Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 i don't have anything to add, just wanted to start yet another thread about a washed-up receiver who's gonna fetch a 4th at best.
Like A Mofo Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 i don't have anything to add, just wanted to start yet another thread about a washed-up receiver who's gonna fetch a 4th at best. 647311[/snapback]
CoachChuckDickerson Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 but you didn't blame it on Losman therefore your thread is BS.
Lurker Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 i don't have anything to add 647311[/snapback] Yep, that about covers it.
Dan Gross Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Listening to the rhetoric it appears the bridges are burned and Moulds will not play for the Bills this year. The Bills will look for any compensation in a trade deal that will allow the Bills to help decide where it is that Moulds goes. Levy floated a 4th out there as an ideal, but I wouldn't be surprised to have him accept less to a.) ensure Moulds is out of the East, b.) get Moulds' contract off the cap, and c.) move on. I would expect that Levy will hold Moulds as long as it takes to convince those interested that the decision now is to trade Moulds. Despite the "we can wait 'til he's cut" mentality, there are teams that are desperate/crazy enough to do the trade to ensure they get Moulds. Houston's a prime example, as Moulds the free agent would obviously take less money to play for the Eagles (his clear desired destination, and why not?) than more money to play for Houston. I don't see Moulds as one to refuse a trade, so that may be the only scenario for Houston to be able to get Moulds...
Beerball Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 i don't have anything to add, just wanted to start yet another thread about a washed-up receiver who's gonna fetch a 4th at best. 647311[/snapback] Yeah, he's no Peerless Price.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 Listening to the rhetoric it appears the bridges are burned and Moulds will not play for the Bills this year. The Bills will look for any compensation in a trade deal that will allow the Bills to help decide where it is that Moulds goes. Levy floated a 4th out there as an ideal, but I wouldn't be surprised to have him accept less to a.) ensure Moulds is out of the East, b.) get Moulds' contract off the cap, and c.) move on. I would expect that Levy will hold Moulds as long as it takes to convince those interested that the decision now is to trade Moulds. Despite the "we can wait 'til he's cut" mentality, there are teams that are desperate/crazy enough to do the trade to ensure they get Moulds. Houston's a prime example, as Moulds the free agent would obviously take less money to play for the Eagles (his clear desired destination, and why not?) than more money to play for Houston. I don't see Moulds as one to refuse a trade, so that may be the only scenario for Houston to be able to get Moulds... 647319[/snapback]
mead107 Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 we will have to find another bill to kick around , O what am i thinking JP will be the 50 per day topic.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 we will have to find another bill to kick around , O what am i thinking JP will be the 50 per day topic. 647334[/snapback] No, No, I nominate Posey. Maybe we can get a 7th for him!
Ghost of BiB Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I think we should trade up, and draft all three emerging college quarterbacks. That will make eveyone happy. After all, it's been pointed out about 157 times why this is good. Damn, it's only been pointed out 86 times how much better they are than the "class of 83". I've not only heard of them, but I have also eaten soup.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 I think we should trade up, and draft all three emerging college quarterbacks. That will make eveyone happy. After all, it's been pointed out about 157 times why this is good. Damn, it's only been pointed out 86 times how much better they are than the "class of 83". I've not only heard of them, but I have also eaten soup. 647354[/snapback] no no, you have it all wrong. What we need to do is trade our first for denver's two firsts, then trade those two firsts for about 10 seconds. Then we can fill ALL our holes!
mead107 Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I think we should trade up, and draft all three emerging college quarterbacks. That will make eveyone happy. After all, it's been pointed out about 157 times why this is good. Damn, it's only been pointed out 86 times how much better they are than the "class of 83". I've not only heard of them, but I have also eaten soup. 647354[/snapback] i still think we should get 16 QBs 1 for each game .
Nanker Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 i still think we should get 16 QBs 1 for each game . 647383[/snapback] That's so pragmatic I can't believe I didn't think of it first.
IDBillzFan Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 All I can say is I'm glad that lameass receiver is gone. If I had to spend another season watching him give up on passes in exchange for turning to the ref to beg for a flag...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 All I can say is I'm glad that lameass receiver is gone. If I had to spend another season watching him give up on passes in exchange for turning to the ref to beg for a flag... 647388[/snapback] We need a !@#$ing applause smilie.
Lori Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 i still think we should get 16 QBs 1 for each game . 647383[/snapback] Without a couple more starting-quality o-linemen, that may just become necessary.
Recommended Posts