splinter21 Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 This is an article form 2001 i dug up on nfl.com ******* With coverage focused around Moulds, the sixth-year veteran admits that a path to team success in the last half of the 2001 season might involve capitalizing on opponents' defensive game plans and using the two-time Pro Bowler as a decoy. "Every week, teams are going to pay attention to me and try to take me out of the game," Moulds said. "If they give you the opportunity to throw 20 passes out of the backfield, take it -- we'll win. If teams are going to come out and double-team me, that's fine." "I'd rather win than have a 90-catch season." ***** This kind of talk is what personifies moulds as a player on the bills. a class act player who puts his team before himself. even in the frustrating 2001 3-13 season he was able to say that. For fans to even forget that and call him selfish is disrespectful, ungrateful and way out of line. It sickens me to know people like that root for the same team as me. Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Thanks for clearing it up. I appreciate that, I really do. Because next time my boss, or my girlfriend, or a policeman accuses me of something I did wrong recently, I can bring up the fact that I was a really good guy in 2001. That will be so great. I'll be instantly cleared and innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinter21 Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 Thanks for clearing it up. I appreciate that, I really do. Because next time my boss, or my girlfriend, or a policeman accuses me of something I did wrong recently, I can bring up the fact that I was a really good guy in 2001. That will be so great. I'll be instantly cleared and innocent. 526726[/snapback] I really dont see where moulds has been selfish this year at all. I really do not see where he has complained other than for boneheaded play calling. If you dont want people to speak their minds maybe you should live in a fascist nation like in north korea. im sure you would fit in well there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinter21 Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 second of all you seem to be so wishy washy on your opinion of moulds. i have obseved your posts as of late and you seem to be waivering back and forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 I really dont see where moulds has been selfish this year at all. I really do not see where he has complained other than for boneheaded play calling. If you dont want people to speak their minds maybe you should live in a fascist nation like in north korea. im sure you would fit in well there. 526729[/snapback] He complained and complained about Losman, and was partially repsonsible for Holcomb being named the starter. But that's okay. He can say what we wants, and he's always been one of my favorite players. I posted what I did because just because he was a team player four years ago, doesn't mean he didn't do something stupid four days ago. In fact, it's the same guy, and he said something great in 2001 and he did something stupid in 2005. I don't even care that he complained about the play-calling. I think the play-calling has been atrocious and the main reason we have the record we do. I complain about the playcalling everyday. But he didnt get suspended for complaining about the playcalling. He got suspended for not playing in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 second of all you seem to be so wishy washy on your opinion of moulds. i have obseved your posts as of late and you seem to be waivering back and forth. 526733[/snapback] Not one bit. I have been badmouthing Moulds for this instance. And I think he hasn't been playing well lately. But I don't mind him, don't think he's a jerk for the most part, and like I said, he's always been one of my favorite Bills. But that's one of my main beefs with the way fans have been treating this. They say things like you just did, that he was a great guy before so how could be not be a great guy now? That's just dumb. Or Mularkey is a lousy coach so he must be wrong here, or handling this wrong. I have been a great guy and I have been a total ass. That's human. Moulds made a major mistake by not going in. A big one. But he should just be suspended for one game and then given another chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinter21 Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 He complained and complained about Losman, and was partially repsonsible for Holcomb being named the starter. But that's okay. He can say what we wants, and he's always been one of my favorite players. I posted what I did because just because he was a team player four years ago, doesn't mean he didn't do something stupid four days ago. In fact, it's the same guy, and he said something great in 2001 and he did something stupid in 2005. I don't even care that he complained about the play-calling. I think the play-calling has been atrocious and the main reason we have the record we do. I complain about the playcalling everyday. buyt he didnt get suspended for complaining about the playcalling. He got suspended for not playing in the game. 526735[/snapback] wrongo. he did not complain and complain about losman. he simply suggested that in order to get the offense rolling maybe an injection of experience would help. and he ended up being right as holcomb won two in a row for us. i highly doubt if losman played vs miami and NYJ we would have won. i also distinctly remember EM emphasizing that he sees jp having a lot of upside. he said nothing negative about JP at all. and look what sitting JP did to JP. after having some time on the bench to get an objective point of view and watch holcomb he stepped in and performed well against a formidable KC team. not only that he hasn't looked too shabby as of late. sorry if i have a few run ons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinter21 Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 he's always been one of my favorite Bills. 526739[/snapback] at least we agree on something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Not one bit. I have been badmouthing Moulds for this instance. And I think he hasn't been playing well lately. But I don't mind him, don't think he's a jerk for the most part, and like I said, he's always been one of my favorite Bills. But that's one of my main beefs with the way fans have been treating this. They say things like you just did, that he was a great guy before so how could be not be a great guy now? That's just dumb. Or Mularkey is a lousy coach so he must be wrong here, or handling this wrong. I have been a great guy and I have been a total ass. That's human. Moulds made a major mistake by not going in. A big one. But he should just be suspended for one game and then given another chance. 526739[/snapback] BTW, is it possible that he really WAS concerned about his foot and wanted it looked at? I think it's possible that, on the sideline, in the heat of the battle and the team falling apart on the field, there was some mis-communication. I'm not saying I'm convinced it happered that way...but I'm not convinced it didn't. With all his complaining I can see it beng interpreted as a "refusal" to into the game if he said "no" because he thought someone was going to look at his foot. I'm just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 BTW, is it possible that he really WAS concerned about his foot and wanted it looked at? I think it's possible that, on the sideline, in the heat of the battle and the team falling apart on the field, there was some mis-communication. I'm not saying I'm convinced it happered that way...but I'm not convinced it didn't. With all his complaining I can see it beng interpreted as a "refusal" to into the game if he said "no" because he thought someone was going to look at his foot. I'm just sayin... 526760[/snapback] I'm just sayin', knowing professional athletes and their egos and their money, that Eric Moulds would be throwing a bigger shittfit right now than he did on the sidelines for losing $93,750.00 if he didn't do something that deserved a one game suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 I'm just sayin', knowing professional athletes and their egos and their money, that Eric Moulds would be throwing a bigger shittfit right now than he did on the sidelines for losing $93,750.00 if he didn't do something that deserved a one game suspension. 526770[/snapback] Though it's possible that he's knows that pitching a B word, right or wrong, will cost him cash next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 I'm just sayin', knowing professional athletes and their egos and their money, that Eric Moulds would be throwing a bigger shittfit right now than he did on the sidelines for losing $93,750.00 if he didn't do something that deserved a one game suspension. 526770[/snapback] I'm thinking that if he doesn't appeal the suspension (and it sounds as though he won't) he really isn't losing all that $. Who's to say Ralph didn't throw a little $ at this situation to make it all go away? In the scenario in my totally sober brain (there's a problem right there) Ralph sat them all down and asked Eric to just go along with this one and he'd make sure it didn't hurt too bad. Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 I'm thinking that if he doesn't appeal the suspension (and it sounds as though he won't) he really isn't losing all that $. Who's to say Ralph didn't throw a little $ at this situation to make it all go away? In the scenario in my totally sober brain (there's a problem right there) Ralph sat them all down and asked Eric to just go along with this one and he'd make sure it didn't hurt too bad. Dunno. 526776[/snapback] $93,750 is one game salary. Do you think for a minute that Ralph would jeopardize himself with the NFL by even considering paying Moulds under the table? Notice Moulds won't appeal this, because he likely knows that the penalty could have been much more severe (for whatever he did). As a comparison, wouldn't Sam Adams warrant a much higher penalty for walking out on the team on game day? Why wasn't he suspended without pay? He still got paid for his day off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 $93,750 is one game salary. Do you think for a minute that Ralph would jeopardize himself with the NFL by even considering paying Moulds under the table? Notice Moulds won't appeal this, because he likely knows that the penalty could have been much more severe (for whatever he did). As a comparison, wouldn't Sam Adams warrant a much higher penalty for walking out on the team on game day? Why wasn't he suspended without pay? He still got paid for his day off. 526782[/snapback] The reactions on this board really do amaze me. I am not saying I know for sure what happened. What I do know, however, is the NFLPA is a pretty damn strong union. They protect their own at all times. Non-drug related suspensions do not happen every day, and you have to do something pretty friggin' bad to get one. This is not a benching. This is not making a player inactive and missing a game. This is a $93,000 fine for doing something likely atrocious. The team, the management, the ownership, the players, the league, the union, is simply not going to let a guy like Mike Mularkey take $100,000 out of a star player's pocket to make an example of him, to show the other players he's boss, when the guy tweaked an achilles heel and asked the trainer to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinter21 Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 The reactions on this board really do amaze me. I am not saying I know for sure what happened. What I do know, however, is the NFLPA is a pretty damn strong union. They protect their own at all times. Non-drug related suspensions do not happen every day, and you have to do something pretty friggin' bad to get one. This is not a benching. This is not making a player inactive and missing a game. This is a $93,000 fine for doing something likely atrocious. The team, the management, the ownership, the players, the league, the union, is simply not going to let a guy like Mike Mularkey take $100,000 out of a star player's pocket to make an example of him, to show the other players he's boss, when the guy tweaked an achilles heel and asked the trainer to look at it. 526788[/snapback] nah i think it was ralph basically telling moulds he was on his side and basically to satisfy mularkey and donohoe, he did a one game suspension rather than the rest of the season. he even emphasized he appreciated everything moulds had done for the franchise. it was in the paper this morning. theres no reason why ralph would come back to buff to handle this situation other than the fac that he is not on good terms with TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 nah i think it was ralph basically telling moulds he was on his side and basically to satisfy mularkey and donohoe, he did a one game suspension rather than the rest of the season. he even emphasized he appreciated everything moulds had done for the franchise. it was in the paper this morning. theres no reason why ralph would come back to buff to handle this situation other than the fac that he is not on good terms with TD. 526812[/snapback] Right. So Ralph is on great terms with Moulds, and comes all the way to town because he's not on good terms with TD, but in the closed door meeting says hey buddy, Eric, I love ya, and you were right, and did nothing wrong, but I need to make these guys I don't like look good, so how about you skipping your $93,000 paycheck this week and look like a fool in every newspaper in the country and be the bad guy in the press for me? Huh, buddy? I know you always try your hardest and these guys don't know what theyre doing. I know you wanted to be in there giving 155%. I know the play calling sucks as much as you. I'm firing these bastards in a couple weeks anyway. But do me a solid, bro, give up the 93 large and take one for the team that has always been screwing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 The reactions on this board really do amaze me. I am not saying I know for sure what happened. What I do know, however, is the NFLPA is a pretty damn strong union. They protect their own at all times. Non-drug related suspensions do not happen every day, and you have to do something pretty friggin' bad to get one. This is not a benching. This is not making a player inactive and missing a game. This is a $93,000 fine for doing something likely atrocious. The team, the management, the ownership, the players, the league, the union, is simply not going to let a guy like Mike Mularkey take $100,000 out of a star player's pocket to make an example of him, to show the other players he's boss, when the guy tweaked an achilles heel and asked the trainer to look at it. 526788[/snapback] That's kinda my point (I think...I'm still at the office and really could use a cocktail). The NFLPA appealed TO's suspension and I guarangoddamntee EM didn't do anything CLOSE to what TO did. An appeal is almost automatic in the NFL. Even if EM just flat-out refused to go in for no reason (a real possibility...I don't know what happened either) the NFLPA would have no problem representing EM in an appeal. So, if there is no appeal it's because EM says "I don't want one"...or something real snappy like that! Well, why WOULDN'T EM appeal? Here's where another round of speculation begins: Is he worried about the damage it will do to his worth when he's a free-agent? I doubt it. Like I said, appeals are so common I really don't think it's a factor. GG suggests he knows the penalty could be worse. So? An appeal never results in a HARSHER penalty...does it? And as, Double-G mentions, Sam got no hit for his trangression. Wouldn't EM want to take a shot at putting some of that jack back in his pocket? He wants to play nice with Ralph in an attempt to stay with the team? Naw..he'd want womething tangible...no? He's afraid the REAL story will come out and he's embarrased by it? Perhaps He's a real nice and honest and fair guy who understands that this is the price he pays for his transgression? Wow...are there people like that in the world (other than me, of course)? He's not really losing $93,000? or He has an agreement that he will be on the team next year? or He was told the Bills will trade him (contract intact) and not cut him if he agrees? Well, who knows...but these are the kinds of possibilties I can put my arms around, if you get my drift. I'm not saying Ralph's cutting him a check for the amount and sliding it to him under the table. I'm suggesting there are ways to ameliorate the financial impact of the suspension. But one thing is for sure: I have no damned idea what the hell is going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Ray Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 I'm just sayin', knowing professional athletes and their egos and their money, that Eric Moulds would be throwing a bigger shittfit right now than he did on the sidelines for losing $93,750.00 if he didn't do something that deserved a one game suspension. 526770[/snapback] Isnt that being a little presumptious? You make some reasonable points, but it seems like this opinion of athletes and their salary is the base of your assertion that EM is in the wrong and totally deserving of the suspension. I mean, its like me saying that MM is totally at fault here because all head coaches want to assert their authority and if it takes making an example of a player to do so, then they'll do it, regardless of the real reasons behind a player's "detrimental" action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 That's kinda my point (I think...I'm still at the office and really could use a cocktail). The NFLPA appealed TO's suspension and I guarangoddamntee EM didn't do anything CLOSE to what TO did. An appeal is almost automatic in the NFL. Even if EM just flat-out refused to go in for no reason (a real possibility...I don't know what happened either) the NFLPA would have no problem representing EM in an appeal. So, if there is no appeal it's because EM says "I don't want one"...or something real snappy like that! Well, why WOULDN'T EM appeal? Here's where another round of speculation begins: Is he worried about the damage it will do to his worth when he's a free-agent? I doubt it. Like I said, appeals are so common I really don't think it's a factor. GG suggests he knows the penalty could be worse. So? An appeal never results in a HARSHER penalty...does it? And as, Double-G mentions, Sam got no hit for his trangression. Wouldn't EM want to take a shot at putting some of that jack back in his pocket? He wants to play nice with Ralph in an attempt to stay with the team? Naw..he'd want womething tangible...no? He's afraid the REAL story will come out and he's embarrased by it? Perhaps He's a real nice and honest and fair guy who understands that this is the price he pays for his transgression? Wow...are there people like that in the world (other than me, of course)? He's not really losing $93,000? or He has an agreement that he will be on the team next year? or He was told the Bills will trade him (contract intact) and not cut him if he agrees? Well, who knows...but these are the kinds of possibilties I can put my arms around, if you get my drift. I'm not saying Ralph's cutting him a check for the amount and sliding it to him under the table. I'm suggesting there are ways to ameliorate the financial impact of the suspension. But one thing is for sure: I have no damned idea what the hell is going on here. 526826[/snapback] The union appealled TO's suspension because they felt he was wronged and they knew they had a case. And you're right, they almost appeal automatically. That is why the only, only thing that makes sense here is Moulds was dead wrong, and he got the right penalty for the crime. I know if it were me and I didn't deserve it, I would do everything I could to not let that be a pockmark on my legacy and career. Even if I made millions I would be furious that they were taking $93,000 from my pocket if I didn't deserve it. I would be furious that my name was being plastered all over the sports pages in every city saying Eric Moulds wouldn't go in a game, that is as serious a charge as you can levy against a player. It would drive me insane if I was being wrongly accused. Think about that. Put yourself in Moulds' shoes IF he really did nothing all that bad. If he hurt his foot. If he wanted to play but was benched. But what is Moulds doing? Saying I accept it. I will just play hard next week. If he didn't do it, they would simply not get away with it. EVERYTHING that has happened so far, to me, says he lost it briefly, made a huge mistake, didnt go in the game when the coaches told him because he was extremely frustrated (with his career, with this year, with the coaches, with himself), and now he has to pay the penalty. And the team and teammates and management and ownership is doing all they can to not let it go further than that. And the fans are doing all they can to make it a referendum on how pissed they are at Donohoe and Mularkey for losing. That is really what this is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinter21 Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 Isnt that being a little presumptious? You make some reasonable points, but it seems like this opinion of athletes and their salary is the base of your assertion that EM is in the wrong and totally deserving of the suspension. I mean, its like me saying that MM is totally at fault here because all head coaches want to assert their authority and if it takes making an example of a player to do so, then they'll do it, regardless of the real reasons behind a player's "detrimental" action. 526845[/snapback] excellent point steve i was thinking that and couldnt come up with the words to say that for some reason. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts