The last new real official scoop on Moulds

[Kelly the Dog]

It's a poorly veiled excuse that Moulds didn't practice and wouldn't be available for the game on Sunday. In fact, it's utter bullshitt. If they didn't want him suspended a game he would not only be playing, he'd be starting. That was simply to put a public spin on it that I can't believe anyone is falling for.

 

When it's all said and done, this is really much ado about nothing. What seems to have happened is just everyone doing a couple things wrong, and then everyone trying to put the best public face on it that they can.

 

It certainly seems Moulds was pissed and frustrated, which he has every right to be because his time on the Bills is coming to an end and he has little to show for it. He has a right to be mad about the play-calling, I'm pretty mad about it myself. He has earned the right to somewhat be a spokesman, and he has exercised that right a lot. In fact, he was the main man who spoke out about JP and the coaches listened to him. I don't think they made the move to bench JP because of him but because they listened to him and agreed with him.

 

MM, on the other hand, has had a terrible year. And the losing brings out this frustration in him, too. He's trying to hang onto a sinking ship.

 

But Moulds has NO right to not listen to his coach, especially in a game, no matter what the circumstances are or how frustrated he is, or even how right he may be. His job is to listen to his coaches, and he's paid millions to do that and only that. So he should be suspended for refusing to go back in the game. He knows he screwed up, too, or else he would be saying he was wronged. He wasn't, he was just taking the high road now that it is over and he screwed up because he doesn't want to look like a cancer for his next team. He's doing the right thing now but he was dead wrong in the game. His punishment fit the crime.

 

TD, too, is letting his coach do what he has to do. Contrary to the madness around here, there is no indication that TD has ever overstepped his bounds and demanded something from his head coach. In fact, there are numerous indications he never has. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired, however. And he may be gone after this year because his team sucks right now.

 

Ralph was in somewhat of a bind, but not really. He just wants to put the best face on a bad situation. He has to back his coach, and he should. His coach was right all along on this particular issue, regardless of how much his coach has sucked ass this year. Moulds screwed up, MM wanted him suspended one game. Again, that's a punishment that fit the crime.

 

And Moulds should be allowed back. Moulds was the bad guy here, for refusing to go in. Ralph, TD and MM's only faults were they have sucked at their jobs lately. The fans and papers and media jumped all over MM but he did the right thing all along. He wanted Moulds suspended, he didn't blab anything to the media. He agreed to have a meeting with everyone. They settled it and now he gets back to coaching his team.

[dave mcbride]

It's a poorly veiled excuse that Moulds didn't practice and wouldn't be available for the game on Sunday. In fact, it's utter bullshitt. If they didn't want him suspended a game he would not only be playing, he'd be starting. That was simply to put a public spin on it that I can't believe anyone is falling for.

 

When it's all said and done, this is really much ado about nothing. What seems to have happened is just everyone doing a couple things wrong, and then everyone trying to put the best public face on it that they can.

 

It certainly seems Moulds was pissed and frustrated, which he has every right to be because his time on the Bills is coming to an end and he has little to show for it. He has a right to be mad about the play-calling, I'm pretty mad about it myself. He has earned the right to somewhat be a spokesman, and he has exercised that right a lot. In fact, he was the main man who spoke out about JP and the coaches listened to him. I don't think they made the move to bench JP because of him but because they listened to him and agreed with him.

 

MM, on the other hand, has had a terrible year. And the losing brings out this frustration in him, too. He's trying to hang onto a sinking ship.

 

But Moulds has NO right to not listen to his coach, especially in a game, no matter what the circumstances are or how frustrated he is, or even how right he may be. His job is to listen to his coaches, and he's paid millions to do that and only that. So he should be suspended for refusing to go back in the game. He knows he screwed up, too, or else he would be saying he was wronged. He wasn't, he was just taking the high road now that it is over and he screwed up because he doesn't want to look like a cancer for his next team. He's doing the right thing now but he was dead wrong in the game. His punishment fit the crime.

 

TD, too, is letting his coach do what he has to do. Contrary to the madness around here, there is no indication that TD has ever overstepped his bounds and demanded something from his head coach. In fact, there are numerous indications he never has. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired, however. And he may be gone after this year because his team sucks right now.

 

Ralph was in somewhat of a bind, but not really. He just wants to put the best face on a bad situation. He has to back his coach, and he should. His coach was right all along on this particular issue, regardless of how much his coach has sucked ass this year. Moulds screwed up, MM wanted him suspended one game. Again, that's a punishment that fit the crime.

 

And Moulds should be allowed back. Moulds was the bad guy here, for refusing to go in. Ralph, TD and MM's only faults were they have sucked at their jobs lately. The fans and papers and media jumped all over MM but he did the right thing all along. He wanted Moulds suspended, he didn't blab anything to the media. He agreed to have a meeting with everyone. They settled it and now he gets back to coaching his team.

526296[/snapback]

one question - why the hell was wilson mediating this and not the team president? donohoe is the most powerful person in organization history outside of wilson and he can't be delegated the responsibility of handling a measly suspension of a wide receiver with so-so production numbers who is on his way out the door come january and is playing on a team that's gone into the tank for the year?

[KOKBILLS]

It's a poorly veiled excuse that Moulds didn't practice and wouldn't be available for the game on Sunday. In fact, it's utter bullshitt. If they didn't want him suspended a game he would not only be playing, he'd be starting. That was simply to put a public spin on it that I can't believe anyone is falling for.

 

When it's all said and done, this is really much ado about nothing. What seems to have happened is just everyone doing a couple things wrong, and then everyone trying to put the best public face on it that they can.

 

It certainly seems Moulds was pissed and frustrated, which he has every right to be because his time on the Bills is coming to an end and he has little to show for it. He has a right to be mad about the play-calling, I'm pretty mad about it myself. He has earned the right to somewhat be a spokesman, and he has exercised that right a lot. In fact, he was the main man who spoke out about JP and the coaches listened to him. I don't think they made the move to bench JP because of him but because they listened to him and agreed with him.

 

MM, on the other hand, has had a terrible year. And the losing brings out this frustration in him, too. He's trying to hang onto a sinking ship.

 

But Moulds has NO right to not listen to his coach, especially in a game, no matter what the circumstances are or how frustrated he is, or even how right he may be. His job is to listen to his coaches, and he's paid millions to do that and only that. So he should be suspended for refusing to go back in the game. He knows he screwed up, too, or else he would be saying he was wronged. He wasn't, he was just taking the high road now that it is over and he screwed up because he doesn't want to look like a cancer for his next team. He's doing the right thing now but he was dead wrong in the game. His punishment fit the crime.

 

TD, too, is letting his coach do what he has to do. Contrary to the madness around here, there is no indication that TD has ever overstepped his bounds and demanded something from his head coach. In fact, there are numerous indications he never has. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired, however. And he may be gone after this year because his team sucks right now.

 

Ralph was in somewhat of a bind, but not really. He just wants to put the best face on a bad situation. He has to back his coach, and he should. His coach was right all along on this particular issue, regardless of how much his coach has sucked ass this year. Moulds screwed up, MM wanted him suspended one game. Again, that's a punishment that fit the crime.

 

And Moulds should be allowed back. Moulds was the bad guy here, for refusing to go in. Ralph, TD and MM's only faults were they have sucked at their jobs lately. The fans and papers and media jumped all over MM but he did the right thing all along. He wanted Moulds suspended, he didn't blab anything to the media. He agreed to have a meeting with everyone. They settled it and now he gets back to coaching his team.

526296[/snapback]

 

Well that certainly is one way of looking at it...

 

Another is that Mularkey did want Moulds suspended for the Season exactly as ESPN reported, and RW worked out a compromise ("splitting the baby") that pleased Moulds so that he would not speak out about the situation any further...While still making it look like Mularkey got the suspension he wanted for insubordination...

 

I agree that is was a bigger deal than what we are hearing, no question...But if you ask me MM comes out of this looking dumb based on the cover story. So either MM is one heck of a stand-up guy for allowing that, or RW simply did not feel the incident warranted a strong public backing of his HC...

 

Whatever...Both Moulds and MM may be gone in 2006 regardless...Time to move on...

[Kelly the Dog]

one question - why the hell was wilson mediating this and not the team president? donohoe is the most powerful person in organization history outside of wilson and he can't be delegated the responsibility of handling a measly suspension of a wide receiver with so-so production numbers who is on his way out the door come january and is playing on a team that's gone into the tank for the year?

526309[/snapback]

Because Wilson has always been a meddling owner behind the scenes. This puts the best spin on it for the public. Ralph looks like he is giving everyone their say and making the final decision, which is probably fairly accurate. Even though there wasn't really any other realistic outcome than what happened: Moulds suspended for one game for actions detrimental to the team.

[dave mcbride]

Because Wilson has always been a meddling owner behind the scenes. This puts the best spin on it for the public. Ralph looks like he is giving everyone their say and making the final decision, which is probably fairly accurate. Even though there wasn't really any other realistic outcome than what happened: Moulds suspended for one game for actions detrimental to the team.

526317[/snapback]

indeed, you are right about his very meddlesome nature. i would add that he always meddles more when a change is in the works.

[KOKBILLS]

indeed, you are right about his very meddlesome nature. i would add that he always meddles more when a change is in the works.

526320[/snapback]

 

This is a GREAT point...

[Kelly the Dog]

Well that certainly is one way of looking at it...

 

Another is that Mularkey did want Moulds suspended for the Season exactly as ESPN reported, and RW worked out a compromise ("splitting the baby") that pleased Moulds so that he would not speak out about the situation any further...While still making it look like Mularkey got the suspension he wanted for insubordination...

 

I agree that is was a bigger deal than what we are hearing, no question...But if you ask me MM comes out of this looking dumb based on the cover story. So either MM is one heck of a stand-up guy for allowing that, or RW simply did not feel the incident warranted a strong public backing of his HC...

 

Whatever...Both Moulds and MM may be gone in 2006 regardless...Time to move on...

526316[/snapback]

There is no indication whatsoever to me that MM wanted Moulds suspended for the rest of the year, nor any thing he has ever said that would make me believe that. Nor any reason he would have for doing that. That simply seems like a media creation or mistake.

[krazykat]

What a fun team to be a fan of now.

[KOKBILLS]

There is no indication whatsoever to me that MM wanted Moulds suspended for the rest of the year, nor any thing he has ever said that would make me believe that. Nor any reason he would have for doing that. That simply seems like a media creation or mistake.

526326[/snapback]

 

No question that could be true...

[Kelly the Dog]

What a fun team to be a fan of now.

526338[/snapback]

This whole thing is about one thing and one thing only: losing.

 

If we would have held on and won that game as we should have, we would be two games behind the Pats and playing them this week and none of this would have happened. In fact, if Moulds refused to go back into that game he could be partly responsible for the loss, as God knows we didnt do much in the last three quarters on offense. His decoy role could have won the game for us.

 

Mularkey has lost games this year IMO because of his play-calling and running of the offense, and it's on his shoulders. But this isn't about Moulds or Mularkey, it's about losing. If we would have held on in those three games we were winning in the fourth quarter we would be in the thick of the hunt and fans wouldn't be bashing TD and MM, they would probably be bashing Moulds.

 

But of course, Moulds wouldn't have done it because we weren't losing. Which is why it's all about losing. That's where it is TD and MM's and EM's fault.

[JDG]

But Moulds has NO right to not listen to his coach, especially in a game, no matter what the circumstances are or how frustrated he is, or even how right he may be.

 

What do you mean by Moulds not listening to his coach, no matter.... how right he may be?

 

We still don't know what happened. One version is that Moulds refused to go in when asked to by Tolbert. The other is that Tolbert *thought* that Moulds refused to go in, when in fact, Moulds was being attended by a trainer for a possible injury.

 

JDG

[Guest BackInDaDay]

one question - why the hell was wilson mediating this and not the team president?

526309[/snapback]

 

Because the Club President, the General Manager and the Head Coach are one and the same. This left the Owner to arbitrate.

[Kelly the Dog]

What do you mean by Moulds not listening to his coach, no matter.... how right he may be?

 

We still don't know what happened.  One version is that Moulds refused to go in when asked to by Tolbert.  The other is that Tolbert *thought* that Moulds refused to go in, when in fact, Moulds was being attended by a trainer for a possible injury.

 

JDG

526357[/snapback]

Yeah, right, sure. So when the truth comes out after the game, and Mularkey learns that Moulds was really injured and attended by a trainer when Tolbert thought Moulds refused to go in, Mularkey blows up and decides to suspend that jerk Moulds anyway. What world are you living in?

[JDG]

Yeah, right, sure. So when the truth comes out after the game, and Mularkey learns that Moulds was really injured and attended by a trainer when Tolbert thought Moulds refused to go in, Mularkey blows up and decides to suspend that jerk Moulds anyway. What world are you living in?

526363[/snapback]

 

1) Mularkey may not know the truth..... Tolbert may be insisting that Moulds was faking the injury, and Mularkey is simply siding with his coach over the player in a "his word against mine" deal.

 

2) Mularkey may be suspending Moulds not for not going into the game, but for the argument he had with Tolbert. i.e. Tolbert tells him to go in, Moulds says he needs the trainer, Tolbert misunderstands this in some way and makes a snippy remark to Moulds, Moulds responds in kind with a snippy comment back about his coaching/gameplanning.

 

Your version of events as leaves something unexplained..... if we are to believe that Moulds took himself out of the game in frustration and refused to go back in, why *did* Moulds go in as soon as Parrish got hurt? And then continue to stay in for the 4th Quarter?

 

JDG

[tennesseeboy]

Well, in any event we go against our arch-rival on Sunday without the player who has been most effective against them. I'd say MM had better beat them without Moulds if he expects to be around as Buffalo Bills head coach after the season ends. In fact I think he had better show some outstanding coaching and leadership skills in the next few games. No matter how you cut it its not a "proof is in the pudding" situation but a "I've got excuses" situation and this is a little late in his tenure to think "I've got excuese" is going to cut it.

[JDG]

And another unanswered question - if Moulds really did take himself out of the game, plain-and-simple, why did Ralph Wilson have to "split the baby"? Why need to come in and engineer a face-saving? If Moulds simply refused to play, any NFL team should be able to suspend anyone for that.......

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

1) Mularkey may not know the truth.....  Tolbert may be insisting that Moulds was faking the injury, and Mularkey is simply siding with his coach over the player in a "his word against mine" deal.

 

2) Mularkey may be suspending Moulds not for not going into the game, but for the argument he had with Tolbert.  i.e. Tolbert tells him to go in, Moulds says he needs the trainer, Tolbert misunderstands this in some way and makes a snippy remark to Moulds, Moulds responds in kind with a snippy comment back about his coaching/gameplanning.

 

Your version of events as leaves something unexplained..... if we are to believe that Moulds took himself out of the game in frustration and refused to go back in, why *did* Moulds go in as soon as Parrish got hurt?  And then continue to stay in for the 4th Quarter?

 

JDG

526400[/snapback]

Because his decision to not go in the first place was meritless and out of frustration and he knew it. That is why he is not complaining now. That is why Troy Vincent said what he did about we players have to play, and the Player's Association is not looking into it.

 

Moulds went back in the game. I don't recall him limping. No one has said anything about him not being able to play because of this alleged injury and he indeed played.

 

And it's impossible to believe that this is a pissing contest over a misunderstanding. Tolbert wouldnt be the guy deciding if he can go in, the trainer would. And if it was over an injury, the trainers would have been able to explain to Mularkey what happened. The point is simply, and obviously, Mularkey is NOT just trying to take a stand here and alienate an all-time great Bill and fan favorite for no reason. Moulds did something REALLY bad that wasn't a misunderstanding.

[Kelly the Dog]

And another unanswered question - if Moulds really did take himself out of the game, plain-and-simple, why did Ralph Wilson have to "split the baby"?  Why need to come in and engineer a face-saving?    If Moulds simply refused to play, any NFL team should be able to suspend anyone for that.......

 

JDG

526408[/snapback]

Because as I stated earlier, Ralph is a meddling owner and him being an all knowing final and fair arbitrator saves face for his team, saves face for his coach, and for future coaches, and for his former star player and future star players.

[stuckincincy]

His decoy role could have won the game for us.

 

526354[/snapback]

[Kelly the Dog]

526424[/snapback]

The Bills were up 21-0 when Moulds was in the game, taking up coverage and sometimes double coverage, and the Dolphins had to account for him. With Moulds out of the game, they didn't have to worry about Sam Aiken, whom my neice's female cat can cover, and could therefore have more players and focus on stopping the rest of the Bills on the field. Which they apparently did. I am not blaming this on Moulds, I am saying it could have had something to do with how the Dolphins defended us the majority of the last three quarters with Moulds on the bench.