stuckincincy Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Yeah, that was the inference I was making. Every QB is not going to have success in every system/situation. 191251[/snapback] Clarify your inferences, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Let's cut our top receiver--our top RB while we're at it. Yes he needs to concentrate more and was dropping too mant passes, but come on people! What receiver on this team had 80+ catches? Evans, I love, but he had what maybe 40 catches. The two of them together are very nice complement and should be better next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Let's cut our top receiver--our top RB while we're at it. Yes he needs to concentrate more and was dropping too mant passes, but come on people! What receiver on this team had 80+ catches? Evans, I love, but he had what maybe 40 catches. The two of them together are very nice complement and should be better next year. 191315[/snapback] Moulds got more catches because he was the primary target on so many pass plays. You could take any reasonably competent WR, make him the primary focus of your pass attack, and he will get the 1000 yards that Moulds got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Clarify your inferences, then. 191262[/snapback] Or you could use some common sense. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 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. 190768[/snapback] Ok you don't get it. Sam Aiken would not draw the extra coverage....Hello? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 Ok you don't get it. Sam Aiken would not draw the extra coverage....Hello? 191700[/snapback] Does Eric Moulds have superior athletic ability to Sam Aiken? At this stage in his career, I'd say the answer is no. Does Moulds have superior execution? Well, with all Moulds' drops, and with Aiken running his routes pretty well, I'd say the answer is again no. So if you fed a Sam Aiken the same opportunities you fed Eric Moulds, I'd say the defense would double cover him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Does Eric Moulds have superior athletic ability to Sam Aiken? At this stage in his career, I'd say the answer is no. Does Moulds have superior execution? Well, with all Moulds' drops, and with Aiken running his routes pretty well, I'd say the answer is again no. So if you fed a Sam Aiken the same opportunities you fed Eric Moulds, I'd say the defense would double cover him. 191755[/snapback] Not a bloody chance in hell. I respect that you have the nad to even say this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Does Eric Moulds have superior athletic ability to Sam Aiken? At this stage in his career, I'd say the answer is no. Does Moulds have superior execution? Well, with all Moulds' drops, and with Aiken running his routes pretty well, I'd say the answer is again no. So if you fed a Sam Aiken the same opportunities you fed Eric Moulds, I'd say the defense would double cover him. 191755[/snapback] Thankfully Aiken has been immune to the dropsies. Oops, no he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 Not a bloody chance in hell. I respect that you have the nad to even say this though. 191775[/snapback] Well, if Sam Aiken isn't the answer, we should go with my other plan, which is to sign Brees (assuming San Diego doesn't franchise him), trade Losman for a first round pick, and use said pick to draft Moulds' replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Well, if Sam Aiken isn't the answer, we should go with my other plan, which is to sign Brees (assuming San Diego doesn't franchise him), trade Losman for a first round pick, and use said pick to draft Moulds' replacement. 191814[/snapback] Ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ljberkow12 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Original post on this thread is right. Moulds play does not justify $8.5 million salary cap hit. They should make him re-do deal or cut him. That's the way business is done in the NFL. The Bills did it with Bledsoe last year and should do it with Moulds now. WR is not a position teams should spend $8 million on unless you're talking about a TO. Muhammad is just as good and is a FA this year and won't see anywhere close to $8 million. Moulds will probably renegotiate the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Well, if Sam Aiken isn't the answer, we should go with my other plan, which is to sign Brees (assuming San Diego doesn't franchise him), trade Losman for a first round pick, and use said pick to draft Moulds' replacement. 191814[/snapback] this has to be one of the more comical threads i've read in some time. the fallacy behind all of this is that somehow moulds' cap # is a problem for the bills. the bills are in great cap shape, have no first rounder in next year's draft, and will have no dead money unless they cut either drew or moulds (ruben brown's charge to this year's cap represents the last of it). and that ain't gonna happen. what everyone needs to remember is that the bills cap numbers are all pretty irrelevant - they're like the eagles at this point: way under with no one threatening the structure. as for moulds, he was at one point in his career -- 1998, 2000, and 2002, to be precise -- one of the 5 best receivers in the league. now he's probably in the top 15 at worst. you put him in the rams offense, and he'll average 14-15 yds/reception. he doesn't play in that sort of offense anymore - he plays in one in which the qb is expected to be a caretaker only lest he singlehandedly screw up the production of a moderately productive offensive unit. by the way, not having an effective receiving te has not been helpful to moulds. the last effective receiver they had at that position was riemersma (not great, but an effective 12 yd/reception receiver and good for 38-50 catches when healthy), and his last year here was 2002. go figure. and by the way, before he got hurt in 03, moulds was sensational -- he played great against ne and jax, and pretty much won the game for them against cincy in OT (the play he got hurt on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts