Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Agreed. It's unfortunate to see top WR's like Harrison, Moss and TO enjoy solid QB play on their teams while Moulds has had to suffer through the likes of Todd Collins, Van Pelt, Rob Johnson, and Bledsoe. My take:Instead of raising his game and making our QB better, Moulds played down to our QB's level. Most unfortunate, but nothing that can't be fixed once Drew leaves town. 200635[/snapback]
Bill from NYC Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 My take:Instead of raising his game and making our QB better, Moulds played down to our QB's level. Most unfortunate, but nothing that can't be fixed once Drew leaves town. 200635[/snapback] Are you talking about his entire career or only this season?
Bill from NYC Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Agreed. It's unfortunate to see top WR's like Harrison, Moss and TO enjoy solid QB play on their teams while Moulds has had to suffer through the likes of Todd Collins, Van Pelt, Rob Johnson, and Bledsoe. 200638[/snapback] You left out Flutie. Was this on purpose? Also, could you be that naive that you think that the lack of blocking didn't matter? Tell me no!
taterhill Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Would you like me to turn the pages for you too? 200594[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 It is common knowledge throughout the league that if you get into his face and shake him up a bit, his mechanics tend to go south.He starts throwing off his back foot, he loses his accuracy and his pocket presence (whatever was left of it) is thrown to the curb. Yes. You are right. When Drew has all the time in the world and the blocking scheme is executed flawlessly he can really do some damage. But in today's NFL, where defensive players are stronger and faster than ever, that is a difficult task. Offenses need to live with the fact that the pocket can be broken at times, making it all the more imperative that an NFL quarterback can sense the rush. 200621[/snapback] I think its pretty easy to make the more generic "It's is common knowledge throughout the league that if you get into the face OF ANY QUARTERBACK and shake him up a bit, his mechanics tend to go south.He starts throwing off his back foot, he loses his accuracy and his pocket presence. I saw it happen big time to Tom Brady against the hapless Fish when they played earlier in week 16. I saw it happen big time to Peyton Manning last year against the Pats when they got pressure on him. My own observation is that there's no QB who can play with constant, immediate pressure. The fact is that defense will apply [ressure to any QB if they believe the opposing line will give up the pressure. Our line in '03 was very accomodating to opposing defenses, while in '04 we became less generous, which arguably is the single thing that most led to our improvement in record. Now if we can continue to improve, especially to the point of a team like Indy- who regularly provide 4.5-5.5 second pockets for their starter, it really won't matter too much who we've got playing QB for us because there's many, (including one of the top 10 most productive passers in the history of the NFL), who would be capable of making us one very dangerous football offense. Any team can have an occasional breakdown. We've unfortunately had as many over the past two years as probably the top 5 offenses had combined over the same period. That's no decree in favor of Bledsoe, it's just a simple truth in the NFL that no QB can play effectively under the type of pressure we gave up in '03. As far as '04, there's more teams in the NFL than not who would have liked to have been as effective as we were on offense.
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Perhaps you are right. Over the course of the season, the offense faced stiffer competition. Are you saying that on an equal field, if the offense faced the same competition that the defense faced, the offense would fare just as well? If so, I disagree. You don't need statistics for that one. The defense, as a unit, is FAR superior to the offense. 200631[/snapback] Of course I agree our defense is a much better unit. And consistently I'm sure you'd agree that if you face a team like Pitt, with the #1 D in the league while having an offense in the middle of the field, it's likely your Defense walks off the field with an inordinate advantage in "how they looked" over your Offense that faced the best in the league. And the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from that is that if you face more good D's than O's (like we did in '04), your defense is liekly to appear better than it actually is while your offense is likely to appear not as good as it is, both on the field and in the books.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 You bring in a statistical entity like Football Insiders and lay zealous praise to their methodology. The methodology that ranks Eric Moulds as the 45th best WR in the NFL. The same methodology that ranks Drew Bledsoe as the 21st best QB in the NFL. Eric Moulds, according to YOUR OWN chosen statistical service, is slated to make MORE MONEY IN 2005 while being worse than 44 other players at his position while Drew Bledsoe will make less than Moulds while being better than all by 20 of the players at his position. It's time for you to end your hypocrisy. Based upon the analysis YOU INSIST UPON there is no justification for keeping Moulds on the roster if in fact you are also calling for the head of a much more effective player at his position who makes less money. 200526[/snapback] You're inventing arguments that I haven't made, AKC. When did I say we should jettison DB? I've said we should bench him - I stand by that. When did I say we should keep Moulds at his current contract rate? I never said that - you've invented that in your own bizarre imagination. Stop dreaming up arguments to shoot down. What you're doing is making a solid argument that Moulds is overpaid - apparently management agrees, which is why they have approached him about "restructuring."
Typical TBD Guy Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 GREAT post, AKC. While you can still count me in among the list of "Drew bashers," it's certainly true that we still have problems with several other areas on our team, including our beloved D. About Drew, I've been saying since the Texans home game in November 2003 that he is finished as a quality NFL QB. He has always been one to magnify the deficiencies of the other 10 offensive players with his immobility and his inaccuracy for short to medium range passes; but in the later stages of his career he's developed new tendencies that further damaged his worth, the most annoying of which has been an inability to scan the field rather than lock onto 1 receiving outlet. Now I know stats can sometimes be misleading, but everyone seriously needs to look at Drew's stats for the entire 2004 season. For a longtime NFL vet, they are HORRIBLE. This season wasn't all Drew's fault, but no doubt Drew was a problem and not a solution. Next year, there should be an open preseason competition at QB between Drew and JP. That's my stance for the next 8 months. May the best man win. If JP isn't ready by late August, then I will refrain from any further "Drew bashing" because that would mean that Drew, while a poor starting NFL QB, would still be our best option to win in 2005. As for the rest of the team, here's a list of needs for 2005 that largely reflect what I think were problem areas with the 2004 team outside Drew: 1. K - Either draft Nugent or go the FA route. One way or another, K needs to be upgraded if we expect to win close games. 2. RB - Assuming Henry is traded, we need a reliable vet or a bulky middle round vet to handle the backup duties. 3. WR - I'd like to see another speedy outlet in here, because if Evans goes down to injury, our offense could sputter badly (see 2003 Bills season). A mid-round draft pick or a cheap vet #3 WR would suffice. 4. TE - Not sure how much of a need this will be, but maybe another draft pick with Euhus-type potential would make me feel better in case Campbell and/or Euhus remain damaged goods by this summer. 5. OL - If Jennings leaves, we need to move Teague to LT and find a starting LG and C preferrably in FA but also in Day 1 of the draft. If Jennings stays, all we'd need is a starting LG. I REALLY don't want to see Tucker or Smith as regular starters again. The right side of the line is set, and assuming we resign Price, I like our depth with some combination of Tucker, Smith, Bannan, McFarland, and Sobieski for depth. 6. DT - Only a need if Phat Pat leaves. It'd be nice to find a DT or two of the future, but I don't think this is the year to do it...especially with no first rounder. 7. DE - Schobel and a full-time Kelsay need to step up their game a little, and a Day 1 draft pick rusher in the form of a Bertrand Berry of the Cardinals would be a nice addition for a unit that could use more quality competition. 8. LB - unlike a lot of posters here, I'm content with Posey. I think his stats suck not because he sucks, but because he's playing with 2 other All-Pro LB'ers who are sucking up the tackles. Do we really NEED to have 3 All-Pro LB'ers? No. Of course, some depth wouldn't hurt. That's why I'd like to see a couple OLB's taken in the middle to late rounds. 9. CB - Clements will be a FA next year, and McGee is good but better suited as a nickel CB rather than a 2nd shut-down corner. I'd like to see an early draft pick plus maybe a vet corner come in to at least add quality depth or maybe even challenge McGee for the 2nd starter spot. That is all. - KH
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 You're inventing arguments that I haven't made, AKC. When did I say we should jettison DB? I've said we should bench him - I stand by that. When did I say we should keep Moulds at his current contract rate? I never said that - you've invented that in your own bizarre imagination. Stop dreaming up arguments to shoot down. What you're doing is making a solid argument that Moulds is overpaid - apparently management agrees, which is why they have approached him about "restructuring." 200701[/snapback] Using your selected measure of the "Football Outsiders" analysis you'd play the #45 WR in the league but bench the #21 QB? Help me out here- do you believe in their stats or not, and if you don't why in the world are you quoting them?
Coach Tuesday Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Using your selected measure of the "Football Outsiders" analysis you'd play the #45 WR in the league but bench the #21 QB? Help me out here- do you believe in their stats or not, and if you don't why in the world are you quoting them? 200732[/snapback] Yes because it's a question of numbers. There are AT LEAST TWO, OFTEN FIVE WRs in the game at once. There is only 1 QB. AKC, this is obvious - for your sake, I hope you're being purposely thick-headed.
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Next year, there should be an open preseason competition at QB between Drew and JP. That's my stance for the next 8 months. May the best man win. If JP isn't ready by late August, then I will refrain from any further "Drew bashing" because that would mean that Drew, while a poor starting NFL QB, would still be our best option to win in 2005. 3. WR - I'd like to see another speedy outlet in here, because if Evans goes down to injury, our offense could sputter badly (see 2003 Bills season). A mid-round raft pick or a cheap vet #3 WR would suffice. 4. TE - Not sure how much of a need this will be, but maybe another draft pick with Euhus-type potential would make me feel better in case Campbell and/or Euhus remain damaged goods by this summer. 5. OL - If Jennings leaves, we need to move Teague to LT and find a starting LG and C preferrably in FA but also in Day 1 of the draft. If Jennings stays, all we'd need is a starting LG. I REALLY don't want to see Tucker or Smith as regular starters again. The right side of the line is set, and assuming we resign Price, I like our depth with some combination of Tucker, Smith, Bannan, McFarland, and Sobieski for depth. 6. DT - Only a need if Phat Pat leaves. It'd be nice to find a DT or two of the future, but I don't think this is the year to do it...especially with no first rounder. - KH 200731[/snapback] Open competition in Pre-season is good for any team. Prima-Donnas are rarely good leaders. Aiken got their attention right now and due to his good work in other areas I'd expect to seen his continued increased time with our primary schemes on offense. He had one credited drop but a decent ratio of caught targets. One more off-season might be the breakout for him- he looks like a guy that might catch on with that additional time in offense and become a bigger contributor than anyone suspects. I think the TE situation is paramount to becomeing a good team. Campbell has become a very good player in our scheme but he'd be best sharing time with another good blocker who is a superior receiver. I haven;'t seen anything from Euhus that makes me believe he'll ever fit that role in the immediate future- he plays small and looks small, not good for this O and our reliance on the run. I agree Smith just doesn't have the feet to play the way they want our guys moving around, and Tucker is very marginal in the same area. I won't be surprised at all if we see some movement there in FA. Edwards was an enigman until this season, where Krumrie seemed to get in his head and raise his adrenaline level. He's not as sure a tackler as our straters and he still gets a little high sometimes, but he clearly can split gaps and beat doubles in the middle and there's not a lot of reserves who can do the same. The question is whether he can play a full time role and what effect that will have on our run stopping, plus the Tim Anderson question, a possibly promising rookie who saw almost no playing time this year.
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Yes because it's a question of numbers. There are AT LEAST TWO, OFTEN FIVE WRs in the game at once. There is only 1 QB. AKC, this is obvious - for your sake, I hope you're being purposely thick-headed. 200744[/snapback] Doesn't the fact that we have to carry 6 WRs and we use 2-5 at any time on any play support the notion that this is the biggest piece of dead weight on our roster?Since we both realize "restructuring" means he won't take a paycut, doesn't his falling value (45th league-wide) mean we should probably be discussing him as the starting point for improving our salary/performance ratio before we ever get to the QB?
Coach Tuesday Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Doesn't the fact that we have to carry 6 WRs and we use 2-5 at any time on any play support the notion that this is the biggest piece of dead weight on our roster?Since we both realize "restructuring" means he won't take a paycut, doesn't his falling value (45th league-wide) mean we should probably be discussing him as the starting point for improving our salary/performance ratio before we ever get to the QB? 200774[/snapback] Not necessarily - it depends on the amount that he's overpaid, and the likelihood of finding a better value through the draft/free agency. AKC, why don't you actually try to refute the stats/measurements I cited from www.footballoutsiders.com re: offense, defense and ST efficiency? They totally undercut your bogus argument about strength-of-opponent. Stop turning my arguments upside-down and try actually engaging the stats I provide.
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Doesn't the fact that we have to carry 6 WRs and we use 2-5 at any time on any play support the notion that this is the biggest piece of dead weight on our roster?Since we both realize "restructuring" means he won't take a paycut, doesn't his falling value (45th league-wide) mean we should probably be discussing him as the starting point for improving our salary/performance ratio before we ever get to the QB? 200774[/snapback] Em did say he was willing to restructure already, and I hope you re-review some of the games to atleast see the affect he has on defenses. Again, not trying to sway your point in this thread, because I agree with you on that.
Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 On purpose? Yes. Because Flutie, unlike those QBs I mentioned, made plays, could sense the rush and knew when to get rid of the ball. Was he a great QB? No... but Moulds thrived with him under center. All this with a poor offensive line. It doesn't take much, folks. But Drew doesn't have it. You left out Flutie. Was this on purpose? Also, could you be that naive that you think that the lack of blocking didn't matter? Tell me no! 200670[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Not necessarily - it depends on the amount that he's overpaid, and the likelihood of finding a better value through the draft/free agency. AKC, why don't you actually try to refute the stats/measurements I cited from www.footballoutsiders.com re: offense, defense and ST efficiency? They totally undercut your bogus argument about strength-of-opponent. Stop turning my arguments upside-down and try actually engaging the stats I provide. 200783[/snapback] I'd hardly call the official NFL stats "bogus", but coming from a guy who enlists stats that directly contradict all his positions maybe it should be no surprise! Here's the best defenses in the league-but I should inform you that they are the, "ahem"- bogus official NFL Stats! Official NFL Stats- Total Defense And for the bogus NFL Offensive stats: Official NFL Stats- Total Offense
Coach Tuesday Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I'd hardly call the official NFL stats "bogus", but coming from a guy who enlists stats that directly contradict all his positions maybe it should be no surprise! Here's the best defenses in the league-but I should inform you that they are the, "ahem"- bogus official NFL Stats! Official NFL Stats- Total Defense And for the bogus NFL Offensive stats: Official NFL Stats- Total Offense 200793[/snapback] Your argument is bogus, and the pompous manner in which you propound it is tiresome (although not surprising from you). The NFL stats are not weighted. The stats at fooballoutsiders ARE weighted. Again, you choose to invert my arguments rather than actually address them head-on (and again, no surprise coming from you).
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Em did say he was willing to restructure already, and I hope you re-review some of the games to atleast see the affect he has on defenses. Again, not trying to sway your point in this thread, because I agree with you on that. 200784[/snapback] Your perspective from the seats is far superior to what I can get from network coverage- mostly the short WR coverages. Moulds will get attention from his rep and there are games where he definitely was smothered, giving ops to Evans that Evans took advantage of. The thing that kills me about Eric is simply his dropping easy catches, and I believe it's infinitely fair to bring that flaw to the top since we're discussing flaws on the team. And I haven't said I want to dump Moulds, I've exclusively said that if you talk objectively about dumping the QB for the reasons obssessively given you MUST also consider whether the dollars/performance ratio of Moulds make him exactly the same type of liability.
Recommended Posts