KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I just went to the following link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php This site ranks receivers based on a number of factors, taking into account dropped passes, fumbles, TDs, total yards, the quality of the defense, etc. Lee Evans ranked 14th in the NFL. Eric Moulds ranked 45th. Did I mention Moulds is scheduled to count $8.7 million against next year's cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I just went to the following link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php This site ranks receivers based on a number of factors, taking into account dropped passes, fumbles, TDs, total yards, the quality of the defense, etc. Lee Evans ranked 14th in the NFL. Eric Moulds ranked 45th. Did I mention Moulds is scheduled to count $8.7 million against next year's cap? 201126[/snapback] My sources say that Moulds is the best receiver in football. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 My sources say that Moulds is the best receiver in football. Period. 201129[/snapback] Sounds to me like your sources don't know a whole lot about football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Kurt, can you get me any stats that show that the Bills special teams are not as good as they seemed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The problem with the algorithms sites like this put together is they treat one reciever's catches the same as another. Yes, Evans had more ypc, and I'm sure a higher catch to drop ratio. But, that was against the 2nd tier DBs in the league, while Moulds was drawing the top defenders, and more ofter drawing double teams. Evans performed better relative to the expectations of a second reciever than Moulds did relative to the expectations of a #1 WR, and I'm sure had better stats in many categories. But, this is a far cry from proving Evans was better than Moulds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeInRoch Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 How does it take into account being the #1 receiver on a team (and therefore draing more double teams from the defense) vs. being the #2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I just went to the following link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php This site ranks receivers based on a number of factors, taking into account dropped passes, fumbles, TDs, total yards, the quality of the defense, etc. Lee Evans ranked 14th in the NFL. Eric Moulds ranked 45th. Did I mention Moulds is scheduled to count $8.7 million against next year's cap? 201126[/snapback] I buy their team rankings more than these rankings. In the team rankings, you're comparing 11 on 11 so it is always fair. In these rankings, you see receivers who attract automatic double teams like Chad Johnson, Harrison and perhaps Moulds get short shrift to the #2 guys who get single coverage because of the #1 guys' abilities. I don't think I have seen anyone yet claim that the Bills should bring Moulds back at his current salary. He's definitely overpaid, and there is no chance he could ever get close to 8.7 on the open market (half that might be a stretch) considering where he is in his career. On the other hand, if you can get him down to his market value, I think he's the type of player that you attempt to keep. Ultimately that will be the offseason argument with Moulds - keeping him at 8.7 just won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 How does it take into account being the #1 receiver on a team (and therefore draing more double teams from the defense) vs. being the #2? 201134[/snapback] Well, there were a lot of other number one receivers on that list, and most of them ranked higher than Moulds. Mushin Muhammed was the Panthers' number one target, and he ranked third on the list. Terrell Owens was Philadelphia's only receiver, and he ranked 10th. Even the likes of Joey Galloway ranked higher than Moulds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 I buy their team rankings more than these rankings. In the team rankings, you're comparing 11 on 11 so it is always fair. In these rankings, you see receivers who attract automatic double teams like Chad Johnson, Harrison and perhaps Moulds get short shrift to the #2 guys who get single coverage because of the #1 guys' abilities. I don't think I have seen anyone yet claim that the Bills should bring Moulds back at his current salary. He's definitely overpaid, and there is no chance he could ever get close to 8.7 on the open market (half that might be a stretch) considering where he is in his career. On the other hand, if you can get him down to his market value, I think he's the type of player that you attempt to keep. Ultimately that will be the offseason argument with Moulds - keeping him at 8.7 just won't happen. 201135[/snapback] A reasonable post. I'd actually keep Moulds if I could get him down to around $3.5 million in base salary. But if he demanded $5 million average compensation, he'd be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 They said the same about Price when he was in Moulds shadow. Lets see how Evans handles the double team first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 They said the same about Price when he was in Moulds shadow. Lets see how Evans handles the double team first. 201147[/snapback] I'm not in favor of making Evans the possession receiver. If we cut Moulds, we would have to shop for a possession receiver on the open market. We could probably pick someone up for $3 million a year. He wouldn't be the best, but then again neither is Moulds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Sounds to me like your sources don't know a whole lot about football. 201130[/snapback] Nice link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Did I mention Moulds is scheduled to count $8.7 million against next year's cap? 201126[/snapback] Did I mention Moulds is willing to restructure his contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Kurt, can you get me any stats that show that the Bills special teams are not as good as they seemed? 201131[/snapback] Only on Punt Coverage...... I will dig out the details - but from what I recall we were first at everything except that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 im sure they consitered salary in that #. for what evans is making, hes a very large contributer to our Offense. when he doesnt cetch the ball, the dont move the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 pffffftttt...say what you want about Moulds but the guy is one of the best in the league. He's a true number one reciever. He made Peerless Price a rich man, and he's going to do the same for Lee Evans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 No statistic can define a #1 WR's ability to take pressure off of the rest of an offense by taking away prep time and drawing double teams and allow other players (like #2 Wr's) to flourish. I love Evans, but I'm not ready to see him as the #1 and have Moulds off the team. Moulds has already said he's willing to restructure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 im sure they consitered salary in that #. for what evans is making, hes a very large contributer to our Offense. when he doesnt cetch the ball, the dont move the ball. 201365[/snapback] They don't take salary into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 pffffftttt...say what you want about Moulds but the guy is one of the best in the league. He's a true number one reciever. He made Peerless Price a rich man, and he's going to do the same for Lee Evans. 201370[/snapback] Saying he's one of the best in the league is going pretty far when he's ranked 44th. Moulds isn't the same player he was in 2002 when he made Price a rich man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crows57 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I buy their team rankings more than these rankings. In the team rankings, you're comparing 11 on 11 so it is always fair. In these rankings, you see receivers who attract automatic double teams like Chad Johnson, Harrison and perhaps Moulds get short shrift to the #2 guys who get single coverage because of the #1 guys' abilities. 201135[/snapback] Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts