Crows57 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 pffffftttt...say what you want about Moulds but the guy is one of the best in the league. He's a true number one reciever. He made Peerless Price a rich man, and he's going to do the same for Lee Evans. 201370[/snapback] Define 'one of the best in the league'. I'm not sure I'd have him in the top 15 WRs anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Sounds to me like your sources don't know a whole lot about football. 201130[/snapback] when i asked this question my source said "Try Again Later" damn 8 ball's keeping me hanging! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Well, there were a lot of other number one receivers on that list, and most of them ranked higher than Moulds. Mushin Muhammed was the Panthers' number one target, and he ranked third on the list. Terrell Owens was Philadelphia's only receiver, and he ranked 10th. Even the likes of Joey Galloway ranked higher than Moulds. 201138[/snapback] Galloway ranking ahead of Moulds is a prime example of why these stats are misleading. Galloway had 32 catches for 416 yards and 5 TDs. Moulds had 88 catches for 1048 yards and 5 TDs. Do you really think that Galloway is a more capable receiver than Moulds? Would you rather have Galloway instead of Moulds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Galloway ranking ahead of Moulds is a prime example of why these stats are misleading. Galloway had 32 catches for 416 yards and 5 TDs. Moulds had 88 catches for 1048 yards and 5 TDs. Do you really think that Galloway is a more capable receiver than Moulds? Would you rather have Galloway instead of Moulds? 202091[/snapback] And reality strikes again! Bottom line kids, ALL stats should be taken with a grain of salt and should only be offered to support an argument, not to make one. Joey G cannot hold Em's jockstrap, any way you slice it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Galloway ranking ahead of Moulds is a prime example of why these stats are misleading. Galloway had 32 catches for 416 yards and 5 TDs. Moulds had 88 catches for 1048 yards and 5 TDs. Do you really think that Galloway is a more capable receiver than Moulds? Would you rather have Galloway instead of Moulds? 202091[/snapback] Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenews Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Sounds to me like your sources don't know a whole lot about football. 201130[/snapback] what about Drew Haddad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Galloway ranking ahead of Moulds is a prime example of why these stats are misleading. Galloway had 32 catches for 416 yards and 5 TDs. Moulds had 88 catches for 1048 yards and 5 TDs. Do you really think that Galloway is a more capable receiver than Moulds? Would you rather have Galloway instead of Moulds? 202091[/snapback] The problem you point out is actually a misreading of what the stats stand for. Unless I'm wrong, these stats rank WRs in terms of POINTS SCORED per situation relative to other WRs. In other words, they would tend to rank possession receivers lower than "streakers" who get a lot of TDs-per-touch like Galloway. The stats are just measuring point production - as some posters point out correctly, they say nothing re: strength of competition (cornerback), character, work ethic, leadership, ability to force a defense to adjust/play looser on other WRs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 pffffftttt...say what you want about Moulds but the guy is one of the best in the league. He's a true number one reciever. He made Peerless Price a rich man, and he's going to do the same for Lee Evans. 201370[/snapback] Agreed 100%. Getting rid of him would be wouldn't be wise, especially if he is willing to restucture his contract for the sake of helping our team get more quality players to win a championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Evans strikes me as one of those guys who will put up Pro Bowl numbers IF he is across from a big physical reciever on the other side......... I think he is a big play guy and definately will grow into a 1a....but we must keep Eric Moulds because: a. He is still commanding the double team b. He CARES about this team c. He has helped us out in the past reg contract...he could have gotten ridiculous money somewhere else d. He is will to restructure now Eric Moulds is what Bills football is all about.....he needs to stay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohninMinn. Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Evans goes across the middle Moulds doesn't. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Evans goes across the middle Moulds doesn't. Case closed. 202172[/snapback] I don't have any "stats" but I'm fairly certain that I saw Moulds going across the middle quite often, but I don't remember Evans doing so very often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fla Bills Fan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Well, there were a lot of other number one receivers on that list, and most of them ranked higher than Moulds. Mushin Muhammed was the Panthers' number one target, and he ranked third on the list. Terrell Owens was Philadelphia's only receiver, and he ranked 10th. Even the likes of Joey Galloway ranked higher than Moulds. 201138[/snapback] That only proves stats are bogus. Galloway played very little this season due to injuries. Michael Clayton played better than Galloway when Galloway did play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts