JoeF Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 A reporter in MM's press conference said... "Mike Williams looks "sleek" and "svelte" this spring." MM to paraphrase-- "Mike has been working hard and has dedicated himself this offseason" Run right Willis---Run right Willis..... Keep it up #68...
Reuben Gant Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 A reporter in MM's press conference said... "Mike Williams looks "sleek" and "svelte" this spring." MM to paraphrase-- "Mike has been working hard and has dedicated himself this offseason" Run right Willis---Run right Willis..... Keep it up #68... 324922[/snapback] Great news considering what happened in camp last year. He was out of shape, and missed days.
/dev/null Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 "Mike Williams looks "sleek" and "svelte" this spring."324922[/snapback] sleek and svelte? maybe the coaching staff is trying to improve the vocabulary of our wonderlic wonders
MrLocke Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 Correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't it usually take a few years for offensive tackles to develop? I was hopeful when Mularkey and McNally came in here not just because of their coaching, but because Big Mike had a few years to develop. I think Big Mike has been right on pace with other great lineman in terms of their development I just hope he takes the final step this year and becomes the same caliber as other great Right Tackles.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 They're all lying. Big Mike hasn't been working out in Buffalo, so he CAN'T be "sleek" and "svelte."
Rayzer32 Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 sleek and svelte? maybe the coaching staff is trying to improve the vocabulary of our wonderlic wonders 324926[/snapback] Or maybe the guys from "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" are here working with the coaching staff.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 Correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't it usually take a few years for offensive tackles to develop? I was hopeful when Mularkey and McNally came in here not just because of their coaching, but because Big Mike had a few years to develop. I think Big Mike has been right on pace with other great lineman in terms of their development I just hope he takes the final step this year and becomes the same caliber as other great Right Tackles. 324927[/snapback] The best LTs usually develop quicker than their fourth season. Pace struggled at first after his hold out but by the secomd year was a clear force to be reckoned with and I would not be surprised if he got Pro Bow recognition as early as his third year. Jonathan Ogden was even quicker out of the box if memory serves me correctly and by his second year was well on his path to be considered one of the best. MW had a great start, but having Vinklarek and Ruel as his OL coaches have set back his development by at least a year and in conjunction with the death of the grandma who raised him really set back his development by a couple of years. I am hopeful and I think it is reasonable to hear some talk of MW dominating this year, but if he were really on track he would have been ready to flip to LT right now.
JoeF Posted May 1, 2005 Author Posted May 1, 2005 MW had a great start, but having Vinklarek and Ruel as his OL coaches have set back his development by at least a year and in conjunction with the death of the grandma who raised him really set back his development by a couple of years. 324956[/snapback] FFS--I believe this is the key issue...along with last year's family health circumstances...Mike has always been good to great in the running game--this year I think we see the pass protector who protected Chris Simms' blind side in college so well...
Bill from NYC Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 The best LTs usually develop quicker than their fourth season. Pace struggled at first after his hold out but by the secomd year was a clear force to be reckoned with and I would not be surprised if he got Pro Bow recognition as early as his third year. Jonathan Ogden was even quicker out of the box if memory serves me correctly and by his second year was well on his path to be considered one of the best. MW had a great start, but having Vinklarek and Ruel as his OL coaches have set back his development by at least a year and in conjunction with the death of the grandma who raised him really set back his development by a couple of years. I am hopeful and I think it is reasonable to hear some talk of MW dominating this year, but if he were really on track he would have been ready to flip to LT right now. 324956[/snapback] A great start? His first 2 years 1/2 years were a disaster. MW started palying well on 10/31/04 in the Arizona game. That said, the fact that he looks good now is nothing less than spectacular news.
LabattBlue Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 From wgr55 website.... Mike Mularkey says he'll go over all the practices on film before he decides how to move forward on the offensive line. All weekend long the starters were Mike Gandy, Bennie Anderson, Trey Teague, Chris Villarrial and the slimed down Mike Williams. His gut is almost gone and Mularkey says his RT spent much of the off season working with strength and conditioning coach Brad Roll. Hopefully MW is ready to be worthy of the 9 million dollar cap hit that he will cost the Bills for each of the next 3 seasons.
crazyDingo Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 He has been practicing in pinstripes They are slimming.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 He has been practicing in pinstripes... Man, the Yankees' payroll just went up $9M!
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 A great start? His first 2 years 1/2 years were a disaster. MW started palying well on 10/31/04 in the Arizona game. That said, the fact that he looks good now is nothing less than spectacular news. 324970[/snapback] Yeah, MW definitely had a great start FOR A ROOKIE PLAYER. He was not a great player his first year (2002) but I feel quite comfortable saying he got off to a great startthat he has not continued. We can certainly argue the semantics of what one means by "great" or "disaster" but I think any rational analysis (not that I expect or demand that any fan be rational actually) looks at MWs first year and judges it to be much close to the good side (great start) than the bad side (disaster). Specifically: 1. He was chosen to start right away as a rookie. I would judge this to be a good start and a start to be hoped for in a #4 choice, but as 50% of the choices in even the 1st round disappoint according to the pundits, breaking into the starting line-up in your first game is an essential part of a great start though it does not gurantee it. If he had not been able to start his first year you might (might) call his first year a disaster, but he did start so if you are going to justify calling it a disaster 1. it has to be shown that his play was the bad or the cause of bad things and, 2. the burden is definitely on those labeling his play a disaster because the default of the coaches choosing him to start provides some assumption of at least credible play on his part. 2. The team was very productive offensively in 2002. Assessing lineman play is a tough thing for a fan to do. There are not the usual assorment of stats like catches, yards gained, TDs etc to point to when making a case. Even worse, what you see in terms of line plan may not be a totally accurate indicator of individual play. For example defender who lined up across from an OL player may get credit for a sack but the OL player may not be the blame if the line call gave him responsibility for a different player on a slant block. This being said, all the objective signs point to MW and the OL being part of an O which performed in objective terms and relative to other Bills teams produced on the field: A. This OL provided the blocking which allowed even a statue like Bledsoe to set multiple single-game and season records for offensive production. B. The OL provided the blocking which allowed Henry to gain the fifth highest rushing total in Bills history. C. The OL provided the blocking which saw 3 Bills O players (Moulds, Bledsoe and Henry) qualify for the Pro Bowl (not a perfect indicator but a pretty good assessment of accomplishment from third parties). There were objective limitations to his game. he did not start all 16 games, but starting 14 as a rookie is very good. He logged some sack free games and did so early (Bledsoe for example was only sacked once in MWs first start and I'm not sure who was responsible). However, all in all I'm not sure where you get calling this a disaster from. In my view MW clearly got off to a great start because he was a key part of an OL that helped the team produce offensively and in the most important indicator the team went from 3-13 to 8-8. I will concede that I was not as accurate as I could be if I gave the impression I thought he was a great player his first year rather than what I meant that he got off to a great start at the beginning of his career. However, I'd love to see you lay out the case that his first year was a disaster because I saw nothing that would indicate this is true in the least. Jeepers, if Bledsoe made the Pro Bowl with a disaster playing RT for him and Henry racked up about 1400 yards and caught over 40 passes with a disaster playing RT in front of him then maybe well all better reconsider how good Bledsoe and Henry are. If they can pull off their 2001 accomplishments with MW being a disster they must be good.
BillsWatch Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 A reporter in MM's press conference said... "Mike Williams looks "sleek" and "svelte" this spring." Keep it up #68... 324922[/snapback] Maybe he heard that I bought a #68 jersey this year; it is not a genuine one otherwise the words we would be hearing were "Mike has lost a lot of weight - fat AND muscle unfortunately" or "The equipment manager needs to be fired - that jersey is too tight!". Blaming his performance because he has such a high salary cap figure as some have said is wrong. He is paid more because he was an early pick in the draft and all of the players taken in first half of the first round are overpaid; the NFL players union ought to be addressing THAT in next contract talks.
LabattBlue Posted May 1, 2005 Posted May 1, 2005 Blaming his performance because he has such a high salary cap figure as some have said is wrong. He is paid more because he was an early pick in the draft and all of the players taken in first half of the first round are overpaid; the NFL players union ought to be addressing THAT in next contract talks. 325086[/snapback] I have been looking for the cap numbers of players taken before and after MW for comparison purposes. I realize high draft picks get paid a small ransom, but a 9 million dollar cap figure for each of the next 3 years? This just seems out of whack. To put it in perspective here is a list of players in 2004 that had a cap value over 9 million... OT John Tait & Jonathan Ogden QB Brett Favre CB Antoine Winfield & Ty Law Source... http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...es/default.aspx Where are the top 5 picks from the year before MW was drafted? Shouldn't they be showing up in this list?
GG Posted May 2, 2005 Posted May 2, 2005 I have been looking for the cap numbers of players taken before and after MW for comparison purposes. I realize high draft picks get paid a small ransom, but a 9 million dollar cap figure for each of the next 3 years? This just seems out of whack.To put it in perspective here is a list of players in 2004 that had a cap value over 9 million... OT John Tait & Jonathan Ogden QB Brett Favre CB Antoine Winfield & Ty Law Source... http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...es/default.aspx Where are the top 5 picks from the year before MW was drafted? Shouldn't they be showing up in this list? 325090[/snapback] You cannot make that comparison now, because the '04 data already includes the contract renegotiations for players whose caps were out of whack. MW is among those players whose cap will likely be adjusted to be more helpful to the team. Of the '02 draft, Carr & Harrington carry higher salaries than MW (don't know what bonuses kick in this season) Peppers already restructured his deal.
LabattBlue Posted May 2, 2005 Posted May 2, 2005 You cannot make that comparison now, because the '04 data already includes the contract renegotiations for players whose caps were out of whack. MW is among those players whose cap will likely be adjusted to be more helpful to the team. Of the '02 draft, Carr & Harrington carry higher salaries than MW (don't know what bonuses kick in this season) Peppers already restructured his deal. 325098[/snapback] I realize the numbers don't jive completely and MW's 9 mil is for 2005, not 2004. I was just looking for something to compare it to. PS I am very hopeful that MW's contract is renegotiated in the near future.
GG Posted May 2, 2005 Posted May 2, 2005 I realize the numbers don't jive completely and MW's 9 mil is for 2005, not 2004. I was just looking for something to compare it to. PS I am very hopeful that MW's contract is renegotiated in the near future. 325100[/snapback] It all will depend on what bonuses are due in the future & ow well MW looks in camp. If they have the cap room, it may make more sense to carry MW at his oversized salary cap in '05 and have a lot more flexibility in '06.
Hammered a Lot Posted May 2, 2005 Posted May 2, 2005 MW had a great start, but having Vinklarek and Ruel as his OL coaches have set back his development by at least a year and in conjunction with the death of the grandma who raised him really set back his development by a couple of years. And did he not get married last year also? 99.94% of players suck the year they get married.
Recommended Posts