CircleTheWagons

Why would Moulds hold out? All Moulds has to do is show up - he doesn't have to perform because his contract isn't full of incentives. Do you think the Bills will pay $6 million for an unmotivated "Miami game" Moulds? Moulds AND the Bills signed the contract - the Bills don't want to pay him $6,000,000 and Moulds doesn't want to play here for less. Moulds can't void the contract but he can play like crap. The lesson was reference to your earlier post about opening a pandora's box.

I think there is a greater chance of him getting cut than Ralph forking out over $6,000,000 in real money to teach a lesson. Hopefully we can get something in a trade, but if Moulds is unwilling to renegotiate his contract, he won't be playing for the Bills this year.

Of course, Moulds can show up, B word and moan, loaf around, sit on the bench and poison the atmosphere, and still get paid. The Bills have no power and the whole league knows it. With Peerless a few years ago, we were willing to pay him franchise salary for the year so somebody needed to trade for him. It's pretty clear to me the Bills will not pay Moulds this year.

I agree with you, but when the article states Vinatieri I think it's a little over the top and makes me want to dismiss the article. Vanderjagt missed a big kick but suggesting that he has been the problem in Indy the last few years is riciculous.

Exactly. I think the sticking point is the last line - Moulds probably has teams offering him less than what the Bills are.

And #80 does not want to be here. There is no way the Bills pay his salary this year - forget "cap space," it's too much in real $$$ for him. The only card the Bills have is that they own his rights - a team can trade for him and will not have to worry about other bidders. Of course, if he continues to insist he won't renegotiate his contract, it's irrelevant because nobody wants to be saddled with that contract. The reason the Bills told Moulds to find a trade is that only he can make commitments on renegotiating his contract. Other teams will only be interested in him if they can get him at fair value. Once he finds out that the Bills WERE offering fair value, he will have already burned the bridge.

Who would he compete against for the backup job - everyone else is trying for the starter's job

Wow. That's not right. We traded our 1st the next year, our 2nd and our 5th with the Cowboys for their 1st. You could say we traded a 2nd and 5th to swap 1sts, but your phrasing makes it sound like we got Losman AND their 1st. If we traded a 2nd and a 5th for Losman I don't think too many would complain about the gamble.

Of course you can. In fact, unless you serve it for 16 straight weeks with great side dishes and a nice bottle of wine, you aren't allowed to call it a turd because it still has the potential to be filet mignon.

So, after the first week of free agency, our big debate is whether the WR we signed is better that Josh Reed?

I think it probably depends on what you mean by a fair shake. I have faith that Levy and Jauron (and Mr. Wilson ) will do everything in their ability to decide if Losman is capable of leading the team - there is a lot of $$$ tied up in JP. If you're hoping they will let him start all 16 games as a learning experience to see if he can grow into a starter I think you will be disappointed.

We should remember that TD probably passed the free agency test every year.

Fair enough - I'll be a happy Bills fan if we are only 1 player short next offseason, no matter what he plays. In my opinion the qb is so "pivotal" (sorry for the pun) that our offense might continue to look lost and we won't distinguish our 5-11 team last year with crappy talent from this year's talented 6-10 team that only needs a quarterback.

So the Steelers were 6-10 in 2003 because of the QB, and 15-1 in 2004 because their QB didn't suck? Sounds like its pretty important to make sure you have a QB that doesn't suck.

Fair enough. But I did say "take to the Superbowl," not win the Superbowl

I'm not a Steelers fan, but I'm pretty sure that they were bad the year before they drafted him and for the couple of games his first year before he started. Even when he has been injured they have looked average. I would argue Big Ben proves that a QB can make the rest of the team better. Do you think Losman could have taken the Steelers to the Superbowl last year? Of course, I'm definitely NOT arguing that Ben would have taken the Bills to the Superbowl, I'm not THAT crazy

I wouldn't mind that, but the problem is that the QB doesn't sit on top of the system. A lot of the performance of the other players on offense is dependant on the QB's performance. The other problem is that fixing the QB position isn't that easy. If JP sucks this year what do we do next year? Sign a free agent or draft a rookie to start? Even worse, what if JP gets injured again? In my mind, QB is too important not to have options.

Since everyone seems to think it takes a year or two for a rookie QB to develop, wouldn't drafting a QB rather than signing a free agent indicate MORE faith in JP by the brain trust?

When we're talking about the scouts, don't forget the pro scouts. TD signed a few free agents for the line that also failed to produce. I would love to see some of the scouting reports the team has produced on a few of our past FAs

But don't we have the same scouting department that brought us our current level of roster talent? Just another thing Marv probably has to completely rebuild

I would never question a poster's verisimilitude - what people do outside the wall is none of my business

Is Davis-Triplett-Royal better that Moulds-Adams-Campbell? That seems more appropriate to me.

JP wants to know if he's bringing Favre's red shorts with him

Personally, it's not a lack of patience with Losman but with the organization and its willingness to put the responsibility for the team's success on an unproven, inexperienced player AGAIN. If the organization (Levy or Jauron) came out and said developing Losman is a priority, I would feel better. Instead, with the "open competition" for QB in camp, Losman needs to "beat" Holcomb or he sits again. Since I don't think our two QBs are similar enough to successfully run the same plays, do we design around Holcomb or Losman? If Holcomb wins the competition and our offense is built around his strengths, it doesn't seem to be an ideal learning situation for Losman. Plus, if Holcomb gets injured, the offense will need to adjust to a different style, limiting Losman's ability to shine. I'll show patience when I see some changes setting up Losman for success - ditch Holcomb and bring in a vet QB with a similar style to Losman and ready to be a mentor rather than competitor. Setup the offense for Losman's style, but don't throw him into the job until he's ready. I hope Losman can step in, easily win the job in preseason, and then light it up all year. But hoping and planning are two different things.

Why the heck should anyone outside of the organization "support" Losman. Other than a hockey goalie, I can't think of another position more important in professional sports, and we should have faith in Losman because we haven't seen him suck long enough yet? Losman is a football player, if he needs support from fans and media, he'll never make it. I want to see Losman throwing darts in preseason and leading the team, giving the fans and the media a big eff you while he's at it. But this is his 3rd year - blah, blah, blah injuries, blah blah blah offensive line. If he can't convince the new coaching staff and his teammates - not the fans - that he can lead the team, get rid of him. It's not easy to find and develop a good or great QB, but that doesn't mean the team should suffer for 3 or 4 years after every mistake. I like Losman and I hope he succeeds, but I said the same thing about Todd Collins, Rob Johnson and Drew Bledsoe. Ultimately I cheer for the laundry and I'm sick of football season ending by Week 10. Losman can make me a believer - until then he's just another one of TD's "brilliant" moves.