Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 I think the most frustrating thing for me is a Bills fan is that voluntarily the HC with the support of his GM and then the owner made a decision to suspend Moulds and not put their best team on the field. I'm not annoyed that this happened because life isn't fair and things happen. Sometimes a quality player gets injured and you have no choice but to suck it up and make the best of it. We saw this in the past when multiple Bills WRs got dinged and Billy Brooks sucked it up and played admirably as our #1 WR. Even looking at the current casr of characters, Moulds got hurt a couple ofseasons ago and Josh Reed failed to build on his good rookie season and Bobby Shaw did not prove to be a #1 quzlity WR, but I was proud of the way this #3 quality WR sucked it up and filled in as best he could for Moulds even if he was ineffective as a #1 WR in the big picture. However, what is frustrating for me as a fan and even more odd for me as a customer of this product is that the Bills voluntarily decided to not put their best team on the field. I understand and agree that there are situations where the actions of a player are in fact so detrimental that it is the right thing to do to forge forward without him. If he were an OJ and killed somebody or impregnaated the owner's granddaughter then I'd sit the idiot myself. However, there certainly has been no action taken by Moulds that has been shown to us fans that would merit a voluntary decision not to put our best team on the field. It\s frustrating as a fan and worse as a customer, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 The Moulds situation, whatever it's cause, was an attempt by management to reestablish control over the team. Mike Mularkey trying to establish that he is the man. Given the way the Bills played today, this attempt sailed wide left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 The Moulds situation, whatever it's cause, was an attempt by management to reestablish control over the team. Mike Mularkey trying to establish that he is the man. Given the way the Bills played today, this attempt sailed wide left. 528193[/snapback] If by management you mean the owner, GM and HC it is clear from the Moulds episode that they are not on the same page re-establishing control. THe delay while Ralph arbitrated the MM request and waited to hear Moulds side shows that they have no effective conspiracy to cooperate. His decision that he described as a Solomanic splitting of the difference between the two undercuts any sense of pure control the HC and GM might have, Even this consideration does not address the point that if pure control by MM simply means that his bad decisions will happen without a check or balance this is a bad thing. TD has done a good job negotiating contracts, pulling off draft day manwuvers and moving the business side of the team into the 20th century from the days where will call tickets were stored in shoeboxes means that I can see him rationally being stripped of most on the field responsibilities and he euns the business side (though I doubt he would accept this). Add to this that firing MM means eating 3 years of contract this looks difficult as well. It's a tough tough thing. However, I see little good football alternative beyond starting over from scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 It's like any other business. Somebody is insubordinate to their management and, depending on the transgression, the person is punished for the transgression. Just like in any other business, if this is not done and people just do whatever blows their whistle then the organizations will crumble into utter chaos. Unfortunately, the chaos is reportedly already rampant. Moulds is not the only player guilty of insubordination; he is just the only one to be publicly flogged for it. Worse, as you say, the public flogging was handled incompetently by a management chain of command that appears, at best, confused and at worst in total disarray. My gut says that Mularkey has lost the respect of his team and is fighting to reestablish it -- but that's not something that suspending malcontent players is going to fix, unfortunately. (Leadership isn't about surrounding oneself with yes-men, especially when the results suck.) I also wonder if the situation isn't being exploited for effect so as to provide a nice source of excuse fodder for cutting Moulds at the end of the season, a decision that has likely been made for quite some time now due to his cap number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts