caught 52.2% of those passes, with 2 drops and 48 receptions. 15 of his receptions were for first downs, about 31.5%.

I would suggest keeping both those guys.

[Mr. Cynical]

I have yet to see you present one substantial argument to counter any of those points. The only thing you offer is "he hates J.P." or "we are going to suck anyway". Those arent' arguments, they are generalities that have no supporting evidence.

Oh, I've presented many substantial arguments. You just think they aren't because you don't agree with them.

1. He is way too expensive and only if he were to play for 1/3 his current pay would I consider keeping him. He will never accept that kind of cut (unless no other team makes an offer and he is forced to take the cut) so this entire debate is moot anyway. (not to mention it would create some bad blood if they were to make such a lowball offer in the first place)

2. His best days are behind him regardless of whatever stats you want to use. He is capable, yes, but he has never really recovered from the multiple groin injuries and at his age he probably never will. In addition the likelihood of him re-injuring it or getting injured again are better than 50/50.

3. He's got the (understandable) frustration of a player who has played on a crappy team for 10 years. He has handled it very well for the most part, but his shots at JP early on this year are an indication of this frustration. If we continue to suck, it will only get worse. If he has the chance to go to a champ team next year, my bet is he will try to do so. He knows his time is almost up.

4. I want a #2 WR receiver with alot less mileage on him so that he can grow with the team over time. The Bills are not going to be competitive all of a sudden no matter what examples you want to use. You like to bring up carolina and tampa yet fail to mention they have Fox and Gruden, two top tier coaches. They don't grow on trees. If you have any realistic suggestions I'm all ears. But you have to also remember that we still have a lame duck GM and a lame duck coach, both of whom could be around next year. There are a million scenarios but the only one that would make me believe the Bills will be competitive anytime soon is a total front office flush. Since that is probably not going to happen, the point of getting a shiny new top tier head coach is moot. TD has to go first, a new GM has to be hired, then Ralph has to decide what to do with MM's contract, etc.

So it can be safely assumed Moulds will not be around when this team makes it's run down the road. I don't want to be looking for yet another receiver to break in when we're ready.

Finally, why get involved with all of this complexity, e.g., sensitive situation with money/ego, risk of injury, history, possible QB controversy, etc.? I still feel a competent #2 to complement Evans is not overly difficult to find and would be alot simpler to do.

Your turn...spin the wheel again...

[Ickybaluky]

1. He is way too expensive and only if he were to play for 1/3 his current pay would I consider keeping him. He will never accept that kind of cut (unless no other team makes an offer and he is forced to take the cut) so this entire debate is moot anyway. (not to mention it would create some bad blood if they were to make such a lowball offer in the first place)

That isn't true at all. If he is cut outright and will count for $5.3M in dead money on the Bills cap, while playing for another team. On top of that $5.3M, you will have to spend cap dollars to replace his production.

If he isn't cut, then he has $3.7M in bonus amortization and then his adjusted compensation on top of that. Lets say he is paid $2.5M - $3M in salary and is given additional monies in NLTBE incentives, which can be based on both individual and team incentives reached. His new cap number would be $6.2M to $6.7M in that scenario, which means you can keep him for only about $1M over and above not having him on the roster. You have also given him incentive to play well and earn his money.

That is good cap management, because you get to keep the player.

You actually could lower that cap number even more if you wanted to give him some compensation in the form of a bonus which could be spread into the future, but given your low opinion of him I doubt you wish to do that.


2. His best days are behind him regardless of whatever stats you want to use. He is capable, yes, but he has never really recovered from the multiple groin injuries and at his age he probably never will. In addition the likelihood of him re-injuring it or getting injured again are better than 50/50.

This is silly. You are going to release a guy because he might get injured? You might as well release everyone.

At any rate, I'm not sure what you base it on, considering Moulds has missed 3 games to injury in the last 6 years, he has been as durable as any player in the NFL.

Moulds has proven his worth. There is no doubt he isn't the game-breaker he was when he was younger, but there also is little doubt he can still be productive. He can still be a good possession WR, as witnessed by his 81 catches this year. He has never failed to catch at least 60-something passes in a season since 1998, when he became a starter.

How many WR can you name that can claim 8 straight seasons of 60+ catches? How many have caught 80+ passes in each of the last 2 seasons?

I'm not sure why you don't value that. Evans isn't going to play that role. He is a deep outside guy, he isn't going to want to go across the middle short and get creamed by LB. There isn't another player on the team who has shown he can do the job Moulds does.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are making a claim, but it is totally unsubstantiated. In fact, it flies in the face of the facts.


3. He's got the (understandable) frustration of a player who has played on a crappy team for 10 years. He has handled it very well for the most part, but his shots at JP early on this year are an indication of this frustration. If we continue to suck, it will only get worse. If he has the chance to go to a champ team next year, my bet is he will try to do so. He knows his time is almost up.

Explain to me the shots at J.P. He called for the veteran when Losman was struggling, big whoop. Mushin Muhammed did the same thing with Rex Grossman in Chicago. Both guys were right.

The whole problem with J.P. came about because he was handed the job without competition and struggled. You can't blame Moulds for that.

As for Moulds wanting to leave, we only know that he has said he'd like to stay. The Bills should at least try to keep him.


4. I want a #2 WR receiver with alot less mileage on him so that he can grow with the team over time. The Bills are not going to be competitive all of a sudden no matter what examples you want to use. You like to bring up carolina and tampa yet fail to mention they have Fox and Gruden, two top tier coaches. They don't grow on trees. If you have any realistic suggestions I'm all ears. But you have to also remember that we still have a lame duck GM and a lame duck coach, both of whom could be around next year. There are a million scenarios but the only one that would make me believe the Bills will be competitive anytime soon is a total front office flush. Since that is probably not going to happen, the point of getting a shiny new top tier head coach is moot. TD has to go first, a new GM has to be hired, then Ralph has to decide what to do with MM's contract, etc.

By all means, bring in new WR. If you are planning to draft young WR and bring them along, doesn't it make sense to have a veteran around for them to emulate?

Why does that mean getting rid of Moulds? If you manage to bring someone in who is better than Moulds, it means you would have 3 good WR instead of 2. That is a good thing. It means protection against injury and a deeper team.

As for competitiveness, there are a million examples of teams turning it around quickly with new coaches. Lovie Smith in Chicago. Jim Mora in Atlanta last year. I don't see "we aren't going to be competitive anytime soon". You don't even know what changes the team will make. Facts are facts, and teams turn it around quickly in the NFL all the time. There are a half-dozen new playoff teams each year.


So it can be safely assumed Moulds will not be around when this team makes it's run down the road. I don't want to be looking for yet another receiver to break in when we're ready.

Moulds should have a few good years left. You can bring a WR along now, and Moulds can help him become a good player. More than that, Moulds can make you a better team while you develop that player.


Finally, why get involved with all of this complexity, e.g., sensitive situation with money/ego, risk of injury, history, possible QB controversy, etc.? I still feel a competent #2 to complement Evans is not overly difficult to find and would be alot simpler to do.

Because it is smart. Why get rid of a productive player you have when your goal is to try to get better?

The Pats were faced with this same situation with McGinest, who had a few years where he struggled with injuries in the middle of his career and a balooning cap figure. They managed the contract on the cap and he has been a valuable player.

The Steelers did were faced with the same thing with Jerome Bettis, and kept him around. He has proven to be a valuable player and has saved them in many cases.

Why discard a veteran on the back-end of a big contract if he can still play? Moulds may not be a game-breaker any more, but the guy is still a good player. It makes more sense to work on the contract issues and keep him. Work on solving the problems the team already has to get better, don't create new problems.

[Mr. Cynical]

That isn't true at all. If he is cut outright and will count for $5.3M in dead money on the Bills cap, while playing for another team. On top of that $5.3M, you will have to spend cap dollars to replace his production.

If he isn't cut, then he has $3.7M in bonus amortization and then his adjusted compensation on top of that. Lets say he is paid $2.5M - $3M in salary and is given additional monies in NLTBE incentives, which can be based on both individual and team incentives reached. His new cap number would be $6.2M to $6.7M in that scenario, which means you can keep him for only about $1M over and above not having him on the roster. You have also given him incentive to play well and earn his money.

That is good cap management, because you get to keep the player.

You actually could lower that cap number even more if you wanted to give him some compensation in the form of a bonus which could be spread into the future, but given your low opinion of him I doubt you wish to do that.



This is silly. You are going to release a guy because he might get injured? You might as well release everyone.

At any rate, I'm not sure what you base it on, considering Moulds has missed 3 games to injury in the last 6 years, he has been as durable as any player in the NFL.

Moulds has proven his worth. There is no doubt he isn't the game-breaker he was when he was younger, but there also is little doubt he can still be productive. He can still be a good possession WR, as witnessed by his 81 catches this year. He has never failed to catch at least 60-something passes in a season since 1998, when he became a starter.

How many WR can you name that can claim 8 straight seasons of 60+ catches? How many have caught 80+ passes in each of the last 2 seasons?

I'm not sure why you don't value that. Evans isn't going to play that role. He is a deep outside guy, he isn't going to want to go across the middle short and get creamed by LB. There isn't another player on the team who has shown he can do the job Moulds does.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are making a claim, but it is totally unsubstantiated. In fact, it flies in the face of the facts.



Explain to me the shots at J.P. He called for the veteran when Losman was struggling, big whoop. Mushin Muhammed did the same thing with Rex Grossman in Chicago. Both guys were right.

The whole problem with J.P. came about because he was handed the job without competition and struggled. You can't blame Moulds for that.

As for Moulds wanting to leave, we only know that he has said he'd like to stay. The Bills should at least try to keep him.



By all means, bring in new WR. If you are planning to draft young WR and bring them along, doesn't it make sense to have a veteran around for them to emulate?

Why does that mean getting rid of Moulds? If you manage to bring someone in who is better than Moulds, it means you would have 3 good WR instead of 2. That is a good thing. It means protection against injury and a deeper team.

As for competitiveness, there are a million examples of teams turning it around quickly with new coaches. Lovie Smith in Chicago. Jim Mora in Atlanta last year. I don't see "we aren't going to be competitive anytime soon". You don't even know what changes the team will make. Facts are facts, and teams turn it around quickly in the NFL all the time. There are a half-dozen new playoff teams each year.



Moulds should have a few good years left. You can bring a WR along now, and Moulds can help him become a good player. More than that, Moulds can make you a better team while you develop that player.



Because it is smart. Why get rid of a productive player you have when your goal is to try to get better?

The Pats were faced with this same situation with McGinest, who had a few years where he struggled with injuries in the middle of his career and a balooning cap figure. They managed the contract on the cap and he has been a valuable player.

The Steelers did were faced with the same thing with Jerome Bettis, and kept him around. He has proven to be a valuable player and has saved them in many cases.

Why discard a veteran on the back-end of a big contract if he can still play? Moulds may not be a game-breaker any more, but the guy is still a good player. It makes more sense to work on the contract issues and keep him. Work on solving the problems the team already has to get better, don't create new problems.

1. Moulds isn't worth any more than 1/3 his current total contract regardless of how you cut it. If he accepts a 66% overall reduction, then fine, keep him.

2. He is an aging vet which makes him more vulnerable to injury. Biological fact. If you want to point out the 2% exception to this rule, be my guest.

3. I think it's funny you actually believe everything he says. Just because he said he wants to stay in Buffalo doesn't mean he wouldn't go to a champ team if given the chance. This phrase is as common as "we're taking it one game at a time".

4. Again, just because "it happens" in the NFL with a few teams making a major turnaround in a year doesn't mean it is likely. Far from it. Again, you are pointing to the exception and not the rule. Unless we get ridiculously lucky with a new GM and new coach, there is nothing at all to substantiate any reason for positive change. As it stands, this team is in bad shape. End of story.

5. Your comparison to Bettis is apples and oranges. He plays RB which is a single position for the most part. Bettis can come in for spot duty and goal line plays without impacting the structure of the offense. But you don't see one WR on the field, do you? You are going to have at least two on the field at all times. Therefore you need to make sure there are two WRs on the team that are going to be here when this team eventually turns it around. Now, if Moulds wants to play #3 WR, then sure, keep him. But I want a #2 who is going to be here for more than another year or two and on the rise, not on the decline.

6. Cutting/trading him is simpler not harder. Gets rid of all kinds of issues that I have already pointed out.

Your turn...spin the wheel again....

[Ickybaluky]

1. Moulds isn't worth any more than 1/3 his current total contract regardless of how you cut it. If he accepts a 66% overall reduction, then fine, keep him.

The market will set his worth. He led the Bills in receptions and receiving yards. Only 14 players in the NFL caught more passes than him this year and only 32 had more receiving yards. That is despite his missing a game to suspension and playing in a poor passing offense.

The guy has value, even if you don't want to recognize it.


2. He is an aging vet which makes him more vulnerable to injury. Biological fact. If you want to point out the 2% exception to this rule, be my guest.

The only fact is that he has been a durable player his entire career. There isn't any indication he is injury-prone. He is no more likely to suffer an injury than anyone else.

This is by far the silliest reason think you have said. Every player is a injury risk, you can't predict it. The only thing you can look at is his history, which shows durability. You might as well release them all if that is your concern.


3. I think it's funny you actually believe everything he says. Just because he said he wants to stay in Buffalo doesn't mean he wouldn't go to a champ team if given the chance. This phrase is as common as "we're taking it one game at a time".

The only thing we know is he says he'd like to stay, everything else is conjecture. You can't say he doesn't want to stay. There are a lot of compelling reasons for him to want to stay in Buffalo, he has played here his entire career and has built recognition. There is value in that, whether you wish to recognize it or not.


4. Again, just because "it happens" in the NFL with a few teams making a major turnaround in a year doesn't mean it is likely. Far from it. Again, you are pointing to the exception and not the rule. Unless we get ridiculously lucky with a new GM and new coach, there is nothing at all to substantiate any reason for positive change. As it stands, this team is in bad shape. End of story.

There are, on average, several teams each year that have dramatic turnarounds. There are, every year, many new playoff teams. That is a fact.

In the NFL there is very little separating the teams in terms of talent. The schedule is set up to favor a team that was poor the year before. Those are facts.

All I know is the Patriots were considered one of the worst run organizations in world in 2001. That all changed when 6th round QB was was 4th string as a rookie came in and replaced their franchise QB who was lost to injury.

It happens, there aren't any long-term rebuilds because teams are broken up too quickly. You need to try and win now.


5. Your comparison to Bettis is apples and oranges. He plays RB which is a single position for the most part. Bettis can come in for spot duty and goal line plays without impacting the structure of the offense. But you don't see one WR on the field, do you? You are going to have at least two on the field at all times. Therefore you need to make sure there are two WRs on the team that are going to be here when this team eventually turns it around. Now, if Moulds wants to play #3 WR, then sure, keep him. But I want a #2 who is going to be here for more than another year or two and on the rise, not on the decline.

What are you talking about? It is a great comparison. The fact is Moulds is a good player and it benefits any team to have him playing for them. Buffalo currently has his rights but are saddled with an unweildy cap number. So address the problem of the contract while keeping the player.

Bottom line: Whether it is Buffalo or someone else he is going to have a new contract. Buffalo gets the first shot to keep him, they should do everything they can to do so.


6. Cutting/trading him is simpler not harder. Gets rid of all kinds of issues that I have already pointed out.

You just want change because you are fed up with losing. However, it makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You are focusing in the wrong area. There are problems with the team, but Moulds isn't one of them.

Moulds is a still a good player. He is still one of the Bills best offensive weapons. The idea is to keep your good players, not get rid of them. If the contract is an issue, deal with the contract, don't just give up on the player. That isn't smart.

Address your problems on the OL, DE or at TE. Dont' create all new problems on top of that. That is simple.

[DaBills]

I will never, ever complain about the length of wys's posts again. Ever.
:afro:

[EDS]

I want Moulds back but if he is cut I want the Bills to sign a veteran replacement - someone like Issac Bruce if he is cut by the Rams.

[Mr. Cynical]

I will never, ever complain about the length of wys's posts again. Ever.
:afro:

:rofl:

:posrep:

[Mr. Cynical]

The market will set his worth. He led the Bills in receptions and receiving yards. Only 14 players in the NFL caught more passes than him this year and only 32 had more receiving yards. That is despite his missing a game to suspension and playing in a poor passing offense.

The guy has value, even if you don't want to recognize it.



The only fact is that he has been a durable player his entire career. There isn't any indication he is injury-prone. He is no more likely to suffer an injury than anyone else.

This is by far the silliest reason think you have said. Every player is a injury risk, you can't predict it. The only thing you can look at is his history, which shows durability. You might as well release them all if that is your concern.



The only thing we know is he says he'd like to stay, everything else is conjecture. You can't say he doesn't want to stay. There are a lot of compelling reasons for him to want to stay in Buffalo, he has played here his entire career and has built recognition. There is value in that, whether you wish to recognize it or not.



There are, on average, several teams each year that have dramatic turnarounds. There are, every year, many new playoff teams. That is a fact.

In the NFL there is very little separating the teams in terms of talent. The schedule is set up to favor a team that was poor the year before. Those are facts.

All I know is the Patriots were considered one of the worst run organizations in world in 2001. That all changed when 6th round QB was was 4th string as a rookie came in and replaced their franchise QB who was lost to injury.

It happens, there aren't any long-term rebuilds because teams are broken up too quickly. You need to try and win now.



What are you talking about? It is a great comparison. The fact is Moulds is a good player and it benefits any team to have him playing for them. Buffalo currently has his rights but are saddled with an unweildy cap number. So address the problem of the contract while keeping the player.

Bottom line: Whether it is Buffalo or someone else he is going to have a new contract. Buffalo gets the first shot to keep him, they should do everything they can to do so.



You just want change because you are fed up with losing. However, it makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You are focusing in the wrong area. There are problems with the team, but Moulds isn't one of them.

Moulds is a still a good player. He is still one of the Bills best offensive weapons. The idea is to keep your good players, not get rid of them. If the contract is an issue, deal with the contract, don't just give up on the player. That isn't smart.

Address your problems on the OL, DE or at TE. Dont' create all new problems on top of that. That is simple.

Still haven't said anything different than your last post, so....

1. Moulds isn't worth any more than 1/3 his current total contract regardless of how you cut it. If he accepts a 66% overall reduction, then fine, keep him.

2. He is an aging vet which makes him more vulnerable to injury. Biological fact. If you want to point out the 2% exception to this rule, be my guest.

3. I think it's funny you actually believe everything he says. Just because he said he wants to stay in Buffalo doesn't mean he wouldn't go to a champ team if given the chance. This phrase is as common as "we're taking it one game at a time".

4. Again, just because "it happens" in the NFL with a few teams making a major turnaround in a year doesn't mean it is likely. Far from it. Again, you are pointing to the exception and not the rule. Unless we get ridiculously lucky with a new GM and new coach, there is nothing at all to substantiate any reason for positive change. As it stands, this team is in bad shape. End of story.

5. Your comparison to Bettis is apples and oranges. He plays RB which is a single position for the most part. Bettis can come in for spot duty and goal line plays without impacting the structure of the offense. But you don't see one WR on the field, do you? You are going to have at least two on the field at all times. Therefore you need to make sure there are two WRs on the team that are going to be here when this team eventually turns it around. Now, if Moulds wants to play #3 WR, then sure, keep him. But I want a #2 who is going to be here for more than another year or two and on the rise, not on the decline.

6. Cutting/trading him is simpler not harder. Gets rid of all kinds of issues that I have already pointed out.

Your turn...spin the wheel again....<!-- / message -->

[Ickybaluky]

But what you are saying is your conjecture, not anything supported by reasoning. In fact, what you says flies in the face of reasoning. That is why you keep throwing out unsupported generalities.

Moulds is more likely to be hurt? How says? I'd say he has proven more durable than J.P. Losman, among others, who are much younger. There is no basis for saying he is more likely to be hurt than anyone else. Just because a guy is in his 30's doesn't mean he will get hurt more often. There is no evidence to support your theory that a player is more likely to get hurt as he gets older. For every guy you name over 30 who gets hurt, I can name a guy under 30 who did as well.

Look at the injuries around the NFL, you won't find that age is a factor in a guy getting hurt more often (other than maybe RB and LB), there isn't a pattern there. How do you explain Kevin Edwards getting hurt! He was too young for that to happen! Do you not want any player over 30 on your roster?

History shows new teams turn it around every year, it is the way the NFL is set up. Your logic is you shouldn't even try. Huh? It makes no sense to get rid of good players.

The facts show it is better cap management to restructure a productive veteran and keep him around than to cut him and have all his dead money burdening your cap due to his bonus acceleration. As long as the guy is producing, you should try to keep him. Adjust his salary to pay him according to his worth, but don't let the already amortized bonus money bite you in the butt.

You also then have to tie up additional resources in replacing that guy, when those resources are needed elsewhere.

Mould's is still a valuable player, as witnessed by his production. He has produced at a pretty good level despite a poor offense, and that his value. You say his value in next to nothing, yet he caught more passes than all but 14 guys. He had more receiving yardage than all but 32 guys. He has 80+ reception in each of the last 2 years. How many players can say that? Of those players that can say that, how many are going to be available? Odds are, you are not going to get back the same value.

You know what Moulds can do and you have his rights. You can still develop young players if Moulds is on the roster. There really is no good reason for not at least trying to keep him. If he decides he wants to go and refused to address the contract, that is beyond your control and the Bills will have to release him.

Approach things like Moulds is a free agent and they get the first chance to sign him. They should set his value and talk to him. His value is is subject to opinion, but he is definitely a starter. He is still one of the better possession WR in the NFL, IMO. He is no minimum-salary player.

I think you are guilty of de-valuing Moulds because you watch him too much. Personally, I think right now he is better than any Patriots WR other than Deion Branch. I think he is better than David Givens, and Givens is likely to make millions this offseason in Free Agency. In fact, I think he is currently a better player than Givens will ever be, and I like Givens and think he is a good player. I also think he has several good years left, and I hope the Pats look into signing him if the Bills release him.

[Mr. Cynical]

But what you are saying is your conjecture, not anything supported by reasoning. In fact, what you says flies in the face of reasoning. That is why you keep throwing out unsupported generalities.

Unsupported in your eyes, yes.


Moulds is more likely to be hurt? How says? I'd say he has proven more durable than J.P. Losman, among others, who are much younger. There is no basis for saying he is more likely to be hurt than anyone else. Just because a guy is in his 30's doesn't mean he will get hurt more often. There is no evidence to support your theory that a player is more likely to get hurt as he gets older. For every guy you name over 30 who gets hurt, I can name a guy under 30 who did as well.

Look at the injuries around the NFL, you won't find that age is a factor in a guy getting hurt more often (other than maybe RB and LB), there isn't a pattern there. How do you explain Kevin Edwards getting hurt! He was too young for that to happen! Do you not want any player over 30 on your roster?

Players are more liable to get injured and take longer to recover as they get older. Indisputable, biological fact. There are exceptions but that is the rule. I will not address this fact again.


History shows new teams turn it around every year, it is the way the NFL is set up. Your logic is you shouldn't even try. Huh? It makes no sense to get rid of good players.

I've pointed out you need to get extremely lucky with the right GM/coach to make it happen. So far we don't have those two pieces. And the history you are talking about are the exceptions to the rule. I will not address this fact again.


Approach things like Moulds is a free agent and they get the first chance to sign him. They should set his value and talk to him. His value is is subject to opinion, but he is definitely a starter. He is still one of the better possession WR in the NFL, IMO. He is no minimum-salary player.

He is not a #1 WR. He is at best a #2, but only at 66% of his current pay. Otherwise I want a #2 who will be here when the Bills become competitive in a couple of years. I will repeat this statement as many times as you like if necessary but that's all I am going to say.


I think you are guilty of de-valuing Moulds because you watch him too much.

This is probably the silliest thing you have ever written. More watching = more information = better assessment. You are relying on stats which don't tell the whole story. I gave you the credit you deserved when speaking about Bledsoe in the past because yes, you watched him "too much", which made your opinion more valuable than simply reading a stat chart.


I also think he has several good years left, and I hope the Pats look into signing him if the Bills release him.

To this I say once again,

F**K THE PATS.

Finally, again....cutting/trading him is simpler not harder. Gets rid of all kinds of issues that I have already pointed out numerous times.

Your turn...spin the wheel again....<!-- / message -->

[Ickybaluky]

Question: Should the Giants cut Tiki Barber? He seems to fit the criteria:

- Showed his selfishness by throw the coaches under the bus after the Giants loss last weekend
- Over 30, injury risk
- Makes a lot of money

[mysticsoto]

Question: Should the Giants cut Tiki Barber? He seems to fit the criteria:

- Showed his selfishness by throw the coaches under the bus after the Giants loss last weekend
- Over 30, injury risk
- Makes a lot of money

Virtually every Giants fan I have talked to has told me that without Tiki, they would never have made it to the playoffs and that without him, the Giants are nothing...

Without a viable replacement, I say no (even if they draft a RB - which I think they should - maybe in the 2nd or 3rd).

They should give us their #1 for NC. :D

[Mr. Cynical]

Question: Should the Giants cut Tiki Barber? He seems to fit the criteria:

- Showed his selfishness by throw the coaches under the bus after the Giants loss last weekend
- Over 30, injury risk
- Makes a lot of money

As usual you are comparing apples and oranges....again. Completely different situation.

Your turn...spin the wheel again....

[The_Philster]

Not that different at all, actually...unless you actually liked the offensive performance the week Moulds was out