Moulds Appreciation Thread

[loadofmularkey]

Without taking the specific persons into account, meaning Moulds and Mularkey, do you believe in the history of sports there has ever been a case where a player was trying hard, and doing his job, and wanted to be on the field. And then was taken out of a game and spent the rest of the game on the sidelines. Then, after the game, the coach of that team went on record, in public, and just flat lied and said the player himself took himself out of the game? Out of nowhere? That is impossible to have happened. I don't care if you love Moulds and hate Mularkey, love Mularkey and Hate Moulds, love them both or hate them both, it is impossible that Mularkey just made that up. And that Moulds was just "shocked and confused" by the whole thing.

524128[/snapback]

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I honestly don't understand much of that. I don't know who I believe or who I "love" but I do know this.

 

1.) MM told the media that EM asked to be taken out.

 

2.) EM told the media that MM took him out.

 

3.) There was a report that EM was benched for not running routes.

 

So EM is saying that he was taken out, combined with a report that he was benched for not running routes.

 

Meanwhile, MM said that EM asked to be taken out.

 

Someone lied and his name rhymes with "Falarkey".

[MDH]

His play-calling in the fourth quarter was pretty terrible. I am thoroughly disappointed in Mularkey this year and think he has flat out sucked. he's had a worse year than his terrible players. But because he calls shittty plays has zero bearing on whether he just suspends players for no reason. And again, I asked you to name any other player than Adams, who has been known to do this stuff and prides himself by bragging he doesn't try in practice. He's losing the team because they are losing games and everyone of them is frustrated as hell, like we are. Adams and Moulds, however, regardless of how great they have been in the past, have been a lot more vocal off the field than they've been productive on it.

524135[/snapback]

 

He also called McGahee out in public early this year. McGahee, Adams, Moulds. Three very public spats. That's once a month. That's way too many. For a coach that says he likes to keep things "in house" his actions speak louder than words.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think it's seems fairly likely, based on what I've read, that Mularkey pulled Moulds out of the game and after a few series when he went to put him back in Moulds refused, probably saying something along the lines of "if he thinks this team is better off without me then so be it".  If this is the case then both of them are lying in a sense.

524136[/snapback]

And if that is the case Mularkey was totally in the right and Moulds was totally in the wrong.

[MDH]

And if that is the case Mularkey was totally in the right and Moulds was totally in the wrong.

524140[/snapback]

 

Well, Mularkey is "right" in that he's the coach and what he says goes. However, I believe he's totally wrong in how he's handling his players and in attempting to suspend Moulds and thus create a huge public spectical over it. Fine the player and bench him for the first quarter of the next game. But Mularkey creating this circus is overkill and points to a coach who is losing his team and his fan base.

[Kelly the Dog]

He also called McGahee out in public early this year.  McGahee, Adams, Moulds.  Three very public spats.  That's once a month.  That's way too many.  For a coach that says he likes to keep things "in house" his actions speak louder than words.

524139[/snapback]

He's not allowed to criticize his players? Jesus, that's what 90% of the retard rollercoaster complains the most about him after play-calling, that he doesn't answer questions from the press honestly and should say what he really feels. McGahee himself said he doesn't have a problem with Mularkey, he just didn't agree that he wasn't running hard. That was hardly a public spat. That is what coaches do.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I honestly don't understand much of that.  I don't know who I believe or who I "love" but I do know this.

 

1.)  MM told the media that EM asked to be taken out.

 

2.)  EM told the media that MM took him out.

 

3.)  There was a report that EM was benched for not running routes.

 

So EM is saying that he was taken out, combined with a report that he was benched for not running routes. 

 

Meanwhile, MM said that EM asked to be taken out.

 

Someone lied and his name rhymes with "Falarkey".

524138[/snapback]

No, all of that could have happened in the same series or same quarter or same half. Mularkey could have taken Moulds out for a couple plays and then put him back in. Then Moulds could have taken himself out and then not gone back in.

[loadofmularkey]

No, all of that could have happened in the same series or same quarter or same half. Mularkey could have taken Moulds out for a couple plays and then put him back in. Then Moulds could have taken himself out and then not gone back in.

524155[/snapback]

 

I see what you mean now. So, as previously stated I suppose it's certainly possilble that both parties stretched the truth. Either way it's a mess.

[MDH]

He's not allowed to criticize his players? Jesus, that's what 90% of the retard rollercoaster complains the most about him after play-calling, that he doesn't answer questions from the press honestly and should say what he really feels. McGahee himself said he doesn't have a problem with Mularkey, he just didn't agree that he wasn't running hard. That was hardly a public spat. That is what coaches do.

524148[/snapback]

 

I have no problem with Mularkey criticizing players...in private. That's his job. But I can tell you that players don't like to be taken to task in public and their teammates don't like to see it happen either. It rubs them the wrong way and give them an “us against them” mentality, which can pull a team apart. Certain guys can get away with it (Parcells comes to mind) but a coach had better have a great track record before he tries to pull this stuff on his players. Mularkey doesn't have that track record. The only track record he has is having public spats with his players when it should be taken care of behind closed doors.

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

I can't tell you how many times this season it's looked to me like Moulds was the only guy who showed up to play. With me, his credibility is very high. Case in point: In the age of the Moss/T.O./Keyshawn WR in the NFL, Moulds criticized the coach for NOT RUNNING the ball. 'Nuff said. My guess is that he's got a better grip on the Bills situation right now than MM ...

[Kelly the Dog]

I have no problem with Mularkey criticizing players...in private.  That's his job.  But I can tell you that players don't like to be taken to task in public and their teammates don't like to see it happen either.  It rubs them the wrong way and give them an “us against them” mentality, which can pull a team apart.  Certain guys can get away with it (Parcells comes to mind) but a coach had better have a great track record before he tries to pull this stuff on his players.  Mularkey doesn't have that track record.  The only track record he has is having public spats with his players when it should be taken care of behind closed doors.

524161[/snapback]

Show me where Mularkey said anything in public other than McGahee wasn't running as hard as we want him to. And like I said, McGahee didnt have any spat with MM, he was just defending himself saying I am running hard and the coach can think what he wants. I just don't call that a public spat.

 

In the Moulds situation all Mularkey has said is that Moulds took himself out and I am not commenting on it. Where is Mularkey making a public spat. You and I are making a bigger public spat than Mularkey is. He's going way out of his way to avoid a public spat. Everything else has been wild speculation by fans and reporters. He went out of his way to avoid a public spat with Adams, too. Like I said, I think Mularkey has been deplorable this year. But that doesn't mean I won't defend a guy I think is getting unfairly criticized. Abuse him all you want for the play-calling, and their record. i think he's personally responsible for three losses.

[EDinRTP]

I'm for Moulds. A great Buffalo Bill and should always be a Buffalo Bill.

[MDH]

Show me where Mularkey said anything in public other than McGahee wasn't running as hard as we want him to. And like I said, McGahee didnt have any spat with MM, he was just defending himself saying I am running hard and the coach can think what he wants. I just don't call that a public spat.

 

In the Moulds situation all Mularkey has said is that Moulds took himself out and I am not commenting on it. Where is Mularkey making a public spat. You and I are making a bigger public spat than Mularkey is. He's going way out of his way to avoid a public spat. Everything else has been wild speculation by fans and reporters. He went out of his way to avoid a public spat with Adams, too. Like I said, I think Mularkey has been deplorable this year. But that doesn't mean I won't defend a guy I think is getting unfairly criticized. Abuse him all you want for the play-calling, and their record. i think he's personally responsible for three losses.

524173[/snapback]

 

Mularkey is not going out of his way to avoid a public spat. Any coach with a clue would have to realize the circus he'd create by suspending Eric Moulds. If he didn't realize the repercussions he's even more clueless as a coach than I thought. The way of handling this quietly was to fine Moulds and sit him for part of the game on Sunday. Nobody would know a thing about it until after the game started. But instead we have MM suspending Moulds, the owner flying in tomorrow and the media circus. Yeah, he's handling the situation "quietly". There are more ways of communicating that saying “no comment” in front of the press.

[loadofmularkey]

i think he's personally responsible for three losses.

524173[/snapback]

 

Explain how.

[Kelly the Dog]

Mularkey is not going out of his way to avoid a public spat.  Any coach with a clue would have to realize the circus he'd create by suspending Eric Moulds.  If he didn't realize the repercussions he's even more clueless as a coach than I thought.  The way of handling this quietly was to fine Moulds and sit him for part of the game on Sunday.  Nobody would know a thing about it until after the game started.  But instead we have MM suspending Moulds, the owner flying in tomorrow and the media circus.  Yeah, he's handling the situation "quietly".  There are more ways of communicating that saying “no comment” in front of the press.

524181[/snapback]

So a coach cannot suspend a player if that player says screw you coach, I am not going back in the game, in front of his teammates? Again, this didn't come out of nowhere. It is completely the right thing to do to suspend a player for one game by refusing to go into the game. In fact, if that was the case, Moulds could be personally responsible for that loss even more than Mularkey's crappy play-calling. God knows there is no threat with Sam Aiken in there.

[Kelly the Dog]

Explain how.

524182[/snapback]

I just think that the play-calling alone cost us the Fin, Patsy and Panthers game, and perhaps the Saints or Falcons game. That is somewhat unfair, I suppose, because the play-calling also got us the leads in those games. But that is his job, to get the offense to score some points. And after that fact, not blow it. Some of those packages and formations and plays (like the goalline series) were high school coach moves when a simple run or two up the middle would have won the game. He is supposed to be the offensive mastermind, and frankly, I think if we had Sam Wyche calling the plays we probably would be 7-5 instead of 4-8, with this same bunch of often gutless blowhards.

[***PetrinoInAlbany***]

I wonder if Mularkey isn't one of those guys who can never be wrong. I mean, it's been bugging me that Mike Williams was moved to left guard... You know, shoot off your nose to spite your face, so to speak. There are people like that out there. (Example: Dick Cheney being so upset that someone would question his judgement that he outed a CIA operative out of spite.) If MM has a "people problem" it could be a bigger problem in the long run. Unless you're Lombardi or his reincarnate, I'm not sure you can coach guys who can't stand you these days. I mean, with FA and all. I'd much rather be reading stories right now about how the team is coming together under MM in the midst of all this adversity, instead of the BS press conferences like we got today. Hand me the Jack, please ...

[Fan in San Diego]

I got your back Eric !

[ofiba]

How quickly we forget...

 

AFTERWARD Moulds noted, “I don’t know if the other guys quit on the play, but I was always taught when I came here with Marv Levy that you don’t stop fighting.

“Guys like Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed and Bruce Smith always showed me that you don’t stop no matter what the score is because that uniform you’ve got on is bigger than your name.”

He added, “I don’t know if guys realize that. Maybe I did a poor job of letting them know that. I think I have to bring up the fact that there were great players here that played before (them) and (they)’ve got to respect those uniforms.”

[cåblelady]

#80

[MDH]

So a coach cannot suspend a player if that player says screw you coach, I am not going back in the game, in front of his teammates? Again, this didn't come out of nowhere. It is completely the right thing to do to suspend a player for one game by refusing to go into the game. In fact, if that was the case, Moulds could be personally responsible for that loss even more than Mularkey's crappy play-calling. God knows there is no threat with Sam Aiken in there.

524191[/snapback]

 

I think the main issue we're having here is you don't care for Moulds so you're not willing to cut him any slack, whereas I do like him and am willing to let a few small things slide. Is not listening to the coach on game day insibordination? Absolutely. Should it be punished? Again, absolutely. However causing this circus isn't the way of handling it and that is what I have issue with.

 

Mularkey should have also considered the ramifications of this move considering the thin ice his career in Buffalo is on. A major dispute with the team’s longest tenured player and one most fans, and the owner, love. It also gives the impression that he has lost control of the team. How many coaches with control of a team have one of the team’s most respected players refuse to listen to him?

 

Bottom line is this move isn't going to help Mularkey keep his job. Perhaps he's not concerned about that, or concerned about creating a circus and a distraction for a game against New England this weekend, but he should be.