Get rid of Eric Moulds

[KurtGodel77]

Moulds is definately not worth that cap figuere but at the same time he's not worth getting rid of. Eric has been a pretty much team first guy and hopefully that continues, as love to see us restructure his contract in order to keep Pat Williams and Jonas Jennings. As a loss of either one would definately hurt this team immensly IMHO. I think Moulds' loss would also hurt as much if not more but do think we have to start thinking of his eventual replacement in 2006 or 2007.

190030[/snapback]

Of the three, Jennings is the most valuable because the offensive line is so important, and because he is nice and young. Pat Williams and Eric Moulds are both still capable of good play, and both are nearing the ends of their careers. Despite the travesty of our late-game run defense (or lack thereof) I liked the way big Pat played all year, and I'd like to see him stay. You need depth at DT, and Pat can be part of that rotation. As for Moulds, I believe we may already have his replacement on the roster in the form of Sam Aiken.

[The Jokeman]

Of the three, Jennings is the most valuable because the offensive line is so important, and because he is nice and young. Pat Williams and Eric Moulds are both still capable of good play, and both are nearing the ends of their careers. Despite the travesty of our late-game run defense (or lack thereof) I liked the way big Pat played all year, and I'd like to see him stay. You need depth at DT, and Pat can be part of that rotation. As for Moulds, I believe we may already have his replacement on the roster in the form of Sam Aiken.

190033[/snapback]

I agree Jennings the most important of the three. Followed by Moulds and then Williams (see the thread I start against bringing back Williams for more info). As a guy who was against drafting Evans (as thought Aiken and Reed and Shaw were solid) it's tough for me to say this but Aiken barely showed up as a 3rd WR this season to think he could be a number 2 with Evans as a 1 is questionable. As I think the primary reason Evans excelled so much this year was oppurunity (with Reed hurt) and he was playing opposite Moulds. Maybe Aiken's lack of production was a lack of faith by Drew (as we saw early on how unproductive Evans was without Drew's faith). So you could be right but let's not forget the reason Aiken was 4th Round pick was a lack of speed and possibly the same for Reed. That said I won't throw Aiken away as next year is his 3rd year which is all too often the turning point in a WRs career. I'll also give Reed a slight reprieve because he was injured most of this year.

[Deep2Moulds46]

I don't think you can outright cut him simply because you hae no true number 1 on this roster. People are all over Sam Aiken.....but in reality all he has done is looked good in training camp..block well..and catch a pass against the rams on a flea flicker when he was wide open. Let's see if Aiken can be a #3 before we just throw him in as the #1.

 

Moulds isn't consistent game in and game out..but at the end of the year his numbers are there. One thing that annoys me is..people say he isn't getting a lot of stats because he is double and triple teamed. Don't you think Terrell Owens and Javon Walker were double and triple teamed this year? Terrell Owens has chumps like Todd Pinkston and Freddie Mitchell working opposite him. If Moulds is a true big time receiver...then he needs to be more consistent game in and game out regardless of how the defense plays. Im guessing T.O doesn't just spend every Sunday beating man coverage.

[Spiderweb]

Of the three, Jennings is the most valuable because the offensive line is so important, and because he is nice and young. Pat Williams and Eric Moulds are both still capable of good play, and both are nearing the ends of their careers. Despite the travesty of our late-game run defense (or lack thereof) I liked the way big Pat played all year, and I'd like to see him stay. You need depth at DT, and Pat can be part of that rotation. As for Moulds, I believe we may already have his replacement on the roster in the form of Sam Aiken.

190033[/snapback]

 

While I'm not sure letting Moulds go is a very prudent thing to do, I do have to agree that a restructured deal is highly desireable in order to avoid that. I believe what we saw this year with Moulds-Evans was the initial baton passing. Moulds for the most became our possession WR this year. The big plays came from Evans. Even when Peerless had his big year in 2002, Moulds was still the man who also made more than his fair share of big plays, but they were far and way too few in between this year, especially for a WR due to have a cap number of 8.5 and I would bet big money that TD has already taken this into account for 2005.

 

Next, what is the cap hit if we release Drew (before and after June 1)?

[KurtGodel77]

I don't think you can outright cut him simply because you hae no true number 1 on this roster. People are all over Sam Aiken.....but in reality all he has done is looked good in training camp..block well..and catch a pass against the rams on a flea flicker when he was wide open. Let's see if Aiken can be a #3 before we just throw him in as the #1.

 

Moulds isn't consistent game in and game out..but at the end of the year his numbers are there. One thing that annoys me is..people say he isn't getting a lot of stats because he is double and triple teamed. Don't you think Terrell Owens and Javon Walker were double and triple teamed this year? Terrell Owens has chumps like Todd Pinkston and Freddie Mitchell working opposite him. If Moulds is a true big time receiver...then he needs to be more consistent game in and game out regardless of how the defense plays. Im guessing T.O doesn't just spend every Sunday beating man coverage.

190046[/snapback]

Good post, Deep2Moulds, but I think you're selling Aiken a little short. He played well today, and it seems like he does well when given the chance. That said, you hit the nail on the head with Moulds. Let's face it: some of the passes he caught today weren't against double or triple coverage. Probably that's been the case all year: if a team is blitzing, or sending extra men into the box to stop the run, that can leave Moulds with man-to-man coverage. At least some of his numbers came from passes caught in situations like that.

[KurtGodel77]

While I'm not sure letting Moulds go is a very prudent thing to do, I do have to agree that a restructured deal is highly desireable in order to avoid that. I believe what we saw this year with Moulds-Evans was the initial baton passing. Moulds for the most became our possession WR this year. The big plays came from Evans. Even when Peerless had his big year in 2002, Moulds was still the man who also made more than his fair share of big plays, but they were far and way too few in between this year, especially for a WR due to have a cap number of 8.5 and I would bet big money that TD has already taken this into account for 2005.

 

Next, what is the cap hit if we release Drew (before and after June 1)?

190049[/snapback]

I believe that we'd take a cap hit of $6.5 million for keeping Drew, $4 million (or thereabouts) for releasing him before June 1, and $2 million over two years for releasing him after June 1.

[Chilly]

Those weren't dropped passes, those were fantasy owners dropping him for whatever reason. If anyone can find out how many real drops he had, it would help this discussion.

190023[/snapback]

 

I know, I was being sarcastic and making fun of you at the same time.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

After Sterling Sharpe's career was prematurely ended by injury, Brett Farve actually got better. He started looking at all his WRs, instead of always keying in on just one guy. Getting rid of Sharpe made the other receivers better, not worse, and Sharpe was twice the WR Moulds is now.

190008[/snapback]

 

You DO have an EXCELLENT point there, but EM is VERY important right now, unless we find a replacement!!!

[KurtGodel77]

I know, I was being sarcastic and making fun of you at the same time.

190053[/snapback]

Yeah, but I didn't want others on this thread going to that website looking for the number of drops Moulds had, only to see that you were just telling a lame joke. Worse, I didn't want the rumor spreading that Moulds had over 100 drops.

[KurtGodel77]

You DO have an EXCELLENT point there, but EM is VERY important right now, unless we find a replacement!!!

190096[/snapback]

In 2003, injuries to Moulds and the removal of Price caused Bobby Shaw to be our featured receiver for much of the year. He had 730 yards receiving in that role. In 2004, Moulds had 1000 yards receiving as our featured receiver. Unlike Shaw in 2003, Moulds had Evans to stretch defenses. He had a running game that caused defenses to put 8 or 9 men in the box. He had an offensive line that learned to pass protect reasonably well. He had a QB who learned to play better in 2004 than in 2003. With all those advantages, Moulds should have been MORE than a 300 yard upgrade over a guy who couldn't even keep a roster spot. Sam Aiken is just as good, if not better, than Bobby Shaw. If Bobby Shaw could produce 730 yards, Aiken could produce 800 - 900 yards as our possession receiver.

[34-78-83]

Kurt, you are wrong on your "8 in the box, don't worry about Moulds" theory. Although many teams have indeed loaded the box, if you actually watch the defenses they are rolling the safety to Moulds on almost every down, thus creating an Under/Over coverage on him. It was very apparent yesterday and at the other games I went to this season, as well as to a lesser extent on TV. Evans would not have produced half of his numbers this year if it wasn't for Moulds. I do agree that he needs to restructure his high salary though, and I think he will.

[KurtGodel77]

Kurt, you are wrong on your "8 in the box, don't worry about Moulds" theory. Although many teams have indeed loaded the box, if you actually watch the defenses they are rolling the safety to Moulds on almost every down, thus creating an Under/Over coverage on him. It was very apparent yesterday and at the other games I went to this season, as well as to a lesser extent on TV. Evans would not have produced half of his numbers this year if it wasn't for Moulds. I do agree that he needs to restructure his high salary though, and I think he will.

190649[/snapback]

A lot of times when I see Moulds actually catching passes, it seems like there is only one defender right near him. To me, catching the ball in double coverage means you've got two guys hitting you just as the ball arrives, and you somehow manage to make the catch anyway. I don't see Moulds doing that as often as the big-time possession receivers.

[stuckincincy]

No, let's get rid of Drew instead.

190024[/snapback]

 

Yep, some blame Moulds for having lousy pass-catching FEET and KNEES...

[KurtGodel77]

Yep, some blame Moulds for having lousy pass-catching FEET and KNEES...  

190659[/snapback]

If the ball hits Moulds in the knees, he should catch it. The Patriots have receivers that catch anything within a mile of them.

[bluenews]

Willis MaGahee is the offense!!!

 

Moulds still has a tremendous value to the organization. I hope they can restructure his contract and make more cap friendly. Sam Aiken is not ready and Josh Reed should be CUT!!!

[34-78-83]

A lot of times when I see Moulds actually catching passes, it seems like there is only one defender right near him. To me, catching the ball in double coverage means you've got two guys hitting you just as the ball arrives, and you somehow manage to make the catch anyway. I don't see Moulds doing that as often as the big-time possession receivers.

190657[/snapback]

 

Double coverage in today's game does not always mean you're going to see 2 guys hitting the WR at the same time as the ball arrives. When you see EM catching a pass or getting thrown to it generally means they have found a way to motion him away from the extra coverage or he has run a come back route to avoid the over the top cover man. Moulds does not need to be a top 5 WR (although he is close) to have great value to the Bills. I already did agree that his salary will need to be restructured.

[zevo]

i agree with kurt. Either moulds restructures or cut him. he does not warrant that kind of money.

[stuckincincy]

If the ball hits Moulds in the knees, he should catch it. The Patriots have receivers that catch anything within a mile of them.

190666[/snapback]

 

Kurt, Moulds is aging, he should re-negotiate, but he remains a good pro player. The qb pitching to him is equal opportunity - 50% completions for everybody.

 

You can go and find fault down to the atomic level if you like, but the fact is the Bills qb is an endearing artifice.

[RkFast]

This forum needs a "short bus". A place where threads like this one should go.

[KurtGodel77]

Kurt, Moulds is aging, he should re-negotiate, but he remains a good pro player.  The qb pitching to him is equal opportunity - 50% completions for everybody.

 

You can go and find fault down to the atomic level if you like, but the fact is the Bills qb is an endearing artifice.

190687[/snapback]

If we start Losman next year, the QB play won't be much better, at least not at first. We need WRs who don't drop what should be easy passes, and who don't always need the ball thrown perfectly to make the catch. For every circus catch Moulds makes, there have got to be at least five drops. Even if he were to restructure down to a $4 million deal, I think there would be better ways to use that $4 million in cap room. Ways like improving our offensive line.