I saw the difference in opinion regarding PW..just

[Kelly the Dog]

PW's agent did counter the summer offer shortly after receiving at which that point TD shut down discussions due to their distance apart.......

again, incorrect..........PW's agent did give the bills the chance to match, despite the fact he hadn't heard a word from TD since early summer.......

incorrect.......he countered, and never heard a response to his counter.......TD decided to not even attempt to work out a deal after that initial "take it or leave it" offer.........

your facts are wrong.......

380676[/snapback]

Where does that come from? According to this, Wright contacted the Bills after he made the deal. It says the Bills offered PW a contract last summer but Wright didnt like it and it was 2 million less in a bonus than the Vikes offered. I don't remember a counter offer from Wright. I remember TD saying they they didnt like our offer and didnt negotiate. Wright said it was obvious "they werent going to be a player". That, to me, was agent talk, saying we didnt like their offer. It says nothing of them making a counter offer, although I am sure they said something unofficial like we want 40 million dollars, come up with a better offer. That is not negotiating.

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/p...370/1007/SPORTS

[MadBuffaloDisease]

TD made his best offer, PW and his agent didn't like it, so negotiations stopped and PW went elsewhere for more money. That's what it boiled down to.

[Buftex]

Who would you rather believe...The GM of your beloved Team, who has

the team in his mind or an agent whose only prerogative is to get a big

contract for his client ?  Go Figure.

380437[/snapback]

 

 

Oh, man, I agree with you. I am firmly behind TD. I was just making the point that, in a number of instances, over he past few years, there seems to have been a player/agent saying one thing, while TD is saying another. I am sure they all embellish things a bit, but TD used a similar tact in Pittsburgh too. He just seems to have a tendancy to kind of take digs at players after they are gone. I know that in this instance, PW is taking a dig at him, but I just wish TD was above that a little more. All I am saying! The players are supposed to be passionate, the GM, hopefully, can seperate the emotion from the situation...

 

I have not liked every one of TD's moves, but I like the fact that he is decisive, and has the larger team concept always firmly in sight. I just fear that somewhere down the road, his sort of cavalier attitude toward some of the players is going to hurt him/us somewhere. The Eric Moulds situation is one of those instances where I can see this happening....of course, winning tends to take care of these things....

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Oh, man, I agree with you. I am firmly behind TD.  I was just making the point that, in a number of instances, over he past few years, there seems to have been a player/agent saying one thing, while TD is saying another.  I am sure they all embellish things a bit, but TD used a similar tact in Pittsburgh too.  He just seems to have a tendancy to kind of take digs at players after they are gone.  I know that in this instance, PW is taking a dig at him, but I just wish TD was above that a little more.  All I am saying!  The players are supposed to be passionate, the GM, hopefully, can seperate the emotion from the situation...

A GM should be passionate as well. He's around these guys quite a bit and gets to know them pretty well. At some point you can't help but takes things personally and TD's job is to let people know that if a player leaves, it wasn't because he did nothing to prevent them from leaving.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh, man, I agree with you. I am firmly behind TD.  I was just making the point that, in a number of instances, over he past few years, there seems to have been a player/agent saying one thing, while TD is saying another.  I am sure they all embellish things a bit, but TD used a similar tact in Pittsburgh too.  He just seems to have a tendancy to kind of take digs at players after they are gone.  I know that in this instance, PW is taking a dig at him, but I just wish TD was above that a little more.  All I am saying!  The players are supposed to be passionate, the GM, hopefully, can seperate the emotion from the situation...

 

I have not liked every one of TD's moves, but I like the fact that he is decisive, and has the larger team concept always firmly in sight.  I just fear that somewhere down the road, his sort of cavalier attitude toward some of the players is going to hurt him/us somewhere.  The Eric Moulds situation is one of those instances where I can see this happening....of course, winning tends to take care of these things....

380768[/snapback]

Wasnt TD the one who gave Moulds a $40 million deal?

[obie_wan]

one way to get it lower is to do a "simple restructuring.........this involves converting salary into signing bonus (reason being signing bonus can be amortized over the life of the deal whereas salary counts on the current year's cap)........the player gets paid the same, but cap dollars get pushed from the current year into future years.........the problem with this strategy is that those unamortized bonus dollars never go away until they hit the cap, whether the player is on the roster or not.........

 

another option is to do an "extension".........in this case the salary is again reduced, but to make up for that a new signing bonus is issued........this is added to the old "unamortized" signing bonus and is then amortized over the new life of the deal.........this is what the saints did with joe horn.......this makes more sense cap wise because you can set up 2 or 3 manageable years where you don't have to deal with the issue every season, but the catch is you are giving more cash to them so you want to make sure they will be around and not ready to take a slide in performance because the cap hit is nasty to dump them.........

 

because mould's cap number is 10 and his salary is 6 he has 4M in unamortized bonus for the '06 season.........he is also signed through '07, so double that to 8M.........THAT IS 8M THAT HAS TO HIT THE CAP AT SOME POINT........not a great situation to be in, but one that was created by extending his deal last year by only 1 year instead of a few.........to get it lower they could drop his salary and add more signing bonus to be amortized (not a great option because at that point there is only one year left on the contract -- you are just moving dollars into the 2007, creating a huge cap hit)........the other option is to drop his salary to the 1.5M level again, give him the difference in signing bonus again, but EXTEND THE DEAL BY A FEW SEASONS.......at that point the signing bonus can then be amortized further.........but it's a bad situation overall because eventually those signing bonus dollars are going to have to hit the cap.........

 

this is all the result of the bills backloading the deal and taking VERY SMALL CAP HITS the first few seasons of it.........for example, the bills only gave him 500K in salary in '01 and 1.55 in '02........those numbers should have been higher which would have helped balance out the backend of the contract........i think the bills will approach him again with another 1 year extension next off-season, but this just means that unamortized bonus number keeps growing and growing year after year........

380472[/snapback]

 

 

By giving Moulds only a 1 year extension, I think it is pretty clear that his days in Buffalo are numbered. If TD had plans for him past 2005, that extension would have been for at least 2 years.

 

Unless Moulds rediscovers his explosiveness or takes a huge salary cut, he will be playing elsewhere in 2006.

[dave mcbride]

Wasnt TD the one who gave Moulds a $40 million deal?

380786[/snapback]

with regard to moulds, if he plays well and retains his skills my guess is that he'll be back. if he drops another quarter to a half yard in his ypc average, as he's done for six years straight, then i suspect he'll be gone if he doesn't want to take a pay cut. and that'll be that. he's made a lot of money from the bills, and donohoe has done right by him. if his skills diminish, i would be perfectly ok with donohoe letting him go seek his fortunes elsewhere. don't get me wrong -- i really like him. it's just that no receiver averaging 10.7-10.8 ypc deserves anything approaching 6 mill/year, no matter how good he is at beating the bump.

[Kelly the Dog]

with regard to moulds, if he plays well and retains his skills my guess is that he'll be back. if he drops another quarter to a half yard in his ypc average, as he's done for six years straight, then i suspect he'll be gone if he doesn't want to take a pay cut. and that'll be that. he's made a lot of money from the bills, and donohoe has done right by him. if his skills diminish, i would be perfectly ok with donohoe letting him go seek his fortunes elsewhere. don't get me wrong -- i really like him. it's just that no receiver averaging 10.7-10.8 ypc deserves anything approaching 6 mill/year, no matter how good he is at beating the bump.

380873[/snapback]

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.

[canadian bill]

Any one remember Peter Warrick from College. Damn he was a good reciever. If he becomes available we should pick him up.

[Buftex]

Wasnt TD the one who gave Moulds a $40 million deal?

380786[/snapback]

 

 

Yes, but as you well know, nothing in the NFL is guaranteed for players, beyond the signing bonus. When TD decides the time is right to part way with Moulds (and I am predicting that will be before his current contract expires, and before Moulds feels ready to retire), there is very much the likelihood that Moulds will feel a little screwed, like PW is feeling now. Moulds is still productive, and it seems apparent that TD thought PW wasn't productive enought to warrent a market value raise. Every player comes to that crossroad at some point.

[JinVA]

Any one remember Peter Warrick from College.  Damn he was a good reciever.  If he becomes available we should pick him up.

380921[/snapback]

Uh, no we shouldn't

[ganesh]

of course, winning tends to take care of these things....

380768[/snapback]

 

Couldn't have said better.....Winners pushes all the problems, bickerings

below the carpet.....

[Ramius]

Any one remember Peter Warrick from College.  Damn he was a good reciever.  If he becomes available we should pick him up.

380921[/snapback]

 

TD will hafta tell Sears and JC Penny to beef up security, especially when the jets and L. Coles come to town...

[canadian bill]

"As a junior the 6-foot, 190-pound Warrick averaged 20.2 yards per catch and 102.7 yards receiving per game. He has a 37-inch vertical leap and displays the kind of quickness that has scouts using terms like "unstoppable ... acrobatic ... an Andre Rison with speed ... incredible ... the Number 1 guy in the whole draft at this point ... everybody's dream."

 

"When Pete goes out there, it reminds me of when Deion [sanders] played for us," says Seminoles receivers coach Jeff Bowden. "You can feel the electricity in the crowd change. I compare Pete to Mark McGwire. He's not going to hit a home run every time, but the threat is always there."

 

-- David Fleming

 

 

Has a lot of potential and can be signed really cheap. Not as a replacement for anybody just as another receiver to compete if he becomes available.

[stuckincincy]

Any one remember Peter Warrick from College.  Damn he was a good reciever.  If he becomes available we should pick him up.

380921[/snapback]

 

He has some yet-to-be resolved health issues.

 

If he still has it, and is cut, there will be a bidding war. Deadly slot receiver, supurb after a catch, and a return ace. Fine attitude, and a good blocker. He won't be a cheap aquisition if his wheels are intact.

 

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187401

[JinVA]

"As a junior the 6-foot, 190-pound Warrick averaged 20.2 yards per catch and 102.7 yards receiving per game. He has a 37-inch vertical leap and displays the kind of quickness that has scouts using terms like "unstoppable ... acrobatic ... an Andre Rison with speed ... incredible ... the Number 1 guy in the whole draft at this point ... everybody's dream."

 

"When Pete goes out there, it reminds me of when Deion [sanders] played for us," says Seminoles receivers coach Jeff Bowden. "You can feel the electricity in the crowd change. I compare Pete to Mark McGwire. He's not going to hit a home run every time, but the threat is always there."

 

-- David Fleming

Has a lot of potential and can be signed really cheap.  Not as a replacement for anybody just as another receiver to compete if he becomes available.

380961[/snapback]

Dude he's been in the league for like five years already and you're going to bring up his college scouting report. Give me a break.

[canadian bill]

Dude he's been in the league for like five years already and you're going to bring up his college scouting report.  Give me a break.

380965[/snapback]

 

He's been on the Bengals with a horrible QB throwing to him. The one year he had a somewhat decent QB (KITNA) he put up over 800 yards. I was just pointing out his potential.

[stuckincincy]

Dude he's been in the league for like five years already and you're going to bring up his college scouting report.  Give me a break.

380965[/snapback]

 

You violated the Kinder/Gentler directive...against a newbie no less.

[JinVA]

You violated the Kinder/Gentler directive...against a newbie no less.

380970[/snapback]

I'm starting to think I'm getting reeled in by some old timers alter ego.

[stuckincincy]

I'm starting to think I'm getting reeled in by some old timers alter ego.

380973[/snapback]

 

 

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 ...

[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).