The last new real official scoop on Moulds

[Kelly the Dog]

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

526660[/snapback]

Ummm... because he was protecting his player? Because he didn't want this to become a media circus, which it would have been if he said what happened, that Moulds was told to go back in the game but he refused. That would have been a terrible thing to say even though it was very likely the truth.

[GG]

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

526660[/snapback]

 

How is that changing the story? Is it not a coach's decision to bench him for 2 quarters if he refused to go into the game when asked?

 

Do you really expect MM to tell CBS, during the game, that he benched Moulds due to insubordination? How wacky (and ridicuoulsy childish) would that be?

[Kultarr]

How is that changing the story?  Is it not a coach's decision to bench him for 2 quarters if he refused to go into the game when asked? 

 

Do you really expect MM to tell CBS, during the game, that he benched Moulds due to insubordination?  How wacky (and ridicuoulsy childish) would that be?

526676[/snapback]

 

I saw Jim Mora in LAX the other day... So, sure, it'd be pretty amusing in an evil sort of way...

[GG]

I saw Jim Mora in LAX the other day... 

526680[/snapback]

 

Was he hailing a blue cab, on his way to Buffalo?

[JDG]

How is that changing the story?  Is it not a coach's decision to bench him for 2 quarters if he refused to go into the game when asked? 

 

Do you really expect MM to tell CBS, during the game, that he benched Moulds due to insubordination?  How wacky (and ridicuoulsy childish) would that be?

526676[/snapback]

 

Mularkey initially denied that he had benched Moulds at all - he said that Moulds wasn't in the game because Moulds himself had taken him out of it.

 

You're now changing your own story here - was Moulds benched or did he take himself out of the game? If Moulds was refusing to go into the game, presumably there was no reason to bench him.

 

JDG

[JDG]

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.

 

He went back in the game when it as 23-3. So no significance there. He wasn't coming back in because the game was in the balance.

 

JDG

[Kultarr]

Mularkey initially denied that he had benched Moulds at all - he said that Moulds wasn't in the game because Moulds himself had taken him out of it.   

 

You're now changing your own story here - was Moulds benched or did he take himself out of the game?    If Moulds was refusing to go into the game, presumably there was no reason to bench him.

 

JDG

526682[/snapback]

 

OK, seriously, why does Mikey have to say anything about it at all? Is "No comment" just not in his vocabulary?

[Kultarr]

Was he hailing a blue cab, on his way to Buffalo?

526681[/snapback]

 

He was reading the paper actually...

 

But now that I think about it ... maybe it was the Buffalo News ... hmmm ...

[GG]

Mularkey initially denied that he had benched Moulds at all - he said that Moulds wasn't in the game because Moulds himself had taken him out of it.   

 

You're now changing your own story here - was Moulds benched or did he take himself out of the game?    If Moulds was refusing to go into the game, presumably there was no reason to bench him.

 

JDG

526682[/snapback]

 

You're the one bringing the CBS story in this. If that happened, during the game MM says that it's a coaching decision. In post-game comments, he said that Moulds took himself out. Different timelines, but both consistent.

[JDG]

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.

 

I don't know about that. Here's two quotes from after the game:

 

 

"It's their decision, so I have to live with it," he said. "They want to do different things, so let them do what they want to do. I'm just going to play when I get called. That's all I do, so I'm going to roll with it. " "I don't want it to be a situation like T.O. (Terrell Owens)," he said. "I'm in a situation that you don't want to go out there and make it seem like it's a distraction or something like that. I'm out there playing and my teammates want me out there playing, so we'll see what happens."

 

"The coaches make decisions based on whatever they feel is best for the football team," Fletcher said. "However, I know Eric Moulds is one of our elite players and one of the best in the NFL. He's proven it year in and year out. Whatever reason, that's the coach's decision, but I know what type of ballplayer he is. He wants to win, and he wants the football."

 

But hey, what does London Fletcher know, right? But Moulds certainly gives every indication that it was a benching, and not him pulling out of the game.

 

Maybe Tolbert thought Moulds was dogging it when he was on the field and decided to bench him - but was forced to put him back in the game once Parrish got hurt. At the time of the benching, though, Moulds may have had some choice words for Tolbert on the sidelines - which led to the proposed suspension?

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

He went back in the game when it as 23-3.  So no significance there.  He wasn't coming back in because the game was in the balance.

 

JDG

526685[/snapback]

Apparently it was, because we lost. Remember? There would also be no controversy if he didn't go back in the game when the game was over, but it wasn't.

[JDG]

OK, seriously, why does Mikey have to say anything about it at all? Is "No comment" just not in his vocabulary?

526687[/snapback]

 

It was certainly in Moulds' vocabulary.

 

JDG

[JDG]

You're the one bringing the CBS story in this.  If that happened, during the game MM says that it's a coaching decision.  In post-game comments, he said that Moulds took himself out.  Different timelines, but both consistent.

526691[/snapback]

 

Mularkey said that "Moulds took himself out of some plays." While some people have interpreted that as meaning that Moulds refused to go into the game, it could mean that Mularkey thought that Moulds was "doggin' it" ala Randy Moss on some plays.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't know about that.  Here's two quotes from after the game:

"It's their decision, so I have to live with it," he said. "They want to do different things, so let them do what they want to do. I'm just going to play when I get called. That's all I do, so I'm going to roll with it. "  "I don't want it to be a situation like T.O. (Terrell Owens)," he said. "I'm in a situation that you don't want to go out there and make it seem like it's a distraction or something like that. I'm out there playing and my teammates want me out there playing, so we'll see what happens."

 

"The coaches make decisions based on whatever they feel is best for the football team," Fletcher said. "However, I know Eric Moulds is one of our elite players and one of the best in the NFL. He's proven it year in and year out. Whatever reason, that's the coach's decision, but I know what type of ballplayer he is. He wants to win, and he wants the football."

 

But hey, what does London Fletcher know, right?  But Moulds certainly gives every indication that it was a benching, and not him pulling out of the game.

 

Maybe Tolbert thought Moulds was dogging it when he was on the field and decided to bench him - but was forced to put him back in the game once Parrish got hurt.    At the time of the benching, though, Moulds may have had some choice words for Tolbert on the sidelines - which led to the proposed suspension?

 

JDG

526694[/snapback]

They were talking about him being suspended at that point.

[AKC]

Because Wilson has always been a meddling owner behind the scenes.

526317[/snapback]

 

 

I think that's fair- over time there are enough stories to assume Ralph is less hands off than is assumed by the general fan populace. Ralph has been good keeping his "CEO Syndrome" from spilling out into the media too often, but there is enough of a body of instances to conclude it's going on.

[MDH]

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]

 

According to Mularkey it was a media creation that he wanted a suspension at all...

[Kelly the Dog]

According to Mularkey it was a media creation that he wanted a suspension at all...

526714[/snapback]

Untrue. He was just doing what he always does and what most coaches do and should do. The media was making up all kinds of stories and scenarios, some of which were false and some of which were close and some of which were likely true. But they didn't come from him. And he was saying I never said he was suspended, because he never did.

[Fan in Chicago]

OK, seriously, why does Mikey have to say anything about it at all? Is "No comment" just not in his vocabulary?

526687[/snapback]

 

Saying a few sentences to tell the public is apparently too little for the media and fans. You want him to stay totally silent ?

[Fan in Chicago]

Apparently it was, because we lost. Remember? There would also be no controversy if he didn't go back in the game when the game was over, but it wasn't.

526695[/snapback]

 

Kelly, dude, let us both give up. Group think has set in deep and there is no way we can steer this towards a logical argument. EM has the benefit of entitlement.

[MDH]

Untrue. He was just doing what he always does and what most coaches do and should do. The media was making up all kinds of stories and scenarios, some of which were false and some of which were close and some of which were likely true. But they didn't come from him. And he was saying I never said he was suspended, because he never did.

526723[/snapback]

 

Mularkey claimed he'd "never used that word" (the word being "suspension"). Of course he never used that word, the media just guessed that Mularkey wanted to suspend Moulds and they happened to be right!