The Tomcat Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 I do remember him as a GREAT blocker. He may have lost a step but would think he'd be a great #3 with the matchup issues. Someone earlier thought maybe he could add some weight and play a TE role...hmmmm that would be interesting....that all being said. I guess I'd only want him at a Vet Min + inc contract with NO gaurantees....I'm not sold on him as a legit #2 anymore...
sarmanuscg07 Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Why did the Texans cut him anyway? because carr was on his back all season and only look for andre johnson... however having moulds opposite andre did leade to aj making his first probowl.. that has to accound for something.. i dont see aj having another season like that next year without emo
apuszczalowski Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 because carr was on his back all season and only look for andre johnson... however having moulds opposite andre did leade to aj making his first probowl.. that has to accound for something.. i dont see aj having another season like that next year without emo Hmmm, I wonder if that could be the reason why his numbers dropped, he went from being the go-to #1 WR on a team, to the afterthought decoy #2, and the guy he was decoying for ended up in the Pro Bowl. I would still like to know the Reason why the Texans released him though.
BoondckCL Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Hmmm, I wonder if that could be the reason why his numbers dropped, he went from being the go-to #1 WR on a team, to the afterthought decoy #2, and the guy he was decoying for ended up in the Pro Bowl. I would still like to know the Reason why the Texans released him though. I thought his cap number was outrageous for a decoy?
apuszczalowski Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 I thought his cap number was outrageous for a decoy? Could be, I hadn't heard the details, thats why I was asking. Kind of stupid for them to trade for him, knowing he was only going to be a #2 and a decoy for AJ only to cut him later because his cap hits too big But what can you say, this is the same team that decided to keep the #1 spot and pass on Bush in last years draft
BoondckCL Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 But what can you say, this is the same team that decided to keep the #1 spot and pass on Bush in last years draft That worked out well for the Texans as a whole.
ganesh Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 because carr was on his back all season and only look for andre johnson... however having moulds opposite andre did leade to aj making his first probowl.. that has to accound for something.. i dont see aj having another season like that next year without emo If Moulds was the reason why Johnson had such a fantastic season that took him to his 1st pro-bowl, why would the Texans cut him ? Makes no sense. My feeling is Moulds showed his frustration with a young QB in that locker room and the HC decided it was time to cut ties with this mal-content.
GoBills2279 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Got this from BB.com, but apparently on a Mississippi radio station, Moulds said he'd like to come back to Buffalo, would like to be the #2 WR, and would like a 3-year deal. Would you want him back? I say for the vet minimum, I'd let him compete for a spot. As it stands, Buffalo has $4 million in cap space and Wide Receiver isn't really a huge priority at the time. Although, I do believe Eric Moulds can still prove to be a good asset on any roster, I just don't see it happening with 1. Lee Evans 2. Peerless Price 3. Josh Reed 4. Roscoe Parrish and not to mention the late season emergence of Robert Royal and sleeper Brad Cieslak all on the roster.
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 As it stands, Buffalo has $4 million in cap space and Wide Receiver isn't really a huge priority at the time. Although, I do believe Eric Moulds can still prove to be a good asset on any roster, I just don't see it happening with 1. Lee Evans 2. Peerless Price 3. Josh Reed 4. Roscoe Parrish and not to mention the late season emergence of Robert Royal and sleeper Brad Cieslak all on the roster. $4 Million? Where do you get that? According to most reports, the Bills are lousy with cap space, Here's clumpy's estimate: http://www.billszone.com/mtlog/archives/20...ry_cap_page.php Here's Bills Daily's cap page: http://billsdaily.com/frontoffice/salarycap.shtml There may be good reasons not to bring back Eric, but cap space isn't one of those reasons. In fact, if the Bills were low on the cap, Eric might be a cheap addition to the team.
daquix Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 That worked out well for the Texans as a whole. Not that I disagree with you completely, but can you explain that further. I'm not sure how passing on a player who had over 1300 rushing/receiving yards, 88 receptions, 8 rushing/receiving touchdowns, and a punt return touchdown was the right decision.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 The only fear is that Moulds is asking price is too much to make him come back to the Bills.
In space no one can hear Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 The only fear is that Moulds is asking price is too much to make him come back to the Bills. Be not afraid.
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Be not afraid. True dat, Space Dog. If he costs too much $, he won't be a Bill If he's likely to be a disruption, he won't be a Bill Trust in Marv, on this one.
Buftex Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Hmmm, I wonder if that could be the reason why his numbers dropped, he went from being the go-to #1 WR on a team, to the afterthought decoy #2, and the guy he was decoying for ended up in the Pro Bowl. I would still like to know the Reason why the Texans released him though. Sometimes when you have a player on your team, that you really like (which I think most did with Moulds in Buffalo, until his final season), you don't realize how much their play has slipped. In Moulds case, coming from a very bad Bills team, there were so many other offenisive problems, it would have been easy to miss how much Moulds slipped. I was one who had mixed emotions about him leaving the Bills. We get the Texans and Cowboys games every week here, and I always "speed watch" both teams games (after the Bills game is over). I paid close attention to Moulds all year. He really is not the player we remember. Most of the time, he had difficulty seperating from his recevers, and lacks very little breakaway speed. While he still looks muscular, he also looked noticably bulkier than his Bills days. I was also under the impression that Moulds thought his "vetran leadership" would be much more valued than it ultimately was. I don't necessarily think EM has nothing to offer any team, but the Bills do not need him at this point. Moulds was foolish for going to Houston. He wasted a year of what little was left of his career on a very bad team. Chasing money rarely works in the NFL. Players rarely, ultimately, get the money they think they are going to get.
BoondckCL Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Not that I disagree with you completely, but can you explain that further. I'm not sure how passing on a player who had over 1300 rushing/receiving yards, 88 receptions, 8 rushing/receiving touchdowns, and a punt return touchdown was the right decision. Oh, i'm sorry. I must have forgotten to indicate that sarcasm button was "on". LOL. You thought i meant it actually worked out for the Texans. *Shaking head laughing*
Nanker Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Sometimes when you have a player on your team, that you really like (which I think most did with Moulds in Buffalo, until his final season), you don't realize how much their play has slipped. In Moulds case, coming from a very bad Bills team, there were so many other offenisive problems, it would have been easy to miss how much Moulds slipped. I was one who had mixed emotions about him leaving the Bills. We get the Texans and Cowboys games every week here, and I always "speed watch" both teams games (after the Bills game is over). I paid close attention to Moulds all year. He really is not the player we remember. Most of the time, he had difficulty seperating from his recevers, and lacks very little breakaway speed. While he still looks muscular, he also looked noticably bulkier than his Bills days. I was also under the impression that Moulds thought his "vetran leadership" would be much more valued than it ultimately was. I don't necessarily think EM has nothing to offer any team, but the Bills do not need him at this point. Moulds was foolish for going to Houston. He wasted a year of what little was left of his career on a very bad team. Chasing money rarely works in the NFL. Players rarely, ultimately, get the money they think they are going to get. Agreed - completely. Eric Moulds' career looks like he's on the last run of a Double Black Diamond heading for the chalet. You have to admit, there's a nice symmetry to his numbers. About every other year he'd have a great year followed by an off year. Texass probably thought he'd have another great year after his tank year in '05. They wuz wrong. 1996/1997/1998/1999/2000/2001/2002/2003/2004/2005/2006 279/ 294 /1,368/ 994 /1,326/ 904 /1,292/ 780/1,043/816 /557
daquix Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Oh, i'm sorry. I must have forgotten to indicate that sarcasm button was "on".LOL. You thought i meant it actually worked out for the Texans. *Shaking head laughing* Ah! Ok. My apologies.
daquix Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Agreed - completely.Eric Moulds' career looks like he's on the last run of a Double Black Diamond heading for the chalet. You have to admit, there's a nice symmetry to his numbers. About every other year he'd have a great year followed by an off year. Texass probably thought he'd have another great year after his tank year in '05. They wuz wrong. 1996/1997/1998/1999/2000/2001/2002/2003/2004/2005/2006 279/ 294 /1,368/ 994 /1,326/ 904 /1,292/ 780/1,043/816 /557 I said this a few posts back, but I will say it again. He is averaging about 75 receptions, 800 yards, and 3 touchdowns for the past three(3) seasons. The majority of posters on this thread have been indicating that they would like him back as a #2 or #3 receiver. For a #2-3 receiver to receive 75 receptions, over 800 yards and 3 touchdowns, I would say would be a pretty productive year.
BoondckCL Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Ah! Ok. My apologies. No need to apologize. Sometimes it does get difficult in chat rooms to distinguish the context of the bull sh-- someone spurts.
GG Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 He is averaging about 75 receptions, 800 yards, and 3 touchdowns for the past three(3) seasons. The majority of posters on this thread have been indicating that they would like him back as a #2 or #3 receiver. For a #2-3 receiver to receive 75 receptions, over 800 yards and 3 touchdowns, I would say would be a pretty productive year. Shoot. With numbers like that, he's almost as good as Kevin Curtis, thus would be a marked improvement over Evans. Git er done, Marv.
Recommended Posts