dave mcbride Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 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? 562078[/snapback] bill - given the fairly weak WR free agent crop, the fact that the bills will go nowhere near a receiver until rd 4 at the very earliest, and that josh reed is a UFA, will the bills be a better or worse team next year with moulds? if they think they'll decline without him, they better figure out a way to keep him, because a) marv levy and ralph wilson want to win NOW (as they emphatically stated) and b) because mike mularkey cannot go through another year of rebuilding because it'll cost him his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 bill - given the fairly weak WR free agent crop, the fact that the bills will go nowhere near a receiver until rd 4 at the very earliest, and that josh reed is a UFA, will the bills be a better or worse team next year with moulds? if they think they'll decline without him, they better figure out a way to keep him, because a) marv levy and ralph wilson want to win NOW (as they emphatically stated) and b) because mike mularkey cannot go through another year of rebuilding because it'll cost him his job. 562084[/snapback] I don't know. His ypc were awful and he will be a year older. I am not going to simply assume that Moulds will suddenly pick up his game next year. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I don't know. His ypc were awful and he will be a year older. I am not going to simply assume that Moulds will suddenly pick up his game next year. Are you? 562093[/snapback] i agree about the ypc, but i think if they reconceptualize his game so that he's more of a TE-like middle of the field threat, than all of the sudden he's pretty valuable. i'm not sure he'll go for that, but if he does, all of a sudden he fills a nice role in the offense. playing that role means he'll have to be a real tough guy who can give it as good as he gets to safeties and cover LBs, but judged on his performance this year, i think that he has it in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 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? 562078[/snapback] I think they will have to let him go, Bill. Moulds still has skills, IMO, but with all the fancy money stuff, there are limits, and with the team's higher draft position this coming draft - even with the so-called rookie pool cap - they need to save some bucks for filling this or that need. We perhaps think that two million here, three million there is peanuts, but it can make or break the signing of a better FA, or retaining a promising player entering UFA status. I'd like to see him stay next season, but WR is, with half-way decent playcalling, one of the easier spots to ease in an adequate replacement, if not a star. A good-hands guy who runs a decent pattern and gets the 7 or 8 yard completions will keep a defense away from loading up on the run. A coaching staff with brains will mix it up all game long, regardless of the skills of the skill players, and try to move the sticks. Getting at least 5 minutes or so per possession counts a lot, even if no scoring results. That many coaching staffs don't seem to appreciate possession, is curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 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? 562078[/snapback] So, let's say the savings from Moulds are $5mil in cap space. Do you want to start Roscoe Parrish at WR next year? If not, cutting Moulds means that we need to sign another WR... which will cost us around $2mil, give or take, in cap space. Thus, the *real* savings from cutting Moulds are $3mil in cap space. O.k., that's something..... but it is *not* the no-brainer decision that way, way, way, too many people on this board have made it out to be - especially for a non-cap-strapped team. Now, maybe you understand something about the NFL Salary Cap that I don't, but if we keep Moulds under his current deal, I don't see any way in which there is, quote, "additional cost to cut him in 07." I don't have a problem with Moulds' attitude. I think that Moulds, in his old age, got a little frustrated with the Bills trotting out a QB this year who was not NFL-caliber in a year in which the Patriots were mediocre and the AFC East was there for the have been costing him his job. The case for keeping Moulds relies very heavily on the numbers he put up with Holcomb at QB, who was at least smart enough to know who the playmaker is on this team (memo to JP - it ain't Josh Reed.) If Moulds had to suffer for an entire year while the incompetent JP Losman may or may not have worked his way up to NFL-caliber that $3mil in cap savings might look really good to a lot of people, and would certainly diminish the amount of money Moulds would get from the Eagles upon release. There'll be a time for the Bills to part ways with Eric Moulds. With proper management by One Bills Drive, it aught to be the day when Eric Moulds retires. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Now, maybe you understand something about the NFL Salary Cap that I don't, but if we keep Moulds under his current deal, I don't see any way in which there is, quote, "additional cost to cut him in 07." I don't have a problem with Moulds' attitude. I think that Moulds, in his old age, got a little frustrated with the Bills trotting out a QB this year who was not NFL-caliber in a year in which the Patriots were mediocre and the AFC East was there for the have been costing him his job. The case for keeping Moulds relies very heavily on the numbers he put up with Holcomb at QB, who was at least smart enough to know who the playmaker is on this team (memo to JP - it ain't Josh Reed.) If Moulds had to suffer for an entire year while the incompetent JP Losman may or may not have worked his way up to NFL-caliber that $3mil in cap savings might look really good to a lot of people, and would certainly diminish the amount of money Moulds would get from the Eagles upon release. There'll be a time for the Bills to part ways with Eric Moulds. With proper management by One Bills Drive, it aught to be the day when Eric Moulds retires. JDG 562137[/snapback] John, he is under contract for 07, so his pro-rated bonus is already worked into the 07 cap. What this means is that if he is cut after 06, there would still be a cost to do so. I am confused by your comment about the qb situation, because we don't truly know what it will be in 06, but I would think that they will once again go with JP. How will this change things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 John, he is under contract for 07, so his pro-rated bonus is already worked into the 07 cap. What this means is that if he is cut after 06, there would still be a cost to do so. I am confused by your comment about the qb situation, because we don't truly know what it will be in 06, but I would think that they will once again go with JP. How will this change things? 562206[/snapback] there is no cap in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 He blows so hard he sucks. His players hate him...he crawls in a hole during the playoffs and his breath smells. 561930[/snapback] Who cares if his players don't like him.....who cares what the players think about anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 there is no cap in 2007. 562213[/snapback] I will bet you a cup of coffee that there WILL be a cap in 07, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I will bet you a cup of coffee that there WILL be a cap in 07, OK? 562220[/snapback] there probably will be, but players will be getting a bigger share than what they're getting now and it will be different in structure (there will most likely be a rookie cap). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 John, he is under contract for 07, so his pro-rated bonus is already worked into the 07 cap. What this means is that if he is cut after 06, there would still be a cost to do so. I am confused by your comment about the qb situation, because we don't truly know what it will be in 06, but I would think that they will once again go with JP. How will this change things? 562206[/snapback] Basically, assuming Moulds plays out his current contract, Moulds will count for a certain pro-rated bonus amount under the 2007 cap whether he plays for us in 2007 or whether he is cut following 2006. If we cut Moudls now, we have to expend that cap space in 2006 instead of 2007. But there is no "additional" cost. My comments about the QB situation were in discussing Moulds' attitude *this year*. Do my comments make sense now? JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Basically, assuming Moulds plays out his current contract, Moulds will count for a certain pro-rated bonus amount under the 2007 cap whether he plays for us in 2007 or whether he is cut following 2006. If we cut Moudls now, we have to expend that cap space in 2006 instead of 2007. But there is no "additional" cost. My comments about the QB situation were in discussing Moulds' attitude *this year*. Do my comments make sense now? JDG 562238[/snapback] My bad. Additional was the wrong word. The 07 hit would be eliminated if he is cut now, but no, there is nothing additional. That makes sense wrt his attitude, but JP will be in there once again in 06. Hey, if they think that they cannot do any better then they should keep him. If it comes down to him or a bigger need/better player, I hope he goes. This is going to be a wild off season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 So, let's say the savings from Moulds are $5mil in cap space. Do you want to start Roscoe Parrish at WR next year? 562137[/snapback] Aye, thars da rub. Parrish will cause defensive coordinators around the NFL about 5 minutes of chuckle time while Moulds is someone they still have to respect and will roll coverages towards. It's a no-brainer indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYGPopgun10 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 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. 561738[/snapback] I think he was very frustrated. He said that on Monday when it happened. Think about this though. They had a half to make adjustments. Nothing changed. I can certainly see how that would fluster Tiki. This game was at home in front of 80,000 rabid Giants fans and with Giant legends such as LT and Carson on the sidelines. And they laid an egg in all facets. Should have have publicly said it? Probably not a good idea. But he did. I think it takes guts to do that. In any event, Tiki is right about one thing. They need to comeback with the mindset that that game was unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYGPopgun10 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 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] Can't disagree with anything you said. In order to be successful, I think we can agree that having a good offensive line is where it all begins. Whether you run it or air it out, there has to be time to make plays. Imagine if Bledsoe did not get hurt before Brady took over in New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYGPopgun10 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 One thing on Moulds. A great receiver adjusts to his QB. If he's so good, he doesn't sulk because an inexperienced guy is behind center. He must understand that it is not going to happen right away for Losman. Sometimes, they won't all be on the same page. If he can't, then the Bills are better off w/o him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I think he was very frustrated. He said that on Monday when it happened. Think about this though. They had a half to make adjustments. Nothing changed. I can certainly see how that would fluster Tiki. This game was at home in front of 80,000 rabid Giants fans and with Giant legends such as LT and Carson on the sidelines. And they laid an egg in all facets. Should have have publicly said it? Probably not a good idea. But he did. I think it takes guts to do that. In any event, Tiki is right about one thing. They need to comeback with the mindset that that game was unacceptable. 562492[/snapback] I give Tiki Barber a mulligan on frustration. The Giants had just one the second-toughest division in football with 11 wins (in retrospect, they were clearly overrated, being the beneficiaries of having 9 home games this year, and having no significant road wins on their resume), and suddenly all of that glory is dissippited into one of the most embarassing losses in playoff history. Sorry, but teams and seasons are judged by how they play at the end of the season, not at the beginning of the season, and no good team should *ever* be shut out at home in the playoffs. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 This game was at home in front of 80,000 rabid Giants fans You gotta be kidding me, that crowd was sitting on its hands all day. About the only time I heard them making any noise was when they were booing the Giants.......during a playoff game.........early in the 2nd quarter........when the score was a whopping 7-0. No offense, but that was just plain sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYGPopgun10 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 You gotta be kidding me, that crowd was sitting on its hands all day. About the only time I heard them making any noise was when they were booing the Giants.......during a playoff game.........early in the 2nd quarter........when the score was a whopping 7-0.No offense, but that was just plain sad. 562522[/snapback] You're kidding right? Those fans tried to get into the game as much as they could. The bottom line was that lifeless team gave them zip to cheer about. 3rd down and 10 with crowd into it: Draw play to f------in Nick Goings. First down. If you saw your team choking on almost every play, what would you get excited about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 You're kidding right? Those fans tried to get into the game as much as they could. The bottom line was that lifeless team gave them zip to cheer about. 3rd down and 10 with crowd into it: Draw play to f------in Nick Goings. First down. If you saw your team choking on almost every play, what would you get excited about? 562529[/snapback] If you ever manage to get a tape of the low-scoring Bills-Broncos playoff game from January 1992, you might have some idea. (O.k., maybe it was a well-played defensive battle, and maybe the Bills were ahead for a lot of it - I don't remember any more, but for my money it was one of the finest crowd performances in NFL history.) At any rate, booing your own team during the playoffs has to be about the dumbest thing that a football fan could do. Not that it stops them. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts