Mickey

I'm not so sure that Mike had such a great year last year or that McKinne had such a lousy one. Keeping in mind the patsie laced schedule we had, our offense ranked 26th overall and theirs ranked 2nd. We did better on the ground bin the aggregate but only by a whopping total of 51 yards over 16 games. The Vikings actually averaged 4.7 yards per carry as opposed to our 3.9 yards. Both teams gave up 1 sack per every 12 attempts. This is a team game so stats like these aren't the best at measuring performance but in terms of objective evidence, it is more than zero and more than I have seen offered that Mike had a great year or that McKinne had a lousy year. For perspective, lets see what our counterparts at a Vikings site are saying: "...maybe McKinney isn't at the same level as McDaniel, but he's close and he's still improving." "If I had to grade them I'd say: T-Mike Rosenthal B- T-Bryant McKinnie B+ (with A+ potential)..." "...but who do we have that is reliable? Mckinney is the only one..." "McKinney did not start out last year very well but by the end of the year was kicking some serious butt. He was also playing hurt last year! From what I am hearing around here this spring he is looking better than he ever has." [sound familiar?] On top of this you also have to consider that Mike is playing RT, a position not nearly as critical or difficult to play as is LT where BM plays. I wouldn't trade Mike for BM given his attitude and headaches but on the field where it matters, I'm not convinced there is much of a difference. Do you have some objective evidence that BM is far more maxed out on his potential than is big Mike? Or that Mike had a much better year than BM did?

Maybe so but was he really so very bad on his own that an entire year in the NFL with a less than standout OL coach was entirely worthless in terms of experience? I think its fair to say that neither of those two guys have maxed out their ability yet. I am giving McKinne an edge on the "still untapped talent" issue because he basically missed an entire year and a whole year's worth of experience in the league, even with a sub-par coach, is, imho, worth more than sitting home watching the year go by.

You are missing a whole year bud. This will be his fourth year. I did not say that we have seen his limits, I just pointed out that there is more reason to suspect that McKinne has additional room for improvement than big Mike. McKinne has really only played 2 years, Mike has played three. By the way, the year he showed up out of shape, skipped all the OTA's and was a basket case to boot was his third year, not his second. Yikes.

The Becker County Minnesota District Atty (Joseph Evans) recommended bail be set at $25,000, they did not, repeat: did not, recommend that he be held without bail. As for the posts blaming the ACLU and liberals in general for this tragic crime, will you also be asking those posters about their facts?

Believe me, I am the last one to be critical of an over long post. I don't think big Mike has necessarily peaked yet but he has to carry some of the blame for not having done so. He showed up last year out of shape, skipped the OTA's and was an emotional basket case to boot. Given the millions he is getting paid and how high he was drafted, there is no excuse for that. If we are going to fault McKinnie for a business decision like holding out, certainly we can't give Mike a free pass for what he did last off season. I don't discount the possibility that Mike may be ready to play LT at some point but this assessment is being made now and right now, he apparently isn't good enough to play LT. The point of the article is to evaluate the draft picks made by teams that year three years down the road. On that basis, we drafted a RT too high or have selected a future LT who still can't play LT. Either way, one can conclude that Mike Williams has not been the player we thought we were getting. Maybe it will ultimately work out but I guarantee, if someone told TD that Williams would not be good enough to play LT until his 5th year, he would have drafted someone else. Maybe that is a good way to evaluate the pick, knowing what we know now, would you draft him that hightly all over again and pay him that kind of money? If you could trade Mike Williams for Dwight Freeney right now, would you?

The ACLU had nothing to do with this guy but sure, go ahead and blame them anyway. He did 20 years on one offense so no one kept him out of jail and when he got out everyone was told of his presence in their neighborhood so no one kept his identity secret. He did it again and was released pending trial when he met bail. The DA involved apparently did not press for denial of bail. Why do I see post after post with stereotypical rants about liberals and the ACLU and not a wiff of a complaint about the District Attorney who stood before the Judge during the bail hearing and said nothing? I guess exploiting tragic crimes for political gain is no longer considered shameful and addressing the real problems associated with this terrible case not worth the time to go beyond catch phrase rants. This was in Idaho for crying out loud. All that DA had to do was tell the Judge the guy did 20 years for raping a 14 year old and no sooner was he out, he gets nabbed again. "Judge, if he is convicted again he will be going to jail for a long, long time and therefore will have nothing to lose in committing additional offenses while awaiting trial on these new charges" is what the DA should have argued. "Clearly your honor, he is a threat to the community and a flight risk." If the DA made that argument, I guarantee you that the Judge would have ordered him held without bail. Just another story of an underpaid, overworked government employee who let one get by him with tragic results. There are ways to fix that problem but that would entail some hard work, making difficult choices and *gasp* spending some money. Its much easier to blame political bogeymen like liberals and the ACLU.

It's hard to argue with most of these assessments. I would point out that McKinnie hasn't really had three years since his first was a bust. There is probably more reason to think he has not yet peaked as compared to Williams and Jones who likely are playing as good as they are ever going to. Another thing to consider when it comes to big Mike, I would think that drafting him as high as we did, it was thought that he would ultimately be playing LT, not RT. Certainly, the many debates we had on the board with regard to who we should take that year often revolved around that issue. My recollection is that most took it as a given that he was eventually going to be moved to LT. Either he hasn't played well enough for that to happen or it was never really the plan to begin with. If that is the case, we either drafted him too high for a guy slated to play RT or we drafted him too high given his inability to improve enough to play LT as was planned. At the time, I was not very high on him because he hadn't played on the left side. Those who disagreed pointed out that he only played on the right in college because their QB was a lefty. I believed then and believe now that the skill sets needed at LT and RT are not the same and not easily interchangeable. "Poppycock", I was told. Given this issue, I might not rate him as favorably as others. Don't get me wrong on big Mike, I like him and have plenty of hope that he is going to play even better. Though not entirely behind his selection, I have often defended him here. I think they are spot-on when it comes to Freeney. In retrospect, he probably should have been the top pick in that draft or at least in the top 3 or 4. He is a rare talent, a solid individual and a real playmaker. At this level, there are not many guys so good that they force teams to change what they are doing. Freeney is that good in my opinion. He is on a pretty weak defense and yet still manages to stand out. Imagine how destructive he would be on a more balanced team. He reminds me a little of Bruce and LT. No offensive game plan can ignore him, they have to give him special attention. I think some of teams who passed him up wish they hadn't.

You are comparing a conflict between nation states with a conflict between nations and terrorists. They are not the same. Terrorists do not hold territory, they do not defend cities or encampments. They do not even have the courtesy to wear a uniform so we know who they are. At least the Germans and the Japanese were decent enought to wear uniforms. I am all for killing every terrorist on sight. Just give me their names and addresses, all of them and I will join right in. The problem isn't that we aren't tough enough. Needles in haystacks, that is the problem.

Was stating the view that military operations alone will not stop terrorism and that ultimately a political solution will have to be involved a smart ass comment? Was it name calling? Was it sarcastic? "Wading into the muck"?? How so? It's not like it is some sort of revolutionary statement on tactics or anything. Heck, DC Tom made the same point to me over two years ago in the lead up to the Iraq war which I supported. I don't get the rules here so maybe you could explain. Is it okay to be sarcastic and disrespectful in a response even if the post your responding to wasn't? Is the standard whether or not the postion stated is one you agree with or not? Given the smart ass reply I got, was I justified in giving it back to him or to protect myself from your approbrium was it necessary for me to turn the other cheek? I'm sorry but I believe my initial post was neither insulting, sarcastic, a personal attack nor even an overheated rhetorical salvo. It was simply stating a point which many, even on the right agree with, that military operations alone will not stop terrorism. The responses I got from quite a few were sarcastic, insulting and personal. I responded in kind. On that record, you chose to chastise me while you let the rest pass without comment. I used to ignore that stuff for the sake of trying to get through the name calling to a real debate but after several years of it, I gave up. I stay away from the board for that reason but when a topic on the TSW gets moved, I stay with it and don't hesitate to respond in kind.

Military operations alone will not work, ultimately, a political solution is what is necessary. From that view, respectfully, I don't think it is fair to conclude that I think we should just say "aww shucks" and walk away hoping it doesn't happen again. Ask yourself the question, will military operations alone stop al Queda? It hasn't stopped terrorism in Israel. It hasn't stopped terrorism in Iraq. It hasn't stopped terrorism in Russia. I just don't think it works. Bad news, I know but don't blame the messenger. If we don't agree on the premise, that military operations alone won't stop terrorism, then there is no real point in discussing the alternatives and the role force might play in whatever solution there is out there to this mess. That is the next discussion, the first is whether military operations, the actions of armies, navies and other organized forces, can stop terrorism. If you think it can, tell me how. If you agree that it can't, then lets talk about what political options might work or how the use of forces and diplomacy together might be more effective.

Perfect, you disprove his accusation that the board is nothing but the same trite political views over and over again by blaming the ACLU because a wack job in Idaho killed and molested kids. Why not toss in a few "tax and spend", "free love" or "activist judge" references to slam it home how insightful the debates are around here?

Why don't you read the sarcastic reply that comment was in response to before giving advice? If you are going to be critical of that kind of thing, at least be fair about it and recognize who fired the first shot. I don't think pointing out the long, long history of military operations failing to stop terrorism is either reactionary or naive. Perhaps worse is the pollyannish belief that military operations will work, everything is just hunky-dory and the insurgency is in its "last throes". The idea that military operations will not stop terrorism is supported by way too much evidence, historical and contemporary, to categorize it as a reactionary view based just on todays events. My main point that military operations won't stop terrorism and ultimately, a political solution will be necessary is not just my own view. The US military seems to agree hence their willingness to meet with insurgency leaders and to incorporate them, if they are willing, into the political process in Iraq. If you read back throught the posts, you will see that my initial observation was just that and the response it engendered was accusations of appeasment, abandonment of Israel and similar crap.

uh...actually one point of the post was that oil is critical, a vital national interest worth fighting for. "...walking to work..." was just a short hand reference to our reliance. As for not going to Bali, yeah, that is exactly what I would do and it also happens to be exactly what the State Department does whenever there is a civil war or other violent unrest in other parts of the world, they announce travel restrictions until it all blows over. You make it sound like we would perish as a nation if we didn't go to Bali for 6 months while a civil war played out. Oil is a vital national interest. Vacationing in Bali or Madrid isn't. The answer for Israel is what it has always been, a political solution to the Palestinian problem. Israeli's know that and have tried to reach one over and over but there has been no one minding the store on the other side for them to deal with. They can't negotiate with a madman and that is the only choice they have had. Hopefully that is changing. I resent your implication that I was advocating leaving Israel to its own. I NEVER said that, never would. My point isn't that we should pull out of the middle east, it is that we can't pull out because of the oil and because we can't, these attacks will go on and on. I'd love to believe that simply using a bigger hammer would stop them but I don't believe that at all. Today's attacks and the history of terrorism underscores that uncomfortable reality.

Right, and your response was respectful, insightful, designed to stimulate intelligent debate without even a hint of sarcasm, right? Typical, you post a snickering reply and then pull your skirts up and run when you get what you dish right back. If you want to cut the crap and really discuss this, let me know.

I have not advocated forswearing the use of force against terrorists, just pointed out the starkly obvious: military operations will not stop terrorism. If you disagree, please submit your military plan to stop terrorism to the governments of the United States, Great Britian, Spain, Russia and Israel. I am sure they would love to hear it, you must know something they don't. Chamberlain faced a different situation. Nazi Germany was a state, a nation, a government. Military operations work very, very well against states, nations and governments. Unfortunately, terrorists are not goverments are they? They are not protecting territory, they have no real geography do they? Surely you appreciate the difference between the armies of nation states clashing over territory and the struggle against terrorism. They are entirely different conflicts requiring different strategies. I don't advocate appeasment, far from it. I do find it interesting however that by simply pointing out how ineffective military operations are against terrorist attacks, I am attacked as an appeaser. Quite a leap in logic there. Why must so many of you go into hyper hawk drive at the first sign of anyone suggesting other ways of fighting and winning the war on terrorism?

Are you really that stupid that you could misread that post that much? Who said anything about not going after these people? All I pointed out is that it won't put an end to terrorism. Isn't that pretty obvious? Has any nation attacked by determined terrorists been able to stop it with military operations alone? Is oil a factor? Until Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Suadi Arabia, did we give a fig about what he was doing to his own people? Not hardly, he was an ally back then. What was the difference? Was it our love for the peaceable people of Kuwait or our philosophical brotherhood with the royal family of Saudi Arabia or, did it possibly have something to do with a threat to our vital oil supplies? Hmmmmm, gee I'm stumped, why don't you explain it. These whacks have made it very clear what they want, a new pan-Arab Caliphate and to do that they need to overthrow the house of Saud, Mubarak and the rest. They don't think they can do that as long as those governments have our support. So, they attack us. Military operations won't stop these kinds of attacks. Russia is not known for its devotion to civil liberties or military restraint yet it has not stopped Chechen "rebels" from carrying out terrorist attacks. I think oil is a great reason to go to war. One of the best I've ever heard. Our economy and standard of living depends on it. The price though is having to be knee deep in the most politically, culturally backward and unstable areas in the world. If we didn't need their oil, if it wasn't vital to our national interests we would not have to be there. We could deal with their turmoil and self destruction the same way we did in Rwanda, the Balkans and the Sudan. That is, do what we can without putting our own people at risk until things die down and the risks of involvement become acceptably low. If Saudis revolted against the royal family, would you send American troops to die in Mecca to keep Saudi Princes in power? Would we have a choice given our dependence on Saudi oil? If you really believe that our involvement in middle east politics beginning long before 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq or todays events, had and has nothing to do with oil, a position so palpably ridiculous I can't believe we are even discussing it, please explain to me the reasons for our staunch support of the Saudi royal family. Would it be the common ground we share with them on human rights? Could it be that they are a democracy? Could it be their support of Israel? Could it be their support of religious freedom? Explain to me the insignificance of oil in geopolitical struggles. This I gotta hear.

Ask Russia or even Israel how well that has worked for them. You simply can't stop some enraptured jihadist from stuffing some plastic explosive in his crotch and running into a school or maternity ward or bus or subway station or stadium or goodness knows where else. Just using a bigger and bigger hammer will not do it. Shelby Foote (rest his soul) used to tell the story of a Union soldier and a Confederate soldier somewhere in the south talking to eachother one night by shouting across the battlefield. "Hey Reb", the Yank called, "Why are you fighting?" he asked. "Because you're HERE" he answered. They want us out of the middle east, not just our troops but our weapons, our political support, the regimes we lend our weight to, everything. If we did that, we would not be attacked but we would have to walk to work. For now, we have no choice.

No, I don't think we minimize anything. If you are attacked by a swarm of bees, even if you kill hundreds, you are still screwed. History shows that these kinds of conflicts are never resolved or even effected much fir very long by military operations. Political solutions are what usually ends them. Many terrorist attacks are of the suicide variety. We don't have to find them and kill them, they do it themselves yet the attacks keep coming. They are not killing us because they hate our freedom or any of that BS. This is the type of fight that is as old as humankind, a fight over who will be the boss. They want their guys in charge of the middle east and we want guys in charge who will sell us the oil we need at a price we can afford. If not for the oil, would any of us care at all what happens to the royal family in Saudia Arabia? Kuwait? Given our reliance on foreign oil, we have no choice. The only way to deal ourselves a new hand is to kick the oil habit somehow. Then we can leave these lovely people to enjoy their barbarism in private. I'm thinking maybe my next car will be a diesel.

Would that work as well as it is working in Iraq? In Israel? I hope theses terrorists are found and wasted as much as anyone but I don't have any delusions that it would make any difference at all. Military operations will not stop terrorism. My prayers are for England.

She could easily have been caught in a rip tide. A good undertow can pull you out very quickly and if you don't know that you have to swim parallel to the beach to get out of it and then back in, you can get into serious trouble. If it was low tide, you can go out a long way with the water not getting over your knees until you finally get where the waves are breaking.

Among defensive lineman he was tied with 5 others at 30th in the league in solo tackles with 28. That is six more than Adams had and 7 less than Williams had in 2003 when he wasn't splitting time with Banaan/Edwards.

Again, only 8 sacks, mostly against lousy teams in a year where we had an awfully easy schedule just doesn't demonstrate much of an ability to pressure the passer which, in any scheme, the blind side DE needs to be able to do. 25th in sacks is a pretty generous way to state his numbers as actually, he was tied with 5 other guys at that spot so a less charitable way to state it would be 31st in sacks. He only had 28 solo tackles, ranking him 30th among defensive lineman, tied with 5 others so it is generous to say he was even ranked 30th. He was tied with a whole slew of other guys at 34th for passes defended by lineman. Basically, he is not making many solo tackles, he is not defending many passes and he is not pressuring the QB very much. You are right in that our scheme may give him fewer opportunities and call upon him to instead play a bigger role in coverage. However, the reason we may be using that scheme is precisely because he isn't a good pass rusher. Are we not rushing him as much because of our scheme or are we playing that scheme because he is not such a good rusher? I also agree that it is hard to measure stats for a DE dropping into coverage. I have watched the games closely and all I can tell you is that I disagree on his coverage abilities. I don't know how many times New England especially was able to run WR screens and the like right through his short zone. He is athletic and pretty fast, for a defensive end and so I think he does perfom better in coverage than most defensive ends but that isn't saying much. The reason a DE dropping into coverage can work is because it is a surprise. The QB doesn't expect a DE to be anywhere but pushing into the backfield. When it works, it works mainly because the QB just didn't see it coming. A little nimbleness on the part of the DE and some good reads helps. We agree that defending the run was a problem for him, you just think he is over it, I don't. I would agree that he has improved but still, it is the weakest part of his game. He hasn't gotten much bigger or faster since his rookie year, he is just more experienced now and that helps. It is why he has improved but given where he started from against the run, that isn't saying much. The math here is pretty simple, if you have a DE who is formidable enough as a pass rusher that he draws double teams, that is one less blocker the other rushers have to deal with. You don't seem to dispute that he doesn't in fact draw many double teams so I am not sure where you are coming from here. Take the Jacksonville game. We were dying for some pressure from him on that last drive but he was not able to deliver. It was a 15 play drive with 13 passes. The Jets ran an 11 play drive which included 8 passes to beat us on their last drive and as in the Jacksonville game, Schobel just wasn't able to make a play. I don't see this as an example of some sort of outstanding ability on his part. Every DE is assigned a blocker and when that DE unexpectedly drops into coverage, whether he does that well or doesn't, the blocker assigned to him has no target. That happens on every zone blitz whether your DE is a doofuss or not. If a blind side DE can't "outpace" a run stopping interior DT in sacks, he would have to be among the very worst at his position in the league. I am not going to sing Schobel's praises for that. What our sack stats show is that we have to bring Milloy in on a SS blitz to get pressure. He had 4 sacks which is a lot for a safety. The reason we have to do that is because we are not going to get pressure with just the front four. One of the reasons for that is that Schobel just isn't able to generate much on his own. He struggles to beat one blocker let alone two which is usually the case when we are in the nickel. I think the increased sack total is due to playing Miami twice and the Browns against whom we had 8 sacks plus 5 in the two games against the fins. We had 15 sacks against teams with winning records, 30 against the rest. Besides, we went from 38 sacks in 2003 to 45 in 2004. That is not such a big increase, only 7 more sacks over 16 games. The good fortune of playing Cleveland when we did was more than enough by itself to account for that increase. I don't get it, you just said earlier in the same post that he struggled against the run in his rookie year and in "his first few years". ??? I don't disagree here that his athletic ability was a plus when it came to forcing and recovering fumbles. I just don't think it makes him all pro caliber. It why I see him as better than average at his position if only slightly so. I agree with those sentiments exactly. It is not at all my point that his is a terrible player, not even close. I think he is a little better than average with still some upside left but at this point, he really is not that much of a youngster anymore. He will be well in to his second contract this year so we should see about the best he is ever going to be able to give this year and the next. Though I don't think he is awful, I think we should not at all be shy about upgrading if the chance comes. 370239[/snapback]

Good points but you know, there is a reason they don't ask anything more of him...its becuase he isn't capable of more. Why? Becuase he is basically ordinary. Maybe a little better, maybe a little worse, this isn't an exact science. We could do a lot worse, no question, than Schobel. I do think that this defense has room for improvement though there are more pressing needs than Schobel. Still, if the opportunity comes are way, I wouldn't let a possible stud DE go by the way side thinking that Schobel is good enough.

Exactly, Schobel was 25th in sacks and struggles against the run. He doesn't even draw many double teams which makes things harder on the rest of the line and whoever is blitzing on given play, CB, SS or a LB. Mediocre: Of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence; indifferent; ordinary. see Schobel

I think you are reffering to my posts in that thread althought that is a little hard to tell given your distortion of what I said. We apparently have a different understanding of "mediocre". I said that his play was meciocre but given his athletic ability, he was slightly better than average. As for the idea that there is no logic to that opinion, you seemed to have glossed over where I point out that he had only 8 sacks, 5 of which came against the fins, bengals and browns and that he finished 25th in the league in sacks. Look, I don't care if you agree or not but to characterize my opinion as baseless, lacking in any logic is just mean spirited. As for playing on the "second best defense in the league", enough already with that stat. We played a pretty laughable schedule and our vaunted defense had some serious let downs in crunch time. The Jacksonville game, the Jets on the road and the Steeler games are notable in that regard. Besides, I could turn that around easy enough. Playing on such a great defense he easily should have racked up more than 8 sacks, mostly against the lousiest teams on the schedule. Afterall, the other teams had to worry so much about Williams, Adams, Fletcher, Milloy and Spikes that they couldn't load up on Schobel. Look, maybe you are happy with a DE who is maybe better than Ryan Denney and lets you hold a roster spot open for an extra long snapper. Me, I want a little more from my blind side DE than that. Schobel is a little better than serviceable, that is about it. As for my main point in that thread, that you can't compare a player like him with a guy on Clements' level, it holds as well.