I saw the difference in opinion regarding PW..just

[JinVA]

   

 

Consider the benefits - when ye are abandoned by all, the old timer will (perhaps -  depending on the passage of time and longevity) still be here to offer either good, useless, or inane advice in your Hour of Need.

 

Strange as it may seem, we ancients keep a watchful and salutory eye on the new folk ...

380977[/snapback]

No one ever kept an eye on me. After just one post Ice called me an ignorant F%$ktard. Thanks for the back.

[dave mcbride]

I agree. But I expect him to have a pretty good year, unless Losman tanks, which is a possibility. You're using that dropping YPC stat way too much, however, and it's pretty disingenuous, IMO. He's had two great years. One of them was 2002. The other was around 1998. His YPC in 2002 went down from 2000 and 2001 and yet he was far better and far more effective in 2002 than he was in either of the two years previous. It is also a lot easier to have a lofty YPC when you're catching 65 balls a year versus 85 or 100. He is still an excellent receiver. if his skills diminish, sure, he will likely not make a lot of money from the Bills next year. But I expect him to. Just less than what his contract calls for now.

380906[/snapback]

i disagree. he was very good in 99, a year in which he missed some time due to a hamstring injury. that cut into his # of receptions, but when he played he was quite good. his year in 2000 -- 94 catches -- was excellent, about as good as 2002. in 01, it was hard to tell because of how poor the team was, yet he did manage to catch 3 or 4 deep bombs (against the jets, a couple against miami from van pelt). bottom line - 2001 is an outlier year. he had a very good year in 2002. he was hurt in 03 and obviously slower after the groin tear. he had a hard time beating anyone deep last year.

 

if you think i'm wrong look at the ypc of tim brown and jerry rice. in 99, brown averaged 14.9 ypc. in 2000, 14.8. in 2001, 12.8. in 2002, 11.5. in 2003, 10.9. in 2004, his final season, 8.3.

 

with regard to rice, it's a little more muddled, but it'd be hard to argue that he didn't enter a period of sustained decline after 1995:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiceJe00.htm

 

these are just two guys, but in both instances the decline in ypc correlated with a decline in threat.

 

4 or 5 huge receptions boost a ypc average, but if you don't get any or only one or two, you're not considered much of a threat. based upon the past two seasons after he injured himself, he hasn't been the deep threat he was in years past. that's pretty obvious, i think.

 

this is not to say that moulds won't bounce back - he easily could. my only point is that if he continues his slide into the high 10s, that's a sign that he's just a guy and nothing more.

[stuckincincy]

No one ever kept an eye on me.  After just one post Ice called me an ignorant F%$ktard.  Thanks for the back.

380982[/snapback]

 

 

Somebody kept one on you. Results indicate so...

[dave mcbride]

i disagree. he was very good in 99, a year in which he missed some time due to a hamstring injury.  that cut into his # of receptions, but when he played he was quite good. his year in 2000 -- 94 catches -- was excellent, about as good as 2002.  in 01, it was hard to tell because of how poor the team was, yet he did manage to catch 3 or 4 deep bombs (against the jets, a couple against miami from van pelt). bottom line - 2001 is an outlier year.  he had a very good year in 2002. he was hurt in 03 and obviously slower after the groin tear. he had a hard time beating anyone deep last year. 

 

if you think i'm wrong look at the ypc of tim brown and jerry rice. in 99, brown averaged 14.9 ypc. in 2000, 14.8. in 2001, 12.8. in 2002, 11.5. in 2003, 10.9. in 2004, his final season, 8.3. 

 

with regard to rice, it's a little more muddled, but it'd be hard to argue that he didn't enter a period of sustained decline after 1995:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiceJe00.htm

 

these are just two guys, but in both instances the decline in ypc correlated with a decline in threat. 

 

4 or 5 huge receptions boost a ypc average, but if you don't get any or only one or two, you're not considered much of a threat.  based upon the past two seasons after he injured himself, he hasn't been the deep threat he was in years past. that's pretty obvious, i think.

 

this is not to say that moulds won't bounce back - he easily could.  my only point is that if he continues his slide into the high 10s, that's a sign that he's just a guy and nothing more.

380984[/snapback]

 

ps - i pretty strongly believe that his 98 season was the greatest ever by a bills receiver. he made some absolutely sensational big catches that year, and his playoff game against the phins was one for the ages -- 9 catches for 240 yards!!

[JinVA]

 

Somebody kept one on you. Results indicate so...

380988[/snapback]

Good point. BTW/ On his Thurman post I did welcome him. So my take is all the formalities were behind us so it was fair game.

[Kelly the Dog]

i disagree. he was very good in 99, a year in which he missed some time due to a hamstring injury.  that cut into his # of receptions, but when he played he was quite good. his year in 2000 -- 94 catches -- was excellent, about as good as 2002.  in 01, it was hard to tell because of how poor the team was, yet he did manage to catch 3 or 4 deep bombs (against the jets, a couple against miami from van pelt). bottom line - 2001 is an outlier year.  he had a very good year in 2002. he was hurt in 03 and obviously slower after the groin tear. he had a hard time beating anyone deep last year. 

 

if you think i'm wrong look at the ypc of tim brown and jerry rice. in 99, brown averaged 14.9 ypc. in 2000, 14.8. in 2001, 12.8. in 2002, 11.5. in 2003, 10.9. in 2004, his final season, 8.3. 

 

with regard to rice, it's a little more muddled, but it'd be hard to argue that he didn't enter a period of sustained decline after 1995:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiceJe00.htm

 

these are just two guys, but in both instances the decline in ypc correlated with a decline in threat. 

 

4 or 5 huge receptions boost a ypc average, but if you don't get any or only one or two, you're not considered much of a threat.  based upon the past two seasons after he injured himself, he hasn't been the deep threat he was in years past. that's pretty obvious, i think.

 

this is not to say that moulds won't bounce back - he easily could.  my only point is that if he continues his slide into the high 10s, that's a sign that he's just a guy and nothing more.

380984[/snapback]

Pretty crappy examples. Rice and Brown both started their declines after their 12th or 13th or 14th season in the league. Rice still had 92 catches for 1200 yards and 7 scores in his 18th season I think. Moulds has only played 9, going into his 10th. he still has 2-3 years to go before he starts the downfall.

[canadian bill]

Good point.  BTW/ On his Thurman post I did welcome him.  So my take is all the formalities were behind us so it was  fair game.

380991[/snapback]

 

It is fair game, and I still think it would be a very good pickup if Warrick is healthy and available based mainly on his college game play and what he did when he had Kitna throwing to him.

[dave mcbride]

Pretty crappy examples. Rice and Brown both started their declines after their 12th or 13th or 14th season in the league. Rice still had 92 catches for 1200 yards and 7 scores in his 18th season I think. Moulds has only played 9, going into his 10th. he still has 2-3 years to go before he starts the downfall. 

380998[/snapback]

 

the point isn't # of years - it's the rate of decline. bodies can start declining at 31 or 35, depending. based on what you've seen from him the last couple of years, can you honestly say that moulds is much of a threat as he was 3-4 years ago? another thing - i'm of a mind that the groin tear is a really bad injury, one that doesn't completely debilitate you but which shaves off some of your speed and agility permanently. not a ton, but some, and in the nfl sometimes that's all it takes to bring an extremely good player back into the pack.

[Alaska Darin]

the point isn't # of years - it's the rate of decline. bodies can start declining at 31 or 35, depending.  based on what you've seen from him the last couple of years, can you honestly say that moulds is much of a threat as he was 3-4 years ago?  another thing - i'm of a mind that the groin tear is a really bad injury, one that doesn't completely debilitate you but which shaves off some of your speed and agility permanently.  not a ton, but some, and in the nfl sometimes that's all it takes to bring an extremely good player back into the pack.

381025[/snapback]

It's hard to say, given the play of they person trying to get him the ball has been no better than mediocre the vast majority of the time.

[dave mcbride]

It's hard to say, given the play of they person trying to get him the ball has been no better than mediocre the vast majority of the time.

381027[/snapback]

say what you will about bledsoe, but he was surely better than his immediate predecessor ...

[Alaska Darin]

say what you will about bledsoe, but he was surely better than his immediate predecessor ...

381042[/snapback]

Comparing the odor of two heaping piles of crap has never been my strong point.

[Reuben Gant]

Comparing the odor of two heaping piles of crap has never been my strong point.

381049[/snapback]

but it can be done!

[stuckincincy]

Comparing the odor of two heaping piles of crap has never been my strong point.

381049[/snapback]

[Rico]

No one ever kept an eye on me.  After just one post Ice called me an ignorant F%$ktard. 

380982[/snapback]

That was a compliment.

[JinVA]

That was a compliment.

381057[/snapback]

Its funny you should say that because my very first post was "This Rico guy really seems to know what he's talking about".

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

say what you will about bledsoe, but he was surely better than his immediate predecessor ...

381042[/snapback]

 

I think the point regarding Bledsoe is that regardless of how one judges Moulds, one needs to question a comparison of two players which makes the claim that YPC is much more of an indicator (and really aa useful not a very good one if it it used to heavily) and certainly does not stand as a clear chronicle of the decline or future of any WR.

 

There are just too many variables such as who the QB is, where the respective players are in their career whoch have been mentioned, and also what type of offense is employed, how the WR is used and the impact of injuries on sharp changes in a WRs poduction which have not been cited enough in this thread to describe much less accurately predict a WR's production.

 

Whe relative contract hits or % of the cap given to a certain player the comparisons of players across teams falls apart even further. Salaries are not merely determined by on-field performance but by a host of other factors such as: timing (if a player such as Andre Reed gets hurt just before his contract year he ends up relatively underpaid compared to his talent), the cap hits of other players on the team (if other FAs get theirs first their may not be as much left for the player or if the team is a good cap manager and they have a lot left they may overpay a critical player, or non-football idssues such as how a player markets himself for non-winning football issues such as a player making glitzy catches even though his yardage his low can skew his paycheck to how agood a player he is.

 

I agreed with your points intially about Moulds but as the argument continued your arguments went further afield and ultimately are not very believable.

[Mikie2times]

What I don't understand is how anybody could view EM as being on a major decline. EM is top 15 and maybe top 10, his stats aren't as inflated as they used to be but that’s what happens when you have been the entire offense for 5 years. You take away the goaline fade and we probably average 6 points a game during that span.

 

The guy is durable, adds great leadership, and still can come up with the spectacular catch. Check out the Ravens game from last year if you don't believe that. He probably made the finest catch of his career in that game.

 

His explosiveness has declined some but he still has great strength and technique. He has the occasional drop but it's not like he's playing soft, he got most those drops on 8 yard Bledsoe lasers when he was looking up field to make a play.

 

I hope we don't find out anytime this season what this offense would be like without EM, but I have a feeling if it does happen many will have a better understanding of how critical EM is.

[dave mcbride]

I think the point regarding Bledsoe is that regardless of how one judges Moulds, one needs to question a comparison of two players which makes the claim that YPC is much more of an indicator (and really aa useful not a very good one if it it used to heavily) and certainly does not stand as a clear chronicle of the decline or future of any WR.

 

There are just too many variables such as who the QB is, where the respective players are in their career whoch have been  mentioned, and also what type of offense is employed, how the WR is used and the impact of injuries on sharp changes in a WRs poduction which have not been cited enough in this thread to describe much less accurately predict a WR's production.

 

Whe relative contract hits or % of the cap given to a certain player the comparisons of players across teams falls apart even further.  Salaries are not merely determined by on-field performance but by a host of other factors such as: timing (if a player such as Andre Reed gets hurt just before his contract year he ends up relatively underpaid compared to his talent), the cap hits of other players on the team (if other FAs get theirs first their may not be as much left for the player or if the team is a good cap manager and they have a lot left they may overpay a critical player, or non-football idssues such as how a player markets himself for non-winning football issues such as a player making glitzy catches even though his yardage his low can skew his paycheck to how agood a player he is.

 

I agreed with your points intially about Moulds but as the argument continued your arguments went further afield and ultimately are not very believable.

381275[/snapback]

 

whatever. he doesn't make as many big plays as he used to. it's not as if bledsoe isn't a good deep thrower.

[Alaska Darin]

whatever. he doesn't make as many big plays as he used to. it's not as if bledsoe isn't a good deep thrower.

381453[/snapback]

Without going back and looking at the film, I distinctly remember most teams giving help over the top on Moulds when he ran routes into the deep third. That was definitely the case the first half of the season (the Baltimore game sticks out).