Mike Williams or McKinnie

[Kelly the Dog]

I'd like to see the posts from Apr 02, to see where everyone stood on our picks at the time...

 

It's real easy to say something was a good or bad decision in retrospect.

611845[/snapback]

Well Bado was clearly 100% in favor of McKinnie from day one. But then again, he's a Canes fan. I was originally for McKinnie because I had seen him live once and watched him close and he dominated in the Rose Bowl game. But I thought it looked like he couldnt move fluidly and run and loafed on running plays, so I had reservations. Williams appeared to be a good choice at the time. Obviously it was a major mistake. It's hard to say, however, whether MW's injuries were because he wasn't tough, or were just bad luck. There are a lot of ferociously tough players that got hurt a lot. And a lot of wimps. If MW were not hurt all the time, he might have been pretty damn decent and not a bust at all. Just not dominant.

[Lori]

A strange pattern in many of  Donahoe's high picks is that there were multiple reasons not to draft these guys at that point.  We've discussed Williams.  McGahee is not that much better.  RB's can be found at any point of the draft.  Willis had just had his knee WRECKED.  The Bills already had a 1400 yard rusher.  It made no sense, and the truth is he just got half lucky.  Wills made it back, but he isn't the explosive breakaway runner they thought they were getting.  Then of course, Roscoe and Reed.  Time and again, Donahoe seemed to outsmart himself with his cutesy picks.

611856[/snapback]

Yeah, but he sold lots of jerseys....

[Pyrite Gal]

There you go again.  McKinnie would not have held out against the Bills.  There were to sides to that negotiation.  The Vikings were not offering a contract commensurate with McKinnie's slotting, the Bills did offer a contract commensurate with Williams slotting.  It is likely that any player the Vikings drafted would have held out.  But stick with your superficial analysis.  You've been wrong for 4 years, why stop now?

611457[/snapback]

 

Boy I wish I had your crystal ball so that I could see for certains what would coulda shoulda happened if things were different than reality.

 

In fantasy land, maybe MCKinnie would have held out on the Bills or maybe he would not have. It defiinitely takes two to fight so far be it from me to relieve the stupid Vikes from responsibility for the initial hold out of BM. They have demonstrated with their lack of discipline on the team as shown by the party-boat incidents, by their HC getting dinged by the NFL for scalping SB tickets, and by the unfortunate death of one of their players to heat stroke that their middle name is neither effective management or character.

 

However, just as one cannot relieve MN of its reposponsibilities, one canot release BM from his.

 

Maybe the holdout was a principled stand on his part. OK.

 

But the indicitment against him for his acts on the sex boat move assessments of his character well into the fool me once shame on you, but fool me twice shame on me zone.

 

Given him also getting pulled over for some driving while drinking infraction, there are a few too many incidents of idiocy, juvemalia, and I want mine incidents that one cannot reasonably overlook the character issues for BM and his team.

[Sisyphean Bills]

C. Even more bizarrely the Bills decided the "challenge" MW by cutting the Sullivan and instead putting Pacillo in at RG.  This proved to be a mistake as MW really needed a vet to teach him beyond his failings as a player, but instead they put him into a position where he was supposed to provide guidance to Pacillo. MW was not nearly good enough to do this and the two of them often ended up staring at each other stupidly with "I thought you had him" body language over a prone Bledsoe after one them was beaten by a stunt.

611809[/snapback]

 

Sullivan was a "vet"? Williams and Pucillo were drafted together. Pucillo was a natural guard. Sullivan was drafted 1 year earlier and was a college tackle.

 

What's bizarre is that you think counting on a guy drafted at #4 overall and who was one of the highest paid players on the team to step his game up one iota was in some way "bizarre" and unrealistic.

 

The fact is Sullivan wasn't very good and never saw any playing time on an NFL field again. The switch to Pucillo was a disaster, but at least Pucillo is still around and apparently making some strides (albeit with another team of course).

 

The suggestion that Fat Mike may have needed someone to hold his hand, spoon feed him, and coddle him says a lot actually.

[Sisyphean Bills]

No the point isn't who he was pushing around - the point is the effort and intensity he demonstrated on film in college, which he simply abandoned once he became a pro.  It happens - there are some guys who just don't love the game that much and are content to collect a few years of huge paychecks.  Hopefully he's invested it well.

611857[/snapback]

 

Sorry, but this seems to be self-contradictory. It takes less effort to beat someone that is not very good. It takes a great effort to beat someone that is great. I think the quality of who he went up against has a lot to do with how I'd evalutate his pancakes. Again, I'm not saying the pancakes are bad -- just that at 360+ pounds, he should have been pancaking junior leaguers all over the place. Mike Williams, in my opinion, is a bust because he is devoid of the drive and motivation necessary to excel against the best of the best.

[BADOLBILZ]

Boy I wish I had your crystal ball so that I could see for certains what would coulda shoulda happened if things were different than reality.

 

In fantasy land, maybe MCKinnie would have held out on the Bills or maybe he would not have.  It defiinitely takes two to fight so far be it from me to relieve the stupid Vikes from responsibility for the initial hold out of BM.  They have demonstrated with their lack of discipline on the team as shown by the party-boat incidents, by their HC getting dinged by the NFL for scalping SB tickets, and by the unfortunate death of one of their players to heat stroke that their middle name is neither effective management or character.

 

However, just as one cannot relieve MN of its reposponsibilities, one canot release BM from his.

 

Maybe the holdout was a principled stand on his part. OK.

 

But the indicitment against him for his acts on the sex boat move assessments of his character well into the fool me once shame on you, but fool me twice shame on me zone.

 

Given him also getting pulled over for some driving while drinking infraction, there are a few too many incidents of idiocy, juvemalia, and I want mine incidents that one cannot reasonably overlook the character issues for BM and his team.

611865[/snapback]

 

Actually, he's right. It was no secret that McKinnie was holding out because the Vikes wanted to break the pay scale. They were heavily criticized for it by the national media. It was a seven figure difference in the contract. I've seen you defend players for going for the money, so you're arguing this case makes no sense.

 

As for the sex boat nonsense, who cares. Bills players go to strip clubs and solicit prostitution all the time, who the hell are you kiddiing. It shows common sense, as opposed to knocking up a half dozen women and spending half your time and money in court. It's a victimless crime. DWI is not, but if you think for a moment that your favorite players don't do dumb things like that, you're out of your mind.

[dave mcbride]

I'd like to see the posts from Apr 02, to see where everyone stood on our picks at the time...

 

It's real easy to say something was a good or bad decision in retrospect.

611845[/snapback]

as a matter of fact, badolbilz was making the same argument in april 2002. i remember him doing it. the man knows of what he speaks.

[Sisyphean Bills]

A strange pattern in many of  Donahoe's high picks is that there were multiple reasons not to draft these guys at that point.  We've discussed Williams.  McGahee is not that much better.  RB's can be found at any point of the draft.  Willis had just had his knee WRECKED.  The Bills already had a 1400 yard rusher.  It made no sense, and the truth is he just got half lucky.  Wills made it back, but he isn't the explosive breakaway runner they thought they were getting.  Then of course, Roscoe and Reed.  Time and again, Donahoe seemed to outsmart himself with his cutesy picks.

611856[/snapback]

 

Agreed. Many of TD's moves make little sense to me.

 

BTW, my handle is a bit of a gag. I thought Willis was a great college player with the Canes. He was truly something special before the knee blew out. I was really shocked that TD, and especially GW, drafted a RB and an injured RB with no hope of playing at all that year, it being GW's make or break year and all. It never made any sense at all, other needs and Travis Henry coming off a Pro Bowl sort of season. And from GW's perspective, it was obviously a bonehead mistake, assuming he cared to remain HC in Buffalo.

[yall]

as a matter of fact, badolbilz was making the same argument in april 2002. i remember him doing it. the man knows of what he speaks.

611874[/snapback]

 

 

I wasn't referring to anyone specificaly. My original point through all of this is that the majority of writers, pundits, fans, etc., thought MW was a good pick at number 4.

[Ozymandius]

I wasn't referring to anyone specificaly. My original point through all of this is that the majority of writers, pundits, fans, etc., thought MW was a good pick at number 4.

611935[/snapback]

 

I disagree with that. I remember at the time this pick was very questionable. It's possible that 51% of the people approved of this pick, but it wasn't much more than that.

[Pyrite Gal]

Sullivan was a "vet"?  Williams and Pucillo were drafted together.  Pucillo was a natural guard.  Sullivan was drafted 1 year earlier and was a college tackle.

 

What's bizarre is that you think counting on a guy drafted at #4 overall and who was one of the highest paid players on the team to step his game up one iota was in some way "bizarre" and unrealistic.

 

The fact is Sullivan wasn't very good and never saw any playing time on an NFL field again.  The switch to Pucillo was a disaster, but at least Pucillo is still around and apparently making some strides (albeit with another team of course). 

 

The suggestion that Fat Mike may have needed someone to hold his hand, spoon feed him, and coddle him says a lot actually.

611867[/snapback]

 

Certainly compaed to the rookie MW, Sullivan who had started before in the NFL was a vet. My point was that I think having Sully beside him settled MW at least a little that he could in fact learn something from the RG. Things fell apart real quick though when MW was the guy with greater experience (given he was starting while Pacillo was inactive or sitting on the sidelines) and he was supposed to lead this coordination.

 

MW was not up to it and they screwed uo. Do you disagree?

 

It is interesting me that part of the improvement in MW's game after his meltdown in the "voluntary" minicamps he missed was that he was playing next tp a vet Villarial once he broke back into the line-up.

[Pyrite Gal]

Actually, he's right.  It was no secret that McKinnie was holding out because the Vikes wanted to break the pay scale.  They were heavily criticized for it by the national media.  It was a seven figure difference in the contract.  I've seen you defend players for going for the money, so you're arguing this case makes no sense.

 

As for the sex boat nonsense, who cares.  Bills players go to strip clubs and solicit prostitution all the time, who the hell are you kiddiing.  It shows common sense, as opposed to knocking up a half dozen women and spending half your time and money in court.  It's a victimless crime.  DWI is not, but if you think for a moment that your favorite players don't do dumb things like that, you're out of your mind.

611871[/snapback]

 

 

Cliff notes begin: I for one do not miss MW because of his poor play, but I also am very glad we do not have McKinnie given the problems we have seen in his brief career. Cliff notes end

 

The problem with McKinnie is not that he made one silly transgression and everybody (particularly pampered athletes) makes mistakes, it is that he repetitively is involved in various episodes that represent questionable character judgment or being a team player.

 

If we restrict this to mere football rather than personal assessments, it would even be another thing if he was all that great, but beyond pancaking his collegiate competition there really hasn't been a lot of noticeably great play from McKinnie.

 

If folks want to argue MW failed as a player and the Bill's made a bad choice picking him, there is little intelligent argument against this as he got cut and bye-bye.

 

I think folks conveniently want to ignore the whole set of occurences though when they seem to want to use the fact that MW was bad to claim that BM was an obviously better choice because he is great (he is not and has demonstrated play and actvities in his career that show the contrary) or that everybody said BM was a better choice back then (many or most did not in fact and numerous links are provided in this thread that say the opposite).

 

Even worse some arguers are trying to claim that picking MW made no sense because no RT is worth a #4, which is true but to try to make this claim and ignore the likelihood that TD and the gang chose him with the desire to flip him to LT is simply a silly argument.

 

I assume that folks who make this point do not want to get into a lengthy dissertation to claim that the theory that MW could make the flip successfully was a silly idea. It certainly was based on this never happening. However, it would take some lengthy arguments and a few points to attempt (unsuccessfully actually because the idea of pulling off this flip may well have worked based on the demographics and experience in college of MW, but its impossible to prove a negative) to prove this so I assume that the argument of an RT is not worth it is chosen because this silly point is easier to easier to argue against.

 

The key thing here is that MW was bad but this in no way means that BM is good. The best move if the Bills could have pulled it off was to trade down and get away from all the limited talent bums like MW, Harrington, and McKinnie.

 

I for one do not miss MW because of his poor play, but I also am very glad we do not have McKinnie given the problems we have seen in his brief career.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Simply put, this is not a sound argument. 

 

First of all, Jonas Jennings was entrenched as the Left Tackle after a superb rookie campaign.  Second, MW played right tackle during his entire collegiate career.  Those two facts together pretty much sealed his fate:  MW was going to be a right tackle for the forseeable future. 

 

Your repeated argument that BM is not a good player reminds me of Tom Donahoe pompously distributing articles illustrating BM's slow progress.  Saying that the best move was to trade down evades the real question posed in this thread.  At the time, the organization had already determined that it would not trade down and would use the #4 overall pick to address the o-line.  That being said, the best player to choose would have been Bryant McKinney.  Had the Bills drafted him, we wouldn't be having the coversation we are having today.  That's the bottom line.

I don't know about that. Had the Bills selected McKinnie at #4 overall and he got the same contract and played the way he's played in Minny, I think the Bills would be asking HIM to take a paycut as well, and seriously think about cutting him. McKinnie gets a reprieve in Minny mostly because his cap numbers are a little more palatable and there is a new coaching staff in place.

[Rico]

Simply put, this is not a sound argument. 

 

First of all, Jonas Jennings was entrenched as the Left Tackle after a superb rookie campaign. 

612210[/snapback]

JJ played RT as a rookie in 2001, & moved over to LT in 2002 after Fina's sorry ass finally left & MW joined the team.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

JJ played RT as a rookie in 2001, & moved over to LT in 2002 after Fina's sorry ass finally left & MW joined the team.

Didn't they try him at center first before putting him at LT? I seem to recall that. And yes he was put at LT after MW was drafted and they didn't want to start him at LT.

[Rico]

Didn't they try him at center first before putting him at LT?  I seem to recall that.  And yes he was put at LT after MW was drafted and they didn't want to start him at LT.

612372[/snapback]

IIRC, Teague was signed from Denver to play LT & the pre-training camp plan was to put JJ (jack-of-all-trades in college) at C. I don't remember what happened next, but soon after camp opened, JJ was at LT & Teague was at C (and none-too-pleased about being moved there).

[MadBuffaloDisease]

IIRC, Teague was signed from Denver to play LT & the pre-training camp plan was to put JJ (jack-of-all-trades in college) at C. I don't remember what happened next, but soon after camp opened, JJ was at LT & Teague was at C (and none-too-pleased about being moved there).

Yeah, it's coming back to me. JJ was tried at center and couldn't hack it, despite most predicting he'd be a great one. Hence the need to play Teague there, since he'd done it in college.

[Pyrite Gal]

Yeah, it's coming back to me.  JJ was tried at center and couldn't hack it, despite most predicting he'd be a great one.  Hence the need to play Teague there, since he'd done it in college.

612415[/snapback]

 

Right on target. The notion that JJ had a superb rookie season (like MW he had a good rookie season and showed promise) or that he was some how entrenched at LT at that point is a mere fantasy conjured in folks mind who are for various reasoms looking to:

 

1. attack MW (I agree was a failed player who did not work out in large part due to a lack of personal commitment and toughness) OR

 

2. Looking to indict TD as a total failure (I agree he deserved to be canned) OR

 

3. Want to claim that BM is a great (or simply very good) player and use the fact MW failed to support this claim (this I disagree with pretty much across the board since both MW and BM strike me as both would have been lousy choices by the Bills.

 

The fantasy of BM being a very good player has somehow grown to now include the contention that with BM on the left side and JJ on the right side these two would have anchored the Bills for a long time. This notion ignores the fact that at best JJ was an average pick by the Bills who simply proved to be too injury prone to be a worthwhile investment for the Bills (though the notion in the theory launched by Dawwg that JJ had a superb year at LT his rookie season is simply false so I do not know where it came from.

 

Boy the lengths people will go to try to improve that some conclusion was obvious and all one way or the other.

 

My posts are so long because I think that this complex situation is usually not extreme either way and my take is usually both very on one hand and on the other.

 

Folks seem to only take the one quote or part they disagree with, then inflate that to some exteme view even I disagree with and then claim I am all wrong. Believe me, despite the verbosity and the length I do not feel extremes generally on most football issues.

[Scraps]

Right on target.  The notion that JJ had a superb rookie season (like MW he had a good rookie season and showed promise) or that he was some how entrenched at LT at that point is a mere fantasy conjured in folks mind who are for various reasoms looking to:

 

1. attack MW (I agree was a failed player who did not work out in large part due to a lack of personal commitment and toughness) OR

 

2. Looking to indict TD as a total failure (I agree he deserved to be canned) OR

 

3. Want to claim that BM is a great (or simply very good) player and use the fact MW failed to support this claim (this I disagree with pretty much across the board since both MW and BM strike me as both would have been lousy choices by the Bills.

612434[/snapback]

 

I don't know that anyone has said that BM is a good player. All I've really seen is people claiming he is a better player than MW.

 

The fantasy of BM being a very good player has somehow grown to now include the contention that with BM on the left side and JJ on the right side these two would have anchored the Bills for a long time. This notion ignores the fact that at best JJ was an average pick by the Bills who simply proved to be too injury prone to be a worthwhile investment for the Bills (though the notion in the theory launched by Dawwg that JJ had a superb year at LT his rookie season is simply false so I do not know where it came from.

 

Who is claiming that? Aren't you doing what exactly what you are claiming everyone else is does in the following quote?

 

Folks seem to only take the one quote or part they disagree with, then inflate that to some exteme view even I disagree with and then claim I am all wrong.

 

Actually people are taking you to task because your criticism has little to do with on field performance. You are being taken to task in areas where you are wrong (contract holdouts) or simply don't matter (how does sex on a party boat translate to poor play on a football field?)

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Right on target.  The notion that JJ had a superb rookie season (like MW he had a good rookie season and showed promise) or that he was some how entrenched at LT at that point is a mere fantasy conjured in folks mind who are for various reasoms looking to...

Well to be fair, JJ DID have a superb rookie season. His future at RT was high and it was a great pick by TD. However with MW being a rookie and the Bills thinking JJ was a better option at LT than TT, they ended up making the switch. Had they drafted McKinnie, they likely would have played HIM at LT and kept JJ at RT, which might have worked out better. But as I said, given the same circumstances (being drafted 4th overall, same contract, same production as he's had in Minny), right now we'd be talking about what a bust McKinnie has been for the 4th overall, even though he is an average-at-best starter at LT.