PDA

View Full Version : Moulds to Bills: Release Me -- Chiefs to Moulds: Come here


Marty Mac Ver 2.0
03-13-2006, 11:10 PM
Buffalo Bills WR Eric Moulds asked for his relase. Considering his cap value is something like $10.8 million he'll probably get his wish. Look for the Chiefs to make a run at him thus causing Eddie Kennison to whine, piss and moan.

hypersensitiveZO6
03-13-2006, 11:11 PM
no

Miles
03-13-2006, 11:17 PM
He would be a hell of an addition but I don't see us making a run at him.

Dunit35
03-13-2006, 11:18 PM
He will be costly. Too costly for us.

CoMoChief
03-13-2006, 11:26 PM
Kennison produced more than he did last season. Bring in TO, if the price is right. That wont happen though.

Johnson&Johnson
03-13-2006, 11:51 PM
Kennison produced more than he did last season. Bring in TO, if the price is right. That wont happen though.

No kidding. TO regardless of his off the field crap. He is worth the trouble and the salary.

Moulds on the other hand is.... ewwwww.... What has he done for the lowly Bills the past 3 seasons? Him being the #1 receiver and all in Buffalo the last 3 years..he seem to be lost.

Simple math:
TO = NFL elite WR, Superbowl, double team required on defense
Moulds = mediocre, playoffs??, lost a step, gain too many LBS

If we want mediocre, we dont need Moulds, Kennison, Parker is a hair or two better than mediocre.

.
.

SLAG
03-13-2006, 11:52 PM
So now we are getting Moulds, TO, Law, and signing 3 Of our Rookies to start this year.

Right after we had to get under the cap


:hmmm:

Miles
03-14-2006, 12:06 AM
No kidding. TO regardless of his off the field crap. He is worth the trouble and the salary.

Moulds on the other hand is.... ewwwww.... What has he done for the lowly Bills the past 3 seasons? Him being the #1 receiver and all in Buffalo the last 3 years..he seem to be lost.

Simple math:
TO = NFL elite WR, Superbowl, double team required on defense
Moulds = mediocre, playoffs??, lost a step, gain too many LBS

If we want mediocre, we dont need Moulds, Kennison, Parker is a hair or two better than mediocre.

.
.

Moulds hasn't exactly been in anything that resembles a good offense over the past three seasons. He also finished last season pretty strong.

greg63
03-14-2006, 12:12 AM
So now we are getting Moulds, TO, Law, and signing 3 Of our Rookies to start this year.

Right after we had to get under the cap


:hmmm:


...And without restructuring Rich Scanlon's multi million dollar contract. :D

banyon
03-14-2006, 12:13 AM
Moulds hasn't exactly been in anything that resembles a good offense over the past three seasons. He also finished last season pretty strong.

I agree. It's good to have a solid possession guy to go with our speed guys (Kennison and Parker).

Johnson&Johnson
03-14-2006, 12:17 AM
Moulds hasn't exactly been in anything that resembles a good offense over the past three seasons. He also finished last season pretty strong.

Define a good offense.

Great receivers excel even in the poorest of offensive teams. To name a few of my head:
2005 example - Cardinals (Fitzgerald and Boldin)
2004-05 - 49ers (Brandon Lloyd)
Those crappy Chargers in the 90's (Anthony Miller)
Crappy Rams in the late 80's/ early 90's (Henry Ellard)

Remember, I am not saying that Moulds is a lousy WR. Mould WAS productive at one point, just that he is not the threat anymore.

.
.
.

Johnson&Johnson
03-14-2006, 12:20 AM
Moulds hasn't exactly been in anything that resembles a good offense over the past three seasons. He also finished last season pretty strong.

I agree. It's good to have a solid possession guy to go with our speed guys (Kennison and Parker).

I understand that Moulds could be a good possession receiver..the problem is...we're not paying him #1 WR $$$$$$ money for someone to come in here and be a possession receiver...

Reason he wants to leave Buffalo is because he won't restructure his contract, this guy wants MONEY... we be better spending our dollars wisely...certainly not for a possession receiver. :rolleyes:

.
.
.

banyon
03-14-2006, 12:26 AM
I understand that Moulds could be a good possession receiver..the problem is...we're not paying him #1 WR $$$$$$ money for someone to come in here and be a possession receiver...

Reason he wants to leave Buffalo is because he won't restructure his contract, this guy wants MONEY... we be better spending our dollars wisely...certainly not for a possession receiver. :rolleyes:

.
.
.

you're right , I only want him on the cheap. His price might come down a bit if no one else takes the bait.

Guru
03-14-2006, 12:32 AM
If it is between TO and Moulds... I will take TO, especially if Moulds is expecting #1 money.

Miles
03-14-2006, 12:42 AM
Define a good offense.

Great receivers excel even in the poorest of offensive teams. To name a few of my head:
2005 example - Cardinals (Fitzgerald and Boldin)
2004-05 - 49ers (Brandon Lloyd)
Those crappy Chargers in the 90's (Anthony Miller)
Crappy Rams in the late 80's/ early 90's (Henry Ellard)

Remember, I am not saying that Moulds is a lousy WR. Mould WAS productive at one point, just that he is not the threat anymore.

.
.
.

I easly thought from your earlier post that you didnt think Moulds was no longer any good. You are right that he his no longer an elite WR anymore but I think he will be pretty productive for the next year or two at least. The Bills have had huge OL problems over the past two seasons which is why Moulds has a lot of receptions but not that solid of yards.

Miles
03-14-2006, 12:49 AM
I understand that Moulds could be a good possession receiver..the problem is...we're not paying him #1 WR $$$$$$ money for someone to come in here and be a possession receiver...

Reason he wants to leave Buffalo is because he won't restructure his contract, this guy wants MONEY... we be better spending our dollars wisely...certainly not for a possession receiver. :rolleyes:

.
.
.

I think he wants out of Buffalo badly. Last season they even suspended him for a game because he was so frustrated with how things were going there. I really don't see him restructuing to stay with a team he wanted out of as meaning he wants a huge payout. It was just a means for him to get out of a bad situation.

I also don't see us as trying to bring him in at all though. Arguing about whether TO or Moulds would be better for us is just a wasted offseason argument.

Sure-Oz
03-14-2006, 12:54 AM
dont see how kennison is a whiner, he has had pretty good seasons here, althought i still think he is a number 2, but he has played hard here. but damn him for those costly fumbles.

svuba
03-14-2006, 01:29 AM
Moulds has been around since before Al Davis
We need youth.....Moulds is too freakin old.

CHENZ A!
03-14-2006, 03:12 AM
I may be the only
"Eddie" fan, but so be it. ever since dude has been here he's caught touchdowns, he is a reliable reciever, and if we don't get TO, we'll be alright wit EDAY!!!

keg in kc
03-14-2006, 03:34 AM
Holy crap, he has his own website. http://www.ericmoulds.com/

Dude's 33 years old. He is Eddie Kennison, for all intents and purposes, without the speed.

Marty Mac Ver 2.0
03-15-2006, 12:11 AM
I think if KC had the chance to sign TO or Moulds, you sign TO. Moulds played with a chip on his shoulder in Buffalo and didn't put forth the effort for a couple of years. The problems he had in Buffalo went far deeper than most people realize. It's really no different than Eddie Kennison's situation when he quit on Denver (don't blame him). Moulds will spend a few months trying to get that big dollar contract but he won't find it. Frankly, a team could get him at a decent price as we get closer to training camp. I'd be happy with Kennison, Parker and Moulds as our starting wideouts with Tony G and Larry Johnson. That's a pretty solid group.

wazu
03-15-2006, 12:18 AM
Moulds sucks. He hasn't been good for awhile. The guy absolutely cannot get seperation. He wouldn't even be our #2 receiver.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2006, 12:20 AM
So now we are getting Moulds, TO, Law, and signing 3 Of our Rookies to start this year.

Right after we had to get under the cap


:hmmm:
washington just did it

SLAG
03-15-2006, 12:30 AM
washington just did it


Law > teh 0dd T00d

dj56dt58
03-15-2006, 10:04 AM
So now we are getting Moulds, TO, Law, and signing 3 Of our Rookies to start this year.

Right after we had to get under the cap


:hmmm:

CP is smarter than you think. He'll get all of them drunk and then have them sign it. How do you think we got Holmes? And why do you think Warfield got signed for so high? Carl was having a drink w/ him trying to get him drunk enough to sign for a cheap price. Problem was, EW is so used to it, CP got drunk first and signed him to a high salary. EW drove home a happy man.

Braincase
03-15-2006, 10:25 AM
We have bigger needs. I'm happy with Parker's development and Kennison has been Steady Eddie. See what's available in the draft, keep developing Craphonso Thorpe. Focus on defense during free agency.

And tell Carl he owes me some pie.

KCChiefsMan
03-15-2006, 11:42 AM
if it came down to getting Moulds or getting nobody, I would take Moulds if he came reasonably priced. He is a possession WR which we could use.

Moulds & Kennison > Kennison & Parker/Horn/Hall

SLAG
03-15-2006, 11:44 AM
CP is smarter than you think. He'll get all of them drunk and then have them sign it. How do you think we got Holmes? And why do you think Warfield got signed for so high? Carl was having a drink w/ him trying to get him drunk enough to sign for a cheap price. Problem was, EW is so used to it, CP got drunk first and signed him to a high salary. EW drove home a happy man.
ROFL ROFL


So thats how it happend

:cuss: DAMNIT CARL

58-4ever
03-15-2006, 11:48 AM
I would've like to have had Moulds 5 years ago, it seems he has lost more than a step or two.