The last new real official scoop on Moulds

[Rico]

Think I'll wait for the next last new real official scoop on Moulds.

[stuckincincy]

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.

526443[/snapback]

 

So, Moulds was a "disastard"?

[JDG]

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.

526443[/snapback]

 

I find that unlikely.

 

Three of the five drives Buffalo had in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, ended as a result of JP Losman sacks or interceptions. While one of them was a coverage sack, Losman simply took way too long - he needs to throw the ball away on second down if there is nothing there. The second sack was a simple jailbreak in which Losman failed to protect the football and fumbled, costing us at least a fieldgoal. The interception at the goal line hardly bears repeating.

 

In the end, I think the Moulds situation has kind of obscured the fact that JP Losman single-handedly let Miami back in this game with two *terrible* turnovers, and that our defense really choked in letting Miami score TD's on three of their last four drives.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

I find that unlikely. 

 

Three of the five drives Buffalo had in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, ended as a result of JP Losman sacks or interceptions.  While one of them was a coverage sack, Losman simply took way too long - he needs to throw the ball away on second down if there is nothing there.    The second sack was a simple jailbreak in which Losman failed to protect the football and fumbled, costing us at least a fieldgoal.  The interception at the goal line hardly bears repeating.

 

In the end, I think the Moulds situation has kind of obscured the fact that JP Losman single-handedly let Miami back in this game with two *terrible* turnovers, and that our defense really choked in letting Miami score TD's on three of their last four drives. 

 

JDG

526480[/snapback]

Singlehandedly let Miami back in the game? How about three perfect passes put us ahead 21-0 with actual scores? And his turnovers just werent more scores and the Dolphins had to go the length of the field still? Losman and Evans were the two best Bills in the game.

[JDG]

Singlehandedly let Miami back in the game? How about three perfect passes put us ahead 21-0 with actual scores? And his turnovers just werent more scores and the Dolphins had to go the length of the field still? Losman and Evans were the two best Bills in the game.

526485[/snapback]

 

Just because a pass goes for a TD doesn't make it perfect - and one of those TD's benefitted from a Miami defender falling down.

 

Losman played good - but as I've been saying for weeks, Losman has been playing just good enough for us to lose. In this case, Losman played a good 1st Quarter, but last I checked football games lasted for 60 minutes, not 15. I'm not a huge fan of this cliche, but you could argue that Losman lacked the killer instinct to put this game away - he had two shots to get us three points, either one of which would have put the game away - making it a four score game, and instead Losman did the only thing that kept Miami in it.... he turned the ball over. So, forgive me for not calling him "the best Bill" in the game. You could make a case for Fletcher, Schobel, or Moorman for that honor anyways.

 

JDG

[JDG]

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.

 

The player's association isn't looking into it because the CBA gives the teams very wide authority for suspensions up to four games. The Eagles basically suspended TO for the whole season - which generated that case. This is a one game suspension, and the NFLPA has no case.

 

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.

 

Oh come on, all the published reports on this story say that Moulds claimed he was having a trainer investigate pain he was feeling in his Achilles. Those same reports indicate that Tolbert told Moulds to go back in the game anyways. The key detail we're missing here is *why*?

 

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.

526411[/snapback]

 

It still seems to me that Mularkey has let this thing get blow out of all proportion to whatever incident happened.

 

JDG

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

Everyone's forgetting the obvious and perhaps MOST IMPORTANT thing. If the story's true that he felt a twinge in his achilles tendon, and came out due to that, then the coach was ordering a guy back in who felt he was hurt. Say what you want about the broad range of possibility for interpretation of "hurt", but one thing remains true... If the team doesn't back down (they won't) then look for Moulds to WIN a grievance that will make the Bills look very bad. Eric WILL get the last laugh here. Just my two cents ...

[GG]

Oh come on, all the published reports on this story say that Moulds claimed he was having a trainer investigate pain he was feeling in his Achilles.  Those same reports indicate that Tolbert told Moulds to go back in the game anyways.  The key detail we're missing here is *why*?

526507[/snapback]

 

Because all those published reports came from Moulds' side, and his version changed depending on which one of his advisors spun it. Also, the trainer story came out on Tues/Wed, when Moulds apparently realized that he had screwed up and needed a face saving rationale for not going in. If he had a bum Achilles, why not let the media know right after the game on Sunday?

 

Does anyone else find a contradiction of Moulds not being happy with his lack of involvement in the game plan, but then criticizing Mularkey for not running more?

[cåblelady]

What a fun team to be a fan of now.

526338[/snapback]

 

I can't wait to boo Mularkey!

[Ghost of BiB]

I can't wait to boo Mularkey! 

526633[/snapback]

 

I like your nipple.

[cåblelady]

I like your nipple.

526634[/snapback]

 

I like you.

[Chilly]

I like you. 

526635[/snapback]

 

You like.... HIM?

 

[cåblelady]

You like.... HIM?

 

526637[/snapback]

 

Un-huh.

[Kelly the Dog]

Because all those published reports came from Moulds' side, and his version changed depending on which one of his advisors spun it.  Also, the trainer story came out on Tues/Wed, when Moulds apparently realized that he had screwed up and needed a face saving rationale for not going in.  If he had a bum Achilles, why not let the media know right after the game on Sunday?

 

Does anyone else find a contradiction of Moulds not being happy with his lack of involvement in the game plan, but then criticizing Mularkey for not running more?

526628[/snapback]

It's simply amazing that people think Mularkey, no matter how bad a season or how bad a coach he is, is going to suspend a popular player for no reason, or, even worse, having an injury. "The next guy that tweaks an achilles and can't play a few downs is going to be cut! We will not stand for that here!"

[Kelly the Dog]

Everyone's forgetting the obvious and perhaps MOST IMPORTANT thing. If the story's true that he felt a twinge in his achilles tendon, and came out due to that, then the coach was ordering a guy back in who felt he was hurt. Say what you want about the broad range of possibility for interpretation of "hurt", but one thing remains true... If the team doesn't back down (they won't) then look for Moulds to WIN a grievance that will make the Bills look very bad. Eric WILL get the last laugh here. Just my two cents ...

526536[/snapback]

Your two cents makes no sense.

[Ghost of BiB]

Un-huh. 

526639[/snapback]

 

I like you too.

[JDG]

It's simply amazing that people think Mularkey, no matter how bad a season or how bad a coach he is, is going to suspend a popular player for no reason, or, even worse, having an injury. "The next guy that tweaks an achilles and can't play a few downs is going to be cut! We will not stand for that here!"

526645[/snapback]

 

It's simply amazing to me that people think that Eric Moulds is going to voluntarily take himself out of a Miami game with our playoff hopes on the line for two quarters, and then decide to go back into the game once Parrish gets hurt, and then stay in the game for the rest of the game after that.

 

Your story doesn't add up either....

 

I personally don't think that Mularkey suspended Moulds for no reason. I think that Mularkey has been showing himself all year to be a poor manager of personalities (heaven forbid he should have had to manage RJ vs. Flutie). I think that a misunderstanding between Moulds and Tolbert degenerated into an argument that was probably more heated than it should have been, and that Mularkey further exacerbated things by accusing Moulds of being a quitter and deciding to suspend him for that argument.

 

JDG

[JDG]

Because all those published reports came from Moulds' side, and his version changed depending on which one of his advisors spun it.  Also, the trainer story came out on Tues/Wed, when Moulds apparently realized that he had screwed up and needed a face saving rationale for not going in.  If he had a bum Achilles, why not let the media know right after the game on Sunday?

 

Does anyone else find a contradiction of Moulds not being happy with his lack of involvement in the game plan, but then criticizing Mularkey for not running more?

526628[/snapback]

 

Mularkey has changed his story too. During the game he, or his spokesman, told CBS that Moulds wasn't in the game due to a "coach's decision." This stuff about Moulds quitting didn't come out until later.

 

JDG

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Because all those published reports came from Moulds' side, and his version changed depending on which one of his advisors spun it.  Also, the trainer story came out on Tues/Wed, when Moulds apparently realized that he had screwed up and needed a face saving rationale for not going in.  If he had a bum Achilles, why not let the media know right after the game on Sunday?

 

Does anyone else find a contradiction of Moulds not being happy with his lack of involvement in the game plan, but then criticizing Mularkey for not running more?

526628[/snapback]

 

Well...I did see Moulds run-blocking on a few plays late in the game. Perhaps he wanted to run block more?

[Kelly the Dog]

It's simply amazing to me that people think that Eric Moulds is going to voluntarily take himself out of a Miami game with our playoff hopes on the line for two quarters, and then decide to go back into the game once Parrish gets hurt, and then stay in the game for the rest of the game after that.

 

Your story doesn't add up either....

 

I personally don't think that Mularkey suspended Moulds for no reason.  I think that Mularkey has been showing himself all year to be a poor manager of personalities (heaven forbid he should have had to manage RJ vs. Flutie).  I think that a misunderstanding between Moulds and Tolbert degenerated into an argument that was probably more heated than it should have been, and that Mularkey further exacerbated things by accusing Moulds of being a quitter and deciding to suspend him for that argument.

 

JDG

526657[/snapback]

If he didnt go in the game when told to, he is a quitter. It's the definition of being a quitter. If he wasn't told to go back in the game, there would be no controversy. If he was told to go back in the game and he went back in the game, there would be no controversy. It makes all the sense that he didnt go back when told, but did later: because a guy was hurt and he realizing he was just having a snitfit and this is his job and he was letting his teammates down in a game that was now in the balance. He came out when it was 21-0.

 

I don't hate Moulds, in fact he's always been one of my very favorite players. I hope he's back next year although it doesn't seem likely. I don't want him to be gone or out of the game, he's a very valuable WR. I just think he fukked up out of frustration. But if you take yourself out and then don't go back in, you should be suspended for a game. That's the way it works. And please tell me who else, like GG said, besides Moulds' "personal adviser" Greg Johnson three days after the fact, said that it was due to an injury. I have never heard Moulds say that, or any member of the Bills, or the trainers. And he went back in and played.