Eric Moulds was on Sirius radio today.

[ganesh]

Moulds was working on his second redshirt season in 1997 so Todd Collins, BJH and AVP didn't even hinder him too much.

 

 

 

"hill to die on"?

 

As for NFL historians.....I think Mouldsy is an afterthought to most of them. I think he's remembered more like a Joe Horn than he is as one of the greats. He was better than Tim Euhus though. What did they grab a bunch of random "commons" football cards out of shoe box to put together the lineup for that radio show?

 

I believe Moulds is part of a group of players participating in a NFL program for media broadcasting. As part of the program exercise, these folks must go live on the air and that is what they did. There is a blog from Chris Brown on this on Buffalo Bills web site.

 

 

I feel the same way about Moulds. I think he's the best player to put on a Bills uniform from 1998 to present. the only member of the Bills since 98 who was arguably among the top 3 at his position as a Bill (unless we are counting a punter)

Hands down.

 

One Mr. Aaron Schoebel may disagree.

[Buftex]

I believe Moulds is part of a group of players participating in a NFL program for media broadcasting. As part of the program exercise, these folks must go live on the air and that is what they did. There is a blog from Chris Brown on this on Buffalo Bills web site.

 

 

 

One Mr. Aaron Schoebel may disagree.

 

Antoine Winfield and Pat Williams clear their throats in unison...

[dave mcbride]

I did. Frankly, I didn't elaborate because I am surprised at the lack of perspective in your argument. You are trying to compare Moulds ypc to those of great WCO receivers who were asked to catch dozens of short passes every year because of their system.

 

Compare him to receivers who were used mostly as intermediate and deep targets as he was. Isaac Bruce for instance AVERAGED 15ypc over like a 14 year career? Was he greater than Jerry Rice? Of course not. He just wasn't asked to catch 60-70 extended handoffs every season.

 

Like I said, Moulds was much closer to being a Joe Horn than a Jerry Rice or TO or Marvin Harrison. Horn averaged 14.5 ypc from 2000-2004. Horn was actually better than Moulds from 2000 on. Joe Horn is an afterthought in NFL receiving history, and Moulds really is as well. Moulds had one great season. I know you want to count 1999 as a great season because of his YPC being at 15 but he only caught 60 passes for chrissake.

Like I said, he missed the equivalent of three games that season. His rate for a full season in 1999 was 73 catches for 1205 yards. But whatever. You seem intent on ignoring that he had to play with the worst sort of qb for his game (Johnson) and the fact that Bledsoe was a bad QB for his last 2.5 seasons with the Bills. Hell, with regard to Johnson, a lot of those planned deep plays never happened because as the QB with the highest sack rate in NFL history, Johnson wasn't able to throw the damn ball. Over his career, he was sacked at the staggering rate of 14.8 percent. No one else is even close. In the Flutie years (1998-2000), Johnson was sacked at a rate of 17.7 percent. Let me repeat that - 17.7 percent. Flutie's sack rate with the Bills in those same years was 4.3 percent. And Bledsoe sack rate in his years with the Bills was quite poor too. His average sack rates from 2002-04 were 8.1, 9.4, and 7.6 percent.

 

In the 35 games that Flutie started for the Bills, Moulds had 150 receptions for 2799 yards. He averaged 18.7 ypc over that span. In 1998, he averaged 23.2 ypc, in 1999 15.5, and in 2000 15.7. Again, these are just the Flutie games. Also, let's leave Joe Horn out of this and focus on Moulds and the QBs throwing to him. Assuming a constant of Flutie in Moulds' prime, his average season would be 69 receptions for 1280 yards (again, 18.7 ypc).

 

I won't even bring up the fact that for years you erroneously supported Johnson, from the 1998 trade through the Flutie controversy. You seem to have come around to the reality of the situation (i.e., Flutie was far better and far, far smarter than Johnson even if he wasn't great). That's good, and I know I shouldn't cast stones because I've made similar terrible errors in judging personnel over the years too.

 

Basically, from 1998-early 2003, Moulds was an elite receiver who played only intermittently with a solid to good QB. That is, for essentially five years. That may not sound like much, but it's the NFL and not MLB. Lots of famous players were great for five years or less. Our very own Orenthal only had 5 good seasons, all consecutive. Gale Sayers had even less.

Edited June 21, 2013 by dave mcbride

[NoName]

First of all that Baldobillz guy has odd takes. He seems to really have something person against Moulds. Stevie does get open really well off the line. But what about after 10 yards???

 

You want to talk about slowing down, think about the deep balls Stevie caught over the 2011 2010 and compare it with last year????

 

Stevie is not even in the same class as Moulds....Let's get that straight

 

Moulds, as great as he was, is not in the class of Andre Reed......let's get that straight. Andre Reed will eventually get in the HOF, Moulds will never get in......Reed is possibly the best receiver EVER as far as RAC. Reed was an outstanding route runner. Outstanding hands....but just because Moulds isnt an Andre Reed, is not a knock to Moulds in anyway.

 

The poster who "hints" that Shobel was better than Moulds. Not even close. Shobel not even better than Winfield. Very close with Pat Williams for 3rd. I'd probably give Shobel the slight nod at 3rd. I consider Winfield pretty darn close to Moulds as far as a overall football player.

 

Also, why in the heck would you compare Moulds to receivers who were mostly intermediate and deep targets?? Moulds was an all around receiver. He did short, intermediate and deep.

 

Don't fall in love with the stats. People who know football, who saw him play go by the eye test. And the eye test says this guy was an elite receiver. I remember the hoody saying Moulds was one of the best receivers in the league, I heard T.O. say it, Andre Johnson said it, Jerry Rice said it.....so sorry Badolbeelz but I would take the opinion of pros who played the position over your "opinion"

[ChevyVanMiller]

Does Moulds still live in WNY?

 

No, but a baker's dozen of his kids still live in various homes around the region.

[dave mcbride]

First of all that Baldobillz guy has odd takes. He seems to really have something person against Moulds. Stevie does get open really well off the line. But what about after 10 yards???

 

You want to talk about slowing down, think about the deep balls Stevie caught over the 2011 2010 and compare it with last year????

 

Stevie is not even in the same class as Moulds....Let's get that straight

 

Moulds, as great as he was, is not in the class of Andre Reed......let's get that straight. Andre Reed will eventually get in the HOF, Moulds will never get in......Reed is possibly the best receiver EVER as far as RAC. Reed was an outstanding route runner. Outstanding hands....but just because Moulds isnt an Andre Reed, is not a knock to Moulds in anyway.

 

The poster who "hints" that Shobel was better than Moulds. Not even close. Shobel not even better than Winfield. Very close with Pat Williams for 3rd. I'd probably give Shobel the slight nod at 3rd. I consider Winfield pretty darn close to Moulds as far as a overall football player.

 

Also, why in the heck would you compare Moulds to receivers who were mostly intermediate and deep targets?? Moulds was an all around receiver. He did short, intermediate and deep.

 

Don't fall in love with the stats. People who know football, who saw him play go by the eye test. And the eye test says this guy was an elite receiver. I remember the hoody saying Moulds was one of the best receivers in the league, I heard T.O. say it, Andre Johnson said it, Jerry Rice said it.....so sorry Badolbeelz but I would take the opinion of pros who played the position over your "opinion"

 

Schoebel was a good player but he never had an top shelf/elite season. Moulds did. Winfield was and is good, but for the Bills he was never enough of a ballhawk to merit being called a great player. Nate Clements had a couple of seasons with the Bills that were better than what Winfield ever had with the Bills.

[enlightener]

now its a battle of all time bills from 1998 to present? Scheobel vs Winfield, Williams vs clements etc? Why argue who was better at non comparable positons? This thread was about Moulds' talent. I understand comparing T Edwards to JP or RJ to Flutie etc. But why fight about Moulds vs Reed vs SJ? Theyre all "good" I wrote the other day that SJ is about the 20th best wr in the league and had people argue he was about 18th to 15th! Its really impossible to argue this exactly since injuries and QB's and systems always play a factor in how a player looked. I try to go with "snapshots" of a player along with stats. For example, I saw Moulds once leap twist and turn in the air and grab a deep TD from RJ vs Miami once that has never left my memory til today. Also his Kick returns that he would catch over his head and not basket like. He also knocked down a hail mary against KC once to ice a game. He also took so many to the house some deep balls and some short RAC type where hed bowl over a guy that I cant remember which were which anymore. So far I don't remember SJ or Even Reed doing so many different things. I admit Reed had more stats but he played longer and with JK. I don't remember Reed catching as many bombs as Moulds though, or doing any defensive or KR type stuff. Moulds out weighed Reed by about 15 lbs but was just as fast. Reed has sweeter RAC moves and I remember many great runs and reverses. Moulds ran reverses also and even took a KR home once too. So far SJ hasn't done much that stands out to me aside from making two nice leaping grabs and his cincy "why so serious " breakout game along with some big drops and penalties and getting caught from behind a lot. His stats are ok. I really hope he turns the corner this year w Kolb and gets a 10 TD year w 1300 yards, some game winners and a deep ball here and there. That would cement him as a top shelf WR like Moulds was...and Reed.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

now its a battle of all time bills from 1998 to present? Scheobel vs Winfield, Williams vs clements etc? Why argue who was better at non comparable positons? This thread was about Moulds' talent. I understand comparing T Edwards to JP or RJ to Flutie etc. But why fight about Moulds vs Reed vs SJ? Theyre all "good" I wrote the other day that SJ is about the 20th best wr in the league and had people argue he was about 18th to 15th! Its really impossible to argue this exactly since injuries and QB's and systems always play a factor in how a player looked. I try to go with "snapshots" of a player along with stats. For example, I saw Moulds once leap twist and turn in the air and grab a deep TD from RJ vs Miami once that has never left my memory til today. Also his Kick returns that he would catch over his head and not basket like. He also knocked down a hail mary against KC once to ice a game. He also took so many to the house some deep balls and some short RAC type where hed bowl over a guy that I cant remember which were which anymore. So far I don't remember SJ or Even Reed doing so many different things. I admit Reed had more stats but he played longer and with JK. I don't remember Reed catching as many bombs as Moulds though, or doing any defensive or KR type stuff. Moulds out weighed Reed by about 15 lbs but was just as fast. Reed has sweeter RAC moves and I remember many great runs and reverses. Moulds ran reverses also and even took a KR home once too. So far SJ hasn't done much that stands out to me aside from making two nice leaping grabs and his cincy "why so serious " breakout game along with some big drops and penalties and getting caught from behind a lot. His stats are ok. I really hope he turns the corner this year w Kolb and gets a 10 TD year w 1300 yards, some game winners and a deep ball here and there. That would cement him as a top shelf WR like Moulds was...and Reed.

 

You're new here and you make some good points but as an older poster I'll tell you that the larger point is that the Bills have sucked for years therefore it's pointless to discuss these things.

 

 

p.s. - Also keep in mind we can't talk trash about the Bills opponents because we suck.

[BADOLBILZ]

First of all that Baldobillz guy has odd takes. He seems to really have something person against Moulds. Stevie does get open really well off the line. But what about after 10 yards???

 

You want to talk about slowing down, think about the deep balls Stevie caught over the 2011 2010 and compare it with last year????

 

Stevie is not even in the same class as Moulds....Let's get that straight

 

Moulds, as great as he was, is not in the class of Andre Reed......let's get that straight. Andre Reed will eventually get in the HOF, Moulds will never get in......Reed is possibly the best receiver EVER as far as RAC. Reed was an outstanding route runner. Outstanding hands....but just because Moulds isnt an Andre Reed, is not a knock to Moulds in anyway.

 

The poster who "hints" that Shobel was better than Moulds. Not even close. Shobel not even better than Winfield. Very close with Pat Williams for 3rd. I'd probably give Shobel the slight nod at 3rd. I consider Winfield pretty darn close to Moulds as far as a overall football player.

 

Also, why in the heck would you compare Moulds to receivers who were mostly intermediate and deep targets?? Moulds was an all around receiver. He did short, intermediate and deep.

 

Don't fall in love with the stats. People who know football, who saw him play go by the eye test. And the eye test says this guy was an elite receiver. I remember the hoody saying Moulds was one of the best receivers in the league, I heard T.O. say it, Andre Johnson said it, Jerry Rice said it.....so sorry Badolbeelz but I would take the opinion of pros who played the position over your "opinion"

 

 

I agree, Moulds was not in the class of Andre Reed. There are a lot of Bills fans that vehemently disagree with us though and think Moulds was as good or actually better. Like you said, not in the same class.

 

Was Moulds one of the best receivers in the league in his prime? Sure, he was. Relatively speaking. Though doth protest far too much. Perhaps you should have read my posts instead of assuming I said things that I did not. He was a 3 time Pro Bowl player and even a first team All Pro in that great 1998 season. For a very short time, he was a brand name receiver because of that great 1998 season.

 

But does that make him an elite receiver over the course of his career? Not hardly. And anyone who compares Moulds to Andre Reed is saying that because Andre Reed was an elite receiver.

 

Like I said, the afterthought that is Joe Horn.....4 time pro bowl player, consistently better ypc numbers etc.. The point is that Mould was not a great player. He was very good for a short period of time but his skills were steadily declining. Like you said, I didn't need stats to tell me that. I watched him from my 50 yard line seats.

 

And the complaints that he got shafted by bad QB play or whatever are complaints that tons of receivers can make. Moulds had plenty of opportunity to show that he was elite. If Andre Reed played with Dan Marino or Warren Moon he probably would have had far greater numbers than playing in a more balanced, but run-oriented attack in Buffalo. If Joe Horn were a 1st round pick like Moulds, maybe he wouldn't have been on the bench for his first 4 years in Kansas City and would have had BETTER career numbers than Moulds. I am just using Horn as an example here, because I don't think A LOT of Bills fans realize that there are a lot of very good receivers in the NFL. Again, Moulds was very good receiver for a short period of time. Overrated by a lot of Bills fans. Absolutely.

[BADOLBILZ]

Like I said, he missed the equivalent of three games that season. His rate for a full season in 1999 was 73 catches for 1205 yards. But whatever. You seem intent on ignoring that he had to play with the worst sort of qb for his game (Johnson) and the fact that Bledsoe was a bad QB for his last 2.5 seasons with the Bills. Hell, with regard to Johnson, a lot of those planned deep plays never happened because as the QB with the highest sack rate in NFL history, Johnson wasn't able to throw the damn ball. Over his career, he was sacked at the staggering rate of 14.8 percent. No one else is even close. In the Flutie years (1998-2000), Johnson was sacked at a rate of 17.7 percent. Let me repeat that - 17.7 percent. Flutie's sack rate with the Bills in those same years was 4.3 percent. And Bledsoe sack rate in his years with the Bills was quite poor too. His average sack rates from 2002-04 were 8.1, 9.4, and 7.6 percent.

 

In the 35 games that Flutie started for the Bills, Moulds had 150 receptions for 2799 yards. He averaged 18.7 ypc over that span. In 1998, he averaged 23.2 ypc, in 1999 15.5, and in 2000 15.7. Again, these are just the Flutie games. Also, let's leave Joe Horn out of this and focus on Moulds and the QBs throwing to him. Assuming a constant of Flutie in Moulds' prime, his average season would be 69 receptions for 1280 yards (again, 18.7 ypc).

 

I won't even bring up the fact that for years you erroneously supported Johnson, from the 1998 trade through the Flutie controversy. You seem to have come around to the reality of the situation (i.e., Flutie was far better and far, far smarter than Johnson even if he wasn't great). That's good, and I know I shouldn't cast stones because I've made similar terrible errors in judging personnel over the years too.

 

Basically, from 1998-early 2003, Moulds was an elite receiver who played only intermittently with a solid to good QB. That is, for essentially five years. That may not sound like much, but it's the NFL and not MLB. Lots of famous players were great for five years or less. Our very own Orenthal only had 5 good seasons, all consecutive. Gale Sayers had even less.

 

Did you even look at Joe Horn's stats? That great year that you are trying to make 1999 out to be........that would have been a down year for Horn during his best 5 year stretch.

 

He wasn't that special Dave. I know you are hung up on him not getting to play with a great QB, but not every very good receiver does. Moulds was THE first option in the passing game for the Bills. He got the ball thrown to him a lot.

 

And YES the longevity matters in this instance. His better peers were putting up big numbers when Moulds was out to pasture. And that is because Moulds was not in their class as a football player. His skills eroded steadily from his flashpoint in 1998.

 

His career would look a lot better if he had contributed at all as a receiver in his first two seasons. Very good player for a relatively short period of time.

 

And the comparisons to OJ and Sayers are a bit ridiculous. Those guys played in an era when injuries that are easily rehabiliated in a matter of months now were career enders then. Their careers were always viewed in that light, because that's how it's done. By era. You don't compare player stats from the 1960's to those of now and longevity is a stat.

[dave mcbride]

 

 

Did you even look at Joe Horn's stats? That great year that you are trying to make 1999 out to be........that would have been a down year for Horn during his best 5 year stretch.

 

He wasn't that special Dave. I know you are hung up on him not getting to play with a great QB, but not every very good receiver does. Moulds was THE first option in the passing game for the Bills. He got the ball thrown to him a lot.

 

And YES the longevity matters in this instance. His better peers were putting up big numbers when Moulds was out to pasture. And that is because Moulds was not in their class as a football player. His skills eroded steadily from his flashpoint in 1998.

 

His career would look a lot better if he had contributed at all as a receiver in his first two seasons. Very good player for a relatively short period of time.

 

And the comparisons to OJ and Sayers are a bit ridiculous. Those guys played in an era when injuries that are easily rehabiliated in a matter of months now were career enders then. Their careers were always viewed in that light, because that's how it's done. By era. You don't compare player stats from the 1960's to those of now and longevity is a stat.

A couple of things: of course I looked up HOrn's stats. In fact I was aware of them already. He was a very good player. Second, I'm not claiming moulds is a hall of famer; only that he's not overrated. Finally, his poor performance in his second season, when he was overweight , is a black mark on his record. I'll give him a pass for his rookie season, but not season 2.

 

One other thing -- the 1996 draft for receivers in terms of production may be the greatest draft for one position in league history. Horn was in that draft. The number of guys taken with 600 plus receptions is staggering.

[NoSaint]

 

 

 

I agree, Moulds was not in the class of Andre Reed. There are a lot of Bills fans that vehemently disagree with us though and think Moulds was as good or actually better. Like you said, not in the same class.

 

Was Moulds one of the best receivers in the league in his prime? Sure, he was. Relatively speaking. Though doth protest far too much. Perhaps you should have read my posts instead of assuming I said things that I did not. He was a 3 time Pro Bowl player and even a first team All Pro in that great 1998 season. For a very short time, he was a brand name receiver because of that great 1998 season.

 

But does that make him an elite receiver over the course of his career? Not hardly. And anyone who compares Moulds to Andre Reed is saying that because Andre Reed was an elite receiver.

 

Like I said, the afterthought that is Joe Horn.....4 time pro bowl player, consistently better ypc numbers etc.. The point is that Mould was not a great player. He was very good for a short period of time but his skills were steadily declining. Like you said, I didn't need stats to tell me that. I watched him from my 50 yard line seats.

 

And the complaints that he got shafted by bad QB play or whatever are complaints that tons of receivers can make. Moulds had plenty of opportunity to show that he was elite. If Andre Reed played with Dan Marino or Warren Moon he probably would have had far greater numbers than playing in a more balanced, but run-oriented attack in Buffalo. If Joe Horn were a 1st round pick like Moulds, maybe he wouldn't have been on the bench for his first 4 years in Kansas City and would have had BETTER career numbers than Moulds. I am just using Horn as an example here, because I don't think A LOT of Bills fans realize that there are a lot of very good receivers in the NFL. Again, Moulds was very good receiver for a short period of time. Overrated by a lot of Bills fans. Absolutely.

 

Sometimes finding comp points is a struggle on here. Many are more familiar with the HoF players and the busts, and ignore the simply very good, or how many very good players there really are. That's why when people get into the ranking type threads I always try to get people to atleast start with a list, not a number. So many throw terms like "top ten" or "above average" around without realizing they have 15-20 really solid players at a position.

 

Joe horn is a good example of those forgotten guys league wide - very good player but before you brought him up not one most fans would think of. I think a saints fan likely overrates horns special factor forgetting about guys like EM too.

[BADOLBILZ]

A couple of things: of course I looked up HOrn's stats. In fact I was aware of them already. He was a very good player. Second, I'm not claiming moulds is a hall of famer; only that he's not overrated. Finally, his poor performance in his second season, when he was overweight , is a black mark on his record. I'll give him a pass for his rookie season, but not season 2.

 

One other thing -- the 1996 draft for receivers in terms of production may be the greatest draft for one position in league history. Horn was in that draft. The number of guys taken with 600 plus receptions is staggering.

A couple of things: of course I looked up HOrn's stats. In fact I was aware of them already. He was a very good player. Second, I'm not claiming moulds is a hall of famer; only that he's not overrated. Finally, his poor performance in his second season, when he was overweight , is a black mark on his record. I'll give him a pass for his rookie season, but not season 2.

 

One other thing -- the 1996 draft for receivers in terms of production may be the greatest draft for one position in league history. Horn was in that draft. The number of guys taken with 600 plus receptions is staggering.

 

I can remember sitting in the stands early in the 1999 season and it was clear to see that Moulds was visibly less explosive than he had been the year before. I was shocked to see it. It was noted by others at the time, and there were questions about whether his hamstring was slowing him down and if he had gotten too big, especially in his legs. He was unreal in 1998, and he took a lot of throws a long distance that he would never be able to do again in his career. He essentially had the same type of opportunites in 1999 but had 5 less ypc. That is a HUGE drop in ypc. Then each successive year, a bit more off the top. I understand 1998 was an aberrant year.....but that was my point. He was never close to that player again. For one shining season he was one of the two best WR in the entire NFL. But after that his stats say he was merely very good for the next 4 years and then declined below that.

 

Not great. Not even close to great by comparison to his peers. And yet, he is remembered as such by a lot of Bills fans. A LOT. My entire point was that.

 

Sometimes finding comp points is a struggle on here. Many are more familiar with the HoF players and the busts, and ignore the simply very good, or how many very good players there really are. That's why when people get into the ranking type threads I always try to get people to atleast start with a list, not a number. So many throw terms like "top ten" or "above average" around without realizing they have 15-20 really solid players at a position.

 

Joe horn is a good example of those forgotten guys league wide - very good player but before you brought him up not one most fans would think of. I think a saints fan likely overrates horns special factor forgetting about guys like EM too.

 

Precisely my point.

[Rico]

Schoebel was a good player but he never had an top shelf/elite season. Moulds did. Winfield was and is good, but for the Bills he was never enough of a ballhawk to merit being called a great player. Nate Clements had a couple of seasons with the Bills that were better than what Winfield ever had with the Bills.

Absolutely correct, thank you.

 

As for Moulds, . True, he was tremendous in 1998, but I will most remember him for 2005. Not nearly as bad as Ruben Brown quitting on the team in 2003, but, bottom line, he was always a punk,.

[Tipster19]

Look, this thread was started on 3 major points.

 

1. That it Moulds' sentiments on playing in Buffalo was greatly appreciated.

 

2. That he was a great WR for us and was a big time Miami killer.

 

3. That his stats would have been a lot better if there were more continuity and stability at the QB position while he played for us.

 

Is any of this inaccurate or exaggerated? I don't know how this got all so debated and twisted. Does anyone really disagree with those 3 major points of this thread? Does anymore think that we would have been better off without him or that he wasn't worthy of our 1st rd pick? I'm just asking because I really don't know why he is getting so hotly debated. As far as character goes he is not a good role model but I don't know why that is coming into play. There are a ton of great players, some are in the HOF and some are not, that I wouldn't give a hoot about off the field but Moulds did play for us and I believe that we were a much better offense because of him. Furthermore he has always spoke highly of playing for us, has always been proud of being a Buffalo Bill and also being associated with this community.

[Bill from NYC]

Schoebel was a good player but he never had an top shelf/elite season.

 

I can't really agree with this. Look at 2006....he had 14 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, and recovered one of them. And you want to talk about being hindered? Jauron had him dropping back in coverage, as well as lining up so far outside he was barely in bounds. For years, he alone was virtually the entire Buffalo Bills pass rush and was doubled on almost every play. Imagine Schobel in his prime playing opposite a defensive end such as Bruce or Mario!

 

When Schobel came into the league he was raw, purely a speed rusher (people forget his blinding speed for a DE). I saw him get beat up by the underrated Brad Hopkins, and was concerned. He was light (probably 255 or so) and it was brutal. But he worked hard and developed a very good spin move. He once registered 2.5 sacks in a game against Jonathan Ogden, which was virtually unheard of.

 

Let's face it, he will never get his due because he followed Bruce Smith, who was one of the best ever. But if Schobel in his prime was on this current team, it would be very hard for teams to throw against them. Very hard.

[BADOLBILZ]

Look, this thread was started on 3 major points.

 

1. That it Moulds' sentiments on playing in Buffalo was greatly appreciated.

 

2. That he was a great WR for us and was a big time Miami killer.

 

3. That his stats would have been a lot better if there were more continuity and stability at the QB position while he played for us.

 

Is any of this inaccurate or exaggerated? I don't know how this got all so debated and twisted. Does anyone really disagree with those 3 major points of this thread? Does anymore think that we would have been better off without him or that he wasn't worthy of our 1st rd pick? I'm just asking because I really don't know why he is getting so hotly debated. As far as character goes he is not a good role model but I don't know why that is coming into play. There are a ton of great players, some are in the HOF and some are not, that I wouldn't give a hoot about off the field but Moulds did play for us and I believe that we were a much better offense because of him. Furthermore he has always spoke highly of playing for us, has always been proud of being a Buffalo Bill and also being associated with this community.

 

Yes, it is inaccurate and exaggerated.

 

Moulds was not a great receiver.

 

Which is why I said he is the most overrated Bills player ever (regarding how he is viewed by many Bills fans, to most observers Moulds is an afterthought).

 

And for all the would've and could've that Bills fans have with Moulds there is another side to that coin.

 

He wasn't just a bust his first two years, he was a legal nightmare for the team. He could have and probably should have been released. In the current NFL, he probably would have faced a suspension for assaulting a woman.

 

And maybe his stats would have been better with better overall QB play, but he was the absolute unquestioned focal point of the Bills offense during his 5 year run as a very good receiver and there are plenty of worse regarded starting QB's in NFL history than Drew Bledsoe and Doug Flutie. And frankly Rob Johnsons numbers in 1998-1999 weren't too damn shabby either. On other teams, maybe Moulds is not even the #1 receiver by 2001-2002 and doesn't get as many opportunities. I mean, Bledsoe fed him the ball nonstop in a vertical offense in 2002 and his ypc was 8 yards lower than it had been in 1998. He had declined considerably. Bottom line, it's not like Moulds played at a high level for 10 years with nothing but Trent Edwards and JP Losman throwing to him. During his peak years the Bills QB play was about league average.

 

Truth is, Moulds was what he was. A very good receiver for a short period of time. Great? One year, 1998. Otherwise, he was a less prolific version of Joe Horn 2000-2004 seasons. There have been lots of those guys. Not so much on the Bills......the Bills history is more about their running backs......but elsewhere.

[Tipster19]

For someone who wants to discredit "would of and could of" your response is loaded with them and maybes. The difference between being a great WR and a good WR is a little blurred by your own estimations. If I'm understanding you right you're stating that Moulds was a great WR for one year and just a good WR for most of his career (5 years of good play?), right??. It seems to me that the vast majority of the responses on this thread feel that Moulds was not just a good WR but instead a great WR but that is because we're Buffalo fans and we're partial and we're overlooking his actual abilities, right? Do I got all this correct?

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Joe Horn was awesome and so was Moulds.

 

You wanna call em good or great, I don't care, it's semantics. But you don't have to be a Hall of Famer to have a career worthy of appreciation from the hometown fans.

[BADOLBILZ]

For someone who wants to discredit "would of and could of" your response is loaded with them and maybes. The difference between being a great WR and a good WR is a little blurred by your own estimations. If I'm understanding you right you're stating that Moulds was a great WR for one year and just a good WR for most of his career (5 years of good play?), right??. It seems to me that the vast majority of the responses on this thread feel that Moulds was not just a good WR but instead a great WR but that is because we're Buffalo fans and we're partial and we're overlooking his actual abilities, right? Do I got all this correct?

 

 

I get that most people reading this thread don't want to hear this....I am assuiming most that would click on a Moulds thread remember Moulds only fondly and not for any of his issues with the law, quitting on the team, poor early production or as Rico put it being a punk by quitting on the team, spitting in opponents faces, whining incessantly to the refs etc.......and that's probably why you aren't actually READING my response......but AT LEAST read a response before you take offense to it. My would've and could've scenarios were in response to yours. The other side of the coin? You get that, right?

The story is written on Moulds. He was what his record says he was.

 

Just like the story is written on the Bills at 6-10 or 7-9 every year in recent memory and yet some fans insist that the team was two or three plays from finishing 9-7 or 10-6. The flip side of that argument is that they were two or three plays from being 4-12 too. That's the way it works. The bottom line though......the Bills record speaks for itself.....as does Moulds career.

 

Otherwise, yeah. That's what I am saying. Moulds had one great year, and otherwise he was pathetic the two years prior....very good for 4 more years after his great year....and a good but steadily declining player until his last two seasons in the NFL where he was just another guy collecting a paycheck.