Tom Coughlin in the playoffs...

[JDG]

for the last 3 games of this past season, eric moulds was hands down the best player on the bills offense. that bodes well, i think.

 

badolbilz had a post not long back saying that at least in terms of receiving, moulds had transformed into the bills' first constant short-to-midrange middle-of- the-field receiving threat since mckeller.  i know it's a crazy idea, but he's a big, strong guy, and a lot of the best tight ends (gates, shannon sharpe, etc.) are average blockers at best.  could he perform a modified version of that role? mularkey is supposed to be creative -- here's an idea for him.

560890[/snapback]

 

If he continues to average 9 catches for 102 yards per game like he did in the three games with Holcomb after his suspension, then we don't need to find a new role for him. In fact, we wouldn't even really need to force him to renegotiate his cap hit.

 

JDG

[MDH]

If he continues to average 9 catches for 102 yards per game like he did in the three games with Holcomb after his suspension, then we don't need to find a new role for him.  In fact, we wouldn't even really need to force him to renegotiate his cap hit.

 

JDG

561076[/snapback]

 

Moulds could put up a 144 catch season and there would STILL be at least one thread saying something to the effect of, "Is Moulds worth it?"

[Sound_n_Fury]

Just to keep this thread on point:

 

EAST RUTHERFORD — Tom Coughlin and Tiki Barber may not have kissed, but at least they made up on Monday. As the rest of the Giants packed away their belongings, Coughlin and Barber huddled in the coach's office. During a short film review of Sunday's 23-0 playoff loss to Carolina, Coughlin explained to Barber — probably in sterner tones than either admitted — that Coughlin and offensive coordinator John Hufnagel were not outcoached, as Barber asserted right after the game.

 

Well, there goes your MVP, Tiki....

 

 

"I don't think we were outcoached," Manning said. "We were outplayed. We only had 35 plays, and that's not enough to do anything."

[Lori]

How many games did we give Todd Collins before we labeled him a bust?

560628[/snapback]

Three seasons, 17 starts.

 

Oh, waitaminute - that's how long his total career in Buffalo was, not how long before the 'bust' label appeared...

[dave mcbride]

Three seasons, 17 starts.

 

Oh, waitaminute - that's how long his total career in Buffalo was, not how long before the 'bust' label appeared...

561436[/snapback]

ya know what?? he's still in the league, and he's still a bust.

[dave mcbride]

Just to keep this thread on point: 

 

EAST RUTHERFORD — Tom Coughlin and Tiki Barber may not have kissed, but at least they made up on Monday.  As the rest of the Giants packed away their belongings, Coughlin and Barber huddled in the coach's office. During a short film review of Sunday's 23-0 playoff loss to Carolina, Coughlin explained to Barber — probably in sterner tones than either admitted — that Coughlin and offensive coordinator John Hufnagel were not outcoached, as Barber asserted right after the game.

 

Well, there goes your MVP, Tiki....

"I don't think we were outcoached," Manning said. "We were outplayed. We only had 35 plays, and that's not enough to do anything."

561421[/snapback]

 

actually, they were thoroughly -- and i mean thoroughly -- outcoached (having no nfl quality LBs didn't help the giants, i'll admit). of course, after tiki had been administered the nfl-approved forgetting-of-what-you-just-truthfully-said drug, he came around to the party line.

[NYGPopgun10]

Thanks for the explanation of the Giants season, which really isn't part of this thread.  Perhaps you should call in to WFAN and get your compatriots off the ledge  (Check that, don't do it, I could use an easier commute)

 

The point I was trying to make, and maybe it needs repeating, is that Losman is taking a well deserved beating by many here, but he certainly did not get the benefit of his team mates playing hard for him, like Eli did.  In the games that I've seen Eli play, he did not look too much better than Losman.  The results, however, were vastly different.

 

As to your comparison tagline, you must be joking that Eli is a better QB than Ben at this point.

560802[/snapback]

 

 

Well, I got a reality check for those callers who believed the "Super Bowl" hype silly writers like Mike Lupica referred to.

 

It was NEVER happening.

 

 

I back you up on Losman. I can't understand why so many Bills fans are jumping off the bridge cause he struggled mightily in his first year where he had some starts. Eli struggled too. QBs take time.

 

 

As for my sig, I stand by it. The Steelers' success is based on their ability to run the ball. Big Ben is hardly ever put in a position where he has to make more than 20 throws. You could argue that the Giants' success was similar in relation to Tiki. But Eli wasn't limited in the pass game. He threw it a lot more.

 

This isn't to say Ben is not a solid QB. He is. But I think some tend to overrate him.

[NYGPopgun10]

actually, they were thoroughly -- and i mean thoroughly -- outcoached (having no nfl quality LBs didn't help the giants, i'll admit).  of course, after tiki had been administered the nfl-approved forgetting-of-what-you-just-truthfully-said drug, he came around to the party line.

561454[/snapback]

 

 

Agreed. I hate when athletes back track from statements which are right on the money. Tiki had nothing to apologize for. The Giants staff did a poor job Sunday.

[Bill from NYC]

If he continues to average 9 catches for 102 yards per game like he did in the three games with Holcomb after his suspension, then we don't need to find a new role for him.  In fact, we wouldn't even really need to force him to renegotiate his cap hit.

 

JDG

561076[/snapback]

 

No huh? You are talking about his best games, right? The ones after the hissy fit? Even at that, his average was little more than 11 yards per catch. This for 10.85 million?

Have our expectations become SO low that 9/102 for a few games is enough to forget the distraction, disregard the drops, and make this man one of the highest paid receivers in the game?

 

It IS great to have a possession receiver. Look around the league and see how much they are paid. Moulds is simply past his prime and undeserving of 10.85 mil. by any stretch of the imagination, or so I see it.

[MDH]

No huh? You are talking about his best games, right? The ones after the hissy fit? Even at that, his average was little more than 11 yards per catch. This for 10.85 million?

Have our expectations become SO low that 9/102 for a few games is enough to forget the distraction, disregard the drops, and make this man one of the highest paid receivers in the game?

 

It IS great to have a possession receiver. Look around the league and see how much they are paid. Moulds is simply past his prime and undeserving of 10.85 mil. by any stretch of the imagination, or so I see it.

561670[/snapback]

I knew it would happen.

 

He said AVERAGE those numbers. Do you know what those numbers figure out to by season's end? 144 catches and 1632 yards. That would be one of the all time great seasons by a WR in NFL history...but somehow it's still not good enough for folks around here. Simply hilarious.

 

Obviously he’d never average those numbers but it’s pretty funny to see people say that those numbers aren’t even impressive and don’t want him on the team even if he could manage it.

[JDG]

No huh? You are talking about his best games, right? The ones after the hissy fit? Even at that, his average was little more than 11 yards per catch. This for 10.85 million?

Have our expectations become SO low that 9/102 for a few games is enough to forget the distraction, disregard the drops, and make this man one of the highest paid receivers in the game?

 

It IS great to have a possession receiver. Look around the league and see how much they are paid. Moulds is simply past his prime and undeserving of 10.85 mil. by any stretch of the imagination, or so I see it.

561670[/snapback]

 

In 7 games with Kelly Holcomb at QB, Eric Moulds had 54 catches for 588 yards, an average of nearly 8 catches (7.7) and 84 yards per game. This on a team that even with Holcomb at QB was hardly a highly dynamic offense. Project these 7 games (hardly a small sample size) over an entire season, and you get 123 catches for 1344 yards. That would be 20 catches more than League Leaders Larry Fitzgeral and Steve Smith. The 1344 yards would rank 6th, ahead of guys like Tory Holt, Joey Galloway, and Marvin Harrison - and again, on a non-dynamic offense. I'm not saying that he would have achieved these numbers if he had a full season of Kelly Holcomb, but I think that these numbers do make it ridiculous for you to suggest that he is not starting-caliber. You can talk about 10.9 yards per catch - but 10.9 ypc means that Moulds is, on average, getting us a first down every time he touches the ball.... *and* he is touching the ball as much as anybody in the League - which is more than can be said for some of those lower-paid possession-types you are thinking about.

 

Finally, you and I both know that Eric Moulds isn't making $10.85 million next season. Sure, I'd like to see Eric Moulds' numbers come down a bit - but if not, I think that keeping his better than the alternative of cutting him, absorbing the dead cap space *and* paying for his replacement, for a team like the Bills that has decent cap room anyways.

 

JDG

[RuntheDamnBall]

Agreed. I hate when athletes back track from statements which are right on the money. Tiki had nothing to apologize for. The Giants staff did a poor job Sunday.

561604[/snapback]

The thing is, you take that and air it out in public and it becomes a team problem. Tiki shouldn't have done that. He should have talked to the coaches in private afterwards and said "This is what we need to do to get better. I could see things out on the field that they were doing / we could have done and I know how we can adjust and win games like this."

 

Telling the (rabid NY sports) media your coach just f---ed up is not a good idea. Ever. I'd expect Tiki to be smarter. He knows that as a player RBs can't take many more years of abuse. His team is depending on him if they're going to make it during his career.

[Bill from NYC]

  I'm not saying that he would have achieved these numbers if he had a full season of Kelly Holcomb, but I think that these numbers do make it ridiculous for you to suggest that he is not starting-caliber.   

 

JDG

561723[/snapback]

 

And I am NOT saying that he isn't starting caliber. I just think that at this stage of his career, he is a possession reveiver, and these guys do not get paid such sums of money.

Perhaps (in terms of keeping Moulds around) much depends on what we can do in free agency. For instance, if keeping Moulds would prevent us from signing Hutch, Bentley, or another good player with an upside, Eric should be shown the door.

Otoh, if we cannot get free agents in here, it might sadly make sense to keep Eric, along with his tude, cap busting contract, 10 ypc average and declining set of skills.

[GG]

As for my sig, I stand by it. The Steelers' success is based on their ability to run the ball. Big Ben is hardly ever put in a position where he has to make more than 20 throws. You could argue that the Giants' success was similar in relation to Tiki. But Eli wasn't limited in the pass game. He threw it a lot more.

 

This isn't to say Ben is not a solid QB. He is. But I think some tend to overrate him.

561602[/snapback]

 

As the old adage goes, the great ones make it look easy.

 

NFL QBs aren't asked to do too many things, really. All they have to do is hand the ball off and sometimes find one out of five open guys in the field. Piece of cake.

 

Where we start running into circular arguments is divining the cause of effective offenses. As a subscriber to the run and stop the run, philosophy, I agree that you cannot build an effective offense without the running game.

 

But for the defensive part of the fable, your job of stopping the run is that much easier when you don't have to worry about the opponents' passing game. This is where the knock on Ben comes in - he's only asked to throw 20 times per game. The key, IMHOP, is that he is more productive in those 20 throws than a QB who's asked to air it out 30 times. This means that the efficient offense can keep the D off-balance because stacking the run will get them burnt.

 

Again, I'll go back to the Steelers games when Ben was injured, and opponents didn't care for Maddox & Batch. The theory that Pitt's running game is so dominant, that you could insert any QB and still win, was easily refuted in midseason. For all the cries about Trent Dilfer leading a SB victory, how successful have the Ravens been without him, even though they were among the best rushing teams in the NFL since his departure?

 

The Steelers resurgence has coincided exactly with Ben's play. Bellichick would be half the genius without Brady.

[dave mcbride]

As the old adage goes, the great ones make it look easy. 

 

NFL QBs aren't asked to do too many things, really.  All they have to do is hand the ball off and sometimes find one out of five open guys in the field.  Piece of cake.

 

Where we start running into circular arguments is divining the cause of effective offenses.  As a subscriber to the run and stop the run, philosophy, I agree that you cannot build an effective offense without the running game.

 

But for the defensive part of the fable, your job of stopping the run is that much easier when you don't have to worry about the opponents' passing game.  This is where the knock on Ben comes in - he's only asked to throw 20 times per game.  The key, IMHOP, is that he is more productive in those 20 throws than a QB who's asked to air it out 30 times.  This means that the efficient offense can keep the D off-balance because stacking the run will get them burnt.

 

Again, I'll go back to the Steelers games when Ben was injured, and opponents didn't care for Maddox & Batch.  The theory that Pitt's running game is so dominant, that you could insert any QB and still win, was easily refuted in midseason.  For all the cries about Trent Dilfer leading a SB victory, how successful have the Ravens been without him, even though they were among the best rushing teams in the NFL since his departure?

 

The Steelers resurgence has coincided exactly with Ben's play.  Bellichick would be half the genius without Brady.

561779[/snapback]

 

just throwing this out there -- hasn't tiki run for almost 3500 yards in the past 2 years?? some running game ...

[Adam]

Coughlin is an excellent coach!!!! In his 2nd year, he got Jacksonville to the AFC title game, and has usually gotten the most out of his team- even in losing seasons. Any negativity out there about him s from soft players who can't handle his style- those guys arent good enough anyways.

 

and to those wanting to trade Mularkey from him- maybe that would be good, maybe not. The fact is that we don't know enough about Mularkey yet- we've had him here just 2 seasons.

[JDG]

And I am NOT saying that he isn't starting caliber. I just think that at this stage of his career, he is a possession reveiver, and these guys do not get paid such sums of money.

Perhaps (in terms of keeping Moulds around) much depends on what we can do in free agency. For instance, if keeping Moulds would prevent us from signing Hutch, Bentley, or another good player with an upside, Eric should be shown the door.

Otoh, if we cannot get free agents in here, it might sadly make sense to keep Eric, along with his tude, cap busting contract, 10 ypc average and declining set of skills. 

561742[/snapback]

 

Well, you've done a remarkable job of insinuating that you don't consider him to be starting caliber. But anyhow, Moulds will *not* be paid $10.85 million next year. The signing bonus is in the past, and it counts against the cap whether we keep Moulds or cut Moulds, so acting like Moulds sill be paid his full cap hit is not an accurate or precise way of talking about this situation. Moreover, Bills Daily has the following contract info:

WR Eric Moulds - 3 yrs. $18M. SB $5 M. Base $1.5 M (2005).

 

These numbers appear to not be 100% accurate, based on the $10.85 figure from WGR, but I'll go through the exercise here using the Bills Daily numbers for demonstration purposes, since they are what we have: Moulds would have a $5mil, or probably slightly less, base salary next year (obviously without any information on incentives). So, tack onto the base salary that $1.67mil in unamortized signing bonus for a cap hit that is closer the $7mil. But according to these numbers, if we cut Moulds, we only save $3.3mil in cap space ($5mil base - $1.67 in accelerated unamortized signing bonus.) Out of that $3.3mil, some portion of that will have to be used on signing a free agent WR - unless you want Losman throwing to Parrish as a starting WR next year. Thus, our true cap savings, presuming that you replace Moulds is ($3.3mil - 1st Year FA WR cap hit.)

 

The true figures are probably somewhere in-between, but I don't think it helps anything to speak of Moulds being *paid* $10.85mil - which suggests that somehow that amount of money can be saved. The true savings subtracts the dead cap money, plus the cost of a replacement.

 

JDG

[The Dean]

Coughlin is an excellent coach!!!! In his 2nd year, he got Jacksonville to the AFC title game, and has usually gotten the most out of his team- even in losing seasons. Any negativity out there about him s from soft players who can't handle his style- those guys arent good enough anyways.

 

and to those wanting to trade Mularkey from him- maybe that would be good, maybe not. The fact is that we don't know enough about Mularkey yet- we've had him here just 2 seasons.

561789[/snapback]

 

 

He blows so hard he sucks. His players hate him...he crawls in a hole during the playoffs and his breath smells.

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, you've done a remarkable job of insinuating that you don't consider him to be starting caliber.  But anyhow, Moulds will *not* be paid $10.85 million next year.  The signing bonus is in the past, and it counts against the cap whether we keep Moulds or cut Moulds, so acting like Moulds sill be paid his full cap hit is not an accurate or precise way of talking about this situation.  Moreover,  Bills Daily has the following contract info:

WR Eric Moulds - 3 yrs. $18M. SB $5 M. Base $1.5 M (2005).

 

These numbers appear to not be 100% accurate, based on the $10.85 figure from WGR, but I'll go through the exercise here using the Bills Daily numbers for demonstration purposes, since they are what we have:  Moulds would have a $5mil, or probably slightly less, base salary next year (obviously without any information on incentives).  So, tack onto the base salary that $1.67mil in unamortized signing bonus for a cap hit that is closer the $7mil.  But according to these numbers, if we cut Moulds, we only save $3.3mil in cap space ($5mil base - $1.67 in accelerated unamortized signing bonus.)    Out of that $3.3mil, some portion of that will have to be used on signing a free agent WR - unless you want Losman throwing to Parrish as a starting WR next year.  Thus, our true cap savings, presuming that you replace Moulds is ($3.3mil - 1st Year FA WR cap hit.) 

 

The true figures are probably somewhere in-between, but I don't think it helps anything to speak of Moulds being *paid* $10.85mil - which suggests that somehow that amount of money can be saved.  The true savings subtracts the dead cap money, plus the cost of a replacement.

 

JDG

561798[/snapback]

I would assume that the Billsdaily figures are the contract extension that Moulds signed. So those may be his real figures, but his base contract for 2006 probably skyrockets, and it may not include the amortized years from his earlier contract he signed in 2000 for $40 million. So you're right in the fact we're not going to pay him that much money in cash, but his cap hit is nonetheless 10+ mil. We would have to cut him, he would still count a few mil on the cap as dead cap, plus whatever we would have to pay him new cap and salary, which is probably 3-5 mil anyway. So he may take a drastically reduced salary and still cost 7-8 mil on our cap.

[Bill from NYC]

Well, you've done a remarkable job of insinuating that you don't consider him to be starting caliber.  But anyhow, Moulds will *not* be paid $10.85 million next year.  The signing bonus is in the past, and it counts against the cap whether we keep Moulds or cut Moulds, so acting like Moulds sill be paid his full cap hit is not an accurate or precise way of talking about this situation.  Moreover,  Bills Daily has the following contract info:

WR Eric Moulds - 3 yrs. $18M. SB $5 M. Base $1.5 M (2005).

 

These numbers appear to not be 100% accurate, based on the $10.85 figure from WGR, but I'll go through the exercise here using the Bills Daily numbers for demonstration purposes, since they are what we have:  Moulds would have a $5mil, or probably slightly less, base salary next year (obviously without any information on incentives).  So, tack onto the base salary that $1.67mil in unamortized signing bonus for a cap hit that is closer the $7mil.  But according to these numbers, if we cut Moulds, we only save $3.3mil in cap space ($5mil base - $1.67 in accelerated unamortized signing bonus.)    Out of that $3.3mil, some portion of that will have to be used on signing a free agent WR - unless you want Losman throwing to Parrish as a starting WR next year.  Thus, our true cap savings, presuming that you replace Moulds is ($3.3mil - 1st Year FA WR cap hit.) 

 

The true figures are probably somewhere in-between, but I don't think it helps anything to speak of Moulds being *paid* $10.85mil - which suggests that somehow that amount of money can be saved.  The true savings subtracts the dead cap money, plus the cost of a replacement.

 

JDG

561798[/snapback]

 

Clumpy posted the 06 numbers once. As I recall, it would cost 5 mil in dead cap space to cut him (already figured into the total) and the Bills would save about 5 million in salary. Also, which you may or may not be overlooking, is that if he is kept, there will be additional cost to cut him in 07.

 

Tell me, what kind of stake do you think Moulds has in the future of this team? Do you think that he will enjoy playing a secondary role to Evans, rapidly fading skills not withstanding? I am not being a wiseass John, but do you think there will ever be a good time to part ways with him?