KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 This forum needs a "short bus". A place where threads like this one should go. 190693[/snapback] Calling someone stupid for disagreeing with you. How original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 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. 190679[/snapback] The QB only has a certain amount of time before he has to either throw the ball or take a sack. If your possession WR is spending some of that time running back toward the line of scrimmage to avoid the second cover guy, your passing game is going to be more limited and less threatening. Basically, your possession WR is going after the short stuff because he no longer has the talent to burn people deep. Sam Aiken could do the same thing, and we'd be rid of that entire $8.5 million cap figure come 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 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] I guess the question is will he take a pay cut? I doubt it. He's not worth his cap money but in this instance I think an exception should be made given he still has 2 or 3 more good years and he's leader on an offense and other than Willis maybe the only leader on offense. If they cut him they better have someone else in free agency that has plenty of talent and is not a cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 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. 190696[/snapback] All for improving the O-Line. This year as well as last, and I regret their passing over Steinbach in '03. Unfortunately the current regime thinks otherwise, if evidence counts for anything. The Bills have a management and football intelligence problem. We all can recognize a stink coming from the top... Making reaches for WMG and Losman and older vets is indicative of a PT Barnum approach, IMO. They have been out of the playoffs for 4 years, after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Team needs a 3rd WR. Pitt's offense with Randel El and the Pat's with Branch or Givens are dynamic on 3rd down. Reed is just not dynamic in that spot. Donahue expected Reed to be like Crebet or Stokely, but the former Tiger is far to slow for the slot position which requires him to beat nickel and dime coverage. Moulds is still solid and Evans looks like a force. Moulds sees double coverage and rolling cover 2 coverage every passing down. Mularky must use Moulds like he used Hynes Ward in Pitt. and have Evans stretch the field ala Burress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I wouldnt let Moulds go...He's beena big key in Lee Evans development... The Jets @ Bills game, it was Eric who told Lee to keep fighting(after a 0 catch first half), that he would be a big part of the 2nd half, and he exploded from that game on...... Moulds takes coverage away from Lee....draws the safety over to his side....especially when they line-up on same side(ex. the @Miami game).... Hopefully TD, can extend Moulds to a cap "friendly" deal this offseason, so Moulds can retire a Bill(hopefully with a ring at some point) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I guess the question is will he take a pay cut? I doubt it. He's not worth his cap money but in this instance I think an exception should be made given he still has 2 or 3 more good years and he's leader on an offense and other than Willis maybe the only leader on offense. If they cut him they better have someone else in free agency that has plenty of talent and is not a cancer. 190783[/snapback] I imagine something will have to be worked out there because Moulds can still help this Team, but at the same time he is no where near the Playmaker his Cap figure in 2005 would suggest... As an EM Fan, I do believe he has suffered some from the inaccuracies at the QB Position...And there is no doubt in my mind Lee Evans has been greatly aided by Moulds presence on and off the Field...But that Cap # is HUGE! And this Team still has a few gaping holes to fill...If they restructure, in essence what the Bills would be doing is extending a deal for a 30 plus year old WR who looks to be just past his prime...TD did the same with Bledsoe last Off Season, so who's to say he will not extend EM??? Either way it's a tough call... I certainly hope Eric is back in 2005, but I would not be surprised at all if the Bills cut ties either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 That guy drops too many passes, and he's scheduled to make $8.5 million next season, his tenth in the league. This past year, he just barely surpassed 1000 yards, despite being Drew's main target on most plays. Moulds has three seasons when he got to about 1300 yards or better, and that was when we didn't run the ball often enough to take pressure off the passing game. If we put some other guy in the possession receiver place he might do just as well if not better. 189973[/snapback] A very idiotic post. Moulds is still one of the best recievers in this league. His numbers were down because teams double teamed him on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 All for improving the O-Line. This year as well as last, and I regret their passing over Steinbach in '03. Unfortunately the current regime thinks otherwise, if evidence counts for anything. The Bills have a management and football intelligence problem. We all can recognize a stink coming from the top... Making reaches for WMG and Losman and older vets is indicative of a PT Barnum approach, IMO. They have been out of the playoffs for 4 years, after all... 190785[/snapback] Willis was a great pick, and I'm glad he's on the team. As for Losman . . . people complain about Drew, then they complain when TD does something to try to replace Drew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 A very idiotic post. Moulds is still one of the best recievers in this league. His numbers were down because teams double teamed him on a regular basis. 190942[/snapback] Teams double covered Bobby Shaw a lot in 2003 because there was nothing else for that last defender to do. (No need to defend the run when facing KG, the other WRs were an injured Moulds and an ineffective Josh Reed). Bobby Shaw still piled up 730 yards despite that double coverage. So I'm not that impressed with Moulds piling up 1000 yards this year, considering all the things that are better about the offense this year in comparison with last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Teams double covered Bobby Shaw a lot in 2003 because there was nothing else for that last defender to do. (No need to defend the run when facing KG, the other WRs were an injured Moulds and an ineffective Josh Reed). Bobby Shaw still piled up 730 yards despite that double coverage. So I'm not that impressed with Moulds piling up 1000 yards this year, considering all the things that are better about the offense this year in comparison with last. 190961[/snapback] Alright Kurt let me ask you this. If we cut Moulds, who would be next to Lee Evans that can produce the numbers that Eric has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Willis was a great pick, and I'm glad he's on the team. As for Losman . . . people complain about Drew, then they complain when TD does something to try to replace Drew. 190953[/snapback] McGahee looks like he will pan out. But for various reasons, the NFL success window is only a few years save for teams that have exceptional quarterbacking. My rules for an offense: Get a great center. Get good guards. An OL that traps and pulls. Get a heady qb - I don't give a da*n about arm strength. Get wr's and te's that confound safeties and lb's and curl back for a 5 to 10 yard gain - reliably. Get a fb who blocks, can catch, and run him 100 times a year. I want to own the clock, to keep my defense rested and keep other team's offensive big noises on the bench. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 McGahee looks like he will pan out. But for various reasons, the NFL success window is only a few years save for teams that have exceptional quarterbacking. My rules for an offense: Get a great center. Get good guards. An OL that traps and pulls. Get a heady qb - I don't give a da*n about arm strength. Get wr's and te's that confound safeties and lb's and curl back for a 5 to 10 yard gain - reliably. Get a fb who blocks, can catch, and run him 100 times a year. I want to own the clock, to keep my defense rested and keep other team's offensive big noises on the bench. My 2 cents. 190993[/snapback] you just described the jets offense. the problem is, their qb's arm strength is a real problem, even though he is heady. believe it or not, arm strength is a real asset in the nfl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Alright Kurt let me ask you this. If we cut Moulds, who would be next to Lee Evans that can produce the numbers that Eric has? 190967[/snapback] Well, Bobby Shaw produced similar numbers under more adverse circumstances, so we could always bring him back. But on a more serious note, Aiken could play just as well as Shaw. Or we could trade Moulds and draft a young posession receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 McGahee looks like he will pan out. But for various reasons, the NFL success window is only a few years save for teams that have exceptional quarterbacking. My rules for an offense: Get a great center. Get good guards. An OL that traps and pulls. Get a heady qb - I don't give a da*n about arm strength. Get wr's and te's that confound safeties and lb's and curl back for a 5 to 10 yard gain - reliably. Get a fb who blocks, can catch, and run him 100 times a year. I want to own the clock, to keep my defense rested and keep other team's offensive big noises on the bench. My 2 cents. 190993[/snapback] Overall I like this philosophy. The heady, weak-armed QB will work if you've got a guy who can hit his WRs in perfect stride, the way Joe Montana did. Your WRs need to be able to run the quick slant well, the way Jerry Rice did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 The heady, weak-armed QB will work if you've got a guy who can hit his WRs in perfect stride, the way Joe Montana did. 191162[/snapback] Unless you play half your games in windy Orchard Park, the place noodle-armed HOF QBs go to look mediocre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Unless you play half your games in windy Orchard Park, the place noodle-armed HOF QBs go to look mediocre. 191178[/snapback] Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Unless you play half your games in windy Orchard Park, the place noodle-armed HOF QBs go to look mediocre. 191178[/snapback] Oh boy. The new wave, evaluating character and talent based on the climate. Yep, I'll run out and get a dummie qb that stinks for 12 games but by gosh, he's tops in the bad weather. So what if we don't make the show, we darn sure showed them when the weather was bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Oh boy. The new wave, evaluating character and talent based on the climate. Yep, I'll run out and get a dummie qb that stinks for 12 games but by gosh, he's tops in the bad weather. So what if we don't make the show, we darn sure showed them when the weather was bad... 191233[/snapback] Yeah, that was the inference I was making. Every QB is not going to have success in every system/situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Oh boy. The new wave, evaluating character and talent based on the climate. Yep, I'll run out and get a dummie qb that stinks for 12 games but by gosh, he's tops in the bad weather. So what if we don't make the show, we darn sure showed them when the weather was bad... 191233[/snapback] That's not what he was saying. He was just saying that a good arm is more important in bad weather than in good weather. That doesn't mean your QB can be an idiot--he still has to win the game with his head, not his arm or his legs. But no matter how smart a QB is, there is some minimum level of physical talent (including arm strength) he has to have to succeed. That minimum is higher for bad weather teams like Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts