PDA

View Full Version : Jamel White and Lamar Gordon


Bobo
06-01-2006, 11:36 PM
According to http:scout.com/2/536023.html the Texans are trying out both White and Gordon. Why the Texans don't just re-sign Wells is beyond me.

hadaad
06-02-2006, 12:26 PM
Likely because they feel that Lamar Gordon and Jamel White potentially have more to offer.

Mr. White
06-02-2006, 12:40 PM
I always thought pretty highly of the guy, but the fact that Wells hasn't been picked up by another team speaks for itself.

wrestler4life
06-02-2006, 12:47 PM
I always thought pretty highly of the guy, but the fact that Wells hasn't been picked up by another team speaks for itself.
The raiders should get him after waht he did to them 2 years ago

cj5776
06-02-2006, 01:56 PM
According to http:scout.com/2/536023.html the Texans are trying out both White and Gordon. Why the Texans don't just re-sign Wells is beyond me.


I used to agree with you about Wells, the thing I have learned is there is two strikes against Wells. I don't know how true it was but supposedly he rubbed the coaching staff the wrong way complaining about playing time, and was not seen as a good locker room guy. The other thing is he is not what the team is looking for. The texans want either a fourth rb, as long as they can return kicks, or someone who is a fb/rb tweener. The latter used to fit Wells perfectly but in the new offense he does have the quickness to make the cut to block the upfield guy, ie. Micheal Anderson.

Meloy
06-02-2006, 02:01 PM
I liked Wells but have heard of no interest in him from other teams...

El Tejano
06-02-2006, 03:31 PM
Is Jamel White the guy that used to play with the Browns and Lamar Gordon with the Dolphins?

AFD1717
06-02-2006, 06:59 PM
Is Jamel White the guy that used to play with the Browns and Lamar Gordon with the Dolphins?


Right. I think Gordon actually played in Philly last year, but I think he had injuries.

TexanFan881
06-02-2006, 07:10 PM
What ever happened to the other thread on this that was up last night? Just curious because it deleted my post...

Texan in Japan
06-02-2006, 08:33 PM
Lamar Gordon was wel thought of coming out, but injuries have hampered his development. He has good speed and decent hands...his 1st year was his best.

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302034

Jamel White has shown more and I remember seing him play a few times. He also has receiving skills and has kick return experience.

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/192822

Both great choices to workout and see what they have left.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 09:09 PM
I always thought pretty highly of the guy, but the fact that Wells hasn't been picked up by another team speaks for itself.

Then I have to wonder about the fact that Ragone was gobbled up by the Bengals with the Colts waiting right behind them. Let us remember what Wells did against the Cardinals when he ran for 88 yards, added two TDS and 33 yards in receptions. The guy has proven himself -- even if no one else has seen it. He has shown he is a good backup as he has filled in well in a pinch.

Grid
06-02-2006, 09:45 PM
I love Wells..I think he is great. But im no football guru (yet), I just like him cause he gets the job done when he is out there on the field.

But its apparent that there is something wrong with his game since no other team has picked him up. I guess the only reason we kept him on the team before is because or past staff drafted him.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 09:50 PM
I love Wells..I think he is great. But im no football guru (yet), I just like him cause he gets the job done when he is out there on the field.

But its apparent that there is something wrong with his game since no other team has picked him up. I guess the only reason we kept him on the team before is because or past staff drafted him.

Like I said, if we are going to judge a player based on the fact that others have passed on him, then what about the fact that Ragone was gobbled up by the Bengals with the Colts waiting in line? Does that mean that the current regime might have made an error, heaven forbid? Or how about the fact that Corey Bradford is now sitting at #2 WR on the Lions depth chart? Another mistake, perhaps? Whether a team took Wells or not, the fact of the matter is this: When the Texans needed him to play due to injury last year, Wells stepped up to the plate and helped them win literally half of the team's victories last year. He did his job as a backup very well so I don't see why they didn't just re-sign him. If he complained about PT, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, either. After all, do you really want a guy who doesn't care if he plays or not on your team anyway? The fact that he wants to play is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Brandon420tx
06-02-2006, 09:55 PM
Like I said, if we are going to judge a player based on the fact that others have passed on him, then what about the fact that Ragone was gobbled up by the Bengals with the Colts waiting in line? Does that mean that the current regime might have made an error, heaven forbid? Or how about the fact that Corey Bradford is now sitting at #2 WR on the Lions depth chart? Another mistake, perhaps? Whether a team took Wells or not, the fact of the matter is this: When the Texans needed him to play due to injury last year, Wells stepped up to the plate and helped them win literally half of the team's victories last year. He did his job as a backup very well so I don't see why they didn't just re-sign him. If he complained about PT, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, either. After all, do you really want a guy who doesn't care if he plays or not on your team anyway? The fact that he wants to play is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Since I don't know anything about the wells thing, I'll leave it alone. But, If the Texans had kept both Jabar Gaffney and Corey Bradford, they would be competing with about 3 other receivers for our #3 spot, IMO they have a much better oppurtunity where they ended up instead of competing to be the 3rd or 4th WR on this team, Aren't they both number 2 on there respective teams now? They both could have asked to seek better oppurtunities for them, and I think they found it, Its no secret they aren't fan favorates around here anymore.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 10:04 PM
Since I don't know anything about the wells thing, I'll leave it alone. But, If the Texans had kept both Jabar Gaffney and Corey Bradford, they would be competing with about 3 other receivers for our #3 spot, IMO they have a much better oppurtunity where they ended up instead of competing to be the 3rd or 4th WR on this team, Aren't they both number 2 on there respective teams now? They both could have asked to seek better oppurtunities for them, and I think they found it, Its no secret they aren't fan favorates around here anymore.

I don't understand why the statement about them not being fan favorites means anything. To say that Bradford and Gaffney would be competing for the third or fourth WR positions if they were still here is like saying Bret Favre would still be a backup if he remained with the same team he was with before going to GB. Sure, Favre had a chance to flourish once he was traded, but the fact is that Favre's previous team made a horrendous mistake in getting rid of him. It may have been good for Favre, but it was horrendous for his previous team. I think it's about time to look seriously at the Texans current regime and ask some hard questions about some of their personnel decisions, especially if you want to take into account how the rest of the NFL is reacting to picking up released Texans such as Ragone, Gaffney and Bradford. Perhaps these teams are seeing things Kubiak is not ... hmmm?

Brandon420tx
06-02-2006, 10:20 PM
I don't understand why the statement about them not being fan favorites means anything. To say that Bradford and Gaffney would be competing for the third or fourth WR positions if they were still here is like saying Bret Favre would still be a backup if he remained with the same team he was with before going to GB. Sure, Favre had a chance to flourish once he was traded, but the fact is that Favre's previous team made a horrendous mistake in getting rid of him. It may have been good for Favre, but it was horrendous for his previous team. I think it's about time to look seriously at the Texans current regime and ask some hard questions about some of their personnel decisions, especially if you want to take into account how the rest of the NFL is reacting to picking up released Texans such as Ragone, Gaffney and Bradford. Perhaps these teams are seeing things Kubiak is not ... hmmm?
So, your saying that releasing Bradford and Gaffney was a horrendous mistake? Even if they are successful this year, I doubt anyone here would be kicking themselves because the Texans let them go.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 10:39 PM
So, your saying that releasing Bradford and Gaffney was a horrendous mistake? Even if they are successful this year, I doubt anyone here would be kicking themselves because the Texans let them go.

It very well could be. They could have kept Gaffney for cheap rather than spending all that money on a guy whose #s are dropping and is way past his prime. I simply don't think the Texans gained a thing when they let Gaffney and Bradford go and, as the other NFL teams have shown (if that means anything) they might have taken a step backward. I think Kubiak's personnel moves have been rather puzzling and mystifying at this point, especially regarding Wells, Ragone, Gaffney and Bradford. I will say that I wasn't all that happy with Bradford, but it should be disconcerting when a team grabs your guy and put him ahead of two guys that they burned #1 draft choices on. Perhaps they are seeing something Kubiak isn't.

TexanFan881
06-02-2006, 10:43 PM
Releasing Bradford was the smartest thing ever, because on our team as of now he would deserve to be the #4 WR. He can go have fun with the struggling Lions. Him getting cut was a long time coming.

Now I for one wish we would've resigned Gaffney. I think he would have been a great and perfect #3 behind Moulds and AJ and he even did decent when AJ was out.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 10:47 PM
Releasing Bradford was the smartest thing ever, because on our team as of now he would deserve to be the #4 WR. He can go have fun with the struggling Lions. Him getting cut was a long time coming.

Now I for one wish we would've resigned Gaffney. I think he would have been a great and perfect #3 behind Moulds and AJ and he even did decent when AJ was out.

I was no fan of Bradford either. He dropped too many balls. However, I'm not the guy who gets judged for making Texans personnel decisions. That is Kubiak -- and if what other teams do is any judge, then the fact that the Lions took Bradford and immediately put him ahead of both Williams and Rogers -- two guys they burned #1 picks on -- should give us all pause.

Brandon420tx
06-02-2006, 10:49 PM
I was no fan of Bradford either. He dropped too many balls. However, I'm not the guy who gets judged for making Texans personnel decisions. That is Kubiak -- and if what other teams do is any judge, then the fact that the Lions took Bradford and immediately put him ahead of both Williams and Rogers -- two guys they burned #1 picks on -- should give us all pause.

Eh, I think we can diagnose a new illness Pre-Season Fever, a time when NFL fans read too much into things.:ouch:

TexanFan881
06-02-2006, 10:50 PM
I was no fan of Bradford either. He dropped too many balls. However, I'm not the guy who gets judged for making Texans personnel decisions. That is Kubiak -- and if what other teams do is any judge, then the fact that the Lions took Bradford and immediately put him ahead of both Williams and Rogers -- two guys they burned #1 picks on -- should give us all pause.

Williams is currently hurt and Rogers has had his own problems and getting suspended and all that. Just give them some time in training camp and I'm sure Bradford will fall. It's only temporary.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 10:56 PM
Williams is currently hurt and Rogers has had his own problems and getting suspended and all that. Just give them some time in training camp and I'm sure Bradford will fall. It's only temporary.

Possible. We'll see. But when Bradford was signed, the Lions immediately said he was the #2 guy. At this moment, Bradford is WR#2 and will at least be competing for that position throughout camp -- if not win it outright.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 10:58 PM
Eh, I think we can diagnose a new illness Pre-Season Fever, a time when NFL fans read too much into things.:ouch:

When the Lions say Bradford is WR#2, how is it a matter of reading too much into things?

MorKnolle
06-02-2006, 11:39 PM
I was no fan of Bradford either. He dropped too many balls. However, I'm not the guy who gets judged for making Texans personnel decisions. That is Kubiak -- and if what other teams do is any judge, then the fact that the Lions took Bradford and immediately put him ahead of both Williams and Rogers -- two guys they burned #1 picks on -- should give us all pause.

Why are we criticizing our team for releasing a guy that would be #4 at best on our depth chart just because he went to another crappy team and is allegedly their #2 WR right now? Shouldn't that speak more to how crappy the Lions are and/or how stupid of draft decisions they've made in the past? I personally doubt Bradford will be their #2 WR by the time the season starts, but thusfar Mike Williams and Charles Rogers have not developed like they were supposed to so the coaching staff is probably trying to motivate them to push themselves, either way they have three months to figure that out.

Bradford deserved to get cut, while he had decent speed he dropped too many passes here and was not a reliable target, and we are much better off with Eric Moulds and even Kevin Walters. Jabar Gaffney I would have been fine keeping, but they opted to not spend the money on him so I hope he can find some success elsewhere, but again I would rather have Moulds than him. Dave Ragone has never been especially good and did not fit our system. Kubiak even said he has decent upside and talent and should make it in this league, he just doesn't fit our system, hence we cut him. I doub he sticks with Cincinnati either with all the other QBs they've brought on this offseason (Reggie McNeal, Doug Johnson, Anthony Wright). Jonathan Wells is no big loss. He was a decent RB that should have been a power back but didn't want to run that way, and yes he was pretty good on special teams, but that is easy enough to find a replacement for. He does not fit Kubiak's system very well, he wasn't content with his lack of carries and was not especially good in the lockerroom last year, and he is still unemployed so obviously the rest of the NFL doesn't think overly highly of him either.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 01:05 AM
Why are we criticizing our team for releasing a guy that would be #4 at best on our depth chart just because he went to another crappy team and is allegedly their #2 WR right now? Shouldn't that speak more to how crappy the Lions are and/or how stupid of draft decisions they've made in the past? I personally doubt Bradford will be their #2 WR by the time the season starts, but thusfar Mike Williams and Charles Rogers have not developed like they were supposed to so the coaching staff is probably trying to motivate them to push themselves, either way they have three months to figure that out.

Bradford deserved to get cut, while he had decent speed he dropped too many passes here and was not a reliable target, and we are much better off with Eric Moulds and even Kevin Walters. Jabar Gaffney I would have been fine keeping, but they opted to not spend the money on him so I hope he can find some success elsewhere, but again I would rather have Moulds than him. Dave Ragone has never been especially good and did not fit our system. Kubiak even said he has decent upside and talent and should make it in this league, he just doesn't fit our system, hence we cut him. I doub he sticks with Cincinnati either with all the other QBs they've brought on this offseason (Reggie McNeal, Doug Johnson, Anthony Wright). Jonathan Wells is no big loss. He was a decent RB that should have been a power back but didn't want to run that way, and yes he was pretty good on special teams, but that is easy enough to find a replacement for. He does not fit Kubiak's system very well, he wasn't content with his lack of carries and was not especially good in the lockerroom last year, and he is still unemployed so obviously the rest of the NFL doesn't think overly highly of him either.

Fact is, when a team cuts a guy who ends up as a starting receiver ahead of two first-rounders, that shouldn't be ignored. After all, it's not like the Texans have a slew of great receivers. The rationale is this: The receivers are not the problem and would succeed if the real problem -- the OL -- was taken care of. Hence, there was no need to spend a chunk of the salary cap on a old guy whose skills are diminishing each year. As for you doubting Bradford, Martz has clearly said he expects Bradford to be a starting receiver and at this point he is playing on the first team. I have dealt with your other arguments before. I don't think it's wise to let an inexperienced head coach like Kubiak get a pass on every single transaction he makes, especially when guys he cuts are gleefully gobbled up by other teams. The "doesn't fit my system" argument just doesn't wash -- that's nothing but an excuse to get rid of good potential football talent as shown by the reaction of other teams who grab Texans talent up for cheap.

Texans86
06-03-2006, 01:22 AM
Fact is, when a team cuts a guy who ends up as a starting receiver ahead of two first-rounders, that shouldn't be ignored. After all, it's not like the Texans have a slew of great receivers. The rationale is this: The receivers are not the problem and would succeed if the real problem -- the OL -- was taken care of. Hence, there was no need to spend a chunk of the salary cap on a old guy whose skills are diminishing each year. As for you doubting Bradford, Martz has clearly said he expects Bradford to be a starting receiver and at this point he is playing on the first team. I have dealt with your other arguments before. I don't think it's wise to let an inexperienced head coach like Kubiak get a pass on every single transaction he makes, especially when guys he cuts are gleefully gobbled up by other teams. The "doesn't fit my system" argument just doesn't wash -- that's nothing but an excuse to get rid of good potential football talent as shown by the reaction of other teams who grab Texans talent up for cheap.

You are possibly the only person who feels sorry that Bradford is gone. So he is ahead of two first rounders who could be labeled busts in the near future. He hasn't played in a game yet and still has the potential to move down in the depth chart if he plays like he did here. He did not get the nick name stone hands Bradford for nothing. As far as coach Kubiak goes, we all know your opinion of him, and while no one agrees with it, your opinion is yours to give. No amount of argueing could would make you say "you know what, I think he's right." That's just the nature of opinions. Coach Kubiak will make mistakes, just like 31 other head coaches in the NFL. But if he puts the best 53 people on the field each Sunday, I couldn't care less. Personally, I'd be happy for Bradford if he did well in Detroit, simply because I don't like to see people do badly, but I don't think he worked well here. He dropped a lot of balls, and therefore was shown the door. Yes, Eric Moulds is on the downside of his career, but he is just as valuable off the field as on it. He will teach the young recievers what it takes to be great on the field. He has been to the Pro Bowl, and knows how to do his business. He has already taken Andre under his wing and is teaching him. Besides, I think even aging as he is, he will catch balls thrown his way and therefore will take pressure off of AJ.

Again, many of your opinions you try to back up with stats, but the fact is that none of this will be worked out until the players get on the field. Many players we signed will get cut, just because only 53 make the roster. Coach Kubiak will look like an idiot at times, and possibly a genius as others. No one can tell right now. Just let the guy go about the football business the way he wants to do it. He doesn't come to your job criticizing you does he?

Texan in Japan
06-03-2006, 04:48 AM
A couple of points...

1. Bradford is talented, but too inconsistent...he's running #2 in OTAs and is perhaps picking up Martz's system quicker than the others. I'm glad he's doing well, but not unhappy he's gone.

2. Moulds is only 32 (33 in Jul) he's in his prime for a pro (28-32). WRs who take care of themselves can play well into their mid-to-late 30s. Relax, Moulds should still be a beast for 2-3 years and can contribute for another 4-5 if he stays healthy. If you look at his career, he's been solid-spectacular...with AJ, Putz, Carr, Dom, etc. this offense has a chance to be very good.

3. I liked Ragone, but left-handed QBs chance gameplans and schemes slightly. I wish we could have gotten something for him, but I believe he didn't impress Kubes or fit his system.

4. What I like about Kubes is he doesn't mess around. He seems to assess folks quickly and determine whether they'll succeed in his system or slow down the progress of others.

I don't regret any of the cuts we've made, because I think Kubes decided these guys don't fit the scheme we run and are better off letting them go now, rather than invest more time in trying to make a square FB fit a round scheme (Norris for example).

TK_Gamer
06-03-2006, 04:55 AM
ive heard several references to wells innability to pass block as being a major knock against him playing anything besides 3rd string or spot duty

Bobo
06-03-2006, 01:21 PM
ive heard several references to wells innability to pass block as being a major knock against him playing anything besides 3rd string or spot duty

He looked pretty good in "spot duty" when he helped the Texans last year to literally half of their victories, smashing Arizona with 88 yards on the ground, 33 yards in receptions and 2 TDs. But how soon we forget. You say Wells can't pass block? Yeah, right. Neither could Jim Brown.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 01:31 PM
A couple of points...

1. Bradford is talented, but too inconsistent...he's running #2 in OTAs and is perhaps picking up Martz's system quicker than the others. I'm glad he's doing well, but not unhappy he's gone.

2. Moulds is only 32 (33 in Jul) he's in his prime for a pro (28-32). WRs who take care of themselves can play well into their mid-to-late 30s. Relax, Moulds should still be a beast for 2-3 years and can contribute for another 4-5 if he stays healthy. If you look at his career, he's been solid-spectacular...with AJ, Putz, Carr, Dom, etc. this offense has a chance to be very good.

3. I liked Ragone, but left-handed QBs chance gameplans and schemes slightly. I wish we could have gotten something for him, but I believe he didn't impress Kubes or fit his system.

4. What I like about Kubes is he doesn't mess around. He seems to assess folks quickly and determine whether they'll succeed in his system or slow down the progress of others.

I don't regret any of the cuts we've made, because I think Kubes decided these guys don't fit the scheme we run and are better off letting them go now, rather than invest more time in trying to make a square FB fit a round scheme (Norris for example).

1.) Whatever you feel or I feel about Bradford, neither of us gets paid to evaluate team personnel. But when the guys who DO get paid cut a guy who goes to a team run by an offensive genius and ends up as a starting WR over two former first-rounders, then you have to wonder about the guys who are getting paid to make these decisions. 2.) Guys in their 30s, especially at WR, begin to lose a step. Moulds has seen many of his #s decrease over the years due to his age. Plus, they paid him a boatload of money. Can you say Matt Maloney? 3.) Kubiak didn't even give him a chance to impress him. He just cut him. And that excuse of "he didn't fit my system" just doesn't cut it. You can use that excuse for any personnel move -- no matter how bad it is. As for left-handed QBs, well, Kenny Stabler wasn't so bad, was he? 4.) Kubiak may make fast decisions, but that certainly doesn't mean they are the correct ones. When he cuts guys like Gaffney, Bradford, Wells and Ragone and replaces them with questionable replacements, you might call that acting in haste to simply put his own stamp on the team rather than "not messing around." 5,) You are putting way, way too much trust in a guy who has never been a head coach on any major level whatsoever. Check your recipe for Kubiak Kool-Aid and if you look real closely, you'll find it is a recipe for disaster.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 01:36 PM
You are possibly the only person who feels sorry that Bradford is gone. So he is ahead of two first rounders who could be labeled busts in the near future. He hasn't played in a game yet and still has the potential to move down in the depth chart if he plays like he did here. He did not get the nick name stone hands Bradford for nothing. As far as coach Kubiak goes, we all know your opinion of him, and while no one agrees with it, your opinion is yours to give. No amount of argueing could would make you say "you know what, I think he's right." That's just the nature of opinions. Coach Kubiak will make mistakes, just like 31 other head coaches in the NFL. But if he puts the best 53 people on the field each Sunday, I couldn't care less. Personally, I'd be happy for Bradford if he did well in Detroit, simply because I don't like to see people do badly, but I don't think he worked well here. He dropped a lot of balls, and therefore was shown the door. Yes, Eric Moulds is on the downside of his career, but he is just as valuable off the field as on it. He will teach the young recievers what it takes to be great on the field. He has been to the Pro Bowl, and knows how to do his business. He has already taken Andre under his wing and is teaching him. Besides, I think even aging as he is, he will catch balls thrown his way and therefore will take pressure off of AJ.

Again, many of your opinions you try to back up with stats, but the fact is that none of this will be worked out until the players get on the field. Many players we signed will get cut, just because only 53 make the roster. Coach Kubiak will look like an idiot at times, and possibly a genius as others. No one can tell right now. Just let the guy go about the football business the way he wants to do it. He doesn't come to your job criticizing you does he?

1.) It doesn't matter who is happy or sad about Bradford being gone. What should matter is when an offensive genius takes a player your team just cut and makes him a starting WR right out of the chute ahead of two previous first-rounders. That should give you pause. 2.) I do not believe Kubiak is going to put his 53 best players on the field. He has already cut some of those 53 and they are ending up on other teams as some of THEIR best 53. The only problem this team really had was the OL and defense. But what does Kubiak do? He comes in and undoes facets of the team that didn't have to be undone in the first place while at times spending a big slice of the salary cap to do so, just to put his own stamp on the team while ignoring proven track records and overall potential. Then again, he did this with his coaching staff as well when he brought in his cronies who are just as green as he is. This should concern you. 3.) So now Kubiak is above criticism and reproach? Gee, I'll bet Capers wishes he had been afforded that kind of courtesy!

Wolf
06-03-2006, 01:44 PM
I would wait until training camp to see if Bradford is still #2 on their chart.

also I don't get how you can say Kubiak will not put the best 53 guys on the team(isn't that his job?).. the best 53 guys gave us 2 wins and a offensive ranking around 30 and a defensive ranking of around 30 also


i am ok for some shake up.. right now alot of experimenting going on.

bigbrewster2000
06-03-2006, 02:02 PM
1.) It doesn't matter who is happy or sad about Bradford being gone. What should matter is when an offensive genius takes a player your team just cut and makes him a starting WR right out of the chute ahead of two previous first-rounders. That should give you pause. 2.) I do not believe Kubiak is going to put his 53 best players on the field. He has already cut some of those 53 and they are ending up on other teams as some of THEIR best 53. The only problem this team really had was the OL and defense. But what does Kubiak do? He comes in and undoes facets of the team that didn't have to be undone in the first place while at times spending a big slice of the salary cap to do so, just to put his own stamp on the team while ignoring proven track records and overall potential. Then again, he did this with his coaching staff as well when he brought in his cronies who are just as green as he is. This should concern you. 3.) So now Kubiak is above criticism and reproach? Gee, I'll bet Capers wishes he had been afforded that kind of courtesy!

NONE of the players we cut were truely proven comodities. It doesn't matter what team was looking to grab who, look at the production on the field. The Oline didn't make Bradford drop those passes and if the coach doesn't want a guy on his team then so be it. It is his team! You continue to use the same points even when someone brings new content to the table. You are being stubborn. I was not one of the people that has posted "Wells hasn't been picked up by anyone, so that isn't saying much for him" It just seems kind of silly that anyone is being critical of a team/Coach that has not played even a Pre-Season game yet. At least find some new cntent instead of posting the same things on 2 or 3 threads.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 02:12 PM
NONE of the players we cut were truely proven comodities. It doesn't matter what team was looking to grab who, look at the production on the field. The Oline didn't make Bradford drop those passes and if the coach doesn't want a guy on his team then so be it. It is his team! You continue to use the same points even when someone brings new content to the table. You are being stubborn. I was not one of the people that has posted "Wells hasn't been picked up by anyone, so that isn't saying much for him" It just seems kind of silly that anyone is being critical of a team/Coach that has not played even a Pre-Season game yet. At least find some new cntent instead of posting the same things on 2 or 3 threads.

1.) There is such a thing as potential. Ragone proved his potential. Gaffney has proven his potential with his low dropped passes percentage. Wells has proved his potential with his strong games as a sub when Davis was hurt. And Bradford obviously has some potential if Martz put him in as a starter over two previous first-rounders. 2.) Now if you are going to say "it doesn't matter what team was looking to grab who," then I don't want to hear that argument from you about Wells not being any big loss because nobody picked him up. Are you at least willing to agree, then that getting rid of Wells was a bad move? 3.) If a coach doesn't want a player like Ragone who starred in NFL Europe or Gaffney who rated high in dropped pass percentage or Wells who helped the team to half its victories last year, then I believe he should have a better reason than "he doesn't fit into the system." To be in the NFL, you need to have talent. That's the name of the game. And if you are going to get rid of a perfectly good wide receiver and replace him for a much older fellow whose #s in many instances are decreasing with age and pay him a boatload of salary cap money in the process, you should have a lot better reason than saying "well, he just didn't fit into my system." That's malarkey. You can excuse every bad player move with that caveat. You wouldn't accept that with Capers or Casserly if they pulled that, but you're accepting that same approach with Kubiak? To me, that's simply taking a big gulp of Kubiak Kool-Aid and letting an inexperienced head coach getting away with murder.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 02:23 PM
I would wait until training camp to see if Bradford is still #2 on their chart.

also I don't get how you can say Kubiak will not put the best 53 guys on the team(isn't that his job?).. the best 53 guys gave us 2 wins and a offensive ranking around 30 and a defensive ranking of around 30 also


i am ok for some shake up.. right now alot of experimenting going on.

He currently is and Martz said he is expecting Bradford to be #2 for the season. I think it's pretty clear that Martz has a much better assessment of Bradford than Kubiak does. Martz has been a head coach in this league for awhile -- Kubiak hasn't. And that should give you pause. And I think my previous post was pretty clear about Kubiak not putting his best 53 players on the field. The fact is, he is getting rid of some of those top 53 and they are going to be on somebody else's top 53. I have said this time and time again -- this team was fine except for the OL and the defense. The WRs, the RBs, the QBs, the TEs -- they were NOT the problem with this team. There was no need to tinker with them. You solidify the OL and everybody else would have gotten better -- Carr, Gaffney, Davis, Ragone (if he was called upon), Wells, etc. Instead, Kubiak went out and got a guy like Moulds who cost a big chunk of salary cap money when Gaffney would have been just as good only a whole lot cheaper if Kubiak would have simply focused on the real problems of this team. From where I sit, either Kubiak doesn't recognize the fact that focusing on the OL and defense would make the rest of the team better, meaning the other changes would not be necessary, or else he's simply trying to put his own stamp on the team -- something he did by bringing in an inexperienced coaching staff whose main qualifications were they were close buddies with Kubiak.

bigbrewster2000
06-03-2006, 02:28 PM
1.) There is such a thing as potential. Ragone proved his potential. Gaffney has proven his potential with his low dropped passes percentage. Wells has proved his potential with his strong games as a sub when Davis was hurt. And Bradford obviously has some potential if Martz put him in as a starter over two previous first-rounders. 2.) Now if you are going to say "it doesn't matter what team was looking to grab who," then I don't want to hear that argument from you about Wells not being any big loss because nobody picked him up. Are you at least willing to agree, then that getting rid of Wells was a bad move? 3.) If a coach doesn't want a player like Ragone who starred in NFL Europe or Gaffney who rated high in dropped pass percentage or Wells who helped the team to half its victories last year, then I believe he should have a better reason than "he doesn't fit into the system." To be in the NFL, you need to have talent. That's the name of the game. And if you are going to get rid of a perfectly good wide receiver and replace him for a much older fellow whose #s in many instances are decreasing with age and pay him a boatload of salary cap money in the process, you should have a lot better reason than saying "well, he just didn't fit into my system." That's malarkey. You can excuse every bad player move with that caveat. You wouldn't accept that with Capers or Casserly if they pulled that, but you're accepting that same approach with Kubiak? To me, that's simply taking a big gulp of Kubiak Kool-Aid and letting an inexperienced head coach getting away with murder.


AGAIN I WAS NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE USING YOUR SILLY ARGUMENT ABOUT WELLS!!!!! Thank you though for proving my point about you being stubborn. And, you are acting le those guys were the only ones on our team with potential. And yes Bradford has a ton of potential, the potential to drop the game winning catch and a slew of other important pases to boot. We now have a slew of young kids with potential on our team so you can throw that weak and tired argument out the window. And, why do you continue to post te same thing over and over and over and over and over again?

dalemurphy
06-03-2006, 02:31 PM
1.) It doesn't matter who is happy or sad about Bradford being gone. What should matter is when an offensive genius takes a player your team just cut and makes him a starting WR right out of the chute ahead of two previous first-rounders. That should give you pause.


So, Martz is an offensive genius and Kubiak isn't? Is this what you are saying? Martz doesn't consider turnovers to be something to attempt to avoid. As head coach, his first day draft picks on offense includes guys like: Trung Candidate, Lamar Gordon, McDonald, Kevin Curtis... those are 3 first round and one third round picks who all have contributed very little.

Kubiak, on the other hand, has made guys like Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey, Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Rueben Droughns into probowl caliber players. Perhaps Kubiak understands talent at WR and RB as well as Mike Martz.

MorKnolle
06-03-2006, 02:39 PM
He looked pretty good in "spot duty" when he helped the Texans last year to literally half of their victories, smashing Arizona with 88 yards on the ground, 33 yards in receptions and 2 TDs. But how soon we forget. You say Wells can't pass block? Yeah, right. Neither could Jim Brown.

Would you finally look up his stats. He had 87 rushing yards and 11 receiving yards against Arizona, he had 33 receiving yards the next game against Jacksonville. Yes he looked servicable in what little we saw of him, but he didn't run like a man of his size and he's not a zone-blocking scheme type of runner. He should be but he doesn't run like it, he tries to dance more than Davis and Morency ever have. Yes he had a decent role in one of our two wins, but a lot of players did, and I don't understand why Jonathan Wells is suddenly a great player that we shuold be upset for losing, along with Bradford, Ragone, etc. (I personally would have liked to see Gaffney stay, but at the same time I'm not shook up about him leaving, especially after his comments he made about our team).

1.) It doesn't matter who is happy or sad about Bradford being gone. What should matter is when an offensive genius takes a player your team just cut and makes him a starting WR right out of the chute ahead of two previous first-rounders. That should give you pause. 2.) I do not believe Kubiak is going to put his 53 best players on the field. He has already cut some of those 53 and they are ending up on other teams as some of THEIR best 53. The only problem this team really had was the OL and defense. But what does Kubiak do? He comes in and undoes facets of the team that didn't have to be undone in the first place while at times spending a big slice of the salary cap to do so, just to put his own stamp on the team while ignoring proven track records and overall potential. Then again, he did this with his coaching staff as well when he brought in his cronies who are just as green as he is. This should concern you. 3.) So now Kubiak is above criticism and reproach? Gee, I'll bet Capers wishes he had been afforded that kind of courtesy!

Again, if Bradford was not going to be one of our top 53 players on our team but he is on another team, that would hint that our team is improving and is better than his new team. I don't see how that should be a criticism of Kubiak. Bradford was a problem for this team with his poor hands, and he is already 30 years old so it's not like he has any kind of future upside to him. Eric Moulds may be a little older but at least he's been a Pro Bowl receiver in the past, and he and even Kevin Walter have looked much better in practice so far than Bradford did all last year, and Moulds is helping mentor some of the other young WRs.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 02:39 PM
So, Martz is an offensive genius and Kubiak isn't? Is this what you are saying? Martz doesn't consider turnovers to be something to attempt to avoid. As head coach, his first day draft picks on offense includes guys like: Trung Candidate, Lamar Gordon, McDonald, Kevin Curtis... those are 3 first round and one third round picks who all have contributed very little.

Kubiak, on the other hand, has made guys like Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey, Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Rueben Droughns into probowl caliber players. Perhaps Kubiak understands talent at WR and RB as well as Mike Martz.

How many games has Martz been an NFL head coach? And how many games has he won? How many times has he made the playoffs as a head coach? And now, let's ask the same questions of Kubiak. How many games has he won and how many times has he made the playoffs -- as a head coach? Of ANYWHERE, for that matter! Even Pop Warner! And when did Martz say that he doesn't consider turnovers to be something to be avoided? Did you get that out of some quote where he said to get rid of the ball to avoid a sack or something? Kubiak has accomplished absolutely nothing on the field as a head coach. You may not like it, but that's a fact. And as far as criticizing Martz's drafts, that's easy to do -- especially when Kubiak has had only one draft! When an offensive head coach guru like Martz takes one of your guys and puts him in the starting lineup ahead of two previous first-rounders, then maybe you should be concerned that he not only knows something Texans fans don't, but he also may know something the Texans neophyte coaching staff doesn't as well.

Waltman
06-03-2006, 02:41 PM
1.) There is such a thing as potential. Ragone proved his potential. Gaffney has proven his potential with his low dropped passes percentage. Wells has proved his potential with his strong games as a sub when Davis was hurt. And Bradford obviously has some potential if Martz put him in as a starter over two previous first-rounders. 2.) Now if you are going to say "it doesn't matter what team was looking to grab who," then I don't want to hear that argument from you about Wells not being any big loss because nobody picked him up. Are you at least willing to agree, then that getting rid of Wells was a bad move? 3.) If a coach doesn't want a player like Ragone who starred in NFL Europe or Gaffney who rated high in dropped pass percentage or Wells who helped the team to half its victories last year, then I believe he should have a better reason than "he doesn't fit into the system." To be in the NFL, you need to have talent. That's the name of the game. And if you are going to get rid of a perfectly good wide receiver and replace him for a much older fellow whose #s in many instances are decreasing with age and pay him a boatload of salary cap money in the process, you should have a lot better reason than saying "well, he just didn't fit into my system." That's malarkey. You can excuse every bad player move with that caveat. You wouldn't accept that with Capers or Casserly if they pulled that, but you're accepting that same approach with Kubiak? To me, that's simply taking a big gulp of Kubiak Kool-Aid and letting an inexperienced head coach getting away with murder.


Basicly if it was all about talent the Texans wouldn't have passed on Reggie Bush. I feel that Corey bought his own plane ticket with his inconsistant play. It is a business, if you don't perform you are expendable. Corey might blow up at his new team but that won't make it a bad decision on the Texans to get rid of him for his lack of production as a Texan. Maybe that's what some people need, to feel unwanted to make them step their game up. As for Wells and Ragone, maybe Kubiak felt that he didn't need them in his scheme. As far as Capers to Kubiak, Capers was a defensive coach Kube an offensive one (a successful may I add) which makes it easier to ride with Kubiak's offensive decisions than Capers.

TexanFan881
06-03-2006, 02:45 PM
How many games has Martz been an NFL head coach? And how many games has he won? How many times has he made the playoffs as a head coach? And now, let's ask the same questions of Kubiak. How many games has he won and how many times has he made the playoffs -- as a head coach? Of ANYWHERE, for that matter! Even Pop Warner! And when did Martz say that he doesn't consider turnovers to be something to be avoided? Did you get that out of some quote where he said to get rid of the ball to avoid a sack or something? Kubiak has accomplished absolutely nothing on the field as a head coach. You may not like it, but that's a fact. And as far as criticizing Martz's drafts, that's easy to do -- especially when Kubiak has had only one draft! When an offensive head coach guru like Martz takes one of your guys and puts him in the starting lineup ahead of two previous first-rounders, then maybe you should be concerned that he not only knows something Texans fans don't, but he also may know something the Texans neophyte coaching staff doesn't as well.

This arguement about Kubiak not winning any games is stupid. You've got to win one game before you can win two games. At one time Martz was a head coach without a win. Does that mean he was bad? No. It means he hasn't gotten a chance to win a game before he's even played one. Sure Martz is more proven, but that doesn't make him a better coach than Kubiak.

ArlingtonTexan
06-03-2006, 02:51 PM
I always get amazed at the number of "discussions" we have that concern "Free Agent" players, that simply ignore the fact that player has a much say, if no more say in returning to a team than the team does.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 02:53 PM
This arguement about Kubiak not winning any games is stupid. You've got to win one game before you can win two games. At one time Martz was a head coach without a win. Does that mean he was bad? No. It means he hasn't gotten a chance to win a game before he's even played one. Sure Martz is more proven, but that doesn't make him a better coach than Kubiak.

At one time, Martz was an inexperienced coach -- just like Kubiak -- and was on Kubiak's level. Well, now he has achieved some wins and playoff appearances -- something Kubiak not only hasn't done but hasn't even been head coach of a Pop Warner team! How can you even begin to compare the acumen of someone like Martz with a neophyte like Kubiak? So, to connect the loose ends, when an experienced head coach offensive guru like Martz takes a guy cut by the inexperienced first-year head coach and makes him the #2 WR ahead of two first-round choices, you should realistically start to wonder if the neophyte may have missed something.

TexanFan881
06-03-2006, 02:59 PM
At one time, Martz was an inexperienced coach -- just like Kubiak -- and was on Kubiak's level. Well, now he has achieved some wins and playoff appearances -- something Kubiak not only hasn't done but hasn't even been head coach of a Pop Warner team! How can you even begin to compare the acumen of someone like Martz with a neophyte like Kubiak? So, to connect the loose ends, when an experienced head coach offensive guru like Martz takes a guy cut by the inexperienced first-year head coach and makes him the #2 WR ahead of two first-round choices, you should realistically start to wonder if the neophyte may have missed something.

Also, just like you've been saying that there is a reason Bradford has become a #2 in Detroit so far this early in the preseason, there is a reason that Mike Martz is not a head coach anymore and a reason why Gary Kubiak got promoted to being a head coach.

MorKnolle
06-03-2006, 03:07 PM
How many games has Martz been an NFL head coach? And how many games has he won? How many times has he made the playoffs as a head coach? And now, let's ask the same questions of Kubiak. How many games has he won and how many times has he made the playoffs -- as a head coach? Of ANYWHERE, for that matter! Even Pop Warner! And when did Martz say that he doesn't consider turnovers to be something to be avoided? Did you get that out of some quote where he said to get rid of the ball to avoid a sack or something? Kubiak has accomplished absolutely nothing on the field as a head coach. You may not like it, but that's a fact. And as far as criticizing Martz's drafts, that's easy to do -- especially when Kubiak has had only one draft! When an offensive head coach guru like Martz takes one of your guys and puts him in the starting lineup ahead of two previous first-rounders, then maybe you should be concerned that he not only knows something Texans fans don't, but he also may know something the Texans neophyte coaching staff doesn't as well.

Mike Martz was a coach for 5.5 seasons, made the playoffs three times, lost a home playoff game in their opening round twice, and lost in the Super Bowl once. Gary Kubiak at least played in the NFL and was an integral part of much more winning teams

1.) There is such a thing as potential. Ragone proved his potential. Gaffney has proven his potential with his low dropped passes percentage. Wells has proved his potential with his strong games as a sub when Davis was hurt. And Bradford obviously has some potential if Martz put him in as a starter over two previous first-rounders. 2.) Now if you are going to say "it doesn't matter what team was looking to grab who," then I don't want to hear that argument from you about Wells not being any big loss because nobody picked him up. Are you at least willing to agree, then that getting rid of Wells was a bad move? 3.) If a coach doesn't want a player like Ragone who starred in NFL Europe or Gaffney who rated high in dropped pass percentage or Wells who helped the team to half its victories last year, then I believe he should have a better reason than "he doesn't fit into the system." To be in the NFL, you need to have talent. That's the name of the game. And if you are going to get rid of a perfectly good wide receiver and replace him for a much older fellow whose #s in many instances are decreasing with age and pay him a boatload of salary cap money in the process, you should have a lot better reason than saying "well, he just didn't fit into my system." That's malarkey. You can excuse every bad player move with that caveat. You wouldn't accept that with Capers or Casserly if they pulled that, but you're accepting that same approach with Kubiak? To me, that's simply taking a big gulp of Kubiak Kool-Aid and letting an inexperienced head coach getting away with murder.

OK, so releasing decent players that do not fit a system and would not start for your team is a terrible coaching decision just because they go somewhere else and get signed there?

If that's the case, was it a horrible decision by Bill Belichick to let Drew Bledsoe go back in 2001 after they had just won a Super Bowl with Tom Brady? After all Bledsoe had played very well for them for several years and he went on to start in Buffalo for three years and Dallas last year. Is Belichick an idiot for that?

Are the Saints idiots for letting Aaron Brooks go this year? He signed with the Raiders and is slated to be the starter there, so obviously they think he is pretty good. Does that make Sean Payton (who has no previous head coaching experience) a moron for letting a perfectly good QB go even though he wouldn't be starting for their team anymore?

Are the Jaguars idiots for letting Mark Brunell go in 2003 after playing well for the team for several years? The Redskins signed him on and he played well for them last year, so are the Jaguars stupid for letting him go rather than having him sit the bench behind Leftwich?

Are the Saints stupid for releasing Kerry Collins back in 1999 after he started for them for a season? They had Aaron Brooks coming on but Collins played ok and went on to start for the Giants for several years, so should the Saints have kept him around? Should the Giants have kept him around rather than letting him go in 2004 with Kurt Warner on the roster and Eli Manning on the way? Collins went on to start for the Raiders for two years and had plenty of success in the past, so are the Giants idiots for letting him go?

Are the Rams idiots for letting Trent Green go after the 2000 season? After all he had one productive season before that and he went on to start for the Chiefs for several years, so should the Rams have kept him around to sit the bench behind MVP and Super Bowl-winner Kurt Warner?

Were the Packers fools for letting Matt Hasselbeck go back 2001? He didn't play and produce anything during his first two years there, and he's gone on to play very well for the Seahawks, so are the Packers fools for not keeping him on the bench behind Brett Favre?

Are the Bengals fools for letting Jon Kitna go this year? He played ok in limited action behind Carson Palmer this year and he's slated to start for the omniscient Mike Martz next year, so are the Bengals fools for letting him go rather than keeping him to ride the bench behind Palmer?

Are the Packers idiots for letting Kurt Warner go before he even got to play for them? After all he could have sat the bench behind Brett Favre for years rather than amounting to anything elsewhere, and he went on to win a Super Bowl and win a couple MVP awards, but obviously the Packers should have kept him on their bench. Are the Rams also idiots for letting him go after all the success he had there when he had injury problems, a step down in playing ability, and had Marc Bulger waiting in the wings? Your all-knowing Mike Martz let him go because he had someone else that could run the system as well, so is Martz an idiot for that now?

Are the Broncos stupid for letting Mike Anderson go this year? He had a couple productive years in the past for them and is slated to get decent playing time for the Ravens, so is Mike Shanahan an idiot for letting him move on rather than keeping him? What about Reuben Droughns? He had a successful year for them and went on to start for Cleveland, so are the Broncos idiots for letting him go too?

Were the Bengals stupid for trading Corey Dillon two years ago? He had been very productive for them but had some injury problems, but they could have kept him to sit behind Rudi Johnson or could have kept Johnson on the bench, but they sent him away. Are they idiots for that?

The Packers let Corey Bradford go to come to us four years ago. Are they also idiots for letting him go since he came to our team and was a starter here?

Are the Bills morons for letting Peerless Price go after he whined about wanting to be a #1 WR elsewhere? He had a couple very nice seasons for them as their #2 behind Eric Moulds, but he left to be a #1 somewhere and never lived up to expectations. He was a starter in Atlanta, but does that make Buffalo a bunch of fools for letting him go?

Are the Seahawks morons for letting Koren Robinson go? He had been decent for them in the past, and he was signed and played a decent amount for the Vikings, meanwhile the Seahawks had to suffer through making a Super Bowl run. They sure missed on that decision.

Are the Bengals fools for letting Peter Warrick go? They used a high 1st round pick on him and he was ok for them, more successful than Corey Bradford ever was here, and he went on to play for the Super Bowl Seahawks, so are the Bengals stupid for letting him go? After all they only had the 5th ranked passing offense in the league this last year, that must have been a dumb choice.

...
Peter Warrick and Bengals

Bobo
06-03-2006, 03:09 PM
Also, just like you've been saying that there is a reason Bradford has become a #2 in Detroit so far this early in the preseason, there is a reason that Mike Martz is not a head coach anymore and a reason why Gary Kubiak got promoted to being a head coach.

Reasons for Mike Martz not currently being a head coach: A.) Heart ailment B.) Pulling out of the Oakland interview process on his own. Reasons for Kubiak being promoted to head coach: Didn't happen. Shanahan is still coach in Denver. Reasons why Kubiak was hired as head coach for the Texans: I guess the same reason why McNair brought in Dan Reeves to evaluate the team -- McNair is not a football guy.

MorKnolle
06-03-2006, 03:15 PM
Also, just like you've been saying that there is a reason Bradford has become a #2 in Detroit so far this early in the preseason, there is a reason that Mike Martz is not a head coach anymore and a reason why Gary Kubiak got promoted to being a head coach.

Good points, not to mention Marinelli just sent Mike Williams home from mini camp, so he is obviously in the dog house for something, and Charles Rogers has been the same way and had injury problems, so putting Bradford over those two at this point is not saying much of anything.

TexanFan881
06-03-2006, 03:22 PM
Good points, not to mention Marinelli just sent Mike Williams home from mini camp, so he is obviously in the dog house for something, and Charles Rogers has been the same way and had injury problems, so putting Bradford over those two at this point is not saying much of anything.

Ya that's exactly what I said earlier in a different post. Charles Rogers has his own issues and Mike Williams has been injured and now this. Bradford is the best available #2 WR as of now, not the #2 WR on the team.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 03:27 PM
OK, so releasing decent players that do not fit a system and would not start for your team is a terrible coaching decision just because they go somewhere else and get signed there?

If that's the case, was it a horrible decision by Bill Belichick to let Drew Bledsoe go back in 2001 after they had just won a Super Bowl with Tom Brady? After all Bledsoe had played very well for them for several years and he went on to start in Buffalo for three years and Dallas last year. Is Belichick an idiot for that?

Are the Saints idiots for letting Aaron Brooks go this year? He signed with the Raiders and is slated to be the starter there, so obviously they think he is pretty good. Does that make Sean Payton (who has no previous head coaching experience) a moron for letting a perfectly good QB go even though he wouldn't be starting for their team anymore?

Are the Jaguars idiots for letting Mark Brunell go in 2003 after playing well for the team for several years? The Redskins signed him on and he played well for them last year, so are the Jaguars stupid for letting him go rather than having him sit the bench behind Leftwich?

Are the Saints stupid for releasing Kerry Collins back in 1999 after he started for them for a season? They had Aaron Brooks coming on but Collins played ok and went on to start for the Giants for several years, so should the Saints have kept him around? Should the Giants have kept him around rather than letting him go in 2004 with Kurt Warner on the roster and Eli Manning on the way? Collins went on to start for the Raiders for two years and had plenty of success in the past, so are the Giants idiots for letting him go?

Are the Rams idiots for letting Trent Green go after the 2000 season? After all he had one productive season before that and he went on to start for the Chiefs for several years, so should the Rams have kept him around to sit the bench behind MVP and Super Bowl-winner Kurt Warner?

Were the Packers fools for letting Matt Hasselbeck go back 2001? He didn't play and produce anything during his first two years there, and he's gone on to play very well for the Seahawks, so are the Packers fools for not keeping him on the bench behind Brett Favre?

Are the Bengals fools for letting Jon Kitna go this year? He played ok in limited action behind Carson Palmer this year and he's slated to start for the omniscient Mike Martz next year, so are the Bengals fools for letting him go rather than keeping him to ride the bench behind Palmer?

Are the Packers idiots for letting Kurt Warner go before he even got to play for them? After all he could have sat the bench behind Brett Favre for years rather than amounting to anything elsewhere, and he went on to win a Super Bowl and win a couple MVP awards, but obviously the Packers should have kept him on their bench. Are the Rams also idiots for letting him go after all the success he had there when he had injury problems, a step down in playing ability, and had Marc Bulger waiting in the wings? Your all-knowing Mike Martz let him go because he had someone else that could run the system as well, so is Martz an idiot for that now?

Are the Broncos stupid for letting Mike Anderson go this year? He had a couple productive years in the past for them and is slated to get decent playing time for the Ravens, so is Mike Shanahan an idiot for letting him move on rather than keeping him? What about Reuben Droughns? He had a successful year for them and went on to start for Cleveland, so are the Broncos idiots for letting him go too?

Were the Bengals stupid for trading Corey Dillon two years ago? He had been very productive for them but had some injury problems, but they could have kept him to sit behind Rudi Johnson or could have kept Johnson on the bench, but they sent him away. Are they idiots for that?

The Packers let Corey Bradford go to come to us four years ago. Are they also idiots for letting him go since he came to our team and was a starter here?

Are the Bills morons for letting Peerless Price go after he whined about wanting to be a #1 WR elsewhere? He had a couple very nice seasons for them as their #2 behind Eric Moulds, but he left to be a #1 somewhere and never lived up to expectations. He was a starter in Atlanta, but does that make Buffalo a bunch of fools for letting him go?

Are the Seahawks morons for letting Koren Robinson go? He had been decent for them in the past, and he was signed and played a decent amount for the Vikings, meanwhile the Seahawks had to suffer through making a Super Bowl run. They sure missed on that decision.

Are the Bengals fools for letting Peter Warrick go? They used a high 1st round pick on him and he was ok for them, more successful than Corey Bradford ever was here, and he went on to play for the Super Bowl Seahawks, so are the Bengals stupid for letting him go? After all they only had the 5th ranked passing offense in the league this last year, that must have been a dumb choice.

...
Peter Warrick and Bengals

Hold on there, Mork. If you are claiming that it isn't right to judge a personnel decision based on if a player is picked up by an NFL team or not, that's all fine and good. However, let me remind you that if you're going to do that, then be consistent and don't say you can judge the strength of not re-signing Wells because nobody picked him up since a lot of the folks on this message board are trying to do exactly that. But, pray tell, please answer me this. Do ANY of these situations you brought up involve a scenario where a released player was made a starter over two recent first-round draft choices? I mean, like you say, people trade jerseys all the time. But how often does a released player immediately lay claim to a starting job at WR over two previous first-round choices in the same position? THAT is what is important to note hear, not simply that they were picked up. Of course, the fact that Ragone was a star in NFL Europe and then just unceremoniously cut without even getting onto the OTA field is also a cause for alarm, especially when two AFC teams were waiting in line to gulp him up. Also, let us remember that in many of those situations you mentioned, the players who were cut were on the same team (Bledsoe and Brady) facing the exact same conditions and one simply outperformed the other under those same exact surroundings. This was not true for Ragone/Rosenfels, Wells/Smith, Gaffney/Moulds and Bradford/Walter. And since when did any of these players we were talking about have a drinking problem like Robinson?

MorKnolle
06-03-2006, 03:39 PM
Ya that's exactly what I said earlier in a different post. Charles Rogers has his own issues and Mike Williams has been injured and now this. Bradford is the best available #2 WR as of now, not the #2 WR on the team.

Right, Bradford is far from being the 2nd most talented WR on their team, just as of right now he has less off-field problems than two of the others, both of whom have also underachieved in the past and are still adjusting to the league in general, much less a relatively complex system like Martz has.

Hold on there, Mork. If you are claiming that it isn't right to judge a personnel decision based on if a player is picked up by an NFL team or not, that's all fine and good. However, let me remind you that if you're going to do that, then be consistent and don't say you can judge the strength of not re-signing Wells because nobody picked him up since a lot of the folks on this message board are trying to do exactly that. But, pray tell, please answer me this. Do ANY of these situations you brought up involve a scenario where a released player was made a starter over two recent first-round draft choices? I mean, like you say, people trade jerseys all the time. But how often does a released player immediately lay claim to a starting job at WR over two previous first-round choices in the same position? THAT is what is important to note hear, not simply that they were picked up. Of course, the fact that Ragone was a star in NFL Europe and then just unceremoniously cut without even getting onto the OTA field is also a cause for alarm, especially when two AFC teams were waiting in line to gulp him up. Also, let us remember that in many of those situations you mentioned, the players who were cut were on the same team (Bledsoe and Brady) facing the exact same conditions and one simply outperformed the other under those same exact surroundings. This was not true for Ragone/Rosenfels, Wells/Smith, Gaffney/Moulds and Bradford/Walter. And since when did any of these players we were talking about have a drinking problem like Robinson?

If Williams and Rogers had been successful and proven themselves to be worthy of their 1st round pick over the last few years then yes I'd say that says something about Bradford. However, thusfar both have had injury problems, worth ethic concerns, off-field problems, and both have done nothing to garner favor from their new coaching staff, so it does not say anything to me that Bradford is currently considered to be above them. I consider it a wake-up call and motivation tool for them more than anything else. You seem to be claiming that Kubiak's moves are bad because some other team has signed these players and must think they are somehow worthy of being on their team, so I wanted to point out many past instances in which players were released or traded and it didn't turn out to be rotten decisions and that simply being signed to a training camp contract during the offseason doesn't mean much of anything. Most of the players I mentioned also "proved" a whole lot more earlier on in their careers than Ragone, Bradford, Gaffney, Wells, etc. and not many people would consider any of those decisions bad.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 03:52 PM
Right, Bradford is far from being the 2nd most talented WR on their team, just as of right now he has less off-field problems than two of the others, both of whom have also underachieved in the past and are still adjusting to the league in general, much less a relatively complex system like Martz has.



If Williams and Rogers had been successful and proven themselves to be worthy of their 1st round pick over the last few years then yes I'd say that says something about Bradford. However, thusfar both have had injury problems, worth ethic concerns, off-field problems, and both have done nothing to garner favor from their new coaching staff, so it does not say anything to me that Bradford is currently considered to be above them. I consider it a wake-up call and motivation tool for them more than anything else. You seem to be claiming that Kubiak's moves are bad because some other team has signed these players and must think they are somehow worthy of being on their team, so I wanted to point out many past instances in which players were released or traded and it didn't turn out to be rotten decisions and that simply being signed to a training camp contract during the offseason doesn't mean much of anything. Most of the players I mentioned also "proved" a whole lot more earlier on in their careers than Ragone, Bradford, Gaffney, Wells, etc. and not many people would consider any of those decisions bad.

Umm, you're forgetting the fact that Martz has already said he expects Bradford to be the starter going into the season. Nothing about "wake-up calls" or anything like that. That is just sheer speculation on your part. He didn't say he expected either Rogers or Williams at that position. Again, let me say this: Just be consistent. Don't go around saying that the decision to cut Wells was OK because nobody picked him up but then turn around and say that you can't judge a player move based on if a player has been picked up or not. I personally think Kubiak has made a boatload of bad moves from the start and I can back that up. You can disagree all you want, but please don't try to defend the Wells cut in one way and then turn around and contradict yourself when dealing with guys like Bradford and Ragone. It's disingenuous and as transparent as cellophane to folks who aren't taking big gulps of the Kubiak Kool-Aid.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 03:55 PM
1.) Whatever you feel or I feel about Bradford, neither of us gets paid to evaluate team personnel. But when the guys who DO get paid cut a guy who goes to a team run by an offensive genius and ends up as a starting WR over two former first-rounders, then you have to wonder about the guys who are getting paid to make these decisions. 2.) Guys in their 30s, especially at WR, begin to lose a step. Moulds has seen many of his #s decrease over the years due to his age. Plus, they paid him a boatload of money. Can you say Matt Maloney? 3.) Kubiak didn't even give him a chance to impress him. He just cut him. And that excuse of "he didn't fit my system" just doesn't cut it. You can use that excuse for any personnel move -- no matter how bad it is. As for left-handed QBs, well, Kenny Stabler wasn't so bad, was he? 4.) Kubiak may make fast decisions, but that certainly doesn't mean they are the correct ones. When he cuts guys like Gaffney, Bradford, Wells and Ragone and replaces them with questionable replacements, you might call that acting in haste to simply put his own stamp on the team rather than "not messing around." 5,) You are putting way, way too much trust in a guy who has never been a head coach on any major level whatsoever. Check your recipe for Kubiak Kool-Aid and if you look real closely, you'll find it is a recipe for disaster.

1) Bradford starting over two first rounders? Sure two first rounders who haven't done squat, even in comparison to Corey Bradford? Plus, IMO he won't be the starter long, if he even is at all.
p.s. Sherman had Bradford in GB... I think he's got the edge in the 411 dept.

2) Moulds has seen his #s decrease more due to poor QB play than any other factor IMO and I believe he will prove his worth for 2-4 seasons. Matt Maloney? Please, Maloney never had the production that Moulds has had... bad comparison I think.

3) From what I understand, Ragonne just isn't as mobile as Kubiak wants for his system. I think you can judge that facet of a players game by watching film.

4) Sadly, time may vindicate you on this one despite your previously poor arguments. I won't try and predict the future on this one. I think he has done well, but only time will tell.

5) Maybe you're right that people are putting too much trust in Kubiak, but it's not as if we have a choice. It is what it is. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little hope is there?

BTW, your Kool Aid recipe for disater comment was so sweet you could write for the Chronicle... sorry, but that's no compliment.

mikoto
06-03-2006, 03:58 PM
I don't understand the argument here.
Every year, every team cuts players that find roles on other teams.
Big deal.

I am not giving Kubiak a free pass, it is just that we have to evaluate him before making judgment. That evaluation will come during regular season games. Until then we have no information to go on, just wild speculation and baseless cheering and doomsaying.

Actually, the fact that we are cutting some players that are actually more or less attractive to other actual professional teams could be viewed as a positive sign. It could mean that we have more talented players than the ones we have cut. It could also mean that we have made some mistakes. Every year teams make personell mistakes, and the same teams make some good decisions, just the nature of the biz. We can only hope that the good outweighs the bad. Point is, we won't know the consequences till probably mid to late October when our team has had time to play a bit and gel.

I will concede this, however. Bradford's promotion does give me pause. It gives me pause because he enjoyed relatively little success before landing with the Texans and certainly looked like a big nothing here, so what gives in detroit? Maybe Martz can get something out of him. If so, Kuddos to him because no one else could. More likely, he is a fire under certain underachieving recievers they have spent a fortune on up there. In any case, we never got anything out of him, so I can't get too broken up about it.

Just trying to interject a little sanity :twocents:

michaelm
06-03-2006, 04:02 PM
Martz has been a head coach in this league for awhile -- Kubiak hasn't.

Sherman has been a HC and GM, had Bradford on his team during the time he held the HC/GM positions, has delt with Bradford personally and professionally and was the HC/GM when Bradford was allowed to walk in GB.
Sherman trumps Martz, end of argument. Martz is also a semi-freaking wacko. please stop with this line of logic. NEXT!!!

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 04:03 PM
Umm, you're forgetting the fact that Martz has already said he expects Bradford to be the starter going into the season. Nothing about "wake-up calls" or anything like that. That is just sheer speculation on your part. He didn't say he expected either Rogers or Williams at that position. Again, let me say this: Just be consistent. Don't go around saying that the decision to cut Wells was OK because nobody picked him up but then turn around and say that you can't judge a player move based on if a player has been picked up or not. I personally think Kubiak has made a boatload of bad moves from the start and I can back that up. You can disagree all you want, but please don't try to defend the Wells cut in one way and then turn around and contradict yourself when dealing with guys like Bradford and Ragone. It's disingenuous and as transparent as cellophane to folks who aren't taking big gulps of the Kubiak Kool-Aid.

I've never read that Martz expects Bradford to be the starter going into the season, Link Please?

Also, what was the time frame from when Bradford got cut, to him signing with the Lions?

Since you seem so educated in this prospect I thought you could fill us in a little with the facts.

TexanFan881
06-03-2006, 04:15 PM
Also, what was the time frame from when Bradford got cut, to him signing with the Lions?


That's a great point. And also, can you remember how last year Corey was a free agent and nobody signed him? Nobody wanted him, so he came back home. We didn't want him either, so we released him this year.

MorKnolle
06-03-2006, 04:20 PM
Umm, you're forgetting the fact that Martz has already said he expects Bradford to be the starter going into the season. Nothing about "wake-up calls" or anything like that. That is just sheer speculation on your part. He didn't say he expected either Rogers or Williams at that position. Again, let me say this: Just be consistent. Don't go around saying that the decision to cut Wells was OK because nobody picked him up but then turn around and say that you can't judge a player move based on if a player has been picked up or not. I personally think Kubiak has made a boatload of bad moves from the start and I can back that up. You can disagree all you want, but please don't try to defend the Wells cut in one way and then turn around and contradict yourself when dealing with guys like Bradford and Ragone. It's disingenuous and as transparent as cellophane to folks who aren't taking big gulps of the Kubiak Kool-Aid.

I have not been the one saying it was ok to cut Wells just because no one else has picked him up, I have been one of the ones giving legitimate reasons as to why he was not worth keeping around. You are the one who has not been at all consistent with your arguments.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 04:37 PM
I am putting all of this arguing over Bradford nonsense behind me personally.
I'm all for giving guys a shot, but the dude has been in the league for 8 freakin' years, played on a Superbowl team in '98 under a hall of fame QB for four years in a prolific passing offense and has managed to rack up stats like this:

3182 total career yards giving him a 397.95yd avg. per year

25 total tds or 3.125tds per year


IN 8 YEARS! You've just got to be bored or very valiant to choose to argue this guy's case as someone who shouldn't be released.

His best year ever was 697yds and 6tds. Good God Kubiak!!! What have you done???

Wolf
06-03-2006, 04:53 PM
1) I personally think that Martz is a good offensive coach yet he overthinks the game (i.e. super bowl second half he goes away from Faulk) ..yet I also think Martz is a better OC than head coach..please talk all you want about martz and the Rams ,,...it was Vermeil who got them built up..

as far as Bradford..we had 4 years of him. he isn't a #2 WR.. if we were such a threat...why couldn't we get AJ open?

and yes the OL was horrible..

Wolf
06-03-2006, 04:54 PM
At one time, Martz was an inexperienced coach -- just like Kubiak -- and was on Kubiak's level. Well, now he has achieved some wins and playoff appearances -- something Kubiak not only hasn't done but hasn't even been head coach of a Pop Warner team! How can you even begin to compare the acumen of someone like Martz with a neophyte like Kubiak? So, to connect the loose ends, when an experienced head coach offensive guru like Martz takes a guy cut by the inexperienced first-year head coach and makes him the #2 WR ahead of two first-round choices, you should realistically start to wonder if the neophyte may have missed something.


yeah he rode Vermeil's coattail... he didn't inherit a 2-14 team.

bayoudreamn
06-03-2006, 05:12 PM
It very well could be. They could have kept Gaffney for cheap rather than spending all that money on a guy whose #s are dropping and is way past his prime. I simply don't think the Texans gained a thing when they let Gaffney and Bradford go and, as the other NFL teams have shown (if that means anything) they might have taken a step backward. I think Kubiak's personnel moves have been rather puzzling and mystifying at this point, especially regarding Wells, Ragone, Gaffney and Bradford. I will say that I wasn't all that happy with Bradford, but it should be disconcerting when a team grabs your guy and put him ahead of two guys that they burned #1 draft choices on. Perhaps they are seeing something Kubiak isn't.

Even if Moulds is past his prime he knows the game and he has performed on a Pro Bowl level. If nothing else, he's a great addition for leadership. I can't imagine anyone respecting tutelage from Bradfore or Gaffney. What leadership have they shown?

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:13 PM
yeah he rode Vermeil's coattail... he didn't inherit a 2-14 team.

Scoreboard.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:16 PM
Even if Moulds is past his prime he knows the game and he has performed on a Pro Bowl level. If nothing else, he's a great addition for leadership. I can't imagine anyone respecting tutelage from Bradfore or Gaffney. What leadership have they shown?

Moulds and his last Pro Bowl appearance are separated by a lot of time. And why don't you ask the Buffalo front office what "leadership" Moulds showed last year? If you are looking to Moulds for leadership, you'd better look elsewhere. Moulds looks after his and his own, as shown when he took himself out of the game against Miami because he didn't catch a pass and ended up suspended. Fine leadership ability displayed there. And he does it for a lot more money than Gaffney or Bradford would have, that's for sure.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 05:22 PM
Even if Moulds is past his prime he knows the game and he has performed on a Pro Bowl level. If nothing else, he's a great addition for leadership. I can't imagine anyone respecting tutelage from Bradford or Gaffney. What leadership have they shown?

I just looked at Mould stats. He has only been in the league 2 more seasons than Bradford, and over the time since they have both been in the league together('98-2006) Moulds has had more yards in every single season than Bradford has EVER had in a season.
Bradford's best year 697yds
Moulds WORST year since '98 is 780 in 2003

Any comparison between these two players is just insane... there is no comparison, and I'll live with the fact that moulds is 2 years older. He will be in the league when Bradford is cleaning windshields.

bayoudreamn
06-03-2006, 05:27 PM
Moulds and his last Pro Bowl appearance are separated by a lot of time. And why don't you ask the Buffalo front office what "leadership" Moulds showed last year? If you are looking to Moulds for leadership, you'd better look elsewhere. Moulds looks after his and his own, as shown when he took himself out of the game against Miami because he didn't catch a pass and ended up suspended. Fine leadership ability displayed there. And he does it for a lot more money than Gaffney or Bradford would have, that's for sure.

I would argue with you, but I can't find any information or Bradford or Gaffney's last Pro Bowl.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 05:31 PM
I would argue with you, but I can't find any information or Bradford or Gaffney's last Pro Bowl.


Freakin' hilarious...!

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:34 PM
I would argue with you, but I can't find any information or Bradford or Gaffney's last Pro Bowl.

Jerry Rice was in several Pro Bowls. Would you rather have him?

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:38 PM
I just looked at Mould stats. He has only been in the league 2 more seasons than Bradford, and over the time since they have both been in the league together('98-2006) Moulds has had more yards in every single season than Bradford has EVER had in a season.
Bradford's best year 697yds
Moulds WORST year since '98 is 780 in 2003

Any comparison between these two players is just insane... there is no comparison, and I'll live with the fact that moulds is 2 years older. He will be in the league when Bradford is cleaning windshields.

You're right. There is no comparison. Moulds played on much better teams than Bradford did with the Texans. Problem is, Moulds's numbers are slipping and he is several years removed from his Pro Bowl appearance. That and he is costing a boatload of money more than Gaffney and Bradford combined. Throw in the dirty little fact that Moulds was suspended last year because he took himself out of a game because he didn't catch a pass against Miami, well, you are indeed right. There is no comparison.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 05:40 PM
I just looked at Mould stats. He has only been in the league 2 more seasons than Bradford, and over the time since they have both been in the league together('98-2006) Moulds has had more yards in every single season than Bradford has EVER had in a season.
Bradford's best year 697yds
Moulds WORST year since '98 is 780 in 2003

Any comparison between these two players is just insane... there is no comparison, and I'll live with the fact that moulds is 2 years older. He will be in the league when Bradford is cleaning windshields.

Adding to this post, lets look at the stats of Bradford and Moulds heads up.

Over the first 8 seasons of their careers:
Moulds - 7237 yds
Bradford -3182yds

And if you look at the last 8 seasons (when they were both in the league), Moulds' advantage is even greater with 8523yds vs 3182.
Also consider the 48td to 25td careers total advantage that Moulds has.

This is getting laughable.

BOBO, please stop trying to defend this comparison. You are destroying any shred of credibility you might hope to have. I will take the extra two years of mileage for a stat advantage that is incredibly lopsided.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:50 PM
Adding to this post, lets look at the stats of Bradford and Moulds heads up.

Over the first 8 seasons of their careers:
Moulds - 7237 yds
Bradford -3182yds

And if you look at the last 8 seasons (when they were both in the league), Moulds' advantage is even greater with 8523yds vs 3182.
Also consider the 48td to 25td careers total advantage that Moulds has.

This is getting laughable.

BOBO, please stop trying to defend this comparison. You are destroying any shred of credibility you might hope to have. I will take the extra two years of mileage for a stat advantage that is incredibly lopsided.

You're right. This is getting laughable. You are talking about what went on eight years ago. This is 2006, not the 90s. And I haven't heard one word or peep from anyone on this board regarding Moulds out and out quitting in the Miami game and pulling a Terrell Owens. And this is the guy the Texans paid a boatload of money for? Yeah, it would be laughable -- if it wasn't so sad.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 05:55 PM
You're right. There is no comparison. Moulds played on much better teams than Bradford did with the Texans. Problem is, Moulds's numbers are slipping and he is several years removed from his Pro Bowl appearance. That and he is costing a boatload of money more than Gaffney and Bradford combined. Throw in the dirty little fact that Moulds was suspended last year because he took himself out of a game because he didn't catch a pass against Miami, well, you are indeed right. There is no comparison.

haha... Moulds didn't spend HALF of his career catching passes from Brett Favre on a Superbowl caliber team.
Moulds never played a single season on a Superbowl caliber team.
Moulds played on teams whose season leading passers include:

Todd Collins - 1997
Doug Flutie - 98-99
Rob Johnson - 2000
Alex Van Pelt - 2001
Kelly Holcolm - 2005

and Drew Bledsoe(2003) when Bledsoe trew only 11 tds w/ 12 ints in 16 games.

He also played 13 games with JP Losman...

Please stop, I don't feel like beating you down on this comparison any more.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 05:57 PM
You're right. This is getting laughable. You are talking about what went on eight years ago. This is 2006, not the 90s. And I haven't heard one word or peep from anyone on this board regarding Moulds out and out quitting in the Miami game and pulling a Terrell Owens. And this is the guy the Texans paid a boatload of money for? Yeah, it would be laughable -- if it wasn't so sad.

this is what I have found on moulds

Hello again my faithful followers, it is the master, Roscoe, here again to give the best sports information in the free world. The Buffalo Bills sunk to new depths this past weekend, but rock bottom is still coming. Three weeks still remain for Buffalo to prove just how bad they really are. The players appear to be quitting on the coach, but in reality it was the coach who first quit on the players.

Mularkey was laughing and giggling like a little schoolgirl, when the Bills scored three first quarter touchdowns against Miami. Later when he called for a pass on first and goal from the three-yard line, which resulted in an interception, Eric Moulds had enough. Basically Mularkey quit coaching the game…he was trying to get JP another passing touchdown, he was trying to get some more giggles and smiles to show just how smart he is. He wanted to laugh it up on the sidelines, but instead lost the game.

He quit coaching. Bottom line is the team knew that was stupid, and Moulds as the teams elder statesman, had to send a message. Basically, if the coach didn’t care about what was going on why should he? Mularkey actually quit on the team, now the team is going to quit on him
http://buffalobeast.com/90/wideright90.htm

Wolf
06-03-2006, 05:59 PM
* “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.”
“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.” Press conference October 24, 2004


hmm does this sound like a leader?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eric_Moulds

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 05:59 PM
You're right. This is getting laughable. You are talking about what went on eight years ago. This is 2006, not the 90s. And I haven't heard one word or peep from anyone on this board regarding Moulds out and out quitting in the Miami game and pulling a Terrell Owens. And this is the guy the Texans paid a boatload of money for? Yeah, it would be laughable -- if it wasn't so sad.
For one, this is my first time hearing it, For two, I believe that the Bills and Moulds were not on happy terms. Before you say "What happens when Moulds and the Texans are not on happy terms?" I will answer, We'll put Walters or our new rookie at number 2, yes, starting a rookie does happen, and Moulds will either try to work it out with the organization or seek new employement, but as of now, Moulds and the Texans ARE on happy terms, and if that continues, he won't be sitting out any games, unless his overwieght gut and scrawny arms get injured.:sarcasm: Dude is built.... does he ever feel pain? He's in better shape than most 3 year NFL players.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 06:01 PM
You're right. This is getting laughable. You are talking about what went on eight years ago. This is 2006, not the 90s. And I haven't heard one word or peep from anyone on this board regarding Moulds out and out quitting in the Miami game and pulling a Terrell Owens. And this is the guy the Texans paid a boatload of money for? Yeah, it would be laughable -- if it wasn't so sad.


No, the stas I gave include both players 1st 8 years, ans also I gave the last 8 years since 1998 when Bradford entered the leauge.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:05 PM
For one, this is my first time hearing it, For two, I believe that the Bills and Moulds were not on happy terms.

Uh, yeah, I would imagine that when a guy sulks like Terrell Owens and takes himself out of the game because he failed to continue a personal record ... yeah, I would imagine the team might be a bit peeved with him and suspend his butt for being a quitter. But never fear! Houston has dealt out a boatload of money for that fine, outstanding character of a team player and come time to play Dallas, the Houston Texans can be assured that they will be able to compete with Owens in at least one facet of the game!

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:06 PM
No, the stas I gave include both players 1st 8 years, ans also I gave the last 8 years since 1998 when Bradford entered the leauge.

This is 2006, not eight years ago. And one is a proven quitter who is being paid a boatload of money -- the other isn't.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:10 PM
This is 2006, not eight years ago. And one is a proven quitter who is being paid a boatload of money -- the other isn't.
One has excelled, the other hasn't.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:10 PM
But never fear! Houston has dealt out a boatload of money for that fine, outstanding character of a team player

And I couldn't be happier.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 06:11 PM
And I haven't heard one word or peep from anyone on this board regarding Moulds out and out quitting in the Miami game


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo
You're right. This is getting laughable. You are talking about what went on eight years ago. This is 2006, not the 90s. And I haven't heard one word or peep from anyone on this board regarding Moulds out and out quitting in the Miami game and pulling a Terrell Owens. And this is the guy the Texans paid a boatload of money for? Yeah, it would be laughable -- if it wasn't so sad.


this is what I have found on moulds


Quote:
Hello again my faithful followers, it is the master, Roscoe, here again to give the best sports information in the free world. The Buffalo Bills sunk to new depths this past weekend, but rock bottom is still coming. Three weeks still remain for Buffalo to prove just how bad they really are. The players appear to be quitting on the coach, but in reality it was the coach who first quit on the players.

Mularkey was laughing and giggling like a little schoolgirl, when the Bills scored three first quarter touchdowns against Miami. Later when he called for a pass on first and goal from the three-yard line, which resulted in an interception, Eric Moulds had enough. Basically Mularkey quit coaching the game…he was trying to get JP another passing touchdown, he was trying to get some more giggles and smiles to show just how smart he is. He wanted to laugh it up on the sidelines, but instead lost the game.

He quit coaching. Bottom line is the team knew that was stupid, and Moulds as the teams elder statesman, had to send a message. Basically, if the coach didn’t care about what was going on why should he? Mularkey actually quit on the team, now the team is going to quit on him

http://buffalobeast.com/90/wideright90.htm


hahaha... PEEP
__________________

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:15 PM
hmm does this sound like a leader?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eric_Moulds

And then along came that fateful day vs. Miami ... the birth of the quitter.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 06:16 PM
This is 2006, not eight years ago. And one is a proven quitter who is being paid a boatload of money -- the other isn't.

I understand that you are getting desperate trying to defend you losing position, but are you daft?
The stats I gave are CAREER stats. They are one of, if not THE most important basis for compaison.
There has never been a single year IN THEIR ENTIRE CAREERS the Moulds' worst stats weren't better than Bradford's BEST stats. OK, that's not intirely accurate, Moulds first two seasons were meager, but thats 9 and 10 years ago respectivley, and hence, don't matter to you.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:17 PM
One has excelled, the other hasn't.

He excelled. For Buffalo. Years ago. Before he quit.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:19 PM
He excelled. For Buffalo. Years ago. Before he quit.
I exceled for McDonalds, Months ago, Then I quit, does that mean I can't perform somewhere else?

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:19 PM
And then along came that fateful day vs. Miami ... the birth of the quitter.
Orchard Park, NY (AHN) - The Buffalo Bills have suspended receiver Eric Moulds without pay, reportedly for a sideline dispute with an assistant coach during last week's game with Miami.

The suspension will keep him playing in Sunday's game against the New England Patriots, reports ESPN.com.

"Eric hasn't practiced this week so he won't be ready to play Sunday. He is suspended for one game without pay," owner Ralph Wilson said Thursday after a meeting with Moulds and head coach Mike Mularkey.

"From there on, he'll be back and will play the final three games of the season, which I hope we'll do better than we have so far."

Moulds was banned from practice the last two days. The punishment is believed to stem from an argument between the player and receivers coach Tyke Tolbert during Buffalo's 24-23 loss at Miami.

Greg Johnson, the player's adviser, said the dispute happened when Moulds left the field after experiencing pain in his Achilles' tendon. Moulds wanted to have the tendon examined by a trainer when Tolbert asked Moulds to get back on the field, Johnson said. Moulds refused and was benched for most of the final three quarters, reports ESPN.com

http://eric-moulds-news.newslib.com/story/6187-3091322/

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:20 PM
I understand that you are getting desperate trying to defend you losing position, but are you daft?
The stats I gave are CAREER stats. They are one of, if not THE most important basis for compaison.
There has never been a single year IN THEIR ENTIRE CAREERS the Moulds' worst stats weren't better than Bradford's BEST stats. OK, that's not intirely accurate, Moulds first two seasons were meager, but thats 9 and 10 years ago respectivley, and hence, don't matter to you.

How is what happened 8 years ago relevant to 2006? As I recall, there's no such thing as retroactive TDs. And those stats by Moulds were collected during his younger years on teams that were better than the Texans, so I don't see how those stats are relevant at all for 2006. That and the fact that Moulds quit on his team and the coaching staff causes me to wonder why they are paying him all that money.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:22 PM
and so was bradford's stats

spindoctor

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:23 PM
I exceled for McDonalds, Months ago, Then I quit, does that mean I can't perform somewhere else?

I guess two places will take quitters -- McDonalds and the Texans.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:24 PM
In an interview Friday morning with "The Howard Simon Show," Eric Moulds said Ralph Wilson suspended him for a number of reasons, even though the Bills owner didn't want a suspension for the star wide-out.

"He and I just talked about everything that had happened," Moulds said of Thursday's one-on-one interview with Wilson. "Actually, he wanted me to play, but at the same time we both felt that I didn't practice the whole week, so it wouldn't be fair to my teammates for me to go and play this Sunday. We kind of used the rule that if you don't practice, you don't play that week."

When asked by Simon about Sunday's game and his much-debated time out of the game, Moulds said it was a result of miscommunication with receivers coach Tyke Tolbert regarding the planned playing time of Sam Aiken.

Moulds said there are a number of personnel decisions he has opinions on, but recognizes his role on the team.

"I feel like Sam Adams should be playing," he said. "He's a heck of a player, but at the same time it's not really my decision and I support my teammates much more than anything because those are the guys on the field going to battle with me every week."

Moulds said his teammates back him in everything that is going on, adding "I told Lee (Evans) and all the other receivers and all the other guys that they have to go and play hard... I don't want to be a distraction."

http://eric-moulds-news.newslib.com/story/6187-3091323/

from the link you can hear the interview

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:25 PM
I guess two places will take quitters -- McDonalds and the Texans.

you can add A.A. to that list

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:26 PM
How is what happened 8 years ago relevant to 2006? As I recall, there's no such thing as retroactive TDs. And those stats by Moulds were collected during his younger years on teams that were better than the Texans, so I don't see how those stats are relevant at all for 2006. That and the fact that Moulds quit on his team and the coaching staff causes me to wonder why they are paying him all that money.

So, are you saying stats should have no factor in signing a player? Then I should try out for the Texans team! I almost blocked a fieldgoal once! I would be concerned about Moulds being suspended 1 game if he got angry and didn't continue to play for the team for the rest of the season... Oh good he did, nothing to worry about then, wasn't there an injury involved somewhere too? Oh, Wolf posted it good, so the arguement was about Moulds wanting to check a potential injury before going out on the field, thats understandable, as you said Bobo, he's getting on in his years... oh since you did bring up this other name, How long did Jerry Rice play NFL?

michaelm
06-03-2006, 06:27 PM
And then along came that fateful day vs. Miami ... the birth of the quitter.

The last bastion of defense for your position on this matter, like the Japanese on Okinawa in 1945...

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:30 PM
I guess two places will take quitters -- McDonalds and the Texans.
Har Har, who said McDonalds will take quitters? You don't even know the details of why I quit in the first place, but since your sooo interested let me bore you. I quit McDonalds so I could focus on my final year of High School, my grades were falling steadily as I grew more tired with Theatre + Work + Homework, I was exhausted and had very little free time to myself, thats why I quit, now that I've graduated and have been accepted to a state university, I'm currently employed at Auto-Zone, stocking parts and helping customers. So ends my happy tale.

So, when is Moulds going to write his own Auto-biography?

BTW, I loved the personal attack, it shows your getting frustrated.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:31 PM
So, are you saying stats should have no factor in signing a player? Then I should try out for the Texans team! I almost blocked a fieldgoal once! I would be concerned about Moulds being suspended 1 game if he got angry and didn't continue to play for the team for the rest of the season... Oh good he did, nothing to worry about then, wasn't there an injury involved somewhere too? Oh, Wolf posted it good, so the arguement was about Moulds wanting to check a potential injury before going out on the field, thats understandable, as you said Bobo, he's getting on in his years... oh since you did bring up this other name, How long did Jerry Rice play NFL?

If stats collected back into the 90s are the telling factor, go out and sign Jerry Rice. I hear he'd love to play again. As for Moulds, he is a proven quitter. As far as the quote goes, Johnson is ... now get this ... Moulds's "personal adviser." You think he just might try to put his boss in the best light and try to hide an obvious bad situation? I guess that means there was a conspiracy against Moulds where everybody was the ogre, ordering him back onto the field when he was hurt and Moulds refusing to go back on, so he was suspended. Yeah, right. Another conspiracy theory. It amazes me how folks just refuse to look at the facts and try everything to put their favorites in the best light possible, despite the fact that he was suspended for "conduct detrimental to the team."

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:32 PM
If stats collected back into the 90s are the telling factor, go out and sign Jerry Rice. I hear he'd love to play again. As for Moulds, he is a proven quitter. As far as the quote goes, Johnson is ... now get this ... Moulds's "personal adviser." You think he just might try to put his boss in the best light and try to hide an obvious bad situation? I guess that means there was a conspiracy against Moulds where everybody was the ogre, ordering him back onto the field when he was hurt and Moulds refusing to go back on, so he was suspended. Yeah, right. Another conspiracy theory. It amazes me how folks just refuse to look at the facts and try everything to put their favorites in the best light possible, despite the fact that he was suspended for "conduct detrimental to the team."
Is Rice really wanting to play again!? I'd LOVE to have him in houston.

Facts? He posted a link off the internet, we all have the same "facts" available to them, because its the internet, you can put anything on it and people will believe it. Its just like stats, you can always groom them to look the way you want them to.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:33 PM
Har Har, who said McDonalds will take quitters? You don't even know the details of why I quit in the first place, but since your sooo interested let me bore you. I quit McDonalds so I could focus on my final year of High School, my grades were falling steadily as I grew more tired with Theatre + Work + Homework, I was exhausted and had very little free time to myself, thats why I quit, now that I've graduated and have been accepted to a state university, I'm currently employed at Auto-Zone, stocking parts and helping customers. So ends my happy tale.

So, when is Moulds going to write his own Auto-biography?

BTW, I loved the personal attack, it shows your getting frustrated.

Facts are facts. Moulds quit during a game and got suspended for "conduct detrimental to the team." And as far as your work history is concerned, I really, really don't care.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:34 PM
Is Rice really wanting to play again!? I'd LOVE to have him in houston.

Well, he's available. I think Lance Alworth might be available too. Along with Kenny Stabler, Emmitt Smith and Dan Pastorini.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:35 PM
Well, he's available. I think Lance Alworth might be available too. Along with Kenny Stabler, Emmitt Smith and Dan Pastorini.

Sry, Rice is my favorate reciever of football history, I don't really care about the others ... EWW I see a Cowboy! jk Emmitt da man :chicken:

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:40 PM
Sry, Rice is my favorate reciever of football history, I don't really care about the others ... EWW I see a Cowboy! jk Emmitt da man :chicken:

The Thread Killer strikes again! :hunter:

michaelm
06-03-2006, 06:45 PM
Oh, but BOBO, his suspension was in the past...
But if that past is recent enough for you, then you cannot argue with me citing the stats that Moulds had in the three games AFTER his suspension...

3 game total;

27 catches for 305yds...
Those are the three most recent games the old man played in... sure he didn't catch a TD, but then again he wasn't catching passes from David Carr (I know you won't take issue on the Carr thing because I know that you support him... the ONLY thing I think you and I agree on).


Don't tell me you won't take 101yd per game average from our #2 WR...

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 06:47 PM
Dead Thread? Ok maybe now you can go back and answer the things you never did.
I've never read that Martz expects Bradford to be the starter going into the season, Link Please?

Also, what was the time frame from when Bradford got cut, to him signing with the Lions?

Since you seem so educated in this prospect I thought you could fill us in a little with the facts.

and from another thread http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=23827&page=3


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo
WHAT? How can you compare Capers during his first year with a team from scratch and Kubiak with a team that has AJ, Carr, Davis, D-Rob and an entire infrastructure in place, as well as four years of experience under the team's belt? No comparison. No comparison at all!

My reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon420tx
Capers went out and found Sharper and Glenn playing in the street did he? The only thing that proves is that Kubiak is getting 2 more first round "Stars" than Capers did, DD was an unknown when he emerged, I don't credit that as a Capers creation./quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo
Ever hear of comparing apples with apples?

My reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon420tx
So comparing a DC brought in to be a HC of an expansion team (Apples) and bringing in an OC brought in to be a HC of a team that went 2-14 (Oranges) is bad? Thats what you've been doing a lot lately, and so have many other people, including me. /quote

and 1 more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo
Stats don't lie

my reply


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon420tx
Edit: Using the stats you gave me, he averaged 6.33 catches a game, 58.66 yards a game, and .33 touchdowns a game, as our #1 receiver.

You can take stats and manipulate them the way you want them to look./quote

Your right Bobs stats don't lie /quote

Just curious, because I wanted to continue the discussion on these topics but the conversation veered off.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:50 PM
Oh, but BOBO, his suspension was in the past...
But if that past is recent enough for you, then you cannot argue with me citing the stats that Moulds had in the three games AFTER his suspension...

3 game total;

27 catches for 305yds...
Those are the three most recent games the old man played in... sure he didn't catch a TD, but then again he wasn't catching passes from David Carr (I know you won't take issue on the Carr thing because I know that you support him... the ONLY thing I think you and I agree on).
:lol:

bradfords total for last season was only 34 catches 46 yards

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:57 PM
Oh, but BOBO, his suspension was in the past...
But if that past is recent enough for you, then you cannot argue with me citing the stats that Moulds had in the three games AFTER his suspension...

3 game total;

27 catches for 305yds...
Those are the three most recent games the old man played in... sure he didn't catch a TD, but then again he wasn't catching passes from David Carr (I know you won't take issue on the Carr thing because I know that you support him... the ONLY thing I think you and I agree on).


Don't tell me you won't take 101yd per game average from our #2 WR...

Um, do you even KNOW when Moulds's suspension was? It occurred in December -- near the end of last season. Well, I guess you can say that it was in the past. And everything that Terrell Owens did is in the past as well. Heck, if you're going to get a quitter, at least the Texans should have gotten the better, younger quitter.

michaelm
06-03-2006, 06:59 PM
BOBO my good man, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I truly believe you choose many of your positions based on their opposition to what the general consensus is on a given subject. I believe that you just enjoy arguing.
I even went so far as to say that you were rather good at it. Unfortunately, your stance on this subject is ridiculous, and has completely destroyed the validity of any of your future arguments.
You don't even realize how backed into a corner and desperate you are looking.
It is too late to save it all, but you might manage to salvage a scrap of dignity if you just bow out quietly...

Bobo
06-03-2006, 07:01 PM
BOBO my good man, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I truly believe you choose many of your positions based on their opposition to what the general consensus is on a given subject. I believe that you just enjoy arguing.
I even went so far as to say that you were rather good at it. Unfortunately, your stance on this subject is ridiculous, and has completely destroyed the validity of any of your future arguments.
You don't even realize how backed into a corner and desperate you are looking.
It is too late to save it all, but you might manage to salvage a scrap of dignity if you just bow out quietly...

Believe what you want. Failure to respond to my post and especially the Moulds character flaws duly noted. :bananasplit:

michaelm
06-03-2006, 07:04 PM
Um, do you even KNOW when Moulds's suspension was? It occurred in December -- near the end of last season. Well, I guess you can say that it was in the past. And everything that Terrell Owens did is in the past as well. Heck, if you're going to get a quitter, at least the Texans should have gotten the better, younger quitter.


yes, yes... it was December 11, 2005 against New England. What's your point? He played in three games after that and had 305 total yards in those games.
Are you drunk or something?

michaelm
06-03-2006, 07:05 PM
Believe what you want. Failure to respond to my post and especially the Moulds character flaws duly noted. :bananasplit:


Name the post

michaelm
06-03-2006, 07:10 PM
:bananasplit: Believe what you want. Failure to respond to my post and especially the Moulds character flaws duly noted. :bananasplit:

Here is my take on the character issue.
The man was suspended once for conduct issues in ten years in the leauge. Is it a concern? Maybe a little, but not much.
On one side of the scales sits a stellar career, pro bowl appearences, great stats, a reputation as a hard worker and physical marvel (especially for his age),
and on the other side of the scales sits a one game suspension...

The man is human... he made a mistake, maybe... maybe not, I don't think we really know, but if he did I can get past it.

:bananasplit: back at ya...

Bobo
06-03-2006, 07:31 PM
:bananasplit:

Here is my take on the character issue.
The man was suspended once for conduct issues in ten years in the leauge. Is it a concern? Maybe a little, but not much.
On one side of the scales sits a stellar career, pro bowl appearences, great stats, a reputation as a hard worker and physical marvel (especially for his age),
and on the other side of the scales sits a one game suspension...

The man is human... he made a mistake, maybe... maybe not, I don't think we really know, but if he did I can get past it.

:bananasplit: back at ya...

Once is more than enough. I think you are really stretching it to defend the Moulds issue. He has character flaws and that suspension tells a heckuva lot about the weaknesses of Moulds as an individual as well as a team player. And, hey! If you like Moulds -- then you'll love Terrell Owens! But again, let's be consistent here. You are willing to forgive a proven quitter who was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team because he walked out in a huff off the field due to not achieving a personal goal, yet many on this board say that it was OK to cut Wells because he complained about PT. That is inconsistent. There's a whole lot of inconsistencies when folks defend an obviously faulty regime no matter what they do. Reminds me of Nixon in the mid 70s.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 07:32 PM
yes, yes... it was December 11, 2005 against New England. What's your point? He played in three games after that and had 305 total yards in those games.
Are you drunk or something?

Umm, inebriated folks are the ones who like to forget the facts and ignore the problem issues. I don't think it's me who fits into this category.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 07:34 PM
where do you get your facts?

unless I missed something, I don't recall anyone saying Wells was released just because it was over PT ... it was other reasons.

and if Kubiak released him, why would Wells gripe about PT before training camp started? I would think he would "prove" himself to the new coaching staff on the field

michaelm
06-03-2006, 07:43 PM
Once is more than enough. I think you are really stretching it to defend the Moulds issue. He has character flaws and that suspension tells a heckuva lot about the weaknesses of Moulds as an individual as well as a team player. And, hey! If you like Moulds -- then you'll love Terrell Owens! But again, let's be consistent here. You are willing to forgive a proven quitter who was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team because he walked out in a huff off the field due to not achieving a personal goal, yet many on this board say that it was OK to cut Wells because he complained about PT. That is inconsistent. There's a whole lot of inconsistencies when folks defend an obviously faulty regime no matter what they do. Reminds me of Nixon in the mid 70s.

Don't lump me in with anyone who's posted about Wells. I don't believe I have ever posted on him at all, and definitely not on him being allowed to walk.
I like Wells, and have nothing bad to say about him, but he was never anything special enough for me to post about.
The Moulds/Owens comparison is way off IMO. Owens is a completely self absorbed primadonna, with a LOOOOONG history of being a complete cancer.
Moulds had a single incident that IMO is not too much of an issue. And you have yet to provide links to back your 'walking off the field in a huff' statement.

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 07:45 PM
Bobo, I think you are stretching it to defend Bradford. Unless for injuries, Bradford will not be the number one reciever on that team.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 07:55 PM
Bobo, I think you are stretching it to defend Bradford. Unless for injuries, Bradford will not be the number one reciever on that team.

I never said he'd be the #1 WR. I've always said he is currently the #2 and a starter. And guess what? I didn't say it. Martz did.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 08:01 PM
I never said he'd be the #1 WR. I've always said he is currently the #2 and a starter. And guess what? I didn't say it. Martz did.


I was reading about that.. but you could read something in Martz' latest article about the WR, suprising to me, that Williams,Williams,and Rogers are mentioned and then the other WR that is mentioned is Drummond.. I was suprised that Bradford wasn't mentioned.. I didn't know this but Kippy Brown is their WR coach

http://www.detroitlions.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=445216

Bobo
06-03-2006, 08:02 PM
Don't lump me in with anyone who's posted about Wells. I don't believe I have ever posted on him at all, and definitely not on him being allowed to walk.
I like Wells, and have nothing bad to say about him, but he was never anything special enough for me to post about.
The Moulds/Owens comparison is way off IMO. Owens is a completely self absorbed primadonna, with a LOOOOONG history of being a complete cancer.
Moulds had a single incident that IMO is not too much of an issue. And you have yet to provide links to back your 'walking off the field in a huff' statement.

Moulds is a quitter and marched off that field because he didn't get his personal goal. He was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. For you to say that a comparison between Moulds and Owens is unwarranted seems to be just another example of swallowing that Kubiak Kool-Aid in a weak attempt to defend everything a first-year, inexperienced head coach does. The Moulds issue is very similar to Owens in that it is based on selfishness rather than the team. Oh, the "walked off the field in a huff" are my words. But that's exactly what he did and that's exactly why he was suspended. After all, he certainly was NOT suspended because the coach ordered him back onto the field when he was hurt. That's nothing but publicist garbage reminiscent of Terrell Owens and his agent. To believe that, you'd have to believe that every coach on that team as well as the owner were in cahoots and agreed that he should play despite an injury. And I also find it amusing that the supposed "injury" wasn't bad enough to keep him off the field after the one-week suspension was over.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 08:05 PM
Moulds is a quitter and marched off that field because he didn't get his personal goal. He was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. For you to say that a comparison between Moulds and Owens is unwarranted seems to be just another example of swallowing that Kubiak Kool-Aid in a weak attempt to defend everything a first-year, inexperienced head coach does. The Moulds issue is very similar to Owens in that it is based on selfishness rather than the team. Oh, the "walked off the field in a huff" are my words. But that's exactly what he did and that's exactly why he was suspended. After all, he certainly was NOT suspended because the coach ordered him back onto the field when he was hurt. That's nothing but publicist garbage reminiscent of Terrell Owens and his agent. To believe that, you'd have to believe that every coach on that team as well as the owner were in cahoots and agreed that he should play despite an injury. And I also find it amusing that the supposed "injury" wasn't bad enough to keep him off the field after the one-week suspension was over.

The way I believe it, Moulds was about to go get his leg checked out and the WR coach asked him to get on the field not knowing about it, and Moulds lost his cool *Maybe, this is speculation*

Bobo
06-03-2006, 08:05 PM
I was reading about that.. but you could read something in Martz' latest article about the WR, suprising to me, that Williams,Williams,and Rogers are mentioned and then the other WR that is mentioned is Drummond.. I was suprised that Bradford wasn't mentioned.. I didn't know this but Kippy Brown is their WR coach

http://www.detroitlions.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=445216

Seeing that the story is about Charles Rogers, Roy Williams and Mike Williams, I don't see any reason to wonder why Bradford wasn't mentioned. After all, the story wasn't about him.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 08:06 PM
Moulds is a quitter and marched off that field because he didn't get his personal goal. He was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. For you to say that a comparison between Moulds and Owens is unwarranted seems to be just another example of swallowing that Kubiak Kool-Aid in a weak attempt to defend everything a first-year, inexperienced head coach does. The Moulds issue is very similar to Owens in that it is based on selfishness rather than the team. Oh, the "walked off the field in a huff" are my words. But that's exactly what he did and that's exactly why he was suspended. After all, he certainly was NOT suspended because the coach ordered him back onto the field when he was hurt. That's nothing but publicist garbage reminiscent of Terrell Owens and his agent. To believe that, you'd have to believe that every coach on that team as well as the owner were in cahoots and agreed that he should play despite an injury. And I also find it amusing that the supposed "injury" wasn't bad enough to keep him off the field after the one-week suspension was over.


this is what i got out of it so far sifting through the bits and pieces

Hello again my faithful followers, it is the master, Roscoe, here again to give the best sports information in the free world. The Buffalo Bills sunk to new depths this past weekend, but rock bottom is still coming. Three weeks still remain for Buffalo to prove just how bad they really are. The players appear to be quitting on the coach, but in reality it was the coach who first quit on the players.

Mularkey was laughing and giggling like a little schoolgirl, when the Bills scored three first quarter touchdowns against Miami. Later when he called for a pass on first and goal from the three-yard line, which resulted in an interception, Eric Moulds had enough. Basically Mularkey quit coaching the game…he was trying to get JP another passing touchdown, he was trying to get some more giggles and smiles to show just how smart he is. He wanted to laugh it up on the sidelines, but instead lost the game.

He quit coaching. Bottom line is the team knew that was stupid, and Moulds as the teams elder statesman, had to send a message. Basically, if the coach didn’t care about what was going on why should he? Mularkey actually quit on the team, now the team is going to quit on him

he got into an argument with the coaching staff on the sideline they didn't play him again.

http://buffalobeast.com/90/wideright90.htm

Wolf
06-03-2006, 08:07 PM
Seeing that the story is about Charles Rogers, Roy Williams and Mike Williams, I don't see any reason to wonder why Bradford wasn't mentioned. After all, the story wasn't about him.

did you hit the link? it was about the lions and their WR's

Bobo
06-03-2006, 08:07 PM
The way I believe it, Moulds was about to go get his leg checked out and the WR coach asked him to get on the field not knowing about it, and Moulds lost his cool *Maybe, this is speculation*

The way you believe it is just the way Moulds would like you to believe it and how Johnson and his publicist would like you to believe it. But for you to believe this, you'd have to believe that Tolbert and Mularkey didn't care at all that Moulds was "injured" and that owner Ralph Wilson was just as much of an ogre as they were. In other words, you'd have to believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 08:10 PM
The way you believe it is just the way Moulds would like you to believe it and how Johnson and his publicist would like you to believe it. But for you to believe this, you'd have to believe that Tolbert and Mularkey didn't care at all that Moulds was "injured" and that owner Ralph Wilson was just as much of an ogre as they were. In other words, you'd have to believe in a huge conspiracy theory.
No, I believe they didn't know about it, when the altercation happened.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 08:13 PM
No, I believe they didn't know about it, when the altercation happened.

Um, do you really think these folks would suspend him once they knew the whole story? Suspending someone is a very drastic step and you can bet they got the full story from all involved. To believe what you believe, as I said, would mean you would have to believe that the head coach, the receivers coach and the owner were all mistaken and that only Moulds was right. In other words, a conspiracy theory.

Maddict5
06-03-2006, 08:30 PM
UHHH!! i skipped away after the second page of Bobo's tripe so forgive me if this has been posted.....

to sum up what ive read.....

jonathan wells is a future superstar rb that doesnt need to pass block because jim brown didnt have to

spring chicken corey bradford has moved ahead of certain future hall of famers mike williams and charles rogers on the lions depth chart and now we will have to watch painfully as he racks up 2000 yards receiving for them when we're stuck with old eric moulds and his zimmerframe as our #2 thereby making us the laughing stock of the league

dave ragone was picked up quickly by the bengals and therefore will be a very good qb because every player, in the history of the league, who has been picked up quickly have been good players......


Well done bobo you truly are a footballing genius/guru...i hear there's an open GM position down around your area....you should apply, the texans need more people like you, with real football knowledge...especially with gary kubiak and them other green coaches running things down there...i, for one, would sleep much easier with you making the personnel decisions for us

Bobo
06-03-2006, 08:34 PM
UHHH!! i skipped away after the second page of Bobo's tripe so forgive me if this has been posted.....

to sum up what ive read.....

jonathan wells is a future superstar rb that doesnt need to pass block because jim brown didnt have to

spring chicken corey bradford has moved ahead of certain future hall of famers mike williams and charles rogers on the lions depth chart and now we will have to watch painfully as he racks up 2000 yards receiving for them when we're stuck with old eric moulds and his zimmerframe as our #2 thereby making us the laughing stock of the league

dave ragone was picked up quickly by the bengals and therefore will be a very good qb because every player, in the history of the league, who has been picked up quickly have been good players......


Well done bobo you truly are a footballing genius/guru...i hear there's an open GM position down around your area....you should apply, the texans need more people like you, with real football knowledge...especially with gary kubiak and them other green coaches running things down there...i, for one, would sleep much easier with you making the personnel decisions for us

This is just more typical obfuscation by someone who has obviously taken too big a sip of Kubiak Kool-Aid. Sorry, didn't work.

Maddict5
06-03-2006, 09:17 PM
well if thats what you think thats ok..its tastes better than the capers kool-aid i can tell you...i know i should stop replying to your weak posts like most respectable members in here, but what can i say you're a guilty pleasure

Texan in Japan
06-03-2006, 10:16 PM
1) Bradford starting over two first rounders? Sure two first rounders who haven't done squat, even in comparison to Corey Bradford? Plus, IMO he won't be the starter long, if he even is at all.
p.s. Sherman had Bradford in GB... I think he's got the edge in the 411 dept.

2) Moulds has seen his #s decrease more due to poor QB play than any other factor IMO and I believe he will prove his worth for 2-4 seasons. Matt Maloney? Please, Maloney never had the production that Moulds has had... bad comparison I think.

3) From what I understand, Ragonne just isn't as mobile as Kubiak wants for his system. I think you can judge that facet of a players game by watching film.

4) Sadly, time may vindicate you on this one despite your previously poor arguments. I won't try and predict the future on this one. I think he has done well, but only time will tell.

5) Maybe you're right that people are putting too much trust in Kubiak, but it's not as if we have a choice. It is what it is. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little hope is there?

BTW, your Kool Aid recipe for disater comment was so sweet you could write for the Chronicle... sorry, but that's no compliment.

Nice reply...beat me to the punch. I'd add...

4/5. I don't want a head coach leading my team that hims/haws...he did his homework prior to interviewing as a candidate and began executing his plans shortly there after. Maybe I'm a homer, but like mich said above we should show the new guy support.

As far as Maloney and Kool Aid; I gave up on those long ago. : )

bayoudreamn
06-04-2006, 12:12 AM
Moulds is a quitter and marched off that field because he didn't get his personal goal. He was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. For you to say that a comparison between Moulds and Owens is unwarranted seems to be just another example of swallowing that Kubiak Kool-Aid in a weak attempt to defend everything a first-year, inexperienced head coach does. The Moulds issue is very similar to Owens in that it is based on selfishness rather than the team. Oh, the "walked off the field in a huff" are my words. But that's exactly what he did and that's exactly why he was suspended. After all, he certainly was NOT suspended because the coach ordered him back onto the field when he was hurt. That's nothing but publicist garbage reminiscent of Terrell Owens and his agent. To believe that, you'd have to believe that every coach on that team as well as the owner were in cahoots and agreed that he should play despite an injury. And I also find it amusing that the supposed "injury" wasn't bad enough to keep him off the field after the one-week suspension was over.

This is all speculation. There are no facts here.::brickwall

michaelm
06-04-2006, 12:14 AM
Moulds is a quitter and marched off that field because he didn't get his personal goal. He was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team. For you to say that a comparison between Moulds and Owens is unwarranted seems to be just another example of swallowing that Kubiak Kool-Aid in a weak attempt to defend everything a first-year, inexperienced head coach does. The Moulds issue is very similar to Owens in that it is based on selfishness rather than the team. Oh, the "walked off the field in a huff" are my words. But that's exactly what he did and that's exactly why he was suspended. After all, he certainly was NOT suspended because the coach ordered him back onto the field when he was hurt. That's nothing but publicist garbage reminiscent of Terrell Owens and his agent. To believe that, you'd have to believe that every coach on that team as well as the owner were in cahoots and agreed that he should play despite an injury. And I also find it amusing that the supposed "injury" wasn't bad enough to keep him off the field after the one-week suspension was over.

Man, you are seriously turning into a one note joke. I know you have your opinion on Moulds, but I believe you have yet to produce a link to verify your version of what you say happened. Others have provided links that tell a different story but on you go like a broken record with no evidence to support your story.
p.s. I think it is a good time to stop over using the Kool Aid reference... it too, is tedious.

bayoudreamn
06-04-2006, 12:16 AM
The way you believe it is just the way Moulds would like you to believe it and how Johnson and his publicist would like you to believe it. But for you to believe this, you'd have to believe that Tolbert and Mularkey didn't care at all that Moulds was "injured" and that owner Ralph Wilson was just as much of an ogre as they were. In other words, you'd have to believe in a huge conspiracy theory.

Ralph Wilson believes that Bob McNair wants the big markets to succeed and poor Buffalo to fail. Of course, McNair doesn't need to worry with that because Buffalo has been failing for years. Ralph Wilson IS a conspiracy theorist.

bayoudreamn
06-04-2006, 12:22 AM
UHHH!! i skipped away after the second page of Bobo's tripe so forgive me if this has been posted.....

to sum up what ive read.....

jonathan wells is a future superstar rb that doesnt need to pass block because jim brown didnt have to

spring chicken corey bradford has moved ahead of certain future hall of famers mike williams and charles rogers on the lions depth chart and now we will have to watch painfully as he racks up 2000 yards receiving for them when we're stuck with old eric moulds and his zimmerframe as our #2 thereby making us the laughing stock of the league

dave ragone was picked up quickly by the bengals and therefore will be a very good qb because every player, in the history of the league, who has been picked up quickly have been good players......


Well done bobo you truly are a footballing genius/guru...i hear there's an open GM position down around your area....you should apply, the texans need more people like you, with real football knowledge...especially with gary kubiak and them other green coaches running things down there...i, for one, would sleep much easier with you making the personnel decisions for us

very excellent summary

TexanFan881
06-04-2006, 07:24 PM
I never said he'd be the #1 WR. I've always said he is currently the #2 and a starter. And guess what? I didn't say it. Martz did.

You still haven't gaven us a link or a quote or something to back up that "fact".

Here's a pretty accurate depth chart site:
http://ourlads.com/secure/depthchart.cfm?index1=det

I guess the #6 WR position is the same as the #2 WR position. :rolleyes: