Mikie2times Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 If we renegotiate Moulds to what he has renegotiated for in the past it will cost us around 5-6 million in 2006, and 5 million will come off the cap. This is according to Clumpys cap page. If we cut him outright we will lose 5 million of his salary, but take on a 5 million dollar cap hit. So basically we can choose to have Moulds and 5 million more in play money, or cut him, and have to reach in to the bank for his replacement. Not only am against the idea from a finacial stand point but also from a player standpoint. Nobody in free agency will draw attention like Moulds will, we even know his suspension was because his role was to draw double coverage! It's an indisbutable fact that we see every game, cordinators still plan for Moulds. Bad WR don't draw double coverage people. Then to think about who we would be replacing him with. A group of FA's who's best players have almost all had great system, with a great QB, and often played behind a great #1. Sure sounds like Buffalo doesnt it? It's easy to forget how important Moulds is because we rarely have seen this team without him, and he has had poor stats (sounds like PW). But think about those things real quick, and it basically amounts to nothing. What sounds more logical to you, our QB's played bad because of Eric Moulds, or Eric Moulds played bad because of our QB's? Who has the better track record EM, JP, or KH? I would say EM without question. So perhaps it was his suspension that has made people turn on him. I was also upset by this, but I also think EM doesn't mind drawing doubles all day and night if this team is in the playoff race. We've stunk forever, and he's had BAD QB's, is the frustration really that surprising? Eventually we will have to find his replacement. Why not do it another year when we have less needs, more stablity at QB/OL, and a better crop of FA to choose from?
obie_wan Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 If we renegotiate Moulds to what he has renegotiated for in the past it will cost us around 5-6 million in 2006, and 5 million will come off the cap. This is according to Clumpys cap page. If we cut him outright we will lose 5 million of his salary, but take on a 5 million dollar cap hit. So basically we can choose to have Moulds and 5 million more in play money, or cut him, and have to reach in to the bank for his replacement. Not only am against the idea from a finacial stand point but also from a player standpoint. Nobody in free agency will draw attention like Moulds will, we even know his suspension was because his role was to draw double coverage! It's an indisbutable fact that we see every game, cordinators still plan for Moulds. Bad WR don't draw double coverage people. Then to think about who we would be replacing him with. A group of FA's who's best players have almost all had great system, with a great QB, and often played behind a great #1. Sure sounds like Buffalo doesnt it? It's easy to forget how important Moulds is because we rarely have seen this team without him, and he has had poor stats (sounds like PW). But think about those things real quick, and it basically amounts to nothing. What sounds more logical to you, our QB's played bad because of Eric Moulds, or Eric Moulds played bad because of our QB's? Who has the better track record EM, JP, or KH? I would say EM without question. So perhaps it was his suspension that has made people turn on him. I was also upset by this, but I also think EM doesn't mind drawing doubles all day and night if this team is in the playoff race. We've stunk forever, and he's had BAD QB's, is the frustration really that surprising? Eventually we will have to find his replacement. Why not do it another year when we have less needs, more stablity at QB/OL, and a better crop of FA to choose from? 590646[/snapback] his dead money next year then would be $10 mil. He needs to take a pay CUT
jahbonas Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 If we renegotiate Moulds to what he has renegotiated for in the past it will cost us around 5-6 million in 2006, and 5 million will come off the cap. This is according to Clumpys cap page. If we cut him outright we will lose 5 million of his salary, but take on a 5 million dollar cap hit. So basically we can choose to have Moulds and 5 million more in play money, or cut him, and have to reach in to the bank for his replacement. Not only am against the idea from a finacial stand point but also from a player standpoint. Nobody in free agency will draw attention like Moulds will, we even know his suspension was because his role was to draw double coverage! It's an indisbutable fact that we see every game, cordinators still plan for Moulds. Bad WR don't draw double coverage people. Then to think about who we would be replacing him with. A group of FA's who's best players have almost all had great system, with a great QB, and often played behind a great #1. Sure sounds like Buffalo doesnt it? It's easy to forget how important Moulds is because we rarely have seen this team without him, and he has had poor stats (sounds like PW). But think about those things real quick, and it basically amounts to nothing. What sounds more logical to you, our QB's played bad because of Eric Moulds, or Eric Moulds played bad because of our QB's? Who has the better track record EM, JP, or KH? I would say EM without question. So perhaps it was his suspension that has made people turn on him. I was also upset by this, but I also think EM doesn't mind drawing doubles all day and night if this team is in the playoff race. We've stunk forever, and he's had BAD QB's, is the frustration really that surprising? Eventually we will have to find his replacement. Why not do it another year when we have less needs, more stablity at QB/OL, and a better crop of FA to choose from? 590646[/snapback] Is this Tom Donahoe posting here???? Learn your lesson from the current Superbowl team Pittsburgh Steelers. Last year they allowed WR Plexico Burress to walk and took those savings and signed talented FA Guard Jeff Hartings. Thats how you win in this league. We have Lee Evans and Roscoe Parrish - can you name the 2nd WR on Pittsburgh now..or carolinas or seattles or denvers??? Let WR Moulds walk
elwooddowd Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Moulds is an excellent player and deserves the big contract, but he is not what this team currently needs at that price. He would be the answer to Philly's or Denver's prayers and the Bills could spend that money on more pressing needs ( OL od DL ). For his sake I hope he gets to play some where the national media would give him the recognition he is due.
Mikie2times Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 his dead money next year then would be $10 mil. He needs to take a pay CUT 590694[/snapback] Who says he won't renegotiate now when he has in the past? Read the post, his renegotiated deal from last year gave him 5.5 million. A similar deal could be worked in the same range. We would then have that extra 4 million or so to help our us in free agency. Next year we review the FA crop again, if his a successor is available you deal with it then, you don't do it when the best of the WR class are no more proven then Alvin Harper or PP.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Is this Tom Donahoe posting here????Learn your lesson from the current Superbowl team Pittsburgh Steelers. Last year they allowed WR Plexico Burress to walk and took those savings and signed talented FA Guard Jeff Hartings. Thats how you win in this league. We have Lee Evans and Roscoe Parrish - can you name the 2nd WR on Pittsburgh now..or carolinas or seattles or denvers??? Let WR Moulds walk 590701[/snapback] Plexiglass wasn't even the number 1 receiver on their team and they had a guy to replace him in Randle El. I think most folks can name the number 2 receivers on the playoff teams because they are good. Denver - Lelee, Seattle - Jurivicious, Pitt - Randle El.
Bill from NYC Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 I remember reading somewhere (no link) that a player can only have his salary cut 30%. This would "reduce" his salary cap hit to a mere 8.5 million in 06. I cannot imagine any sane Bills Fan thinking that he is worth this kind of cap hit. Eric counts more than 10 mil toward the cap this year. It is already factored in. Dumping him would save 5 mil. of cap space which could be used on a player who is not whining, past his prime, nor disruptive. Sometimes there is a time to just let go. I am against re-negotiating his contract in a way that will hurt us when he is cut down the road, ala Fina and Ostroski. Eric's best days are certainly behind him. Imo it is time to move in another direction.
jahbonas Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Plexiglass wasn't even the number 1 receiver on their team and they had a guy to replace him in Randle El. I think most folks can name the number 2 receivers on the playoff teams because they are good. Denver - Lelee, Seattle - Jurivicious, Pitt - Randle El. 590714[/snapback] And likely they can be named because fans have been watching them in the playoffs - something our WR never appear anymore !!! Also they are not in the playoffs because of those WR...they are there because of the lines on their teams......often these WR have 56 or 7 seconds to get open while our WR get2 or 3 seconds due to pass rush...
Mikie2times Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 Is this Tom Donahoe posting here????Learn your lesson from the current Superbowl team Pittsburgh Steelers. Last year they allowed WR Plexico Burress to walk and took those savings and signed talented FA Guard Jeff Hartings. Thats how you win in this league. We have Lee Evans and Roscoe Parrish - can you name the 2nd WR on Pittsburgh now..or carolinas or seattles or denvers??? Let WR Moulds walk 590701[/snapback] What a joke, Lee Evans and Roscoe Parrish Vs HINES WARD, Randell El, Heath Miller Wow that's a tough one. Hines Ward, perennial pro bowl receiver vs 3rd year Lee Evans. I won't even get into the stats because then it just becomes a laugher. Roscoe Parrish vs Randell Ell, again what has Roscoe proven other then being a 2nd round pick? When we drafted Roscoe we wished he would become a Randell Ell type slot for crying out loud. I would compare Miller and his 6TD's to one of our TE's but we don't have any. Finally the 3rd receiver which you failed to think is of value in the NFL is Cedric Wilson, an up and comer that has already twice as proven as our #2WR according to your layout. These offensive line thread jackers need to get a clue. We get it, the lines important, but you still need quality players at other positions. Leaving our dynamic duo at QB with no targets isn't exactly a championship layout. We desperately need help at the offensive line, but Lee still hasn't proven himself, and the passing game is still to fragile to let go of Moulds without a real a proven replacement.
Bill from NYC Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 These offensive line thread jackers need to get a clue. We get it, the lines important, but you still need quality players at other positions. Leaving our dynamic duo at QB with no targets isn't exactly a championship layout. We desperately need help at the offensive line, but Lee still hasn't proven himself, and the passing game is still to fragile to let go of Moulds without a real a proven replacement. 590738[/snapback] Good point. Moulds was a vital cog in our 5 game winning machine. Furthermore, where would we be without his 10.1 yards per catch?
Mikie2times Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 I remember reading somewhere (no link) that a player can only have his salary cut 30%. This would "reduce" his salary cap hit to a mere 8.5 million in 06. I cannot imagine any sane Bills Fan thinking that he is worth this kind of cap hit. Eric counts more than 10 mil toward the cap this year. It is already factored in. Dumping him would save 5 mil. of cap space which could be used on a player who is not whining, past his prime, nor disruptive. Sometimes there is a time to just let go. I am against re-negotiating his contract in a way that will hurt us when he is cut down the road, ala Fina and Ostroski. Eric's best days are certainly behind him. Imo it is time to move in another direction. 590715[/snapback] Well I'm not a captologist by any means, so if I did it wrong thanks for clearing it up. Even with that aside I still feel that releasing Moulds would really hurt us right now, perahps not PW bad but pretty close. Nobody on this board can say Lee Evans is ready to be a number one receiver. He has never been treated like one, and while I think he's a good deal better then PP I'm surprised people forget what happend to Price when he left Buffalo. Nobody in a thousand years thought he was drop out of the league bad, but since he left Buffalo and Moulds shadow that's what's happend. Then when you look at the FA market I just don't see a viable replacement. If we had a proven QB, and solid pass blocking line, (Seattle) we could get buy with one of the FA's available. But the odds of both those things playing out next year are very small, and even smaller if we let Moulds go.
truth on hold Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 If we renegotiate Moulds to what he has renegotiated for in the past it will cost us around 5-6 million in 2006, and 5 million will come off the cap. This is according to Clumpys cap page. If we cut him outright we will lose 5 million of his salary, but take on a 5 million dollar cap hit. So basically we can choose to have Moulds and 5 million more in play money, or cut him, and have to reach in to the bank for his replacement. Not only am against the idea from a finacial stand point but also from a player standpoint. Nobody in free agency will draw attention like Moulds will, we even know his suspension was because his role was to draw double coverage! It's an indisbutable fact that we see every game, cordinators still plan for Moulds. Bad WR don't draw double coverage people. Then to think about who we would be replacing him with. A group of FA's who's best players have almost all had great system, with a great QB, and often played behind a great #1. Sure sounds like Buffalo doesnt it? It's easy to forget how important Moulds is because we rarely have seen this team without him, and he has had poor stats (sounds like PW). But think about those things real quick, and it basically amounts to nothing. What sounds more logical to you, our QB's played bad because of Eric Moulds, or Eric Moulds played bad because of our QB's? Who has the better track record EM, JP, or KH? I would say EM without question. So perhaps it was his suspension that has made people turn on him. I was also upset by this, but I also think EM doesn't mind drawing doubles all day and night if this team is in the playoff race. We've stunk forever, and he's had BAD QB's, is the frustration really that surprising? Eventually we will have to find his replacement. Why not do it another year when we have less needs, more stablity at QB/OL, and a better crop of FA to choose from? 590646[/snapback] It's very obvious what should be done with Moulds: he should be traded to the Eagles for Terrell Owens, who would agree to an incentives-laden contract (both team and indvidual) with the Bills. If 13&3 Denver's Mike Shanahan is willing to listen to TO, why shouldn't 5&12 Buffalo? After all certainly a Hall of Famer like Marv and "brilliant" football mind like Jauron have what it takes to work with TO. Right?
Mikie2times Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 Good point. Moulds was a vital cog in our 5 game winning machine. Furthermore, where would we be without his 10.1 yards per catch? 590751[/snapback] Very insightful use of statistics. Perhaps that could be related to Buffalo ranking 28th in yards per completion, or a rookie QB, or Kelly Holcomb’s arm strength. Somehow the solution to all this according to your logic is getting rid of the guy that accounted for 30% of your passing offense and dozens of plays in which his double coverage allowed other receivers to get open. Makes sense.
Stevie Ray Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 After all certainly a Hall of Famer like Marv and "brilliant" football mind like Jauron have what it takes to work with TO. Right? 590760[/snapback] Andy Reid and Donavan McNabb thought they could make it work with TO. TO marches to the beat of his own drummer, let him be someone else's problem.
Bill from NYC Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Very insightful use of statistics. Perhaps that could be related to Buffalo ranking 28th in yards per completion, or a rookie QB, or Kelly Holcomb’s arm strength. Somehow the solution to all this according to your logic is getting rid of the guy that accounted for 30% of your passing offense and dozens of plays in which his double coverage allowed other receivers to get open. Makes sense. 590766[/snapback] My friend, I consider many of your points to be valid. I agree in particular that Moulds is not primarily to blame for our dismal passing game. My thing is that this current football team was built a$$-backwards. Paying huge dollars to Eric would (imo) serve as a continuation of sorts. One thing of which I am sure, is that if we cannot run, and our qb is laying on his behind, paying Moulds would be a waste under any conditions.
Mikie2times Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 My friend, I consider many of your points to be valid. I agree in particular that Moulds is not primarily to blame for our dismal passing game. My thing is that this current football team was built a$$-backwards. Paying huge dollars to Eric would (imo) serve as a continuation of sorts. One thing of which I am sure, is that if we cannot run, and our qb is laying on his behind, paying Moulds would be a waste under any conditions. 590781[/snapback] I agree, and I'm sure we share the same philosophy about building a team, but I still feel like we can save Moulds. Let's just say we get him to come down to 8.5, but more importantly we sign him to a more cap friendly cut scenario for 2007. We have some space factoring in his 10 million, when you then figure in cut's we will still be in position to land some FA OL/DL. I just think if theirs anyway we can keep Moulds and still address the line with some FA's we really should try and do so. Then when next year is up we can make a better assessment on Lee, and hopefully the FA class will be filled with more proven players.
obie_wan Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Who says he won't renegotiate now when he has in the past? Read the post, his renegotiated deal from last year gave him 5.5 million. A similar deal could be worked in the same range. We would then have that extra 4 million or so to help our us in free agency. Next year we review the FA crop again, if his a successor is available you deal with it then, you don't do it when the best of the WR class are no more proven then Alvin Harper or PP. 590713[/snapback] read MY post. restructuring simply pushes the cap money into future years. He needs to take a major pay CUT.
obie_wan Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 I remember reading somewhere (no link) that a player can only have his salary cut 30%. This would "reduce" his salary cap hit to a mere 8.5 million in 06. I cannot imagine any sane Bills Fan thinking that he is worth this kind of cap hit. Eric counts more than 10 mil toward the cap this year. It is already factored in. Dumping him would save 5 mil. of cap space which could be used on a player who is not whining, past his prime, nor disruptive. Sometimes there is a time to just let go. I am against re-negotiating his contract in a way that will hurt us when he is cut down the road, ala Fina and Ostroski. Eric's best days are certainly behind him. Imo it is time to move in another direction. 590715[/snapback] The 30% rule pertains to his base salary. Due to the past restructuring, much of the cap is due to unamaotized signing bonus. His base is closer to $5-6 mil I think so the 30% would be applied to that number. You can't reduce the unamortized signing bonus.
Bill from NYC Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 The 30% rule pertains to his base salary. Due to the past restructuring, much of the cap is due to unamaotized signing bonus. His base is closer to $5-6 mil I think so the 30% would be applied to that number. You can't reduce the unamortized signing bonus. 590813[/snapback] That is where I came up with the 8.5 number.....a 30% cut to 5 million.
Mikie2times Posted February 1, 2006 Author Posted February 1, 2006 read MY post. restructuring simply pushes the cap money into future years. He needs to take a major pay CUT. 590807[/snapback] He made 5.5 in 2005, how much more do you think Moulds would want? I think he just wants to win, and if he sees management making those steps I think he will go for 7 million. I agree that anything past that is going to be walking a very thin line. I just hate the timing of this, no proven quality front men in the market, and bad QB's. If we are forced to do this then we have to do what we have to do. But the second we lose Moulds is the second I lose my optimism for 2006.
.thumb.png.1b7fb4086290c3afc001a7900b31fab0.png)
Recommended Posts