I heard an interview on the radio today

[buffaloboyinATL]

The interviewer asked Holt how difficult it would be for the team to adjust to not having Mike Martz there and he said that they would definitely miss him. He then went on to say that it would not be as difficult as it was when they lost London Fletcher. He said Fletcher was the "heart and soul" of that team and they had a very hard time getting back on track after he left. I guess sometimes we under-estimate the impact that a player has on a locker room, both positive and negative. I'm not sure I've heard him referenced in quite that same light here in Buffalo. Another reason to keep him around.

[Rico]

Fletcher was solid last year, + he's a great leader & warrior, no way you let him go now... but he's at the age where you do have to have another option available if he hits the wall sooner than expected. Maybe it's Haggan... sure he looked shaky last year, but so did Crowell till he saw more action.

[drnykterstein]

... another reason we have to keep Moulds, its not just as simple as $$

[Rico]

... another reason we have to keep Moulds, its not just as simple as $$

593541[/snapback]

Fletcher far outperformed Moulds last year. He is much closer to the upper echelon of MLB's than Moulds is to WRs, and he's not a problem child. Yet Moulds 2006 cap hit $10.9M is more than twice as high as Fletchers $4.9M.

 

Also, if you keep Fletcher one more year & then cut him, his 2007 dead cap hit is only $.8M. Moulds 2007 dead cap hit if cut is $6.3M.

 

Bottom line, you can leave Fletcher alone this year, but Moulds' contract needs a serious re-working or he's long long gone.

[seq004]

Fletcher was solid last year, + he's a great leader & warrior, no way you let him go now... but he's at the age where you do have to have another option available if he hits the wall sooner than expected. Maybe it's Haggan... sure he looked shaky last year, but so did Crowell till he saw more action.

593537[/snapback]

Agreed, He's not a player I want to see let go. The guy gives 110% each and every week. He's a little undersized but he plays with heart and makes tackles when they need made.

[The Dean]

... another reason we have to keep Moulds, its not just as simple as $$

593541[/snapback]

 

 

Moulds can play linebacker? He's Jason Peters-esque.

 

Man, i like Moulds but when you can find a reason to post "let's keep Moulds" in any thread, you're really reaching, IMO.

[BB2004]

Agreed, He's not a player I want to see let go. The guy gives 110% each and every week. He's a little undersized but he plays with heart and makes tackles when they need made.

593789[/snapback]

 

That's right. I'd like to see him play when we have 2 DT's that are awesome. Ngata has a chance to be there at #8. I think we have to strongly consider that.

[HurlyBurly51]

I thought (hoped) you were gonna say that it's not Martz, but rather Fairchild they would really feel the impact of losing

[Blue Chipper]

Fletcher, Spikes, Crowell and we have our linebackers leading our D again. Just need to plug in a DT and our D will be solid.

[Spiderweb]

Fletcher far outperformed Moulds last year. He is much closer to the upper echelon of MLB's than Moulds is to WRs, and he's not a problem child. Yet Moulds 2006 cap hit $10.9M is more than twice as high as Fletchers $4.9M.

 

Also, if you keep Fletcher one more year & then cut him, his 2007 dead cap hit is only $.8M. Moulds 2007 dead cap hit if cut is $6.3M.

 

Bottom line, you can leave Fletcher alone this year, but Moulds' contract needs a serious re-working or he's long long gone.

593566[/snapback]

 

Good points, all the way around.....

[Tcali]

Fletcher far outperformed Moulds last year. He is much closer to the upper echelon of MLB's than Moulds is to WRs, and he's not a problem child. Yet Moulds 2006 cap hit $10.9M is more than twice as high as Fletchers $4.9M.

 

Also, if you keep Fletcher one more year & then cut him, his 2007 dead cap hit is only $.8M. Moulds 2007 dead cap hit if cut is $6.3M.

 

Bottom line, you can leave Fletcher alone this year, but Moulds' contract needs a serious re-working or he's long long gone.

593566[/snapback]

Fletcher is closer to the upper echelon of LBs than moulds is to upper echelon of WRs????? surely you jest.

[Nanker]

Fletcher far outperformed Moulds last year. He is much closer to the upper echelon of MLB's than Moulds is to WRs, and he's not a problem child.

593566[/snapback]

 

Fletcher is closer to the upper echelon of LBs than moulds is to upper echelon of WRs????? surely you jest.

594033[/snapback]

 

 

 

Your guy Eric Scroll down a ways and you'll locate him on Line 14.

 

Stats from 2005 to back him up: His guy London Look no further than Line 3.

 

Hmmmmmm.

[OGTEleven]

Your guy Eric Scroll down a ways and you'll locate him on Line 14.

 

Stats from 2005 to back him up:  His guy London  Look no further than Line 3.

 

Hmmmmmm. 

594229[/snapback]

Anyone who has read my posts over the years knows that I am not a huge fan of Fletcher. I have always liked Moulds and think from a career point of view he has been very underrated.

 

With that said, Fletcher is a leader and appears to care most about the TEAM winning.

 

Moulds had the opportunity in 2005 to be a leader for the Bills. He could have been the guy to come in with Jim Kelly as a rookie, learn from Kelly and the other Bills from the winning era and help new guys like JP understand and grow.

 

Instead Moulds appeared to focus on his own stature. He removed himself from a game and was suspended from the next. He openly lobbied for Holcomb when clearly the Bills need a strong leader to develop at QB (whether that turns out to be JP remains to be seen). He put himself before the team. I wish it didn't happen, but it did. Maybe he can pay a penance and be a leader in 2006. I hope he can. If he wants to do that I am 100% for keeping him. If not, he has to go.

 

I would have never thought I'd type this, but if I had to choose between Fletcher and Moulds, at this point, I'd take Fletcher in a heartbeat. I hope they both stay but that Moulds attitude becomes more like Fletcher's.

[The Dean]

Anyone who has read my posts over the years knows that I am not a huge fan of Fletcher.  I have always liked Moulds and think from a career point of view he has been very underrated.

 

With that said, Fletcher is a leader and appears to care most about the TEAM winning. 

 

Moulds had the opportunity in 2005 to be a leader for the Bills.  He could have been the guy to come in with Jim Kelly as a rookie, learn from Kelly and the other Bills from the winning era and help new guys like JP understand and grow.

 

Instead Moulds appeared to focus on his own stature.  He removed himself from a game and was suspended from the next.  He openly lobbied for Holcomb when clearly the Bills need a strong leader to develop at QB (whether that turns out to be JP remains to be seen).  He put himself before the team.  I wish it didn't happen, but it did.  Maybe he can pay a penance and be a leader in 2006.  I hope he can.  If he wants to do that I am 100% for keeping him.  If not, he has to go. 

 

I would have never thought I'd type this, but if I had to choose between Fletcher and Moulds, at this point, I'd take Fletcher in a heartbeat.  I hope they both stay but that Moulds attitude becomes more like Fletcher's.

594248[/snapback]

 

 

Fletch is not only a team oriented solid citizen, he is, IMO, one of the NFL's ELITE linebackers. One lof the BEST...PERIOD! i can't believe the way he is dismissed by some Bills fans.

 

As for Moulds, he's still a valuable player and I hope we keep him IF his attitude is good.