JDG

Let's see, Bledsoe lays an egg on the road, and plays pretty decent at home. Where have I seen this movie before????

Because Ralph Wilson is clearly the problem, right?

After Carolina and Jax, the NFL substantially curtailed the "development assistance" awarded to Cleveland and Houston in comparison to what Carolina and Jax received. JDG

Which sacrifices have the Bills not been willing to make? JDG

Let's not go over the top here...... in the Donahoe era, the Cardinals have won 26 games. The Bills have won 30. As bad as Donahoe has been, it could have been worse. That's an average of 5-11/6-10 each year vs. an average 6-10/7-9 each year. A small, but meaningful difference. JDG

If Moulds gets run out of town, we're going to need a WR..... JDG

While I'm not surprised that so many people have piped up defending JP Losman, I'm a bit surprised that there is so little ragging on McGahee. This guy is simply not getting it done, and if he hadn't played for the University of Miami, I think we'd all be a bit harsher on him. JDG

As out 2005 season circles down the drain, and we begin to cast our weary eyes towards 2006, one of the most salient questions facing this team is: "Do the Buffalo Bills have the makings of an offensive core for the future?" On paper, our offensive skill positions for 2006 look very promising: Losman, McGahee, Evans, Parrish, (Moulds - God, Willing ;-), and possibly Everett. Unfortunately, I am becoming a bit nervous that Donahoe Bills Version 2.0 might eventually fail as miserably as Donahoe Bills Version 1.0 (Bledsoe - Henry - Moulds - Reed - Campbell). Its almost certainly too soon to tell for sure, but I think there is certainly time enough in the present for speculation - and a little bit of retrospective evaluation. We've now had 9 games to evaluate JP Losman's performance. His performance has gone from abysmal in the first four starts (before the Holcomb intermission) to merely bad in his last five games. His career-best completion percentage is 56%. For the season, he has an abysmal 51% completion percentage. Quite simply, you are going to be punting a lot if you are only completing 50% of your passes. Against Carolina at home, he failed to lead the team to a single TD. In the Miami debacle, he has to bear a lot of responsibility for two terrible turnovers (i.e. neither was a great play by the defense) in the red zone, each of which cost us a critical 3 points. And of course today, without the supposedly disposable Eric Moulds in the lineup, Losman was cover-your-eyes bad: 10 of 27 (37%!!!!) with three interceptions! In short, we've seen JP Losman in nine games now, and we're still waiting for him to have a good game. Meanwhile, let's talk about Willis McGahee. Quite simply, if McGahee asks for a raise this offseason, whomever is the GM should simply laugh in his face, because McGahee has been *dreadfull.* Four times this year, he has averaged less than three yards per carry (and a mere 3.1 on a fifth occasion.) He hasn't rushed for 100 yards since October. In a critical game at home against Carolina, he rushed for a cover-your-eyes bad 1.9 yards per carry for three meaningful quarters. In the debacle against Miami last week, where the Bills jumped out to a 21-0 lead and tried to take control of the game, Willis McGahee could only manage a paltry 3.0 yards per carry in his homecoming. And of course, his 8 carries for 3 yards today is almost unspeakable. I don't want to over-react to a distraction-filled game against evil-genius Bill Belichick, but I think that the accumulation of evidence over the last two months may hint that not only may the Bills need a new defense for the long-run, our current offensive core might not be an answer for the long-run either. And *that* is an incredibly depressing thought. JDG

Having tea with Hogboy in Kingman, AZ?

Mularkey said that "Moulds took himself out of some plays." While some people have interpreted that as meaning that Moulds refused to go into the game, it could mean that Mularkey thought that Moulds was "doggin' it" ala Randy Moss on some plays. JDG

It was certainly in Moulds' vocabulary. JDG

I don't know about that. Here's two quotes from after the game: "It's their decision, so I have to live with it," he said. "They want to do different things, so let them do what they want to do. I'm just going to play when I get called. That's all I do, so I'm going to roll with it. " "I don't want it to be a situation like T.O. (Terrell Owens)," he said. "I'm in a situation that you don't want to go out there and make it seem like it's a distraction or something like that. I'm out there playing and my teammates want me out there playing, so we'll see what happens." "The coaches make decisions based on whatever they feel is best for the football team," Fletcher said. "However, I know Eric Moulds is one of our elite players and one of the best in the NFL. He's proven it year in and year out. Whatever reason, that's the coach's decision, but I know what type of ballplayer he is. He wants to win, and he wants the football." But hey, what does London Fletcher know, right? But Moulds certainly gives every indication that it was a benching, and not him pulling out of the game. Maybe Tolbert thought Moulds was dogging it when he was on the field and decided to bench him - but was forced to put him back in the game once Parrish got hurt. At the time of the benching, though, Moulds may have had some choice words for Tolbert on the sidelines - which led to the proposed suspension? JDG

He went back in the game when it as 23-3. So no significance there. He wasn't coming back in because the game was in the balance. JDG

Mularkey initially denied that he had benched Moulds at all - he said that Moulds wasn't in the game because Moulds himself had taken him out of it. You're now changing your own story here - was Moulds benched or did he take himself out of the game? If Moulds was refusing to go into the game, presumably there was no reason to bench him. JDG

Mularkey has changed his story too. During the game he, or his spokesman, told CBS that Moulds wasn't in the game due to a "coach's decision." This stuff about Moulds quitting didn't come out until later. JDG

It's simply amazing to me that people think that Eric Moulds is going to voluntarily take himself out of a Miami game with our playoff hopes on the line for two quarters, and then decide to go back into the game once Parrish gets hurt, and then stay in the game for the rest of the game after that. Your story doesn't add up either.... I personally don't think that Mularkey suspended Moulds for no reason. I think that Mularkey has been showing himself all year to be a poor manager of personalities (heaven forbid he should have had to manage RJ vs. Flutie). I think that a misunderstanding between Moulds and Tolbert degenerated into an argument that was probably more heated than it should have been, and that Mularkey further exacerbated things by accusing Moulds of being a quitter and deciding to suspend him for that argument. JDG

If you look at the HOF ballot for this year and the last few years.... not only will he *not* be tough to turn away. It will be easy. Great guy, but nobody has ever mistaken him for being one of the Top QB's in the League in any year..... let alone *all time*. JDG

The player's association isn't looking into it because the CBA gives the teams very wide authority for suspensions up to four games. The Eagles basically suspended TO for the whole season - which generated that case. This is a one game suspension, and the NFLPA has no case. Oh come on, all the published reports on this story say that Moulds claimed he was having a trainer investigate pain he was feeling in his Achilles. Those same reports indicate that Tolbert told Moulds to go back in the game anyways. The key detail we're missing here is *why*? It still seems to me that Mularkey has let this thing get blow out of all proportion to whatever incident happened. JDG

Just because a pass goes for a TD doesn't make it perfect - and one of those TD's benefitted from a Miami defender falling down. Losman played good - but as I've been saying for weeks, Losman has been playing just good enough for us to lose. In this case, Losman played a good 1st Quarter, but last I checked football games lasted for 60 minutes, not 15. I'm not a huge fan of this cliche, but you could argue that Losman lacked the killer instinct to put this game away - he had two shots to get us three points, either one of which would have put the game away - making it a four score game, and instead Losman did the only thing that kept Miami in it.... he turned the ball over. So, forgive me for not calling him "the best Bill" in the game. You could make a case for Fletcher, Schobel, or Moorman for that honor anyways. JDG

I find that unlikely. Three of the five drives Buffalo had in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, ended as a result of JP Losman sacks or interceptions. While one of them was a coverage sack, Losman simply took way too long - he needs to throw the ball away on second down if there is nothing there. The second sack was a simple jailbreak in which Losman failed to protect the football and fumbled, costing us at least a fieldgoal. The interception at the goal line hardly bears repeating. In the end, I think the Moulds situation has kind of obscured the fact that JP Losman single-handedly let Miami back in this game with two *terrible* turnovers, and that our defense really choked in letting Miami score TD's on three of their last four drives. JDG

And another unanswered question - if Moulds really did take himself out of the game, plain-and-simple, why did Ralph Wilson have to "split the baby"? Why need to come in and engineer a face-saving? If Moulds simply refused to play, any NFL team should be able to suspend anyone for that....... JDG

1) Mularkey may not know the truth..... Tolbert may be insisting that Moulds was faking the injury, and Mularkey is simply siding with his coach over the player in a "his word against mine" deal. 2) Mularkey may be suspending Moulds not for not going into the game, but for the argument he had with Tolbert. i.e. Tolbert tells him to go in, Moulds says he needs the trainer, Tolbert misunderstands this in some way and makes a snippy remark to Moulds, Moulds responds in kind with a snippy comment back about his coaching/gameplanning. Your version of events as leaves something unexplained..... if we are to believe that Moulds took himself out of the game in frustration and refused to go back in, why *did* Moulds go in as soon as Parrish got hurt? And then continue to stay in for the 4th Quarter? JDG

Now that we've all see the reports, I wonder what the consensus explanation is....

So easy that he lost more games than he won, right? JDG

What do you mean by Moulds not listening to his coach, no matter.... how right he may be? We still don't know what happened. One version is that Moulds refused to go in when asked to by Tolbert. The other is that Tolbert *thought* that Moulds refused to go in, when in fact, Moulds was being attended by a trainer for a possible injury. JDG