GrudginglyPessimistic Posted January 31, 2010 Posted January 31, 2010 Heh, cheers to the front office for making the "better bad choice". You guys rock. I still disagree though. Williams has no value. McKinnie is a starter. Whether he's a trouble maker or not he is worthy of being on the field and for an offensive line, by the way, that is considered by many to be the best in the league. Even if he's a trouble maker McKinnie has given the Vikings more than Williams could ever give the Bills. Ironically the Bills horrendous record of non-accomplishment factors in here. Perhaps I might look at this situation differently if TD had chosen McKinnie there is some (in fact any) likelihood that the Bills would have been successful or simply made the playoffs in any particular year with McKinnie at LT instead of Williams occupying the spot (at least on the depth chart though he was non-existent for much of his career. Actually, I am pretty sure that is not the case. The Bills have been so bad and so poorly managed in so many aspects of the game that replacing Williams with McKinnie really smacks of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Even if one tried to make the case that if we had McKinnie we would have set the tone for or triggered a different set of decisions and/or play that woulda/coulda made for a different reality. Actually with is first year half season holdout before signing, his relatively slow start his first full year, and the fairly consistent record of being a public sex fiend jerk though no one knows for sure what would have happened if things were different (maybe London Fletcher would have adopted him it he had been a Bill and convinced him to have a personality transplant by becoming a god squader) the likelihood given McKinnie is what he is that he at best would have had the same ups and downs in his play as a Bill. My GUESS is that the UDFA Peters would have shown the same skills which saw him rocket to LT prominence and if McKinnie was the same jerk here he proved to be in MN that it may have been him rather than Williams who became a bust st LT. The simple fact is that it seems McKinnie would have at best held onto the LT slot while the Bills mismanaged the QB, WR, and various D positions in about the same way. Do you really think McKinnie would have made the difference for this team making the playoffs any year he had been here instead of Williams. Even for those who choose to focus on the reality of on field play the question really is one of whether you would have preffered to lose witn Williams slow-waltzing his way out of town or you would have preffered to lose with McKinnie holding out initially and acting a sex fool in general. I have to say I do prefer for this one decision TD having led the team to losing with his bad choice rather than losing with McKinnie being McKinnie. Winning would have been preferable overall but you likely would have needed a new owner to see that happen the last 10-15 years.
Recommended Posts