rockpile Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 who has the short memories? j.d. hill and rashad were long gone by the time piccone joined the bills in '77, and butler and lewis joined the squad a couple of years after later. o'j.'s last decent season with the bills was '76, which is a year before piccone arrived. and the point is that he was a marginal nfl player, not a difference maker, yet he holds a place in the heart of many bills fans. he couldn't break into the starting lineup, yet so many people have extremely fond memories of his playmaking skills. he averaged 13.5 receptions and 1 td per season and played on special teams. 'nuff said. 523424[/snapback] OJ, Hill and Rashad - my bad. (teach me to try and do non-work stats at work!) Butler 79-82, Chandler 71-79, and Lewis 79 were teammates, though. I cannot really argue, Lou Piccone's a favorite of mine and I believe that stats do not tell all the story of a player's importance to a team.
JDG Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 I will say this: It sounds to me like MM is trying to take the high road and to put together a team which, like the Pats, does not focus on individuals but rather the team. If Mularkey is taking the high ground, why is Mularkey talking to the media with comments like "He took himself out of the game", while it is *Moulds* who is making the tactful "no comment" to the media? JDG
BigAL Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 So why was the safety the closest man to Evans on at least one of the bombs and three guys were on Evans on his third TD. Yeah, right. 523499[/snapback] I deleted my Tivo recording yesterday, so I can't go back and check, but that certainly is not my recollection. i remember the announcers mentioning several times that Moulds was taking the double coverage.
Rubes Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 If Mularkey is taking the high ground, why is Mularkey talking to the media with comments like "He took himself out of the game", while it is *Moulds* who is making the tactful "no comment" to the media? JDG 523534[/snapback] I really don't see any big problem with that comment. Mostly, he has said it is a problem between the two of them. Someone asked him why Moulds wasn't in the game, and that's why. Doesn't exactly sound like pot-stirring to me.
JDG Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 very insightful post thanks 523526[/snapback] Thanks for the compliment, though I should clarify that I watched this game on TV just like most of the rest of you.... and so I have no way of determining if Eric Moulds was actually double-covered on that play. Heck, I don't even know if Eric Moulds was on the field for that play! The above is simply, based on Buff News reports that Moulds is still often double-covered by opposing defenses (how accurate that report is is anybody's guess - but I'm taking it at face value), and so I simply speculated how Moulds could have been double-covered on the touchdown play *while* seeing safety Travares Tillman fall down to give Evans the easy touchdown. JDG
Dawgg Posted December 7, 2005 Author Posted December 7, 2005 Let me also add that I was told that this is not a popular decision in the locker room at all. Unlike the TO situation, where many players wanted him out, his EM's teammates want him on the field. who I will not name. 1. Moulds was not in the game plan period. This was established days before the game. 2. Moulds asked the coaches what the deal was. Coach said this gave them best chance to win. 3. Moulds suggested that if he is merely a decoy, he should be benched. 4. Coach got angry and benched him. 5. Moulds has since been suspended. Perhaps this is no new information, but wanted to pass this along. 523306[/snapback]
East Brady Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 thats his private life and its none of our business. who are you gloria alred? ellen degeneres?? he is not all so bad ok? to say he is a cancer is way out of line in fact comparing him to TO is way out of line. and as for your remarks for him hypothetically being a woman. i am quite sure there are players in the wnba that have multiple kids with different guys. if i was a fan of the wnba i wouldnt care cause as long as the team was winning id be happy and as long as they were a team player i would be happy.but i am not a fan of the wnba because it doesnt interest me. EM is a team player. he has proven that by taking paycut after paycut. the real guy you should be dogging out is mike williams a lazy sack of **** who is paid even more than moulds and does nothing for our team. TD should be dogged out for being a coniving weasley deceptive little **** who claims we are on the cusp of something that in reality is way out of our grasp. but no lets dog out our best player who gives us the best chance to win. not productive?? he leads the team in receptions morons. do the math. im sick and tired of people being so quick to judge and so quick to just turn on a player like that. I agree with you i dont aprove of his off field stuff with multiple women but to tell you the truth you're being ridiculous becuase even the married players mess around. heck if you feel so passionate about sexual escapades in sports, why dont you go to the vikings board and do some research and do your dissertation on sex and sports. 523488[/snapback] How would they be playing basketball if they where busy having kids???And as far as the TO comment I didn't say he was TO,,,,but the realty is TO did most of his damage behind closed doors in the locker room,, the same place that moulds has done his damage ....as with TO we have only heard the tip of the iceberg....Moulds is the one who brought up the TO comparison not mularkey......there's a big difference between taking a paycut and restructuring a contract.....I could be wrong but paycut after paycut isn't something I would assciate with EM,,,,,If he so great why would his agent let him take a paycut????? I guess I just don't have an oversized poster of moulds hanging in the den!!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 I deleted my Tivo recording yesterday, so I can't go back and check, but that certainly is not my recollection. i remember the announcers mentioning several times that Moulds was taking the double coverage. 523535[/snapback] On the first one, Losman looked the deep safety off and then went right to Evans. On the second one, I believe that Travares Tillman was the closest guy to Evans and just missed getting there. On the third one, Losman gunned the ball into triple coverage. The point is, whether Moulds was double covered or not, the game plan worked because the team scored, so Moulds should not be complaining. If anything, plays like that will take guys away from Moulds in the future and allow him to get more single coverage.
LabattBlue Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Nobody knows for sure what is going on inside the locker room except for those in the organization, but I'm wondering whether MM is reacting to a select group of vets who are attempting to undermine his authority aka "inmates running the asylum". The combination of another losing season can wear on vets who are nearing the end of their careers and maybe MM did not nip it in the bud. Now it has reached the boiling point and is spilling over. MM certainly isn't helping himself by making it as media circus, but that is what happens with a HC who does not have the experience dealing with situations like this.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 dog, until the kc game, evans was having a horrible season production-wise. he's still on pace for a sub-50 catch and sub-800 yard season. i do agree with you, however, that he's a real talent -- unbelievable speed plus really soft hands. he'll be a great one. he's not there yet, though, and notwithstanding the miami game, the double coverage has generally rolled towards moulds most of the season. he also has yet to show that he can park himself in the middle and assert his will against headhunting safeties, which is what moulds, TO, keyshawn johnson, hines ward, etc. do on a consistent basis. 523513[/snapback] Oh, you mean until the KC game when we were playing a quarterback that could throw the ball more than 25 yards down the field and take advantage of fast guys?
BigAL Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 On the first one, Losman looked the deep safety off and then went right to Evans. On the second one, I believe that Travares Tillman was the closest guy to Evans and just missed getting there. On the third one, Losman gunned the ball into triple coverage. The point is, whether Moulds was double covered or not, the game plan worked because the team scored, so Moulds should not be complaining. If anything, plays like that will take guys away from Moulds in the future and allow him to get more single coverage. 523563[/snapback] I have heard Moulds say that he wasn't complaining about the initial game plan. I've heard him say that after the first qtr that we did not adjust to a game plan that would pound the ball and take time off the clock. If that's the case then he was obviously right, and I think Mularkey is being defensive for looking like the idiot that he was during the game.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 McNally said it a couple times I think. And then said that it was already into the season and the coaches didn't want to make the change just then and disrupt everything. Which is, of course, what they are doing now. But I have always thought that the move to OG was simply to get peters on the field because they like him and think of his as one of their future OTs more than a total demotion of MW. And if he wouldn't have been hurt, he wouldn't have been benched. 523508[/snapback] He was hurt when they moved him inside. It was one of the reasons given for moving him inside. Look, years ago we had a 'meet the pros' day down at our Pop Warner complex. The young kids get to be coached by some ex-NFLers. One of the retired players who participated had been an O linemean for the Redskins. I didn't recognize his (or any of the other's, either) name, but the guy was huge. Tall and heavy. He was teaching kid's a proper football stance, which to him was bending at his big waist - like touching toes. A few of the young kids got into proper stances and he 'corrected' them. This is what worked for him, but it wasn't right. Makes you wonder what kind of coaching this guy got, and how much better he may have been with good fundamentals. My point is, don't over-estimate the coaching in the NFL. It's a copy-cat league for a reason, and the media hypes these guys as geniuses. It ain't rocket surgery. As far as the Williams experiment goes, that was as much a reflection of the dissapointment in Bennie's play as an endorsement of Jason's talent. Still, big Mike was setup to fail.
PastaJoe Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Looking to next year, I wonder what the impact of seeing how veterans like Moulds and Adams are being treated will have on the ability to convince free agent veterans to come to Buffalo under the current regime. I'm talking about quality veteran starters, not guys like Bennie Anderson.
KOKBILLS Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 MM certainly isn't helping himself by making it as media circus, but that is what happens with a HC who does not have the experience dealing with situations like this. 523567[/snapback] I think you just decribed this whole situation in a nutshell... Welcome to One Bills Drive...Official NFL Training Headquarters for inexperienced Head Coaches...
splinter21 Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 How would they be playing basketball if they where busy having kids???And as far as the TO comment I didn't say he was TO,,,,but the realty is TO did most of his damage behind closed doors in the locker room,, the same place that moulds has done his damage ....as with TO we have only heard the tip of the iceberg....Moulds is the one who brought up the TO comparison not mularkey......there's a big difference between taking a paycut and restructuring a contract.....I could be wrong but paycut after paycut isn't something I would assciate with EM,,,,,If he so great why would his agent let him take a paycut????? I guess I just don't have an oversized poster of moulds hanging in the den!!!! 523559[/snapback] very insightful question i guess i didnt think that through:). but what i mean is i bet there are a lot of women basketball players that mess around as well. but being a fan i am aware that this is commonplace in professional sports. so you cant just make his little adventures your reason for wanting him to be let go. because frankly the majority of players in the nfl do the same thing as him. and i dont have a poster of him in my den. i just dont jump the gun and react like a powder keg. mularkey was wrong in the way he handled this situation. he claimed to have handled the situation internally but clearly broughgt media attention to it. personally i think his career is in more jeopardy than moulds. plus what took you so long to respond lol.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Damn, this is a painful thread to read. Really bringing out the emotions in everyone. You know, I'm disappointed that EM was apparently not put into the game plan. I'm disappointed that he whined to the point of disruption. I'm disappointed that MM took steps that potentially alienated a senior veteran of the team. I'm disappointed in the players, I'm disappointed in the coaches, and I'm disappointed in the season. There really isn't anybody or anything I'm not disappointed with. 523517[/snapback] I'll say that all told, I'm not disappointed in the least in Losman. Things can get a lot better fast with him if they give this kid a game plan and protection. Too bad that is probably going to require a new regime.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 I have heard Moulds say that he wasn't complaining about the initial game plan. I've heard him say that after the first qtr that we did not adjust to a game plan that would pound the ball and take time off the clock. If that's the case then he was obviously right, and I think Mularkey is being defensive for looking like the idiot that he was during the game. 523573[/snapback] I am one who doesn't trust anyone's version of these events because we never get the real story. I find it VERY difficult to believe that Moulds' main beef was that we weren't running more with a 21-0 lead, especially because we were running a lot more, and he wouldnt be getting the ball then either. I also find it impossible to believe that a coach would have a beef with a former star player for no reason, or that he would exclude him from the game plan for no good reason aftrer Eric had his best game the week before, or who listened to Moulds complain earlier in the year and took Moulds' advice by benching Losman and going with Holcomb.
Johnny Coli Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 Let me also add that I was told that this is not a popular decision in the locker room at all. Unlike the TO situation, where many players wanted him out, his EM's teammates want him on the field. 523557[/snapback] Nice of your "source" to go out on a limb, and possibly expose himself. You should tell him to be more carefull. You don't want to lose his lockerroom insight.
SACTOBILLSFAN Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 i have very mixed emotions in this case. moulds WAS a very good player and a definite mainstay of this team, but to me was way overhyped in terms of his production. I always will remember games like the playoff game in miami where he lit them up but fumbled on a drive that was headed to the endzone. However, EM staying with a team like buffalo thru the DF, RJ, TC, DB, AVP, BJH eras says something about his loyalty. MM (who i think is the worst HC in football) has been here just over a season and done nothing for this team, and same goes for TD only TD has done less than nothing for a longer period of time. Someone who over the past few years i have not been terribly fond of (EM) needs to be shown some goddamn respect by the organization (who i think is fast becoming a laughing stock around the league) because, even though he was never great he was damn good and could have left just to win a ring, but he didn't because he wanted to win in Buffalo, and now he's being treated a rookie UDFA who is going to be cut. Just imagine how bad our offense would have been in the flutie years with out EM being the playmaker he was. It broke my heart to watch thurmal and andre get treated the way they did towards the end of their careers and though eric is not on the same level as those guys in terms of talent and winning he's still Mr. Bill for this current generation of players...I think it was WM on draft day that said the only name on the bills that he knew was Eric Moulds. WM may not know a whole lot about anything but he knew that. So while i was writing this i realized that EM may indeed need to be cut this offseason, for many reasons ie lack of production, age, etc, but he should NEVER be ousted by an absolute joke of a head coach who is the puppet for an even bigger joke of a GM because he is a "distraction" the man has been through 7 Qbs and 4 hc's and gave his heart and soul to the team, and now a piece of sh-- GM and HC are going to make him out to be the bad guy???? F**k off TD leave EM alone and get ready to blow another top 5 draft pick.
Bill from NYC Posted December 7, 2005 Posted December 7, 2005 I also find it impossible to believe that a coach would have a beef with a former star player for no reason, or that he would exclude him from the game plan for no good reason aftrer Eric had his best game the week before, or who listened to Moulds complain earlier in the year and took Moulds' advice by benching Losman and going with Holcomb. 523593[/snapback] Thank you for making perfect sense. What would be the gain for MM? MM has not been doing a good job as of late, but to pin the entire mess on his shoulders is simply dumb.
Recommended Posts