stuckincincy Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Especially around here (it was an inside joke-Petrino's boss is named Aiken & I figured only he would understand it & the rest of you would be kind of perplexed) 523677[/snapback] Government work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I can only speak for myself and make no assertions otherwise. As I understand it, Moulds was complaining long before that pass on first and goal (a play that was the right call in that situation regardless of the Monday morning QBs expertise). He was malcontent all week when he realized he wasn't the thrust of the passing game plan. A good idea given Evans's record breaking 1st quarter. Is it possible Moulds was a bit resentful of Evans's success? Is it possible Moulds really did remove himself from the game as a result? If their is a REMOTE possibility of either, then his conduct is unbecoming the professional I thought he was and their is no room for any player, regardless of his past contributions, who acts that way. Frustrations aside. GO BILLS!!! 523695[/snapback] I think even MM admitted it was a bad call. It was stupid...but, let it rest. EVERY coach makes some bad decisions. Ours is making too many these days. I seriously doubt Moulds threw a hissy-fit because he wasn't the focus of the game plan But, if I read your post correctly, Moulds was unprofessional if there was a REMOTE possibility he was resentful or removed himself from the game...not if he ACTUALLY was resentful or removed himself from the game. So, a remote possibility of something action or feeling makes the person who may or may not have had that feeling or engaged in that action unprofessional? That's what you're saying right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I can only speak for myself and make no assertions otherwise. As I understand it, Moulds was complaining long before that pass on first and goal (a play that was the right call in that situation regardless of the Monday morning QBs expertise). He was malcontent all week when he realized he wasn't the thrust of the passing game plan. A good idea given Evans's record breaking 1st quarter. Is it possible Moulds was a bit resentful of Evans's success? Is it possible Moulds really did remove himself from the game as a result? If their is a REMOTE possibility of either, then his conduct is unbecoming the professional I thought he was and their is no room for any player, regardless of his past contributions, who acts that way. Frustrations aside. GO BILLS!!! 523695[/snapback] No argument. We agree here more than you think. I'm having a problem with the way Mularkey's handling it. I guess what bugs me the most is that this whole mess is going to make people unfamiliar with the team think of Moulds in the Keyshawn/Moss/T.O. light ... and I firmly believe in my heart that the guy is so far OPPOSITE those clowns it isn't funny. Also, if we do indeed KEEP Mularkey, do we want him alienating (read "losing") the entire team? In any organization, the opinion leaders are best not crushed. Question - a sincere one: Do you know if he's a captain right now? Because if he IS a captain, then not only is he an opinion leader, he's also acting like a captain. I honestly don't know if he is or isn't. (I like it so much better in hockey where they stick a "C" or an "A" on the jersey so everyone knows.) Anyone know if he's currently a captain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 i guarantee moulds did more than offer a opinion,there is no way he can keep his mouth shut,and now he whines but when the ball comes his way he dosnt hold on to it 523715[/snapback] An argument could be made that throwing the ball with first-and-goal and a twenty point lead also constitutes "conduct detrimental to the team" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Can't Mularkey just suck it up and apologize to Moulds over a cheeseburger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 (I like it so much better in hockey where they stick a "C" or an "A" on the jersey so everyone knows.) 523726[/snapback] It works in hockey, but all I know is that Varitek looks like a real clown with the "C" on his baseball uni. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Most of this bloviating about whether it's Moulds or MM who is at fault is sound without content. The answer is neither or both or who knows enough to offer an intelligent opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Most of this bloviating about whether it's Moulds or MM who is at fault is sound without content. The answer is neither or both or who knows enough to offer an intelligent opinion. 523760[/snapback] Since when does that stopped the teaming masses at TSW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I think even MM admitted it was a bad call. It was stupid...but, let it rest. EVERY coach makes some bad decisions. Ours is making too many these days. I seriously doubt Moulds threw a hissy-fit because he wasn't the focus of the game plan But, if I read your post correctly, Moulds was unprofessional if there was a REMOTE possibility he was resentful or removed himself from the game...not if he ACTUALLY was resentful or removed himself from the game. So, a remote possibility of something action or feeling makes the person who may or may not have had that feeling or engaged in that action unprofessional? That's what you're saying right? 523722[/snapback] Moulds has had 'hissy fits' his entire career about not getting the ball enough so yeah, I think it's quite within the realm of possibility that his frustration level reached it's peak during the week. As for the 'remote possibility' comment. Please allow me to clarify. In the context of a confined professional sports locker room where veteran leadership has openly (publicly) questioned coaching decisions and openly (publicly) questioned the ability of another (most key player), in an organizational structure that relies on veteran leadership to lead but leads to dirisiveness when it doesn't (see comment about openly questioning the ability of key player), then even if a 'remote possibility' exists IN THE MINDS of any other, less influential player in that organization that the most prominent veteran leader on the team removed himself from the game because he wasn't the focal point of the passing offense (when, coincidenlty the focal point had a record breaking 1st qtr), then even that remote possibility, perceptions being reality in an organization, can cause major, indeed irreperable harm if allowed to go unchallenged by leadership in the organization. The perception (being reality) by another player that a prominent player quit on his team is the epitome of unprofessionalism. Even if it exists as a remote possibility to any other player in the organization. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I think even MM admitted it was a bad call. It was stupid...but, let it rest. EVERY coach makes some bad decisions. Ours is making too many these days. 523722[/snapback] They sure do - every coach. Last week, the B'gals went for it and failed early on 4th and 3 or something from the PGH 31, and with a 7 point lead with 4 minutes to go, got the ball and passed - ran - passed, knocking off 20 or so seconds off the clock. Against IND, they did the (failed) 4th down thing early instead of a FG; which would have had them within 5 instead of 8 in the last minutes of the game. The Bills have no exclusive franchise on bonehead plays... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Moulds has had 'hissy fits' his entire career about not getting the ball enough so yeah, I think it's quite within the realm of possibility that his frustration level reached it's peak during the week. As for the 'remote possibility' comment. Please allow me to clarify. In the context of a confined professional sports locker room where veteran leadership has openly (publicly) questioned coaching decisions and openly (publicly) questioned the ability of another (most key player), in an organizational structure that relies on veteran leadership to lead but leads to dirisiveness when it doesn't (see comment about openly questioning the ability of key player), then even if a 'remote possibility' exists IN THE MINDS of any other, less influential player in that organization that the most prominent veteran leader on the team removed himself from the game because he wasn't the focal point of the passing offense (when, coincidenlty the focal point had a record breaking 1st qtr), then even that remote possibility, perceptions being reality in an organization, can cause major, indeed irreperable harm if allowed to go unchallenged by leadership in the organization. The perception (being reality) by another player that a prominent player quit on his team is the epitome of unprofessionalism. Even if it exists as a remote possibility to any other player in the organization. GO BILLS!!! 523790[/snapback] If he did something...then there's an issue. If not and it's just perception...that's a management issue that doesn not involve punishment of the player. As far as Moulds past, he has been "responsibly outspoken" in my book. Sometimes his comments have been overblown by the goons at WGR and the screwballs here at TSW. He has never, in my recollection, said anything remotely inflamatory a la TO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 If he did something...then there's an issue. If not and it's just perception...that's a management issue that doesn not involve punishment of the player. As far as Moulds past, he has been "responsibly outspoken" in my book. Sometimes his comments have been overblown by the goons at WGR and the screwballs here at TSW. He has never, in my recollection, said anything remotely inflamatory a la TO. 523812[/snapback] I agree and that's why it seems out of character to me. But everyone has their breaking point I guess. Moulds has always been a class act who responsibly questioned coaching decisions. However, I suspect there is a lot of animosity between JP and EM. I don't ever recall Moulds questioning his QBs ability and advocating a QB change like that. And that's gotta effect his relationship with JP. To, I'm afraid to say, the detriment of the entire team. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 If the Bills do not light it up against the Pats putrid secondary this week then you know we are in huge trouble next year. The Pats are horrible against the pass. If we struggle this week flash forward to next year against good defensive competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Does Petrino's boss have trouble separating from coverage? 523710[/snapback] Recently, some legislator had Petrino's boss on the phone and was yelling at him & all he could do was listen, so the answer is yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Recently, some legislator had Petrino's boss on the phone and was yelling at him & all he could do was listen, so the answer is yes. 523912[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts