Rico Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 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. 110592[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 LOL. Thats good Bob. Bill you respect this clowns knowledge of football, you know better than that. Just read his posts, he is one of, if not the, dumbest poster here. In football and life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Look, for the record, I don't think anyone involved here is stupid. I just think that (personal aquaintances aside) broad and bold statements made regarding the career performance of a player should be backed up with more than , well nothing , regardless of one's apparent "status". I have learned things on this board that have changed my view on players just like we all have, and sometimes one's reluctance to accept realities even when based on proveable examples can become a blindfold of sorts to them, or to any clarity they may have missed. Reagardless of the differences felt here, I'm sure there are just as many Bills related topics we all would agree on, and I'm always happy to support any point that I feel has a foundation in fact, no matter who the poster is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Stubborn, stupid...it's hard to tell the difference sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 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. 110620[/snapback] You are right, and I apologize to you. I guess I am frustrated with this never-ending stream of opinionated crap that flows around here regarding our players, and their ability and level of play, from people who have no real clue, and especially the fact that it doesn't end or even become tempered when they have actually improved their play significantly. I at least give Rico some credit for admitting the obvious, instead of insisting on the negative position for the sake of it, or to avoid admitting something positive. For example, Opie Wanton never posts here unless it is to bash Drew. He will go through whatever gyration is necessary to turn any positive about Drew into a negative, to the point that he is an utter joke. As for Badol, he never misses an opportunity (nor do you for that matter), to bash Mike and support his opinion that we should have drafted McKinnie. And frankly, the fact that it is HIS exalted opinion does nothing for me because it is still unsupported opinion. So when I read your post which misstates and exaggerates most of the positions argued on this thread as a means for disingenuously supporting your position that what was argued here was lunacy, I guess I lost it. Frankly, I found your post an incredibly disinegenous and self-indulgent attempt to support an untenable position, as well as insulting. It is the sort of thing I would expect from eyedog, but not you! Actually, come to think of it, that was way too complex for eyedog. But at least he doesn't know any better. Notwithstanding, my exaggerated and rather graphic depiction of the hoops that you seem willing to jump through to support this position to the end was in bad taste. For that I do apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 LOL. Thats good Bob. Bill you respect this clowns knowledge of football, you know better than that. Just read his posts, he is one of, if not the, dumbest poster here. In football and life. 110776[/snapback] You never seem the least bit concerned about revealing your lack intelligence, do you? When you can actually support you positions without resort to tautology and circular reasoning, then perhaps you might legitimately pass on someone else's knowledge and intelligence. Until then, take my word for it, you actually would be best served keeping such assessments to yourself. Unless of course you really don't mind proudly shouting to the world: "Hey everybody, I AM in fact a dumbass!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonz Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 WOW, this post is turning into a shoot-out, a regular OK Corral. Can't we all just get along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I know I'm late in the debate and will probably fall on deaf ears but: Courtesy of CNNSI Offensive tackle -- The OL may be the most complex position to fill because all five positions require different skills. There are some subtle differences between the qualifications of a LOT and a ROT. The LOT has to be the best athlete on the OL. He usually lines up on the weak side with no help from the TE and is blocking the defense's best pass rusher, who is usually smaller and quicker. Most of the time he is also protecting the QB's blind side and he must have range and feet to protect his QB. He should also be an adequate run blocker, but most LOTs are more finesse rather than explosive power players. The ROT is usually a little more physical because he is more involved in the run game. Most teams are right handed and tend to run over the ROT. He doesn't have to be quite as gifted as a pass protector because in many cases he has a TE lined up next to him. One of the mis-evaluations that happens to an ROT is that people assume that he must be a physical guy and doesn't necessarily have to have great feet and quickness. But TEs can go in motion or switch to the other side, which makes the ROT on an "island" protecting the outside. He still needs to have strength and size because the DE that he is playing over is a little more physical than the one on the other side. One of the most common mistakes made drafting or acquiring FA ROTs is not paying enough attention to the athletic ability and feet True this debate has been mainly about Big Mike vs MicKinnie perhaps instead the debate should be: Big Mike vs Jonas Jennings at ROT and/or Jonas Jennings vs McKinnie at LOT. Looking closely here's a comparison of McKinnie, Jennings and Williams' stats year by year: The first number being sacks allowed, the second games played. Season JJ MW BM 2001 0/12 N/A N/A 2002 7.5/15 7.5/14 4.75/8 2003 2.0/11 9.5/13 11/16 2004 3.5/6 4.0/8 5.5/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 13/44 21/35 21.25/32 I was and still am pro McKinnie over Williams; of course going solely by numbers it would appear that Jennings is a far better LOT then McKinnie. Yet, if want to get real critical; the best plan of attack actually might have been trading down (hopefully for a 1st and a 2nd) and selecting (with the 1st) Mike Pearson, who's played LOT and given up 12 sacks in 36 games with the Jags. Now assuming we get an additional 2nd; we could say for sake of arguement that we still take Josh Reed and Ryan Denney, however this time we are not trading up to get him but rather as part of the package of moving from 4th overall which thus lets us hold onto our 3rd Round and 4th Round picks. This could of let us select QB Luke McNown (and possibly never traded for Bledsoe inturn never getting McGahee and/or guys like Milloy or Spikes. As don't think Peerless has the great year he did that first year with Bledsoe had we gone with McNown instead (and Atlanta wouldn't fork over a 1st to sign him. Granted we still could of taken McGahee with our original pick if it wasn't traded for Bledsoe. Yet I really don't think Milloy or Spikes would come here if we had used a rookie QB (McNown) in 2002 and/or planned on going with him in 2003. TE Randy McMichael would have been nice though with our 4th Round pick. Granted, in reality I think if we did trade down, we would of taken QB Patrick Ramsey with our 1st pick. I say that as recall TD stating we would of taken him if he was there if Washington never took him. Anyways, with all that said, it's fun playing hindsight but the truth is no one really knows exactly how different things would be had we taken McKinnie instead of Williams, as I just outlined some possible scenarios, the truth is there are even more then one can imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I know I'm late in the debate and will probably fall on deaf ears but: Courtesy of CNNSI True this debate has been mainly about Big Mike vs MicKinnie perhaps instead the debate should be: Big Mike vs Jonas Jennings at ROT and/or Jonas Jennings vs McKinnie at LOT. Looking closely here's a comparison of McKinnie, Jennings and Williams' stats year by year: The first number being sacks allowed, the second games played. I was and still am pro McKinnie over Williams; of course going solely by numbers it would appear that Jennings is a far better LOT then McKinnie. Yet, if want to get real critical; the best plan of attack actually might have been trading down (hopefully for a 1st and a 2nd) and selecting (with the 1st) Mike Pearson, who's played LOT and given up 12 sacks in 36 games with the Jags. Now assuming we get an additional 2nd; we could say for sake of arguement that we still take Josh Reed and Ryan Denney, however this time we are not trading up to get him but rather as part of the package of moving from 4th overall which thus lets us hold onto our 3rd Round and 4th Round picks. This could of let us select QB Luke McNown (and possibly never traded for Bledsoe inturn never getting McGahee and/or guys like Milloy or Spikes. As don't think Peerless has the great year he did that first year with Bledsoe had we gone with McNown instead (and Atlanta wouldn't fork over a 1st to sign him. Granted we still could of taken McGahee with our original pick if it wasn't traded for Bledsoe. Yet I really don't think Milloy or Spikes would come here if we had used a rookie QB (McNown) in 2002 and/or planned on going with him in 2003. TE Randy McMichael would have been nice though with our 4th Round pick. Granted, in reality I think if we did trade down, we would of taken QB Patrick Ramsey with our 1st pick. I say that as recall TD stating we would of taken him if he was there if Washington never took him. Anyways, with all that said, it's fun playing hindsight but the truth is no one really knows exactly how different things would be had we taken McKinnie instead of Williams, as I just outlined some possible scenarios, the truth is there are even more then one can imagine. 110876[/snapback] That's all well and good, but I seem to remember reading that TD attempted to trade down from #4 and was unable to find a willing partner. Some people also believe that TD would have taken Harrington at #4 if Detroit had not picked him at #3. I konw it's probably not the popular opinion around here, but in the long run I think we were better trading for Drew. Like you said, his presense here allowed us to get a 1st for Price and probably legitimized the team to the point that it was an attractive situation for high profile free agents like Spikes and Milloy. He was essentially a "free" pickup, essentially paying for himself by making Price's numbers that much better in his contract year. For TD, the McGahee pick is just icing on the cake. The jury's still out on Big Mike, but he's definately improving. But TD haters will always hate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 You are right, and I apologize to you. I guess I am frustrated with this never-ending stream of opinionated crap that flows around here regarding our players, and their ability and level of play, from people who have no real clue, and especially the fact that it doesn't end or even become tempered when they have actually improved their play significantly. I at least give Rico some credit for admitting the obvious, instead of insisting on the negative position for the sake of it, or to avoid admitting something positive. For example, Opie Wanton never posts here unless it is to bash Drew. He will go through whatever gyration is necessary to turn any positive about Drew into a negative, to the point that he is an utter joke. As for Badol, he never misses an opportunity (nor do you for that matter), to bash Mike and support his opinion that we should have drafted McKinnie. And frankly, the fact that it is HIS exalted opinion does nothing for me because it is still unsupported opinion. So when I read your post which misstates and exaggerates most of the positions argued on this thread as a means for disingenuously supporting your position that what was argued here was lunacy, I guess I lost it. Frankly, I found your post an incredibly disinegenous and self-indulgent attempt to support an untenable position, as well as insulting. It is the sort of thing I would expect from eyedog, but not you! Actually, come to think of it, that was way too complex for eyedog. But at least he doesn't know any better. Notwithstanding, my exaggerated and rather graphic depiction of the hoops that you seem willing to jump through to support this position to the end was in bad taste. For that I do apologize. 110864[/snapback] Cool. Condider it completely over. Btw, I have been on this board for years screaming for 1st round linemen at most positions, including OG. Hutchinson and Steinbach are 2 examples. I was glad when they took MW because at least he did play on the OL, but no, he was not my first choice. Big deal. I root as much for MW as does anyone here. The Bills need great things from him (partially due to his cap hit) to be a winning team. I didn't want Clements. I wanted Hutchinson, but I cheer for Clements each week too (and that time, I was dead wrong. The Bills needed a cb). I too have been frustrated, but for obviously different reasons. At least we both are seeing the OL starting to play better, and that is the good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 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. Yes Bob you are in fact a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Cool. Condider it completely over. Btw, I have been on this board for years screaming for 1st round linemen at most positions, including OG. Hutchinson and Steinbach are 2 examples. I was glad when they took MW because at least he did play on the OL, but no, he was not my first choice. Big deal. I root as much for MW as does anyone here. The Bills need great things from him (partially due to his cap hit) to be a winning team. I didn't want Clements. I wanted Hutchinson, but I cheer for Clements each week too (and that time, I was dead wrong. The Bills needed a cb). I too have been frustrated, but for obviously different reasons. At least we both are seeing the OL starting to play better, and that is the good news. 110938[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I know I'm late in the debate and will probably fall on deaf ears but: 110876[/snapback] As I have been saying, the TE is almost never helping the RT anymore, and this article acknowledges this. What the article does not recognize is that the day when the LT is lined up against the best past rusher is also gone. Also, this notion that most teams run to their right is also obsolete. I wish we'd run more to our right than our left. We have much more success that way. Once again and for the final time, yes you want your best OL athlete on the blind side. YES, this is because your QB taking hits from the blind side is much worse than taking them from the other. But that doesn't make the job any HARDER, just more strategically important from a pass protection standpoint. BTW, where did you get the sacks allowed stats? If I recall, the sacks allowed stats I saw for McKinnie and Williams from a different source were much worse for 2003. However, I had figured worse case that Mike had allowed 5 this year in 8 games, and said I thought one was actually a Price sack. So for this year, those stats would seem accurate. Perhaps these guys did a bit more analysis and didn't credit Mike with sacks allowed that were someone else's fault on say blitz pick-ups etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ....drz/index.html And what's with LT Bryant McKinnie anyway? Indy's Dwight Freeney went by him like the A train at 135th St. I have yet to see that guy have a good game. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Get a left-handed QB and make the steal of the draft by tapping a neglected RT that is a pass-protection monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 BTW, where did you get the sacks allowed stats? If I recall, the sacks allowed stats I saw for McKinnie and Williams from a different source were much worse for 2003. However, I had figured worse case that Mike had allowed 5 this year in 8 games, and said I thought one was actually a Price sack. So for this year, those stats would seem accurate. Perhaps these guys did a bit more analysis and didn't credit Mike with sacks allowed that were someone else's fault on say blitz pick-ups etc. 111265[/snapback] Here's a link to my source for sacks allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 LT is a more important position then RT(when the qb is right handed).....Not a harder position...You put your best Tackle at the position cause more times then not a QB fumbles by being hit from his blindside....making it more important not harder position to play.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 People can bash Dr. Z all they want, he's not a great writer, but he knows more about football and watches more games and breaks down more tapes than anybody this side of Jaws. From a mailbag a few weeks ago: Andy of St. Paul, Minn., credits the success of the Minnesota runners, including Mewelde Moore, whom I praised so highly, to the proficiency of the offensive line. Oh, it's good all right, with one exception. I don't like LT Bryant McKinnie at all, and he was drafted higher than any of them. I would have liked him to go into greater detail about what he doesn't like about Mckinnie…hopefully he’ll do so in the future. As for my take on this issue, I've watched every Vikings game this year that wasn't on opposite of the Bills (Culpepper is on my fantasy team)...and McKinnie has been anything but impressive. The guy isn't quick enough out of his stance to stop speed rushers (as we witnessed Monday night) and Culpepper constantly faces pressure from that side...even when Culpepper isn't sacked if he takes off running it's almost always because of pressure from his back side. People can bash MW all they want, hey, it's in fashion, but he is by far the best run blocker we have on this team. It's amazing how much more successful we are running behind him to the right than we are to the left. People want a top 4 guy to come in and dominate and MW didn't, so he gets ragged on...I'll admit, much of it is deserved, but not all of it. The guy is making strides this year and seems to be steadily improving (and anybody notice how he is rarely called for penalties...probably not). Who knows if he'll ever be the dominant guy we all want him to be...but I have a feeling that even if he was there would be people on here lauding McKinnie because they have a need to be "right" about who they wanted to draft. Bottom line is both McKinnie and MW have been disappointments...at least MW is dominant in one aspect of his game, McKinnie's run blocking is nothing to write home about either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts