What Moulds did is not excusable

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

but the way Mularkey handled it is probably worse. Choosing between the two is like choosing between the Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are stupid and can't seem to do anything more complicated than folding a paper bag.

 

However, there is no credible third option and like it or not they represent the geographic area where I live so I'm stuck with them as my options.

 

Like it or not Mularkey is here and with 3 years left on his contract (ironic number) I'm stuck with him as my leader.

 

I will support him and hope for the best. I just hope he doesn't claim that this clusterdfluke he has gotten us into is going just according to his plans and everything is hard but going OK.

 

Its not. There is pain and suffering everywhere on our team and merely blamimg this problem on someone else or running out the clock on the next three years is not the answer.

[Simon]

My two questions are:

 

What did Moulds do?

and

How should have Mularkey handled it?

[Dawgg]

I don't know what Moulds did, though I heard one person's account from the team.

 

That said, I think Mularkey handled it wrong. I think Jimmy Johnson said it best during his Super Bowl years: all players are not created equal. He pointed out that if the backup tight end walked in late to a meeting, he'd cut his as$ on the spot. If Troy Aikman did the same thing, he'd do nothing.

 

Therein lies the problem, in my opinion. In terms of seniority and overall team standing (every player respects the crap out of him), Moulds is second to none. It would take an egregious act for him to be suspended and IMO, a sideline argument does not qualify.

 

I loved what Mularkey did about Bobby Shaw last year. He was a sacrificial lamb and it worked out well becuase he meant nothing to the team. To discipline Moulds and suspend him without pay is an overreaction if you ask me.

 

 

My two questions are:

 

What did Moulds do?

and

How should have Mularkey handled it?

525841[/snapback]

[Simon]

To discipline Moulds and suspend him without pay is an overreaction if you ask me.

That depends on what Moulds did.

Unfortunately none of us know so it's just impossible to make an accurate judgement.

To tell you the truth, if I'm mad at anybody in this situation (and I'm really not as I think this mountain is a molehill on cheap stilts) it'd be Ralph Wilson. Leaving Mularkey twisting in the wind for 3 days, apparently not allowing him to run his locker room the way he sees fit is significantly uncool.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My two questions are:

 

What did Moulds do?

 

I don't claim to know. I do claim that I don't need to answer...

 

How should have Mularkey handled it?

525841[/snapback]

 

More smoothly than it was handled, Mularkey and Donahoe. The way it was handled ultimately generated a lot of rumor, drama, and buildup in the intervening days until not Mularkey but his boss's boss suspended Moulds. Contrast that to the immediate and firm commitment of the entire Eagles front office to Owens' punishment. The Bills organization right now looks weak, indecisive, and out of control of the team, not for suspending Moulds (and irrespective of whether he deserved it or not), but for dithering over it for the better part of the week.

[Simon]

The Bills organization right now looks weak, indecisive, and out of control of the team, not for suspending Moulds (and irrespective of whether he deserved it or not), but for dithering over it for the better part of the week.

 

Don't you think there's a significant possibility that Ralph Wilson told the front office that they simply weren't allowed to suspend him pending his interview with Moulds and his subsequent approval of the move?

That scenario seems as likely as any to me. And if that is the case, then the anger toward Donahoe and Mularkey is wildly misdirected in my opinion.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Don't you think there's a significant possibility that Ralph Wilson told the front office that they simply weren't allowed to suspend him pending his interview with Moulds and his subsequent approval of the move?

That scenario seems as likely as any to me. And if that is the case, then the anger toward Donahoe and Mularkey is wildly misdirected in my opinion.

525867[/snapback]

 

If there is, RW emasculated his front office, and they still look dithering. It just means the responsibility for such is higher up than Donahoe or Mularkey.

 

Bottom line: it could have been handled better. It wasn't. If Moulds earned a suspension...so be it. But if he earned it for something that happened on Sunday, but was actually suspended on Thursday, and the front office couldn't give a coherent story to the public about what happened or was happening or might possibly happen in the future... At the very least, it's horrible PR management, even if the situation was handled perfectly from the personnel perspective...and don't kid yourself, when a team suspends a ten-year veteran who holds a couple of team records, it is most certainly a PR issue.

[Chilly]

If there is, RW emasculated his front office, and they still look dithering.  It just means the responsibility for such is higher up than Donahoe or Mularkey.

 

Bottom line: it could have been handled better.  It wasn't.  If Moulds earned a suspension...so be it.  But if he earned it for something that happened on Sunday, but was actually suspended on Thursday, and the front office couldn't give a coherent story to the public about what happened or was happening or might possibly happen in the future...    At the very least, it's horrible PR management, even if the situation was handled perfectly from the personnel perspective...and don't kid yourself, when a team suspends a ten-year veteran who holds a couple of team records, it is most certainly a PR issue.

525873[/snapback]

 

They have a ways to go though before they're up to Dubya's PR level.

[Buftex]

Don't you think there's a significant possibility that Ralph Wilson told the front office that they simply weren't allowed to suspend him pending his interview with Moulds and his subsequent approval of the move?

That scenario seems as likely as any to me. And if that is the case, then the anger toward Donahoe and Mularkey is wildly misdirected in my opinion.

525867[/snapback]

 

 

I totally agree with you Simon. I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions, without knowing what really happened.

 

Strangely, whatever it was that happened, I guess I am in the minority in gaining some respect for Mularkey from this whole ordeal, and lost a little for RW. I think RW's "judgement" today gives some insight into what is going on at OBD. I don't recall any other team waiting for an owner to get involved on deciding whether a player gets suspended or not. Doesn't this usually fall under the domain of the coach, or at very least, the GM (not to mention president of football operations)? I think it is an indication that TD is out of the picture at this point.

 

That being said, I gained some respect for MM. Sal Moriana (sp?) from the Rochester paper says that MM should have let the incident involving Moulds sideline argument with Tyke Tolbert (which Moulds confirmed did happen) slide by the way side, because everyone knows Moulds is out of here at the end of the season. I say bullsh*t! MM's troubles with Moulds, and Sam Adams before him, are an indication to me, that MM knows he has a young team, that needs seasoning. He can't let guys like Moulds undedrmine his authority.

 

Adams and Moulds are on the downside, MM needs to start thinking about next year. He (we) have to find out if guys like Bannon, Anderson, Fred Smith, and Sam Aiken are going to be legit contributers to this team in the future (as he has come to the conclusion that Adams and Moulds will not), or just perpetual roster fodder, who catch 8 or 9 passes a year. I think Mularkey, for all the criticism being flung his way (and I admitt I have waffled on him) has really been trying to get everyone on the roster involved in the game, as Belichek is praised for in New England. His efforts may have been misguided, but I do think there is a reason for his seeming madness. At this point, it doesn't matter much if the Bills win 4 games, or 8 games. Eric Moulds or Sam Adams getting more playing time isn't going to have an impact on this team, but getting their succcessors some playing time could impact the teams future...

 

It sucks for guys like Adams and Moulds (and Mularkey may be wrong about them), but top players have always had trouble dealing with the winding down of their careers. I wish Moulds tenure here wasn't ending the way it is, but this kind of thing just happens in sports. Look at how much Andre Reed tarnished a really fine career, because he just couldn't see it was over. I don't know how else Mularkey could have handled it a lot better. I think the egg, in this situation, belongs on Ralph Wilsons' face, if it belongs anywhere.

[Bill from NYC]

but the way Mularkey handled it is probably worse.  Choosing between the two is like choosing between the Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are stupid and can't seem to do anything more complicated than folding a paper bag.

 

However, there is no credible third option and like it or not they represent the geographic area where I live so I'm stuck with them as my options.

 

Like it or not Mularkey is here and with 3 years left on his contract (ironic number) I'm stuck with him as my leader.

 

I will support him and hope for the best.  I just hope he doesn't claim that this clusterdfluke he has gotten us into is going just according to his plans and everything is hard but going OK.

 

Its not. There is pain and suffering everywhere on our team and merely blamimg this problem on someone else or running out the clock on  the next three years is not the answer.

525831[/snapback]

 

FFS, having been here for so many years, I am in a position to tell you that your posts are great, and that you are a very smart man.

Putting that aside, your views about coaches are dumbfounding.

 

When TD took over, you were horrified at the thought of getting Coughlin. I recall this clearly, but a case could be made that you LIKED Coughlin based on the awful things that you said about Schottenheimer. He was the guy who did truly turn your stomach.

Upon the arrival of GW, you couldn't stand him before he ever coached a game. Why? Because he had a bull horn! OK, you were correct about 1 out of those 3 (absurd reason notwithstanding). So let's talk about now, shall we?

 

Eric Moulds is in his early 30s. He is familiar with the protocol of being a football player and at being coached. My guess is that for more than two thirds of his life, he has been a member of various teams, teams that have had a coach.

MM is a new head coach. Eric Moulds is a popular veteran receiver; a fan favorite in spite of his ever declining skills. The only thing MM stood to gain by taking action was his ability to coach/manage the football team. Read the posts here. Cutting Moulds has already alienated him with some hard core fans.

My point here is that EM has been around long enough to know the boundaries. He should have done as he was told and not put the team nor the fans in this mess.

 

In many instances in life, someone has to be in charge. Otherwise, we could sit in a circle all day and have rap sessions, and take turns getting up to put on the next Joan Baez record.

Obviously, you are free to despise MM for trying to take the team back from the washed up malcontents. Perhaps, like Coughlin, Williams and Schottenheimer, MM is being too forceful for your tastes.

Personally, the gadget plays disturb me a lot more, and I wish him well in his quest to rid this football team of aging, cap draining crybabies.

[Corp000085]

guys, there is no bottom line for us... we don't know exactly what happened. For all we know, mularkey and wilson handled it perfectly...

 

 

We'll never know exactly what happened, and we shouldn't. The only thing that i can answer for certain is that moulds is acting like a respected vet should if he gets himself suspended. After all, he could be pulling a TO.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

FFS, having been here for so many years, I am in a position to tell you that your posts are great, and that you are a very smart man.

Putting that aside, your views about coaches are dumbfounding.

 

When TD took over, you were horrified at the thought of getting Coughlin. I recall this clearly, but a case could be made that you LIKED Coughlin based on the awful things that you said about Schottenheimer. He was the guy who did truly turn your stomach.

Upon the arrival of GW, you couldn't stand him before he ever coached a game. Why? Because he had a bull horn! OK, you were correct about 1 out of those 3 (absurd reason notwithstanding). So let's talk about now, shall we?

 

Eric Moulds is in his early 30s. He is familiar with the protocol of being a football player and at being coached. My guess is that for more than two thirds of his life, he has been a member of various teams, teams that have had a coach.

MM is a new head coach. Eric Moulds is a popular veteran receiver; a fan favorite in spite of his ever declining skills. The only thing MM stood to gain by taking action was his ability to coach/manage the football team. Read the posts here. Cutting Moulds has already alienated him with some hard core fans.

My point here is that EM has been around long enough to know the boundaries. He should have done as he was told and not put the team nor the fans in this mess.

 

In many instances in life, someone has to be in charge. Otherwise, we could sit in a circle all day and have rap sessions, and take turns getting up to put on the next Joan Baez record.

Obviously, you are free to despise MM for trying to take the team back from the washed up malcontents. Perhaps, like Coughlin, Williams and Schottenheimer, MM is being too forceful for your tastes.

Personally, the gadget plays disturb me a lot more, and I wish him well in his quest to rid this football team of aging, cap draining crybabies.

525923[/snapback]

 

 

Bill- I'm responding to your post because you obviously took a little time to think about this issue and my post and respond, but this post responds to the one just below yours from Corp0000etc. that I think gets at the key point:

 

"guys, there is no bottom line for us... we don't know exactly what happened."

 

 

However I do disagree with his point that because we don't know what happened we do not know whether they handled it well.

 

I'm a big advocate of OBD flat out lying to me in order to gain any advantage (even a remote potential advantage like not knowing who we might start at QB). However, in this case, I think we can reasonably judge that OBD has done a horrible job because at best its customers are confused about the nature of the product they are selling at a fundamental level.

 

What's bad about this is that there is no apparent advantage to this confusion in terms of also confusing an opponent.

 

What is potentially worse about this is that the players may well know more than we do about what happened and because this is justified in thei eyes this is a positive. However, it seems far more likely that many, most or potentially all players are just as confused as we fans are about what happened and why.

 

There appears to be a real chance that just like when Coughlin lost his team and they gave up their primary focus on winning to instead focus their attention on trying to anticipate what difficult thing to understand the HC would do next (in Coughlin's case it was weird edicts like his assistant coaches could not where sunglasses, in MM's case it appears that he is taking players like Adams and Moulds who want to play or be central to the gameplan and instead managing their being downgraded in the gameplan so poorly that they respond with a hissy-fit when they are downgraded.

 

I think there are few (one person in this thread) who argue that the outcome may be a good thing for the team.

 

I think my views about managing this team to success (the playoffs at least and really fairly deep into them is success to me) are actually somewhat complex. They certainly are far more complex, somewhat convoluted and get far more of my time than my lovely wife thinks thst football deserves.

 

I think they are complex in that in general I think taking an ideological perspective on this is probably almost always wrong. The NFL is great because its a team game. Like marriage, once you get more than one person involved as principal stakeholders, ideology really goes out the window. In the NFL dozens of folks are central stakeholders to the team.

 

Even if someone must be in charge, it is not that everyone else's views now do not count for anything and can be totally ignored or ignored at all without a price being paid for ignoring them.

 

What MM (and thus TD and ultimately RWS) have done here is simply create confusion as to how things are going to operate in the real world likely for the team (which almost always stops them from becoming a TEAM and thus racking up the Ws) and even worse created confusion among the customers that may well stop them from buying the product.

 

I think that understanding this situation in the correct way is to recognize that what Moulds did is not a good thing and probably should not be excused without some sanction (my understanding of what he did was conduct that was judged detrimental to the team and that conduct revolves around him having an argument with Tyke Tolbert and ultimately pulling himself (leading to his being pulled) from the game). However, though what Moulds did is wrong it does not then make the way the situation was handled by MM right.

 

Whos right here? No one it appears.

 

When that is the case it is tough to sell the product.

[Simon]

If Moulds earned a suspension...so be it. But if he earned it for something that happened on Sunday, but was actually suspended on Thursday,.....

 

I think RW's "judgement" today gives some insight into what is going on at OBD. I don't recall any other team waiting for an owner to get involved on deciding whether a player gets suspended or not.

 

I'm kind of starting to worry that Wilson's (non)reaction wasn't a pr/chain of command snafu, but that it was a calculated response. And that it was the first real action we've seen that may give us some indication of what could transpire at season's end. We've heard endless speculation and confident cries which predict future events, but we haven't really seen anybody do anything which would indicate that TD or Mularkey are in trouble at season's end. I'm sort of afraid that letting his administration twist in the wind for 3-4 days tells us more than anything else that has been said.

As I'm not yet ready to see this whole thing blown up, I hope that this was nothing more than Ralph's way of kicking his two kids in the pants to let them know that they need to straighten up.

 

Did he refuse to play? Maybe, but again its hard to imagine this occuring without some apparent activity on the sideline that the cameras or bystanders notice. This includes yelling and screaming in the heat of battle or some buddy of the teammate in question begging the player to play......

What is potentially worse about this is that the players may well know more than we do about what happened and because this is justified in thei eyes this is a positive. However, it seems far more likely that many, most or potentially all players are just as confused as we fans are about what happened and why.

 

With all the emotion that is standard sideline fare during any game and all the noise that accompanies NFL games, it is entirely possible that Moulds could have had a significant blow-up on the sidelines, or refused to re-enter the game w/o anybody but the handful of closest people realizing what happened.

And I can promise you that if one player knows what happened, they all know what happened. And taking that as a given, I thnk that if Moulds' suspensin was unwarranted we would likely be hearing some real squawking from a teammate or two. Given teh diplomatic nature of the reponses, I've got to think that the players realize that Moulds crossed a line that he should have been toeing and that management's response was a reasonable and expected one.

Cya

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

With all the emotion that is standard sideline fare during any game and all the noise that accompanies NFL games, it is entirely possible that Moulds could have had a significant blow-up on the sidelines, or refused to re-enter the game w/o anybody but the handful of closest people realizing what happened.

And I can promise you that if one player knows what happened, they all know what happened. And taking that as a given, I thnk that if Moulds' suspensin was unwarranted we would likely be hearing some real squawking from a teammate or two. Given teh diplomatic nature of the reponses, I've got to think that the players realize that Moulds crossed a line that he should have been toeing and that management's response was a reasonable and expected one.

Cya

525960[/snapback]

 

I aggree that if one player knows what happened then they all know what happened. In addition, given the nature of the press, the NFL and the public, if one player knows what happened it is likely only a matter of time until we begin to also get a pretty good idea what happened.

 

Given that his action was so public, impacts the quality of the product we put on the field and present to the public and given that costing a player a gamecheck involves the CBA, I think it is a matter of time before we have a clearer idea what happened. In fact, the main thing that makes me suspect it was some outrageous act by Moulds which prompted this is that we do not have word yet after 5 days what went down.

 

Again, the thing which concerns me as a Bills fans is not the particulars of what happens to Moulds, it is the uncertainty about why this happened, the fact that RWS did not immediately endorse his coaches and GM's actions and whether here is any connection with the handling (mishandling?) of Adams and Bobby Shaw.

 

In light ofrecent events, the Shaw cut now begins to look like a Tom Coughlinesque maneuver. There may have been immediate (and ultimately short-term) benefits in getting the players to focus a bit more on the game or risk that they too might get cut if they did not produce. However, in the long-term the visitation of sudden and unsuspected changes in team status can cause problems.

 

NFL teams do well by striling the proper balance between cooperation and competition. The players are competing against each other on the depth chart, but in the end its my team against your team.

 

When it is everyman for himself then your team is not a TEAM and thus will not win many games.

[Simon]

In light ofrecent events, the Shaw cut now begins to look like a Tom Coughlinesque maneuver.

I might agree with that if Shaw had done anything in the NFL after he was sent packing by the Bills. Since his release he has a grand total of 5 catches which leads me to believe that something is not right with the boy and that the Bills did right by cutting the cord.

[Fan in Chicago]

I agree with both buftex and Bill from NYC on this one. I posted something similar in an earlier thread but it is apparent the board guys and media are in a EM-love, MM-hate mode.

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=36401

 

I have repeatedly asked the question but no one seems to answer it. Why do people here think that MM caused confusion by not handling the situation properly ? Give me some sound logic. All I can see is the media which is incredibly pissed off that MM did not keep them updated regularly. They think it is their right to know about each and every word that is said between the coaches and players. It is the media capitalizing on the generally frustrated sentiment that is arising from poor on-field performance. They need a sensation, stories where there aren't any, superlatives when none are deserved.

[dave mcbride]

I totally agree with you Simon.  I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions, without knowing what really happened. 

 

Strangely, whatever it was that happened, I guess I am in the minority in gaining some respect for Mularkey from this whole ordeal, and lost a little for RW.  I think RW's "judgement" today gives some insight into what is going on at OBD.  I don't recall any other team waiting for an owner to get involved on deciding whether a player gets suspended or not.  Doesn't this usually fall under the domain of the coach, or at very least, the GM (not to mention president of football operations)?  I think it is an indication that TD is out of the picture at this point. 

 

That being said, I gained some respect for MM.  Sal Moriana (sp?) from the Rochester paper says that MM should have let the incident involving Moulds sideline argument with Tyke Tolbert (which Moulds confirmed did happen) slide by the way side, because everyone knows Moulds is out of here at the end of the season.  I say bullsh*t!  MM's troubles with Moulds, and Sam Adams before him, are an indication to me, that MM knows he has a young team, that needs seasoning.  He can't let guys like Moulds undedrmine his authority.

 

Adams and Moulds are on the downside, MM needs to start thinking about next year.  He (we) have to find out if guys like Bannon, Anderson, Fred Smith, and Sam Aiken are going to be legit contributers to this team in the future (as he has come to the conclusion that Adams and Moulds will not), or just perpetual roster fodder, who catch 8 or 9 passes a year.  I think Mularkey, for all the criticism being flung his way (and I admitt I have waffled on him) has really been trying to get everyone on the roster involved in the game, as Belichek is praised for in New England. His efforts may have been misguided, but I do think there is a reason for his seeming madness.  At this point, it doesn't matter much if the Bills win 4 games, or 8 games.  Eric Moulds or Sam Adams getting more playing time isn't going to have an impact on this team, but getting their succcessors some playing time could impact the teams future...

 

It sucks for guys like Adams and Moulds (and Mularkey may be wrong about them), but top players have always had  trouble dealing with the winding down of their careers.  I wish Moulds tenure here wasn't ending the way it is, but this kind of thing just happens in sports. Look at how much Andre Reed tarnished a really fine career, because he just couldn't see it was over. I don't know how else Mularkey could have handled it a lot better.  I think the egg, in this situation, belongs on Ralph Wilsons' face, if it belongs anywhere.

525918[/snapback]

 

good post. i generally like mularkey except for the rube goldberg machine plays (which, incidentally, never work except for bledsoe's lateral to mcgahee against seattle last year), and he had to do this. he's going to be here next year, and moulds most likely won't be. donohoe is probably gone, so mularkey has to step up and assert more authority over a young team that will be truly his next year. he's gotta see if guys can play. do i like moulds? yeah. he can still contribute, and is a far better receiver than anyone on the team not named lee evans. i also like how he handled things. so i do think that the decision reached by wilson was pretty solomon-like. he doesn't show up mularkey, and he seems to have appeased moulds.

 

by the way, donohoe's lack of involvement in this -- he's the *team president*, for chrissake!! -- totally spells out that he's gone. i don't think it could be any clearer. the whole thing also suggests that mularkey is gonna be around for a while. if i'm to infer anything from this, it would be that modrak will be gm, because a new gm from outside the organization will want to hire his own coach.

[MDH]

That depends on what Moulds did.

Unfortunately none of us know so it's just impossible to make an accurate judgement.

525858[/snapback]

 

The above tells you that he didn't handle it correctly. This isn't the same as reporting team injuries where Mularkey doesn’t owe the fans anything. This is the team's marquee player being suspended (for one of his few remaining home games), if the coach wants to suspend him then he's going to take a ton of flack if the fans think its not justified. The only way to justify it is to let us know what's going on.

 

This entire thing has been handled so poorly it's ridiculous. Mularkey would have been better served to fine Moulds and sit him for the upcoming game (either all of it or part of it). It would have been, essentially, the same effect without all the drama. It also would have saved Mularkey the embarrassment of needing to have the 86-year old owner fly in and okay his decision. Mularkey wanted to flex his muscles and ended up looking like the weak guy on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.

[Fan in Chicago]

Mularkey would have been better served to fine Moulds and sit him for the upcoming game (either all of it or part of it).  It would have been, essentially, the same effect without all the drama. 

526192[/snapback]

 

Isn' that exactly what he did sans the fine ? And if RW wants to fly in and speak to EM personally, that does not speak of MM's weakness.

[MDH]

Isn' that exactly what he did sans the fine ? And if RW wants to fly in and speak to EM personally, that does not speak of MM's weakness. 

526223[/snapback]

 

No, had he done what I suggested there would have been no hoopla and it would have all been taken care of in house. Nobody would have even known that Moulds woulnd't have been starting (or playing) until gameday.

 

And if you don't think Ralph flying into to okay a decision is a sign that the coach doesn't have much power I don't know what to say to you. This situation would have been taken care of by the coach and the GM anywhere else in the league.