So the tune on Moulds is changing?

[dave mcbride]

With the 8.5 million we could save on Moulds who is over 30 years old we could get 2 starters.  This sort of thinking got New England to the top of the mountain.

124814[/snapback]

first off, if you keep him, he costs 5-6 million. if you get rid of him, he costs 8 million. so it's cheaper to keep him (not that the cap really matters that much). secondly, getting rid of good players is not a wise move. talk about new england all you want, but it's abundantly clear to me that they're winning because of three things -- a solid corps of longtime NE veterans who know the system and have talent (buschi, law, vrabel, mcginest, troy brown), tom brady, and coaching. the bills solid corps of longtime Bills veterans consists of eric moulds. the qb situation is a joke. and the coaching hasn't inspired me to compare it to NE's coaching yet (although i'm not particularly down on mularkey).

[ATBNG]

excellent idea. let's get rid of all the competent players on the team, keep the cheap young ones who are weak to middling, and start over because it's so damn fun to obsess over high draft picks.

 

to reiterate something no one here seems to understand -- the cap is not an issue at all with this team as it currently stands, so the fact that x player makes y millions is completely irrelevant.

124796[/snapback]

 

How on earth can you say that? The cap is always relevant in the NFL. You might argue that people overrate it, but you're going way too far. To say that no one understands it is inaccurate - no one is buying it because it is a ludicrous position to take.

 

The Pats have David Givens at a cap figure of 600,000 per year. The Bills have Eric Moulds at 8 million. Their production at their position is around the same in 2004. That gives New England 7 million+ extra to spend at other positions. Do you honestly think that this is not one of the relevant reasons why New England is successful and the Bills' aren't?

[BF_in_Indiana]

How on earth can you say that? The cap is always relevant in the NFL. You might argue that people overrate it, but you're going way too far. To say that no one understands it is inaccurate - no one is buying it because it is a ludicrous position to take. 

 

The Pats have David Givens at a cap figure of 600,000 per year. The Bills have Eric Moulds at 8 million. Their production at their position is around the same in 2004. That gives New England 7 million+ extra to spend at other positions. Do you honestly think that this is not one of the relevant reasons why New England is successful and the Bills' aren't?

124862[/snapback]

 

Thank you for making my reply for me

[dave mcbride]

How on earth can you say that? The cap is always relevant in the NFL. You might argue that people overrate it, but you're going way too far. To say that no one understands it is inaccurate - no one is buying it because it is a ludicrous position to take. 

 

The Pats have David Givens at a cap figure of 600,000 per year. The Bills have Eric Moulds at 8 million. Their production at their position is around the same in 2004. That gives New England 7 million+ extra to spend at other positions. Do you honestly think that this is not one of the relevant reasons why New England is successful and the Bills' aren't?

124862[/snapback]

 

read my post - i said that it isn't relevant to the bills at present, nor will it be next year. their only dead money next year will be in all likelihood bledsoe, and it won't be that much. they also don't have a first round pick next year, so there will be no big bonuses. as for moulds v. givens, give me a break. moulds is ten times the player givens is. if you put moulds on the pats, he'd be recognized quickly for the great player he is. a better person to compare him to is jimmy smith, one of the greats of recent times who suffered through the lean times and is now leading the league in ypc at the age of 36.

 

i'm sorry if i sounds a little perturbed. i don't profess to understand all the ins and outs of the cap, but i find it ridiculous that people on this board to pontificate about it ad nauseum without knowing anything (i'm not directing this at you). i suppose this goes back to when donohoe came in and blamed everything on the cap and used it as cover to cut average if productive vets who performed at an adequate to good level in the system they were in (holocek, jones, ted washington, and especially flutie). the wholesale jettisoning of the previous regime was a choice that was not forced on him - although i'll give you wiley (he did have to choose between wiley and moulds, and made the right choice. of course, he made the wrong qb choice - flutie was good for 6-8 wins at that time and in buffalo). he's been able to get the fans to drink the salary cap kool-ade, but i consider myself a proud teetotaler when it comes to that.

[JimBob2232]

You guys are somethign else. EM is getting FED UP. As are we all. I am glad that he is standing up and making this known. Its painful for me to watch these games, and im not out there every sunday running routes and getting beat up only to see Drew get sacked 5 times and throw 3 picks.

 

He sees his friend TO in philly doing what he is doing, and has to feel he should be doing the same...AND HE SHOULD BE.

 

I dont fault EM one iota on this one folks. He is understandably frustrated.

[MDH]

Yes, Roethlisberger would do well without Hines Ward and/or Plaxico Burress, because he's great.  Not as great as Tom Brady, mind you, but great.

124587[/snapback]

 

I'm not going to say the guy isn't a good QB, but Roethlisberger is in an easy situation in Pit. They have a dominant Oline, a dominant running game and good WRs. If a QB isn't successful in that situation, he shouldn't be starting in this league. The guy makes accurate throws and is great at sensing pressure and alluding it. I'm not taking anything away from the skills he's displaying, but at some point people need to realize that any starting QB in the league should be successful with that type of O around him. Even Drew could succeed with that running game and Oline.

[MDH]

You guys are somethign else.  EM is getting FED UP.  As are we all. 

124998[/snapback]

 

You can't fight it, so don't bother. IF EM doesn't show that he's as frusterated as the fans people scream, "He doesn't care! Why am I getting upset over this team if the players don't care!" If he does display frusteration its, "get rid of his unhappy ass!"

 

Unless a team is winning its a lose/lose situation for these guys, even the ones that produce.

[/dev/null]

Moulds sucks.  He should be traded.  Same with Henry.  Get with the program here, T.

124580[/snapback]

 

yeah dude, didn't you get the memo. maybe you just skimmed over it, had abit about a rookie quarterback with a broken leg from a lesser 1a program being the saviour of the franchise and a coach with saggy manboobs turning mike williams into a dominant offensive lineman

[ATBNG]

Hey DM – I appreciate the comments about not taking it personally- likewise from here. Get as riled up as you want – it won’t bother me.

 

I think that in the post below you make an important distinction – “dead money on the cap” versus “the cap itself.” Even if they have no dead money on the cap, the salary cap remains very relevant if they are overpaying their players on the roster in terms of productivity. There has to be some reason why they’re not successful when they (essentially) spend to the limit of the cap. I agree that Donahoe’s dead money excuse is played – at this point, he has to look in the mirror and accept that the team has underperformed because of decisions he has made (and not blame it on the prior regime). The entire NFL has moved more towards the Philly/Tennessee/New England model of not overpaying one player, not mortgaging the future and building through middle class depth.

 

I suspect if you polled the other 30 NFL GM’s, all 30 would say that Eric Moulds has had the better career when compared to David Givens. I also suspect that given the choice in 2004 between Moulds at 8 mill and Givens at .6 mill, all 30 would take Givens. Moulds is not ten times the player Givens is right now – they’re probably pretty close (their 2004 stats sure are). The overall point is that sure Moulds would be productive on the Pats, and perhaps more productive than Givens due to Moulds’ being more talented, but I don’t think that organization would devote 8 million dollars to one wide receiver, and Givens has a brighter future. Their entire receiving corps has a cap figure of less than 8 million and they’re still quite productive. This is Donahoe getting schooled as a GM both in terms of drafting players and assigning value to free agents.

 

EM always has been and remains an outstanding player who has had a remarkable career given he’s played in a windy stadium with below average QB’s the entire time. I would never say a bad word about the guy – he’s one of my favorite NFL players going. Moulds is however a good example of what the root cause is with Buffalo when compared to Givens. On the one hand you have a great player on the downside of his career being paid for past performance, and in the other you have an improving player on the upside producing far more than he is paid. When in the end each team is allowed to spend 80.5 million total, the team with more Givens’s is winning, and this is no surprise whatsoever.

 

 

 

read my post - i said that it isn't relevant to the bills at present, nor will it be next year. their only dead money next year will be in all likelihood bledsoe, and it won't be that much.  they also don't have a first round pick next year, so there will be no big bonuses.  as for moulds v. givens, give me a break. moulds is ten times the player givens is.  if you put moulds on the pats, he'd be recognized quickly for the great player he is.  a better person to compare him to is jimmy smith, one of the greats of recent times who suffered through the lean times and is now leading the league in ypc at the age of 36.

 

i'm sorry if i sounds a little perturbed. i don't profess to understand all the ins and outs of the cap, but i find it ridiculous that people on this board to pontificate about it ad nauseum without knowing anything (i'm not directing this at you). i suppose this goes back to when donohoe came in and blamed everything on the cap and used it as cover to cut average if productive vets who performed at an adequate to good level in the system they were in (holocek, jones, ted washington, and especially flutie). the wholesale jettisoning of the previous regime was a choice that was not forced on him - although i'll give you wiley (he did have to choose between wiley and moulds, and made the right choice. of course, he made the wrong qb choice - flutie was good for 6-8 wins at that time and in buffalo). he's been able to get the fans to drink the salary cap kool-ade, but i consider myself a proud teetotaler when it comes to that.

124967[/snapback]

[SF Bills Fan]

Moulds needs to stay a Bill. He will be instrumental in helping turn things around- starting at the end of this year and into next year. His comments are not unreasonable. I'd be frustrated if I were in his position. Let's see what happens when Losman gets a chance. Fortunes can change quickly. Obviously, Losman will be a better QB with Evans AND Moulds to choose from.

[dave mcbride]

Hey DM – I appreciate the comments about not taking it personally- likewise from here. Get as riled up as you want – it won’t bother me. 

 

I think that in the post below you make an important distinction – “dead money on the cap” versus “the cap itself.” Even if they have no dead money on the cap, the salary cap remains very relevant if they are overpaying their players on the roster in terms of productivity. There has to be some reason why they’re not successful when they (essentially) spend to the limit of the cap. I agree that Donahoe’s dead money excuse is played – at this point, he has to look in the mirror and accept that the team has underperformed because of decisions he has made (and not blame it on the prior regime). The entire NFL has moved more towards the Philly/Tennessee/New England model of not overpaying one player, not mortgaging the future and building through middle class depth.

 

I suspect if you polled the other 30 NFL GM’s, all 30 would say that Eric Moulds has had the better career when compared to David Givens. I also suspect that given the choice in 2004 between Moulds at 8 mill and Givens at .6 mill, all 30 would take Givens. Moulds is not ten times the player Givens is right now – they’re probably pretty close (their 2004 stats sure are). The overall point is that sure Moulds would be productive on the Pats, and perhaps more productive than Givens due to Moulds’ being more talented, but I don’t think that organization would devote 8 million dollars to one wide receiver, and Givens has a brighter future. Their entire receiving corps has a cap figure of less than 8 million and they’re still quite productive. This is Donahoe getting schooled as a GM both in terms of drafting players and assigning value to free agents.

 

EM always has been and remains an outstanding player who has had a remarkable career given he’s played in a windy stadium with below average QB’s the entire time. I would never say a bad word about the guy – he’s one of my favorite NFL players going. Moulds is however a good example of what the root cause is with Buffalo when compared to Givens. On the one hand you have a great player on the downside of his career being paid for past performance, and in the other you have an improving player on the upside producing far more than he is paid. When in the end each team is allowed to spend 80.5 million total, the team with more Givens’s is winning, and this is no surprise whatsoever.

125143[/snapback]

these are all well argued points, although i disagree in one important aspect: moulds is on pace to get 92 receptions and 1300 yards and 8 TDs while playing for one of the least effective qbs and offenses in the league. that's pretty damn good. remember, bledsoe is not only terrible. because of him, the bills are actively avoiding the passing game because they don't trust him. moulds is not that old, and it's quite conceivable that (barring injury) he'll remain an upper echelon player when he's 34 years old. like i said, jimmy smith is 36, and TO is as old as moulds. jerry rice was excellent into his early-mid 30s, as was chris carter as well as numerous other big over-the-middle guys who had defense-stretching abilities in their repertoire. as for paying certain players a lot, think about the teams you mention -- TO and McNabb have huge salaries, as do McNair, Brady, and Ty Law. they're all elite players, difference makers rather than effective cogs (like givens). as for the titans, certain players had huge contracts -- kearse and eddie george in particular. they're gone, but that team had their best days when they were in their prime (kearse still is, of course). samari rolle has a huge contract too, come to think of it.

[jester43]

Moulds needs to stay a Bill. He will be instrumental in helping turn things around- starting at the end of this year and into next year. His comments are not unreasonable.

125210[/snapback]

 

i agree...i think WGR was trying to make something out of nothing with this story. he's not randy moss, but he's the biggest difference-maker on the roster. moulds is going to be in the league a long time and i, for one, do not want to see him hoisting the lombardi trophy in any other uniform but ours.

[SF Bills Fan]

i agree...i think WGR was trying to make something out of nothing with this story.  he's not randy moss, but he's the biggest difference-maker on the roster.  moulds is going to be in the league a long time and i, for one, do not want to see him hoisting the lombardi trophy in any other uniform but ours.

125277[/snapback]

 

He made a commitment by sticking around for less money when he could have gone to the Eagles. I heard some good things from him a few weeks back. I think he is committed to this team. Of course there is some doubt right now. Every player on that roster (except maybe Moorman) is a little down in the dumps.