Mckinnie is getting embarressed

[34-78-83]

Blind side hits cause turnovers, that change games. QB can't see it coming and can't get rid of the ball. Those plays change games.

I can't believe I'm even debating this with some of you.

 

It's complex, Bob.

110018[/snapback]

 

What you say is all true eyedog, but from a Coaches point of view, you don't ask your LT to block for a second longer than your RT.

 

Traditionally in a pro set offense the best DE would line up on the LT because the TE almost exclusively lined up on the right side of the offense AND because this was the Qb's blindside.

 

It should be readily apparent that a tackle (either side) blocking for Bledsoe has a tougher task than a tackle (either side) blocking for Culpepper.

[BuffaloBob]

Blind side hits cause turnovers, that change games. QB can't see it coming and can't get rid of the ball. Those plays change games.

I can't believe I'm even debating this with some of you.

 

It's complex, Bob.

110018[/snapback]

No Sh_iT Sherlock, and that makes the blind side more important, NOT HARDER! The reason you are still debating this is because you are dense. Importance doesn't mean harder. The blocking that goes on on the left side is no harder than the blocking on the right side, just perhaps more strategically important.

 

Maybe some day you can go see the wizard and he'll solve your little problem !

[Guest Guest_eyedog_*]

The point is the left tackle position is more difficult to play due to the fact they have the qb's blind side.

Now run along with your playmates and dig up some more stats. When some of you learn the game come back and say hello.

[Fezmid]

The point is the left tackle position is more difficult to play due to the fact they have the qb's blind side.

Now run along with your playmates and dig up some more stats. When some of you learn the game come back and say hello.

110051[/snapback]

 

Now, now, play nice.

 

You said blindside fumbles are the LTs fault. I showed you a stat that Culpepper had *23* fumbles in ONE SEASON. I also showed you that Culpepper has fumbled more than Bledsoe each and every year. Therefore (using your logic), their LT sucks.

 

And you're telling US to learn the game?

 

CW

[BuffaloBob]

The point is the left tackle position is more difficult to play due to the fact they have the qb's blind side.

110051[/snapback]

ROTFLMAFAO!!!

 

OK, so the blind side is more slippery? No wait, it's more dense? Is gravity greater on the blind side? Oh, I know, the force is greater on the right side!

 

No wait, it's hotter on the blind side,, or is it colder? Maybe it's wetter on the blind side, or is it darker? Well, it is the blind side so of course its darker!

 

What game are you talking about?

[34-78-83]

The point is the left tackle position is more difficult to play due to the fact they have the qb's blind side.

Now run along with your playmates and dig up some more stats. When some of you learn the game come back and say hello.

110051[/snapback]

 

You just said the same thing yet again.

It has nothing to do with stats either.

More difficult <> more important.

Two different concepts.

[Guest Guest_eyedog_*]

Left Tackle = more important and more difficult.

 

Go check your stats and let me know where Minny's offense is ranked ?

I guess DC is superman and nobody is blocking for him.

 

I'm done with this basic football debate involving the left and right sides. This is chapter -1 stuff.

 

What else do you guys need to be educated on ?

[Fezmid]

Left Tackle = more important and more difficult.

 

Go check your stats and let me know where Minny's offense is ranked ?

I guess DC is superman and nobody is blocking for him.

 

I'm done with this basic football debate involving the left and right sides. This is chapter -1 stuff.

 

What else do you guys need to be educated on ?

110091[/snapback]

 

 

CW

[Alaska Darin]

Now, now, play nice.

 

You said blindside fumbles are the LTs fault.  I showed you a stat that Culpepper had *23* fumbles in ONE SEASON.  I also showed you that Culpepper has fumbled more than Bledsoe each and every year.  Therefore (using your logic), their LT sucks.

 

And you're telling US to learn the game?

 

CW

110061[/snapback]

Yeah, but what were the number of offensive plays the Vikings ran during the span? What are the differences in pass attempts+sacked+run attempts by the players involved? That's really a better measure.

 

As one who is not fortunate enough to be able to rewatch games, I have to rely on my ability to pretty much watch everything at once.

 

Alot of the "Pro McKinnie/LT" arguments just don't hold water and haven't since Joe Gibbs introduced "explode package" into the game (and the expansion of it since). Multiple formations and tons of motion by different players before each snap have significantly changed OLine definitions from even 10 years ago.

[Alaska Darin]

Left Tackle = more important and more difficult.

 

Go check your stats and let me know where Minny's offense is ranked ?

I guess DC is superman and nobody is blocking for him.

 

I'm done with this basic football debate involving the left and right sides. This is chapter -1 stuff.

 

What else do you guys need to be educated on ?

110091[/snapback]

Let's try for a second to understand that this is a team sport and there are far more intangibles than you are allowing for.

 

Randy Moss makes Dante Culpepper look tremendous. It's no surprise that the Vikings have struggled mightily since Moss' injury limited his effectiveness. Last night was the aberration of that rule, mostly because they were playing the Colts (whose defense sucks more than John Madden covering the Cowboys).

[34-78-83]

Left Tackle = more important and more difficult.

 

Go check your stats and let me know where Minny's offense is ranked ?

I guess DC is superman and nobody is blocking for him.

 

I'm done with this basic football debate involving the left and right sides. This is chapter -1 stuff.

 

What else do you guys need to be educated on ?

110091[/snapback]

 

LOL! you give us what 10 to 20 posts of nothing and you expect us to see your way of thinking?

 

Some of us DID play the game (maybe not on the O-line but..) and are also students of it thankyou.

So just what would checking stats on Minny's offense rankings prove about the difficulty of playing tackle, or about a comparison between MW and BM???

Lots of air, no substance.......

[Fezmid]

Yeah, but what were the number of offensive plays the Vikings ran during the span?  What are the differences in pass attempts+sacked+run attempts by the players involved?  That's really a better measure.

 

As one who is not fortunate enough to be able to rewatch games, I have to rely on my ability to pretty much watch everything at once. 

 

Alot of the "Pro McKinnie/LT" arguments just don't hold water and haven't since Joe Gibbs introduced "explode package" into the game (and the expansion of it since).  Multiple formations and tons of motion by different players before each snap have significantly changed OLine definitions from even 10 years ago.

110105[/snapback]

 

2002 Attempts:

Culpepper: 549

Bledsoe: 610

 

2003 Attempts:

Culpepper: 454

Bledsoe: 471

 

2004 Attempts:

Culpepper: 277

Bledsoe: 221

 

So, Bledsoe had more attempts in both 2002 and 2003, although Culpepper had more fumbles. In 2004, Culpepper has thrown a lot more but has an extra fumble so are about even (roughly 1 fumble every 55 pass attempts).

 

BTW - Bledsoe has 62 rushes in that time, Culpepper has 224. Does that mean that Culpepper's OL sucks so bad that he is forced to run that much more?

 

CW

[Alaska Darin]

BTW - Bledsoe has 62 rushes in that time, Culpepper has 224.  Does that mean that Culpepper's OL sucks so bad that he is forced to run that much more?

 

CW

110127[/snapback]

I would say no. His ability to run is a strength and they use that to their advantage on 3rd down and less than five and when they are in the red zone. Drew just won't run, even when it's there (though this week he did and it was probably the game changing play).

[Fezmid]

I would say no.  His ability to run is a strength and they use that to their advantage on 3rd down and less than five and when they are in the red zone.  Drew just won't run, even when it's there (though this week he did and it was probably the game changing play).

110139[/snapback]

 

True, I'd agree with that for the most part (although the line does break down pretty frequently in the past; I havn't watched the Vikes all that much this year, but have the previous two years).

 

CW

[Rico]

Culpepper is prone to fumble the ball because he has small hands for an NFL quarterback.

[Garranimal]

Culpepper is prone to fumble the ball because he has small hands for an NFL quarterback.

110164[/snapback]

Small gloves too!

[Bill from NYC]

OK, so here is a the moral of the story:

 

1) Even though a LT has to hold his block longer than a RT, this is NOT harder to do. It is just "more important."

2) The fact that the best OTs are LTs means little or nothing. LT is not harder to play.

3) LTs make more money than RTs, but their jobs are equally as dificult.

4) Each and every GM drafts LTs first, but NOT because they are doing a harder job and need to be more agile. They just do it for no reason.

5) The vikes have the #1 offense in spite of McKinnie.

6) The Bills offense has sucked since Mike Williams came to town, but not because of him. He is worth 36 million dollars and has done a great job.

7) MW has only allowed 5 sacks this season, and they might not be his fault. He probably has not allowed much pressure either.

8) When he allowed sacks last year, it was the fault of Pucillo.

9) He only allowed sacks this year when he was out of shape, something he should not be blamed for.

10) Posters like Mark VI who were screaming for him to be a guard were wrong. MW is a prominent RT, and could play LT if called upon.

 

Now it is settled. I am going to join eyedog in stepping away from this lunacy.

[34-78-83]

OK, so here is a the moral of the story:

 

1) Even though a LT has to hold his block longer than a RT, this is NOT harder to do. It is just "more important."

2) The fact that the best OTs are LTs means little or nothing. LT is not harder to play.

3) LTs make more money than RTs, but their jobs are equally as dificult.

4) Each and every GM drafts LTs first, but NOT because they are doing a harder job and need to be more agile. They just do it for no reason.

5) The vikes have the #1 offense in spite of McKinnie.

6) The Bills offense has sucked since Mike Williams came to town, but not because of him. He is worth 36 million dollars and has done a great job.

7) MW has only allowed 5 sacks this season, and they might not be his fault. He probably has not allowed much pressure either.

8) When he allowed sacks last year, it was the fault of Pucillo.

9) He only allowed sacks this year when he was out of shape, something he should not be blamed for.

10) Posters like Mark VI who were screaming for him to be a guard were wrong. MW is a prominent RT, and could play LT if called upon.

 

Now it is settled. I am going to join eyedog in stepping away from this lunacy.

110345[/snapback]

 

1- no, a LT does not have to hold his block longer. That was never agreed on by any but one poster ( and I assume you too).

 

2- The best OT's are LT's because it's MORE IMPORTANT to have sound protection on the Qb's blindside.

 

3- No, because the are more often on an island with no TE AND see #2.

 

4- Each and every GM does not draft LT's first. See also #2

 

5- Mckinnie is a very good player, but has not necessarily out-performed MW over the course of their careers.

 

6- Mike has Always been a VERY good run blocker. His Pass blocking technique has improved a great deal this season.

 

7- I don't recall MW being responsible for 5 sacks this year, and I doubt the Bills do either.

 

8- Some of them were yes

 

9- You can blame him for that all you want. I couldn't argue if you did.

 

10- I agree that he'd make a very good guard in our current scheme.

[BuffaloBob]

OK, so here is a the moral of the story:

 

1) Even though a LT has to hold his block longer than a RT, this is NOT harder to do. It is just "more important."

2) The fact that the best OTs are LTs means little or nothing. LT is not harder to play.

3) LTs make more money than RTs, but their jobs are equally as dificult.

4) Each and every GM drafts LTs first, but NOT because they are doing a harder job and need to be more agile. They just do it for no reason.

5) The vikes have the #1 offense in spite of McKinnie.

6) The Bills offense has sucked since Mike Williams came to town, but not because of him. He is worth 36 million dollars and has done a great job.

7) MW has only allowed 5 sacks this season, and they might not be his fault. He probably has not allowed much pressure either.

8) When he allowed sacks last year, it was the fault of Pucillo.

9) He only allowed sacks this year when he was out of shape, something he should not be blamed for.

10) Posters like Mark VI who were screaming for him to be a guard were wrong. MW is a prominent RT, and could play LT if called upon.

 

Now it is settled. I am going to join eyedog in stepping away from this lunacy.

110345[/snapback]

Nice exaggerated for effect post!

 

I think 34-78-83 made a nice response, so I will not do so on a point-by-point basis. However, I agree with hiim that there is no basis for stating that a LT has to hold his block longer. That is nonesense.

 

Of course the best tackles have been LTs historically. It is strategcially more important because of the possible injury one can do to a QB who is blind-sided. But that doesn't make his block more difficult, now does it? And of course, all things being equal, you will draft the better tackle for the blind side because of its strategic importance. And naturally, you will pay the higher draft choice more money. Once again, paying a guy more money and putting the better player there DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that the job is HARDER.

 

If you have a choice between two guys, one of whom will give up 10 sacks per year and another who will give up 20, of course you put the guy who gives up 10 on the blind side. Not because the job is harder but because you don't want your QB taking 10 more blind shots per year.

 

And regardless of how you shake it out, MW has improved immensely so far this year. And I'm sure McKinnie hasn't yielded ANY pressure on Culpepper this year, excpet for the game last night of course.

 

Look Bill, you and Badol and Eyedog can suck McKinnie's dick all day long for all I care, and you can bash MW in between slurps. It ain't gonna change a damn thing.

 

Mike has improved and McKinnie ain't all that.

 

The funny thing is, there are many who would consider the crap your peddling to be the lunacy here!

[Bill from NYC]

Nice exaggerated for effect post!

 

I think 34-78-83 made a nice response, so I will not do so on a point-by-point basis.  However, I agree with hiim that there is no basis for stating that a LT has to hold his block longer.  That is nonesense.

 

Of course the best tackles have been LTs historically.  It is strategcially more important because of the possible injury one can do to a QB who is blind-sided.  But that doesn't make his block more difficult, now does it?  And of course, all things being equal, you will draft the better tackle for the blind side because of its strategic importance.  And naturally, you will pay the higher draft choice more money.  Once again, paying a guy more money and putting the better player there DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that the job is HARDER.

 

If you have a choice between two guys, one of whom will give up 10 sacks per year and another who will give up 20, of course you put the guy who gives up 10 on the blind side.  Not because the job is harder but because you don't want your QB taking 10 more blind shots per year.

 

And regardless of how you shake it out, MW has improved immensely so far this year.  And I'm sure McKinnie hasn't yielded ANY pressure on Culpepper this year, excpet for the game last night of course.

 

Look Bill, you and Badol and Eyedog can suck McKinnie's dick all day long for all I care, and you can bash MW in between slurps.  It ain't gonna change a damn thing.

 

Mike has improved and McKinnie ain't all that.

 

The funny thing is, there are many who would consider the crap your peddling to be the lunacy here!

110592[/snapback]

 

BB, many times I have stated that I respect your knowledge of football. I still do. This is a point on which we disagree, but there is really no reason for that kind of a !@#$ed up remark. What the !@#$ are you thinking dude?

Imo, this topic is no longer worthy of discussion, certainly not on this thread. Most of our disagreement is probably based on semantics anyway, and we have bored other posters long enough.

I am NOT being holier than thou, so save the accusations, but I am proud that it was not me who told Badolbilz that he was full of stevestojan, let alone the stupid, insulting stevestojan you just posted.

Seriously, I thought WAY more of you.