Eric Moulds leading the charge on Sunday

[BADOLBILZ]

Marv had a foolish, old school, antiquated aversion to playing rookies. That's why Moulds didn't play much his first year.

 

The bad Moulds was his last year, when he quit on the team. I think he took himself out of a game and refused to go back in.

 

In between he was a very good player for several years. Not the best role model.

 

I think JK would have a different version of Moulds rookie year. He was drafted to play THEN and he had the talent to do it. Kind of hard to keep your head in the game when you are in the courthouse every week and busy spending your rookie cash on everything except payments to the baby mama's back home. His choke-out incident with that female student makes the Ray Rice thing look like a disagreement. It was gross even by the standards of that day. Like I said, good Moulds stories don't exist....he was a dark, strange, creepy dude and he declined STEADILY after his breakout year 3 until that injury and then he was a shadow of his former self and did not handle it gracefully to say the least.

[Solomon Grundy]

I'm glad for Moulds. I still have two of his jerseys. I'm glad that the Bills are re-acquainting themselves with Eric. He really wants/wanted to be a part of the organization(coaching). Hope this opens a door for him.

[BADOLBILZ]

Who didn't know he's not perfect? He's a bleepin retired football player who was an immature and spoiled athlete. Thanks for the revelation.

 

That's the thing about Moulds.....people always made excuses for him even though he didn't deserve it. Saying he was immature and spoiled puts the blame on someone else but have it your way.

[YoloinOhio]

I'm glad for Moulds. I still have two of his jerseys. I'm glad that the Bills are re-acquainting themselves with Eric. He really wants/wanted to be a part of the organization(coaching). Hope this opens a door for him.

he mentioned in his interview that he did a little coaching out in AZ with Arians. It would be great if he could do that here too. Edited November 8, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[26CornerBlitz]

That's the thing about Moulds.....people always made excuses for him even though he didn't deserve it. Saying he was immature and spoiled puts the blame on someone else but have it your way.

 

No! Immature and spoiled was squarely on him.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think JK would have a different version of Moulds rookie year. He was drafted to play THEN and he had the talent to do it. Kind of hard to keep your head in the game when you are in the courthouse every week and busy spending your rookie cash on everything except payments to the baby mama's back home. His choke-out incident with that female student makes the Ray Rice thing look like a disagreement. It was gross even by the standards of that day. Like I said, good Moulds stories don't exist....he was a dark, strange, creepy dude and he declined STEADILY after his breakout year 3 until that injury and then he was a shadow of his former self and did not handle it gracefully to say the least.

Agree with most of that. And it's impossible to believe what coaches say in public for obvious reasons. I just remember Marv saying that a few times. Andre was pretty shot. We signed the extremely average FA Quinn Early, and Marv just didnt play him.

[BADOLBILZ]

Agree with most of that. And it's impossible to believe what coaches say in public for obvious reasons. I just remember Marv saying that a few times. Andre was pretty shot. We signed the extremely average FA Quinn Early, and Marv just didnt play him.

 

To put Moulds rookie suckitude into perspective Keyshawn, Terry Glenn, Marvin Harrison and Eddie Kennison averaged 900+ yards each as rookies that year. All above 800. It wasn't some kind of dead-ball era where rookie receivers couldn't produce or something. Moulds had like 270 yards on the year. He was a flat out disaster draft pick for that team that had all the elements to win except one of those aforementioned receivers. Marvin Harrison was the perfect fit for that team and seemed like a lock to be Buffalo's pick but he ended up going to an Indy team that could have gone in a number of different directions but chose WR. Instead the Bills got the creep that DIDN'T produce until the HOF QB was out of the building. Even Eddie Kennison......sheesh.

[billsfan_34]

 

 

 

Most overrated Bill ever is not who I would want leading a 5-3 squad with plenty of questions to answer out on the field this Sunday but hey...

All I can do is laugh at this one. You must not have seen him play Edited November 8, 2014 by billsfan_34

[Corp000085]

 

 

Eric Moulds would wreak havoc on NFL secondaries with the league rules these days.

 

He wreaked havoc on champagne rooms everywhere.

[Coach Tuesday]

I can't opine on Moulds' character. All I can say is, when in his prime (and applying himself), he was the physically strongest receiver I've ever seen. For a few years, at least, he played with reckless disregard for his body. While Marvin Harrison would catch the ball and then quickly curl up in a ball on the turf, Moulds would literally explode through would-be tacklers. He embarrassed a lot of defenders by running over and through them. He was a baller, at least for awhile.

[Charles Romes]

9995 career yards. League should grant an extra roster spot so he could pick up the extra yards.

[dave mcbride]

 

 

I think JK would have a different version of Moulds rookie year. He was drafted to play THEN and he had the talent to do it. Kind of hard to keep your head in the game when you are in the courthouse every week and busy spending your rookie cash on everything except payments to the baby mama's back home. His choke-out incident with that female student makes the Ray Rice thing look like a disagreement. It was gross even by the standards of that day. Like I said, good Moulds stories don't exist....he was a dark, strange, creepy dude and he declined STEADILY after his breakout year 3 until that injury and then he was a shadow of his former self and did not handle it gracefully to say the least.

KtD is right about Marv not playing rookies, and Kelly was horrible in 1996 -- as in possibly-one-of-the-worst-qbs-in-the-league bad: immobile, INT prone, and missing a string of games with a very questionable "groin" injury (after the Monday night massacre in Pittsburgh--I'm sure you remember the rumors). And while he played well in 1995, he was hardly the AFC offensive player of the year. He didn't even make the pro bowl that year. The one year that Moulds disappointed was 1997. He was out of shape and didn't do much (of course, the dreadful Todd Collins was throwing too). Anyway, he was on his way to a great career when it was derailed by a torn groin. And he declined starting in breakout year 6 (2003), not year 3. He was very good in 2002.

 

In the first five games of 2003, he was off to a monster start: 30 catches for 457 yards 96 catches and 1460 yards prorated). As you'll recall, he was hurt on the play in which he put the game away against the Bengals in OT. He had a great catch and run that put the Bills in position to win it with a short TD run. He was never the same after that tackle, which he was nastily facemasked on. Go to the end of this and check out the play by play: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200310050buf.htm . The primary reason for the Bills collapse that year was the decline of Moulds; the offense had been built around his explosiveness and big play ability. It went from being a good offense to a terrible one overnight.

 

Having said all of this, you are absolutely right about his qualities as a human being.

Edited November 8, 2014 by dave mcbride

[Mango]

Am I the only one who doesn't get the lead the charge stuff out of the tunnel? Why can't our own team lead themselves out on the field. We seem to do a lot of living in the past

[BADOLBILZ]

KtD is right about Marv not playing rookies, and Kelly was horrible in 1996 -- as in possibly-one-of-the-worst-qbs-in-the-league bad: immobile, INT prone, and missing a string of games with a very questionable "groin" injury (after the Monday night massacre in Pittsburgh--I'm sure you remember the rumors). And while he played well in 1995, he was hardly the AFC offensive player of the year. He didn't even make the pro bowl that year. The one year that Moulds disappointed was 1997. He was out of shape and didn't do much (of course, the dreadful Todd Collins was throwing too). Anyway, he was on his way to a great career when it was derailed by a torn groin. And he declined starting in breakout year 6 (2003), not year 3. He was very good in 2002.

 

In the first five games of 2003, he was off to a monster start: 30 catches for 457 yards 96 catches and 1460 yards prorated). As you'll recall, he was hurt on the play in which he put the game away against the Bengals in OT. He had a great catch and run that put the Bills in position to win it with a short TD run. He was never the same after that tackle, which he was nastily facemasked on. Go to the end of this and check out the play by play: http://www.pro-footb...00310050buf.htm . The primary reason for the Bills collapse that year was the decline of Moulds; the offense had been built around his explosiveness and big play ability. It went from being a good offense to a terrible one overnight.

 

Having said all of this, you are absolutely right about his qualities as a human being.

 

First of all, Moulds did steadily decline from year 3 on. Just check the steady decline in his yards per reception. In 1998 he was running past and away from the cornerbacks he faced. With each passing season more and more of the deep passes to him became contested to the point where he wasn't even the big play WR on the team in 2002. That was Peerless Price. Without Price in 2003 the Bills tried to change the role of Josh Reed and he went from an extraordinary slot-type receiver to an awful wideout. Moulds' injury was a big factor in their decline as the season wore on but he wasn't going to replace Price's yac ability(or the also departed Larry Centers and Jay Riemersma's contributions for that matter) at that point even if he hadn't been injured. The worst part about it was that Moulds really didn't adjust his game to his ability. He would still catch a pass in front of a db and try embarrassingly to put a move on them instead of just finishing the play as efficiently as possible. Basically, Moulds modern talent equivalent would be Anquan Boldin.....except Boldin adapted his game and became the incredibly sure-handed, great route running, clutch, physical receiver and Moulds was still calling for the ball over the top and begging for flags.

 

As for Kelly....he was The Sporting News AFC offensive MVP in 1995. Pro Bowl stuff don't care about, that is voted on before the stretch and his season wasn't about numbers. That year was probably his best work as a QB. And he wasn't one of the worst QB's in the league in 1996. His TD/INT numbers were poor because he had a wr corps of veterans all with the same "posession" skillset and that allowed defenses to defend a much smaller area of the field. Two-step drops/extended handoffs weren't Kelly's game. He was still one of the better Y/A QB's in the NFL at that point but it was a lineup that DESPERATELY need a HR hitter. That's where Moulds was supposed to come in and he didn't. It's easy to dismiss him as just a rookie but like I said the rest of his peers from that draft came into the league focused and ready to produce and Moulds did not. You can talk about rumors with Kelly but those were CONSTANT. He was questioned from 1987-1996. The rumor of note for this thread is that Kelly was frustrated by Moulds lack of commitment to his game. Which, unlike most Kelly rumors, was consistent with what followed in 1997 when Moulds was virtually useless because of a disinterest in getting better. Give him Terry Glenn or Marvin Harrison from that class instead and he and the team are much better in 1996 and he is probably back on the field in 1997. Any sympathy for Moulds having to endure JP or Kelly Holcomb later in his career goes out the door when you realize the opportunities to produce he passed on early in his career.

[BADOLBILZ]

Am I the only one who doesn't get the lead the charge stuff out of the tunnel? Why can't our own team lead themselves out on the field. We seem to do a lot of living in the past

 

You are not the only one. There is too much of it. The goal of this game is to win the SB and these old Bills never did that.....in many cases despite plenty of opportunity....... so while I respect bringing the old timers back occasionally, every week shouldn't be about celebrating the not getting it done.

 

I can't opine on Moulds' character. All I can say is, when in his prime (and applying himself), he was the physically strongest receiver I've ever seen. For a few years, at least, he played with reckless disregard for his body. While Marvin Harrison would catch the ball and then quickly curl up in a ball on the turf, Moulds would literally explode through would-be tacklers. He embarrassed a lot of defenders by running over and through them. He was a baller, at least for awhile.

 

The play where he flattened Phillip Buchanon and stepped on his neck as he ran over him was a great play I will never forget. He was incredibly physical but he doesn't deserve to be compared to Harrison who was quick, fast, acrobatic and had great hands...all things Moulds lacked for most of his career. As he aged Moulds became a fish out of water on the outside but he refused to admit it. One of the amazing things about Moulds and Price when they were together is that you would be hard pressed to find even ONE acrobatic grab from either of them, which is really rare with a pair of productive WR's. Despite Moulds claims of a 45" vertical he was pretty much earthbound.

[dave mcbride]

Absolutely disagree re the decline of moulds after 98. He was very good in 1999 but did miss two-plus games. He was great in 2000. The offense overall declined dramatically in 2001 (a season he played well in despite awful qb play), and he was averaging over 15 yards per catxh before his injury in 2003. As for 2000 and 2002, his ypc was lower partly because he had more catches. Generally, guys with 95-100 catches have lower ypcs than a-level WRs with 60-70. He had more catches on shorter routes than ever before, but he also made a lot of big plays and was beating people deep. He was very, very good in 2002. Recall that he had a real complementary deep threat that year too. I honestly think you're letting your dislike for the guy skew your analysis.

 

Kelly was bad in 1996, btw, despite the 7.4 ypa. And those rumors after the Pitt game were as I recall them the most intense ever. He was never hurt during the game and never seemed to say a word about his groin again after his time off. He retired for a reason after that season.

 

I can't find a link to the afc player of the year, btw. That wasn't my recollection, but I don't doubt you.

[BADOLBILZ]

Absolutely disagree re the decline of moulds after 98. He was very good in 1999 but did miss two-plus games. He was great in 2000. The offense overall declined dramatically in 2001 (a season he played well in despite awful qb play), and he was averaging over 15 yards per catxh before his injury in 2003. As for 2000 and 2002, his ypc was lower partly because he had more catches. Generally, guys with 95-100 catches have lower ypcs than a-level WRs with 60-70. He had more catches on shorter routes than ever before, but he also made a lot of big plays and was beating people deep. He was very, very good in 2002. Recall that he had a real complementary deep threat that year too. I honestly think you're letting your dislike for the guy skew your analysis.

 

Kelly was bad in 1996, btw, despite the 7.4 ypa. And those rumors after the Pitt game were as I recall them the most intense ever. He was never hurt during the game and never seemed to say a word about his groin again after his time off. He retired for a reason after that season.

 

I can't find a link to the afc player of the year, btw. That wasn't my recollection, but I don't doubt you.

 

He was an absolutely great player in 1998. He was still a star WR for several years but his game was changing all the while and it's not like this is hindsight. His diminishing ability over the top was duly noted. The belief was that in his new found dedication to training he bulked his legs up too much and lost footspeed and quickness that made him a threat to take ANY pass to the endzone.

 

But as you know, those ypc numbers over the course of a long season...and then over a series of years....are a VERY effective indicator of a players explosiveness. Denying them is about as close to denying a FACT as you can get without a complete consensus.

 

If he had maintained his early numbers in 2003 that would have been great but that was just a fraction of the season. The idea that catching more passes explains his drop in production per reception is flawed because by nature a less explosive #1 option WR creates more low ypr opportunities for himself by NOT taking passes to the house. This was the case with Moulds. As he struggled to separate deep he became a push-off and come back for the ball receiver. And he was perfect in that role in 2002 because Price was there to keep those safeties back on their heals.

 

Add in the fact that the truly great WR of the time....guys like Jerry Rice, TO or Harrison......maintained that greatness with some consistency for a long time while Moulds star years were a relative flash in the pan....just 5....and it's easy to see why he didn't get the respect some Bills fans thought he deserved.

 

Because he didn't warrant it.

 

I personally think he wrecked his game and made himself stiff and vulnerable to the injury he sustained in 2003 by his style of training and muscle building/maintenance. But that's where being a smart player can be the difference between being a HOF and being a guy that was good for a little while.

[Punching Bag]

You must be one fun guy at parties!

He is perfect for the post "Homerun Throwback" era cheerleader.

[Fredo G.]

KtD is right about Marv not playing rookies, and Kelly was horrible in 1996 -- as in possibly-one-of-the-worst-qbs-in-the-league bad: immobile, INT prone, and missing a string of games with a very questionable "groin" injury (after the Monday night massacre in Pittsburgh--I'm sure you remember the rumors). And while he played well in 1995, he was hardly the AFC offensive player of the year. He didn't even make the pro bowl that year. The one year that Moulds disappointed was 1997. He was out of shape and didn't do much (of course, the dreadful Todd Collins was throwing too). Anyway, he was on his way to a great career when it was derailed by a torn groin. And he declined starting in breakout year 6 (2003), not year 3. He was very good in 2002.

 

In the first five games of 2003, he was off to a monster start: 30 catches for 457 yards 96 catches and 1460 yards prorated). As you'll recall, he was hurt on the play in which he put the game away against the Bengals in OT. He had a great catch and run that put the Bills in position to win it with a short TD run. He was never the same after that tackle, which he was nastily facemasked on. Go to the end of this and check out the play by play: http://www.pro-footb...00310050buf.htm . The primary reason for the Bills collapse that year was the decline of Moulds; the offense had been built around his explosiveness and big play ability. It went from being a good offense to a terrible one overnight.

 

Having said all of this, you are absolutely right about his qualities as a human being.

The most interesting thing about that game was that Steve Freeman was the back judge, interesting...

[BADOLBILZ]

He is perfect for the post "Homerun Throwback" era cheerleader.

 

I realize you may have the self-loathe problem so I apologize for this.... but no self respecting Bills fan calls it that. "Music City Miracle" if you must but not EVER by it's Titan name.