To the people who say moulds is a selfish player

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

One thing about this whole thing that drives me nuts... Outside of the Bills community, one of my favorite players is going to be associated in people's minds with the stereotypical Keyshawn/T.O./Randy prima donna WR. And he's not. His reptation can't help but suffer from this, and I think that's a shame. I know I repeat this next point a lot, but humor me: How many times this year did it look to you like Moulds was the only guy who showed up to play?

[Kelly the Dog]

Isnt that being a little presumptious? You make some reasonable points, but it seems like this opinion of athletes and their salary is the base of your assertion that EM is in the wrong and totally deserving of the suspension.

 

I mean, its like me saying that MM is totally at fault here because all head coaches want to assert their authority and if it takes making an example of a player to do so, then they'll do it, regardless of the real reasons behind a player's "detrimental" action.

526845[/snapback]

Not really. I am only making that assumption after seeing what happened today and what everyone's reaction to what happened today, as well as a few comments from the past few days. Now that Moulds has officially been suspended and lost that money, and ISNT doing anything about it but rather just the opposite, makes me fully believe that he simply knows he was wrong.

 

Ralph could have nixed the suspension idea. Ralph could have fired TD and Mularkey. Ralph could have said everyone was a little tense and said somethings that they shouldn't have and we're going to let bygones be bygones. And then Moulds wouldn't have had to say a thing, he would have been exonerated, he'd have his money and he wouldn't have this blemish on his permanent record. But Ralph didn't. He did the right thing after hearing all sides, right from all the participants. And after Moulds came out of there 93K poorer, with a permanent demerit on his pro football career, and didn't appear as he was wronged. I came to the assumption that if he was wronged, he would have not acted this way, and been vocal about it. And his union would have backed him.

[The Dean]

And the fans are doing all they can to make it a referendum on how pissed they are at Donohoe and Mularkey for losing. That is really what this is all about.

526847[/snapback]

 

 

As to the above: There is NO QUESTION about that, IMO.

 

But I can't buy the union not appealing because it's the right punishment for the crime. That doesn't sound like the NFLPA (or almost any strong union) to me. I normally steer well clear of conspiracy theories and such. But I have a strong feeling something more is going on here...I just don't know what it is. We can finish this discussion like real humans...with cocktails in hand...at Dels on Sunday.

 

I've already rattled LA's chain...perhaps you can give him a kick, too.

 

Peace

[Kelly the Dog]

I know I repeat this next point a lot, but humor me: How many times this year did it look to you like Moulds was the only guy who showed up to play?

526853[/snapback]

An upwards of none.

[MDH]

Not really. I am only making that assumption after seeing what happened today and what everyone's reaction to what happened today, as well as a few comments from the past few days. Now that Moulds has officially been suspended and lost that money, and ISNT doing anything about it but rather just the opposite, makes me fully believe that he simply knows he was wrong.

 

Ralph could have nixed the suspension idea. Ralph could have fired TD and Mularkey. Ralph could have said everyone was a little tense and said somethings that they shouldn't have and we're going to let bygones be bygones. And then Moulds wouldn't have had to say a thing, he would have been exonerated, he'd have his money and he wouldn't have this blemish on his permanent record. But Ralph didn't. He did the right thing after hearing all sides, right from all the participants. And after Moulds came out of there 93K poorer, with a permanent demerit on his pro football career, and din't appear as he was wronged. I came to the assumption that if he was wronged, he would have not acted this way, and been vocal about it.

526854[/snapback]

 

 

You're not being presumptuous yet you know that Ralph did the "right" thing after hearing all sides? I guess you were in the room then.

 

I'm not saying the Moulds is free and clear of any wrong doing, but you're being just as presumptuous as those who think Mularkey is in the wrong. I have no clue who is right or wrong (if anybody), all I know is Mularkey handled the situation poorly.

[Kelly the Dog]

You're not being presumptuous yet you know that Ralph did the "right" thing after hearing all sides?  I guess you were in the room then.

 

I'm not saying the Moulds is free and clear of any wrong doing, but you're being just as presumptuous as those who think Mularkey is in the wrong.  I have no clue who is right or wrong (if anybody), all I know is Mularkey handled the situation poorly.

526858[/snapback]

It's not presumptuous to say that Ralph did the right thing after hearing all sides. The allegation was that Moulds didnt play when asked, and his coach wanted to suspend him one game for it. Ralph heard all the facts from the player and the coach and came away with the same conclusion. And no one complained about it. It is only a conspiracy theory to conclude otherwise.

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

An upwards of none.

526856[/snapback]

Only if you don't count blocking, running routes away from the play, and keeping his mouth shut for almost a full season after his role changed. You can't go purely on stats because it could be just as much of an indictment of the play calling. We'll just agree to disagree. But Keyshawn he's not ...

-

-- Oh, and I still maintain that any player who's injured can refuse to re-enter a game. Sure, the coach can take that into account when deciding whether to keep him around ... toughness, proneness to injury, and all that ... But any player who believe's he's injured has an absolute right not to re-enter a game.

 

--

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not saying the Moulds is free and clear of any wrong doing, but you're being just as presumptuous as those who think Mularkey is in the wrong.  I have no clue who is right or wrong (if anybody), all I know is Mularkey handled the situation poorly.

526858[/snapback]

It's a fair assumption to think that. A lot of fans do. Personally, I don't understand it one bit. From my POV, Mularkey was furious at Moulds' insubordination during the game. He's the coach and his assistants' job is to tell players when to go in and what plays to run. Moulds was pissed and insubordinate. There was an argument on the sidelines. After the game, MM said "it was a coach's decision" because he was protecting his player. He wasn't going to badmouth his player to the press, or accuse him of not going in the game when he was told even if that was the case. That would have been stupid.

 

He wanted to suspend Moulds for that infraction. Somehow it got out in the press that is what he wanted. That could have happened a lot of different ways, from any player on the Bills who spoke to Moulds after that Monday meeting. Every time the press asked MM he said it is going to be handled internally, and he isn't going to comment on it. When a reporter said something about he wanted Moulds suspended, MM said, rightfully, I never said that to you, because he didn't. He never told the press anything about a suspension, and he didn't know whether or not EM was going to be suspended because by now Ralph was getting involved.

 

MM has had a terrible year coaching IMO. He has really let this team and me down. Awful sometimes, and maybe he is not cut out for success yet. maybe he needs to go. But I simply don't find anywhere that he did wrong here. He tried to stop the inmates from running the asylum. He tried to gain some power and control back from a quickly sinking ship. He tried to protect his player who wronged him and his team. And he wasn't going to tell the press anything bad about Moulds or the situation because he doesn't feel like he owes it to them to show the team's dirty laundry. I really don't find him at fault here.

[Kelly the Dog]

-- Oh, and I still maintain that any player who's injured can refuse to re-enter a game. Sure, the coach can take that into account when deciding whether to keep him around ... toughness, proneness to injury, and all that ... But any player who believe's he's injured has an absolute right not to re-enter a game.

 

--

526872[/snapback]

Of course. And that player would never be suspended without play for that. Ever. Anywhere.

[Stevie Ray]

Not really. I am only making that assumption after seeing what happened today and what everyone's reaction to what happened today, as well as a few comments from the past few days. Now that Moulds has officially been suspended and lost that money, and ISNT doing anything about it but rather just the opposite, makes me fully believe that he simply knows he was wrong.

 

Ralph could have nixed the suspension idea. Ralph could have fired TD and Mularkey. Ralph could have said everyone was a little tense and said somethings that they shouldn't have and we're going to let bygones be bygones. And then Moulds wouldn't have had to say a thing, he would have been exonerated, he'd have his money and he wouldn't have this blemish on his permanent record. But Ralph didn't. He did the right thing after hearing all sides, right from all the participants. And after Moulds came out of there 93K poorer, with a permanent demerit on his pro football career, and didn't appear as he was wronged. I came to the assumption that if he was wronged, he would have not acted this way, and been vocal about it. And his union would have backed him.

526854[/snapback]

 

I guess my point is that as outsiders, we really dont know what the true deal is. Unfortunately we are left to speculate based on the morsels fed to us by the media and try to piece everything together to come to a conclusion about the true events.

 

Personally, I feel that EM was wronged, but I wouldnt say that I am 100% sure about it because again I dont have access to all the facts. What makes this whole thing suspicious is the fact that throughout his tenure, EM has been a virtual model citizen (as far as being a team player, excluding the spitting and girlfriend slapping incidents ). He has put up with the transitions, the losing seasons, took a lesser salary years ago, and restructured last year for the good of the team. And now this incident happens.

 

Is he frustrated about his current role and about the season - most likely. Did he blow his cool on Sunday - probably. Did it have to come down to MM suspending him - no, not with what Eric has done for the team. Things could have been handled discreetly and promptly.

 

Perhaps EM didnt want to pursue this (i.e. appeal) because at this stage, he feels like he'll swallow this bitter medicine, justified or not, knowing full well he will not be with the team next year, and he'll just move on.

 

One thing to note - right after the game, EM made it a point to state that he did not want to be a distraction, did not want this to be a "T.O." situation. By accepting the 1 game suspension, isnt that fullfilling that mission? And lets face it, 93k is just a drop in the bucket for a guy like him.

[Kelly the Dog]

Only if you don't count blocking, running routes away from the play, and keeping his mouth shut for almost a full season after his role changed. You can't go purely on stats because it could be just as much of an indictment of the play calling. We'll just agree to disagree. But Keyshawn he's not ...

---

526872[/snapback]

You asked how many games was Moulds the only player who showed up to play this year. Moulds has yet to have a great game this year. There have been plenty of players that have showed up to play in various games. At no time, not even remotely close, that Eric Moulds was the only player on the Bills that was giving 100% and producing. That never happened. Hence, "an upwards of none".

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

Of course. And that player would never be suspended without play for that. Ever. Anywhere.

526877[/snapback]

I didn't say that. I said that any player in any sport has an absolute right not to re-enter a game if he believes he's injured. Thay can sort it out later ... fine, cut, grieveance ... whatever happens. But athletes still own their own bodies. As much as we admire those who do play hurt, it's a choice. Period.

[splinter21]

Right. So Ralph is on great terms with Moulds, and comes all the way to town because he's not on good terms with TD, but in the closed door meeting says hey buddy, Eric, I love ya, and you were right, and did nothing wrong, but I need to make these guys I don't like look good, so how about you skipping your $93,000 paycheck this week and look like a fool in every newspaper in the country and be the bad guy in the press for me? Huh, buddy? I know you always try your hardest and these guys don't know what theyre doing. I know you wanted to be in there giving 155%. I know the play calling sucks as much as you. I'm firing these bastards in a couple weeks anyway. But do me a solid, bro, give up the 93 large and take one for the team that has always been screwing you.

526820[/snapback]

yes thats exactly what i believe took place. i see no reason why it would be far fetched. cept i dont see mularkey being canned. TD is sure to be canned. why else would ralph have to fly all the way up here to mediate this situation? Normally it's the responsibility of the president and GM to hande in house suspensions kelly When ralph becomes a bit meddlesome, something fishy is in the air. and i think moulds is not an idiot not to know he would be fined if he resisted his coaches. in addition, moulds was suspended for missing practices not conduct detrimental to the team.

[splinter21]

why did he miss practices though? mularkey pulled him out of the practices. isnt that a novel idea

[Kelly the Dog]

I didn't say that. I said that any player in any sport has an absolute right not to re-enter a game if he believes he's injured. Thay can sort it out later ... fine, cut, grieveance ... whatever happens. But athletes still own their own bodies. As much as we admire those who do play hurt, it's a choice. Period.

526882[/snapback]

You're not getting the point. If that is what really happened, there would be no controversy. For that to have happened the way you suggest it, Tolbert and Mularkey would have been completely insane to let this happen and they never, never, never would get away with it. What you're saying about players is true, but it was impossible for it to happen that way in this instance. If it did, Moulds, Vincent, the Bills players, Ralph, the NFLPA, Jerry Sullivan, every member of the media would be acting like George Brett after he was called out for having pine tar on his bat.

[Kelly the Dog]

yes thats exactly what i believe took place. i see no reason why it would be far fetched. cept i dont see mularkey being canned. TD is sure to be canned. why else would ralph have to fly all the way up here to mediate this situation?  Normally it's the responsibility of the president and GM to hande in house suspensions kelly When ralph becomes a bit meddlesome, something fishy is in the air. and i think moulds is not an idiot not to know he would be fined if he resisted his coaches. in addition, moulds was suspended for missing practices not conduct detrimental to the team.

526884[/snapback]

No, Moulds was not suspended for missing practices. Not even close. They wouldn't let him practice. And I have news for you, Moulds just was fined for resisting his coaches. $93,750 worth. The only reason he was fined.

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

You're not getting the point. If that is what really happened, there would be no controversy. For that to have happened the way you suggest it, Tolbert and Mularkey would have been completely insane to let this happen and they never, never, never would get away with it. What you're saying about players is true, but it was impossible for it to happen that way in this instance. If it did, Moulds, Vincent, the Bills players, Ralph, the NFLPA, Jerry Sullivan, every member of the media would be acting like George Brett after he was called out for having pine tar on his bat.

526898[/snapback]

And here's the point you're not getting. The fact that he said his tendon was twingeing (is that a word?) was the perfect reason/excuse for Mularkey to back off and keep the whole thing from becoming a flashfire. I don't really believe he was too hurt to come back in. But it should've been the lifesaver Mularkey and Moulds both reached for together before trying to to throw each other overboard. Tell you what... here's how we can settle it. We'll watch the situation for a year and let's just see if Eric really does lose his pay for the game or games he misses. And if he doesn't get it now, but gets it in a year in a grievance or a settlement with the Bills, that counts as getting it. I don't think he's really out the money, and I think Mularkey and the rest of them are NUTS for not just saying he was hurt and putting the whole thing to bed.

-

- I'm in a bad mood because my beloved Bills are a national laughingstock. Have you been listening to ESPN Radio the past two days? It's unbelievable. I never thought I would say this, but PLEASE, can we have MORE stories about the Colorado football coach?

[Kelly the Dog]

And here's the point you're not getting. The fact that he said his tendon was twingeing (is that a word?) was the perfect reason/excuse for Mularkey to back off and keep the whole thing from becoming a flashfire.  I don't really believe he was too hurt to come back in. But it should've been the lifesaver Mularkey and Moulds both reached for together before trying to to throw each other overboard. Tell you what... here's how we can settle it. We'll watch the situation for a year and let's just see if Eric really does lose his pay for the game or games he misses. And if he doesn't get it now, but gets it in a year in a grievance or a settlement with the Bills, that counts as getting it. I don't think he's really out the money, and I think Mularkey and the rest of them are NUTS for not just saying he was hurt and putting the whole thing to bed.

-

- I'm in a bad mood because my beloved Bills are a national laughingstock. Have you been listening to ESPN Radio the past two days? It's unbelievable. I never thought I would say this, but PLEASE, can we have MORE stories about the Colorado football coach?

526905[/snapback]

He will lose the money next week I believe, especially if there is no appeal, which there doesn't seem to be. On payday, whatever day that is, like Wednesday, he won't get a paycheck like all the other players will.

 

And Mularkey didn't back off. Mularkey has been consistent the entire time. And why the hell would a coach be pissed at a player for getting hurt? If a guy said he hurt his achilles heel the trainer would look at it. A coach is not going to see a player limp, have the player say I hurt my achilles heel, I really can't run, and then the coach without having anyone look at it say, "Bull! It's fine! Get back in there kitty!"

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

He will lose the money next week I believe, especially if there is no appeal, which there doesn't seem to be. On payday, whatever day that is, like Wednesday, he won't get a paycheck like all the other players will.

 

And Mularkey didn't back off. Mularkey has been consistent the entire time. And why the hell would a coach be pissed at a player for getting hurt? If a guy said he hurt his  achilles heel the trainer would look at it. A coach is not going to see a player limp, have the player say I hurt my achilles heel, I really can't run, and then the coach without having anyone look at it say, "Bull! It's fine! Get back in there kitty!"

526913[/snapback]

OK... We're missing each other by miles here. Mularkey SHOULD HAVE backed off. And both knew it was not so bad he couldn't go back in. If you read it before responding, what I said was that they BOTH should have called it a misunderstanding and played the hurt thing. At least my way doesn't make us the laughingstock of the league. Oh, and if you miss thirty minutes of a game to add four years to your career because you maybe are hurt, you're not a "kitty." unless "kitty" means NOT an idiot. If a guy in any sport goes back into a game hurt and aggrivates it to where he can't walk or play again, then the coach, the fans, the people saying "kitty", Kelly, none of them are going to pay his bills.

[GG]

If it did, Moulds, Vincent, the Bills players, Ralph, the NFLPA, Jerry Sullivan, every member of the media would be acting like George Brett after he was called out for having pine tar on his bat.

526898[/snapback]

 

Instead, you only have Jerry Sullivan acting out like that.

 

Carry on.