Anyone just see Moulds catch and dive

[Sisyphean Bills]

based on what i've heard and read over the past 2 years, i have concluded that it's more likely than not that a) wilson demanded that bledsoe be shown the door (after the pitt game) and b) wilson demanded that losman be benched after the second NE game this past year.

 

It's Ralph's team. He can do whatever the !@#$ he wants to.

 

Still, I don't buy into all that melodrama. Ralph isn't a total idiot.

 

Furthermore, if he's feeling compelled to make basic coaching decisions, that screams volumes about his level of trust and respect for the management chain between him and the guys on the field. People more concerned about what was written on signs in the stands than the for sh-- product they deliver wear out their chances real quick.

 

whatever you think of mularkey, he's highly regarded in the nfl and always came across as a sensible, low-BS guy.  don't you think it's mighty strange that he *quit* his job as an nfl head coach?? i mean that's amazing. if there was nothing behind it, you'd think that a number of teams would have been hesitant about contacting him. but they weren't hesitant -- in fact he had multiple suitors, and ended up as OC for one of the richest and most storied teams in the league that just happens to have a great head coach.

705721[/snapback]

 

Actually, the timing of Mularkey quitting belies your attempt to build some sympathy for the guy. He met with Wilson and agreed to stay on as head coach, agreed to be the hatchet man and fire a bunch of assistants, worked with the new regime for a week, and then up and bolted. If Wilson is such a total incompetent putz why not quit at the end of the season? Mularkey's agent said he quit on principle, but that's clearly bull sh--. He knew what the !@#$ was going on and if he was going to stand on principle (see Wade Phillips) he could have. Instead, he suddenly went from a guy wanting to lead an NFL team to a guy crying like Chicken Little. Somewhere along the way he seemed to not be clued in that he had taken on the job of an NFL head coach. That job is to be a politician, leader, and manage a bunch of grade-A big time !@#$ prima donnas -- not simply some sterile X's and O's chaulkboard wiz kid outside the line of fire. !@#$ Mularkey. He's a total kitty in my book and not head coach material. I'm glad he's gone.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's Ralph's team.  He can do whatever the !@#$ he wants to.

 

Still, I don't buy into all that melodrama.  Ralph isn't a total idiot.

 

Furthermore, if he's feeling compelled to make basic coaching decisions, that screams volumes about his level of trust and respect for the management chain between him and the guys on the field.  People more concerned about what was written on signs in the stands than the for sh-- product they deliver wear out their chances real quick.

Actually, the timing of Mularkey quitting belies your attempt to build some sympathy for the guy.  He met with Wilson and agreed to stay on as head coach, agreed to be the hatchet man and fire a bunch of assistants, worked with the new regime for a week, and then up and bolted.  If Wilson is such a total incompetent putz why not quit at the end of the season?  Mularkey's agent said he quit on principle, but that's clearly bull sh--.  He knew what the !@#$ was going on and if he was going to stand on principle (see Wade Phillips) he could have.  Instead, he suddenly went from a guy wanting to lead an NFL team to a guy crying like Chicken Little.  Somewhere along the way he seemed to not be clued in that he had taken on the job of an NFL head coach.  That job is to be a politician, leader, and manage a bunch of grade-A big time !@#$ prima donnas -- not simply some sterile X's and O's chaulkboard wiz kid outside the line of fire.  !@#$ Mularkey.  He's a total kitty in my book and not head coach material.  I'm glad he's gone.

706188[/snapback]

a] Yes, it's Ralph's team and he can do whatever he wants.

b] That attitude is a killer for any professional franchise when the owner, no matter how smart he is (and in this case it's marginal) forces himself on personel decisions he has no business making.

 

c] You have no idea what happened behind the scenes in the days leading up to and just after Marv being hired. Criticize Mularkey all you want for making bad coaching decisions, I think that's obvious. But don't imply you knew what was going on or you could put yourself in Mularkey's shoes when everything was chaos. It could EASILY be that he thought he could co-exist with Marv when it was first announced and then he realized Wilson was making him axe certain coaches and he couldn't get the staff he wanted because he was a lame duck coach. Then and only then he decided he couldn't succeed under those circumstances.

[Dawgg]

Stop making sense!

 

The general modus operandum around here is to trash any player that leaves the team and talk up any player that is on the team, irrespective of what reality has in store.

 

Why is it OK to quote numbers and blame Price's failures on his QB and then claim Moulds is all washed up based on his numbers?

 

It makes no sense and is hypocritical homerism.  It doesn't explain why Price was cut in Dallas even though Drew Bledsoe was his QB there -- the same Drew Bledsoe that made Price's stock soar when he was traded to Atlanta.

705677[/snapback]

[dave mcbride]

Stop making sense!

 

The general modus operandum around here is to trash any player that leaves the team and talk up any player that is on the team, irrespective of what reality has in store.

706214[/snapback]

dawgg, i think willisisagod was singling out me, despite the fact that earlier in the thread i said moulds was clearly a better player than price.

[Dawgg]

I don't think it's purely about you. There are plenty of posters who seem to be willing to trash Moulds based on one incident and then use his apparent lack of production to bolster their point. Those same people, when confronted with Price's lack of production over the years, make excuses for it and rationalize why he'll be a #2 receiver for the Bills.

 

Maybe you're not doing that but the fact remains -- it's not fair. Peerless Price was cut by Bill Parcells mid-season -- and while he was on the roster, he suited up for one game. That's enough data to tell me that you don't go anywhere near this guy, let alone for a 4 year deal. These are the types of signings that set teams backwards.

 

New England signs veterans who were cut by their former teams as well -- but the difference is that these vets were productive RECENTLY. The last time Price was productive, Gregg Williams was the coach. It's a risk, but not one this team should be taking.

 

dawgg, i think willisisagod was singling out me, despite the fact that earlier in the thread i said moulds was clearly a better player than price.

706287[/snapback]

[Orton's Arm]

These same people laud the Bills for signing a worthless schmuck like Peerless Price at 4 years and $10 million.  The Patriots offered him the vet minimum... which value system do you trust more:  The Patriots or the Bills?

At least the Patriots showed some interest in Peerless Price. How much interest did they display in Moulds?

 

Back in 2003, Bobby Shaw was usually the Bills' go-to receiver. In that role, he accumulated 732 receiving yards, not unlike Moulds in 2005. He was released the next year, just like Moulds. After being released by Buffalo, Shaw had 5 receptions for 59 yards for the rest of his career. At least the Bills were able to turn Moulds into a draft pick.

 

Let's face it, the Bills are a rebuilding team, and probably won't be able to achieve anything until 2007 at the earliest. How much could Moulds really have contributed in 2007? How conducive would he have been to building a winning atmosphere in the locker room when he didn't want to be here? I think Marv made the right call on this one.

[Scraps]

At least the Patriots showed some interest in Peerless Price.  How much interest did they display in Moulds?

706354[/snapback]

 

You must be joking. Price was a free agent. The Patriots offered him the vet minimum contract. There was absolutely no risk to them what so ever. If he panned out, they got a steal and if he didn't, they drop him during camp and he doesn't cost them a cent.

 

Moulds would have cost a draft pick to the Bills and taken up a big chunk of cap space, which they probably don't have. Besides, do you really think the Bills would have traded Moulds within their own division?

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

At least the Patriots showed some interest in Peerless Price.  How much interest did they display in Moulds?

 

Back in 2003, Bobby Shaw was usually the Bills' go-to receiver.  In that role, he accumulated 732 receiving yards, not unlike Moulds in 2005.  He was released the next year, just like Moulds.  After being released by Buffalo, Shaw had 5 receptions for 59 yards for the rest of his career.  At least the Bills were able to turn Moulds into a draft pick.

 

Let's face it, the Bills are a rebuilding team, and probably won't be able to achieve anything until 2007 at the earliest.  How much could Moulds really have contributed in 2007?  How conducive would he have been to building a winning atmosphere in the locker room when he didn't want to be here?  I think Marv made the right call on this one.

706354[/snapback]

 

I agree that it was time for moulds to move on and that keeping him around wasn't in the best long term interest of this football team, but comparing him to Bobby Shaw?!?!

[Nanker]

When Kelly Holcomb is released the NE Patsies won't show any interest in him either.

[Orton's Arm]

I agree that it was time for moulds to move on and that keeping him around wasn't in the best long term interest of this football team, but comparing him to Bobby Shaw?!?!

Shaw had 732 receiving yards for the Bills back in 2003, and would have had even more had he been the go-to guy the whole year. Moulds had 816 receiving yards for the Bills in 2005. The numbers say the comparison is there.

 

I don't think anyone would compare Moulds in his prime to the Bobby Shaw of 2003. But Moulds isn't the same player he used to be, and he may well have as little left to offer someone today, as Bobby Shaw had at the end of 2003. Personally, I think he probably has at least one decent year left in him, maybe two. But he's nearing the end of the road, with a bad attitude to boot.

[Dawgg]

Yes the Pats showed some interest in Price and valued him at a veteran minimum contract.

 

The Bills showed some interest in Price and valued him at a $10 Million, 4-year contract. Whose judgement do you trust?

 

At least the Patriots showed some interest in Peerless Price.  How much interest did they display in Moulds?

706354[/snapback]

[MadBuffaloDisease]

The Patriots have shown interest in a lot of players, but for the minimum, and as a result, most have signed elsewhere. I think that in the past, when they had the coaching, I'd have trusted their judgement. But after last year and with what they pulled with Vinatieri, I'm glad they're sticking with their "we won't pay a lot for players" attitude, and will enjoy watching them become a shell of their former selves over the next few years.

[Orton's Arm]

Yes the Pats showed some interest in Price and valued him at a veteran minimum contract.

 

The Bills showed some interest in Price and valued him at a $10 Million, 4-year contract.  Whose judgement do you trust?

The Bills' situation is different from the Pats' situation. As you know, there are a lot of holes on this team, and the Bills have lots of salary cap space. However, the free agent market is thin, especially when it comes to guys who a) still have most of their careers in front of them, b) have proven themselves top-tier guys, and c) would actually want to play here. LeCharles Bentley is a good example: he's been in the league just four years, and he's top tier. But he's bound and determined to be in Cleveland.

 

Most guys who have proven themselves top tier have far better options than Buffalo. The only way to attract guys like that is to throw crazy money at players--and sometimes still get turned down. The Bengals pursued this model for many years.

 

Instead, Marv is finding young players who have question marks associated with them, but who have the potential to become solid starters. Peerless Price falls into this category, as do Robert Royal, Tuten Reyes, and Marv's other major signings. Supposing 1/3 or 1/2 of such signings work out. Now you've added young, solid starters to the team, and those guys will be locked up for a few years. Yeah you had to waste salary cap space on the failures to find the successes, but what else could the Bills have done with that salary cap space?

 

But the Patriots are in a different situation. Their team can do something now. They're a team everyone wants to play for, so they don't need to waste salary cap space on failures to find successes. They're in a position to be more selective about whom they sign. There are two excellent reasons the Patriots should spend less in free agency than the Bills: 1) players like Tom Brady eat up a lot more salary cap space than Kelly Holcomb or Craig Nall, so the Patriots need to use more of their cap to keep their own picks. 2) The Patriots have so few holes they could realistically hope to address all of them via the draft. This lessens the need for free agents.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Moulds will be great with the Texans as long as Carr doesn't get sacked too much.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Moulds will be great with the Texans as long as Carr doesn't get sacked too much.

That's like saying Ricky Williams will have a long career in the NFL as long as he doesn't get stoned too much.

[Scraps]

That's like saying Ricky Williams will have a long career in the NFL as long as he doesn't get stoned too much.

706820[/snapback]

 

Not really. Carr's protection is in the hands of his offensive line and is pretty much out of his control. Williams use of pot is totally within his control.

[AJ1]

Moulds will be great with the Texans as long as Carr doesn't get sacked too much.

706749[/snapback]

 

Moulds will be great with the Texans if he can get the dbs to slip on banana peels.

[Sisyphean Bills]

dawgg, i think willisisagod was singling out me, despite the fact that earlier in the thread i said moulds was clearly a better player than price.

706287[/snapback]

 

Wrong. I wasn't singling anybody out. (Well, now I am. )

[Sisyphean Bills]

b] That attitude is a killer for any professional franchise when the owner, no matter how smart he is (and in this case it's marginal) forces himself on personel decisions he has no business making.

 

I never said it was the best way to operate a team. But, this is the sort of thing that happens in Buffalo and has been going on for decades.

 

The best teams Buffalo ever had had a great front office, solid coaching, and great players. Ralph did not feel compelled to get involved and he didn't get involved. On the other hand when we have numbnuts dropping 25% of the salary cap on underachievers like Mike Williams and sticking to his plan (any plan) for at most 5 minutes, Ralph starts to freak out.

 

c] You have no idea what happened behind the scenes in the days leading up to and just after Marv being hired.

 

Of course, not. But, that cuts both ways. People that think Mularkey got shafted don't know any more about what happened than you do, and you weren't there either.

 

Criticize Mularkey all you want for making bad coaching decisions, I think that's obvious. But don't imply you knew what was going on or you could put yourself in Mularkey's shoes when everything was chaos. It could EASILY be that he thought he could co-exist with Marv when it was first announced and then he realized Wilson was making him axe certain coaches and he couldn't get the staff he wanted because he was a lame duck coach. Then and only then he decided he couldn't succeed under those circumstances.

706189[/snapback]

 

I think what I wrote is clearly speculation based on observation. If someone reads more into it than that, well, caveat emptor.

 

Really, the timing of how things transpire is really a much better indicator of what was going on than you're asserting. True, it doesn't tell us everything but it does eliminate some possibilities. Did Mularkey have a problem with Marv Levy being brought in? That is a definite possibility. A strong possibility even. (Although Levy was apparently extremely surprised by Mike's sudden change of heart, which wouldn't suggest that Mike told Marv to go !@#$ himself in a closed door meeting.)

 

But that was not the original comment I replied to. The original comment was that Mularkey had serious issues with Ralph Wilson, despite the fact that Mularkey agreed to stay on as head coach at Ralph's request and agreed to fire a good percentage of his staff. If it only dawned on him a few weeks later as some sort of epiphany that he should change his position 180 degrees because Ralph was in fact a complete and total assclown, then, yes, while this is a possibility, it tells us that Mike Mularkey's leadership ability was (and is) highly suspect. Leadership means leading, which means being out in front, not wondering what happened to you because you deferred the initiative.

[Kelly the Dog]

I never said it was the best way to operate a team.  But, this is the sort of thing that happens in Buffalo and has been going on for decades.

 

The best teams Buffalo ever had had a great front office, solid coaching, and great players.  Ralph did not feel compelled to get involved and he didn't get involved.  On the other hand when we have numbnuts dropping 25% of the salary cap on underachievers like Mike Williams and sticking to his plan (any plan) for at most 5 minutes, Ralph starts to freak out.

Of course, not.  But, that cuts both ways.  People that think Mularkey got shafted don't know any more about what happened than you do, and you weren't there either.

I think what I wrote is clearly speculation based on observation.  If someone reads more into it than that, well, caveat emptor.

 

Really, the timing of how things transpire is really a much better indicator of what was going on than you're asserting.  True, it doesn't tell us everything but it does eliminate some possibilities.  Did Mularkey have a problem with Marv Levy being brought in?  That is a definite possibility.  A strong possibility even.  (Although Levy was apparently extremely surprised by Mike's sudden change of heart, which wouldn't suggest that Mike told Marv to go !@#$ himself in a closed door meeting.)

 

But that was not the original comment I replied to.  The original comment was that Mularkey had serious issues with Ralph Wilson, despite the fact that Mularkey agreed to stay on as head coach at Ralph's request and agreed to fire a good percentage of his staff.  If it only dawned on him a few weeks later as some sort of epiphany that he should change his position 180 degrees because Ralph was in fact a complete and total assclown, then, yes, while this is a possibility, it tells us that Mike Mularkey's leadership ability was (and is) highly suspect.  Leadership means leading, which means being out in front, not wondering what happened to you because you deferred the initiative.

707703[/snapback]

Ralph DID get involved when we had one of our very best teams in 1999. It's impossible to know if promoting RJ on the last week of the season cost us a spot in the SB and perhaps winning it. I think it did but we'll never know. What we do know is that he mettled with a great team on the eve of the playoffs with a decision that his coaches and MAYBE his GM should be making, not him.

 

Secondly, you're right, neither of us know, but my impression is that similar to what happened to Wade Phillips was happening to Mularkey, which means, Ralph was insisting on him firing a coach, and then when Mularkey may agree to it, Ralph would go down the list. It wasn't Ronnie Jones that Wade made his stand over, it was 3-4 of his coaches that Ralph wanted gone, and Wade knew that he wouldn't have the guys he wanted, so he took a stand for Ronnie Jones to help him with future coaching gigs as a man who would stand on his sword for his assistants.

 

I think the same thing very likely happened with Mularkey and when they first told him they wanted him to stay, he was thinking good, I want to finish the job I started. And a few weeks later when he realized what the real situation was going to be and he was a lame duck coach who could hire the best available assistants because they knew he was on shaky ground, he bailed.