Dawgg Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 If you actually kicked him out, that is pretty pathetic. Granted he is annoying, he was simply arguing his point against an overwhelming majority and for that, I salute him. You guys really need to lighten up. I enjoy this board and value it as part of my daily routine, but when I see people getting kicked out as a result of no real infraction, I start to wonder if this reallhy is a cheerleading squad. PS - I hope I don't get kicked out for this. Thanks Thank you for choosing TBD over the past few years. We are honored that you cose our site to spend your valuable leisure time with. Sadly, we must part ways as your contentiousness is not the trait we wish to promote. Football is entertainment and meant to be enjoyed with friends and other good-natured fans. Your posts do not support that fact. Good luck in your future endeavors... 511973[/snapback]
Dawgg Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Badol, Please stop arguing your point, defend Mike Williams and talk about how McKinnie sucks. Otherwise, you might get kicked out. I think you know that 6 games played and 6 games in the tub are not equal. LT > RT. Cold, hard facts. I hope Mike becomes a kickass guard someday. Guards are important. If we get a top 10 pick this year, I'm thinkin' guard again. Bookends. 512120[/snapback]
VABills Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Badol, Please stop arguing your point, defend Mike Williams and talk about how McKinnie sucks. Otherwise, you might get kicked out. 512140[/snapback] Snore.
Dawgg Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 MW is awesome. A pick well spent. Snore. 512156[/snapback]
VABills Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 MW is awesome. A pick well spent. 512162[/snapback] No but to be honest they both pretty much have sucked. Neither as it turns out was really worthy of the position they were picked at. But by every draft expert Mckinnie was expected to go after Williams and WIlliams was projected as a top 5. Part of the problem isn't always the player however, and coaching plays into it as well. Williams maybe poor here but his Oline caoching was terrible throughout, and even the entrance of the "golden local" boy, who was lucky with one guy in his career has done nothing here.
Dawgg Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 I'm not going to claim that McKinnie is an all-pro. But he has proven to be an "adequate" left tackle in this league. Not dominant, but adequate. MW cannot even stay on the field as a tackle. I would rank them like this: McKinnie, Peters, MW. In defense of McNally, from the very beginning when he joined the Bills, he wanted to convert MW to guard but Bills brass didn't want to tinker witih the continuity they already had on the line. No but to be honest they both pretty much have sucked. Neither as it turns out was really worthy of the position they were picked at. But by every draft expert Mckinnie was expected to go after Williams and WIlliams was projected as a top 5. Part of the problem isn't always the player however, and coaching plays into it as well. Williams maybe poor here but his Oline caoching was terrible throughout, and even the entrance of the "golden local" boy, who was lucky with one guy in his career has done nothing here. 512165[/snapback]
BADOLBILZ Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 But by every draft expert Mckinnie was expected to go after Williams and WIlliams was projected as a top 5. 512165[/snapback] Wrong.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 I'm not going to claim that McKinnie is an all-pro. But he has proven to be an "adequate" left tackle in this league. Not dominant, but adequate. MW cannot even stay on the field as a tackle. I would rank them like this: McKinnie, Peters, MW. In defense of McNally, from the very beginning when he joined the Bills, he wanted to convert MW to guard but Bills brass didn't want to tinker witih the continuity they already had on the line. 512172[/snapback] I'm not sure that one can even call McKinnie "adequate" at this point. 1. Like it or not McKinnie is a key part of an inadequate O. They have won 3 in a row and did roll up some nice yardage on the Pack in the second half. However, before anyone decides this is some declaration of adequacy, remember that this was the Packers, who have one of the worse records in the NFL and their weak defense is a big part of this. The Vikes have a good thing going as there is little film on Johnson running this O. His quick release is helpful to the advantages and failings of McKinnie. However reaching the minimum of point scoring adequacy in a game (holding an O below 20 points in considered good play by the D). Given that 7 of MN points cameion an INT return, and it was the lowly Pack there is no way to call the Vike O production with McKinnie adequate. 2. McKinnie still has as a part of his play and career his rookie holdout and his arrest earlier this year. I don't think one can reasonably dub BM adequate until he plays well enough to ignore these negatives. merely being OK) which i do not think he has achieved yet) does not make him an adequate LT. 3. The big rap on MW for the Bills is not simply his play but that we are paying for and he has a cap hit of a #4 choice. McKinnie suffers from the same indictment being correct for him at a lower slot. He is a drag on this team because he is not worth his cap hit and if the Vikes want adequate play they could buy two or more players for what BM brings in for the less than adequate play he has provided for his career overall and even in many judgments in his best "game" if you want to call a half of MNF football that.
VABills Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Wrong. 512189[/snapback] What next? The rubber and and glue defense. You may want to go recheck your facts.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Wrong. 512189[/snapback] This dispute would seem to be fairly easily settled by the facts. Above in this thread someone provided links to a number of draft sites from that year writing either before or after the draft. It included blowhard pundits like Buschbaum, Kiper, Great North and a couple of others and all of them seemed to be pretty hyped on MW being better than McKinnie and MW being a top choice in the draft. The late Buschbaum seemed to be pretty hyped on MW declaring him a shoo-in as a great LT and a team leader and even the doubters from this group declaring him a top 5 pick if one made the judgment he could play LT and a top 10 if you had doubts. This may have been a selective group chosen and BADOL I'm sure folks would appreciate direction to other voices. Dawwg, it sounds doubtful to me that EVERYBODY has MW as a top 5 pick, but if you amend your assertion to ALMOST everybody, what you say seems RIGHT and Badol is WRONG about this debate. Unlike many TSW opinion disputes, this one seems pretty settlable as to who is right and who is wrong if that matters to either of you. Bills Daily provides links to a fair number of sites if either of you cares enough about what you say to do some research.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Too bad MW didn't have McNally coaching him from the start. If he had begun his Bills career with some consistency (rather than 3 line coaches likely telling him different things, 2 offenses and 3 QBs) things might have been better. Right now our best hope is that he isn't damaged goods, or that if he is, we come up with an expedient and least damaging way of availing ourselves of him. Really, is it possible that so many people could have been wrong on Williams? I know it is, but it just seems pretty hard to believe...
BADOLBILZ Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 This dispute would seem to be fairly easily settled by the facts. Above in this thread someone provided links to a number of draft sites from that year writing either before or after the draft. It included blowhard pundits like Buschbaum, Kiper, Great North and a couple of others and all of them seemed to be pretty hyped on MW being better than McKinnie and MW being a top choice in the draft. The late Buschbaum seemed to be pretty hyped on MW declaring him a shoo-in as a great LT and a team leader and even the doubters from this group declaring him a top 5 pick if one made the judgment he could play LT and a top 10 if you had doubts. This may have been a selective group chosen and BADOL I'm sure folks would appreciate direction to other voices. Dawwg, it sounds doubtful to me that EVERYBODY has MW as a top 5 pick, but if you amend your assertion to ALMOST everybody, what you say seems RIGHT and Badol is WRONG about this debate. Unlike many TSW opinion disputes, this one seems pretty settlable as to who is right and who is wrong if that matters to either of you. Bills Daily provides links to a fair number of sites if either of you cares enough about what you say to do some research. 512306[/snapback] FFS, what the hell are you talking about? Read the thread again, then read the nonsense you just wrote. Be a good listener.
BADOLBILZ Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 What next? The rubber and and glue defense. You may want to go recheck your facts. 512289[/snapback] That's me, I never argue with facts, just vague generalities like "every draft expert". I was just mad because you were using my material.
Sisyphean Bills Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 Not everyone had Williams higher rated than McKinnie. They were actually pretty close. Williams was the bigger, heavier guy and McKinnie was the guy with the freakish wingspan. Williams did have downsides. He had a suspect knee that had some people skittish. Also, there was questions about his weight, motivation, and stamina. Unfortunately for the Buffalo Bills, these questions continue to linger. I was turned off at the time because so many were saying "he's another Leonard Davis" as if that were a good thing... I can only assume that was because they hadn't seen how miniscule Davis's impact for the Cardinals actually was/is.
BADOLBILZ Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 I'm not sure that one can even call McKinnie "adequate" at this point. 1. Like it or not McKinnie is a key part of an inadequate O. They have won 3 in a row and did roll up some nice yardage on the Pack in the second half. However, before anyone decides this is some declaration of adequacy, remember that this was the Packers, who have one of the worse records in the NFL and their weak defense is a big part of this. The Vikes have a good thing going as there is little film on Johnson running this O. His quick release is helpful to the advantages and failings of McKinnie. However reaching the minimum of point scoring adequacy in a game (holding an O below 20 points in considered good play by the D). Given that 7 of MN points cameion an INT return, and it was the lowly Pack there is no way to call the Vike O production with McKinnie adequate. 2. McKinnie still has as a part of his play and career his rookie holdout and his arrest earlier this year. I don't think one can reasonably dub BM adequate until he plays well enough to ignore these negatives. merely being OK) which i do not think he has achieved yet) does not make him an adequate LT. 3. The big rap on MW for the Bills is not simply his play but that we are paying for and he has a cap hit of a #4 choice. McKinnie suffers from the same indictment being correct for him at a lower slot. He is a drag on this team because he is not worth his cap hit and if the Vikes want adequate play they could buy two or more players for what BM brings in for the less than adequate play he has provided for his career overall and even in many judgments in his best "game" if you want to call a half of MNF football that. 512235[/snapback] 1.McKinnie is having a dominant year statistically, regardless of QB. On top of that, he's getting props from pros. He's a fixture on the line, playing in, I believe, 50 straight games. What validation are you seeking? 2.Let me repeat, McKinnie held out for the same money the #7 pick got the year before. Look it up, this issue was discussed at length on TSW at the time. Was he supposed to take less? Was he wrong to not sign for less and undercut a structured compensation system? As for the arrest, a big yawn. He and a teammate got in an argument. Nobody got hurt. He's well liked, the players call him Captain Steubing. 3.Forget the money. The Big rap on MW isn't just his play, it's his lack thereof. He's fat, he's hurt and he's a guard. It's a bad scene. I hope he snaps out of it, but I don't know who you think you're kidding with this weak defense of the guy.
Fezmid Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 1.McKinnie is having a dominant year statistically What statistics do OL have...? Seriously, I'd like to see what you're talking about. CW
Kelly the Dog Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 They both have played in 50 games. According to "SnapStats", McKinnie has given up 31.5 sacks in 50 games, and Williams has given up 29.75 sacks in 50 games. http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/playerstats.asp?id=5893 http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=5890&Submit=Go
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 FFS, what the hell are you talking about? Read the thread again, then read the nonsense you just wrote. Be a good listener. 512743[/snapback] Badol- My apologies to you and to all who feel I wasted theit time due to my misunderstanding this thread. I have not readthe entire lengthy thing as I have read stuff and posted amidst the very nice distraction of having a college bud in town this Thanksgiving Day. I have gotten away some as my lovely wife occupies our mutual friend and I get to skip the girl talk parts and often use the time to drop in on TSW. I have gone back and done some review (again I have not looked at the whole thread and its arguments as it is quite lengthy and one needs to sort through a lof of ad hominen crap to find the nice football based nuggets which I love TSW for providing. However, my post responded (as usual for me in too great a length) a specific point which Dawwg raised that all the pundits had MW as a top 5 pick and your response that this was wrong. I do not see why this specific point which my post cites as a point which can be determined to be wrong or not does not apply. Looking at the limited language of your reply (wong.!) to the specific point made by Dawwg (all had MW as a top 5 pick) I think my post which does not speak to other issues is not nonsense at all on this point. As best as I can tell I aggree with the point Mort (of ESPN) made about MW in response to a specific question, most draft gurus and watchers had MW rated as a top 7 pick or even higher. There were some negatives stated about MW but few (if any) predicted he would tank as badly as he has and I have not seen anyone who had McKinnie rated ahead of him. My post simply recognized I had not seen all draft pundits (I think the draft is a good tool but is really overrated by us fans as a tool for team-building, the best way to handle the draft that I see is to try to trade away your first for more picks and get a lot of guys in camp where one can see them play real ball and then cut the guys who cannot play your style). My sense is that Dawwg overstated the case in saying EVERYONE had MW as a top 5 pick but really not by much since as Mort says most everyone had him as a top 7 pick, This is an overstatement on Dawwg's part but not an horrendous untruth and not as big an overstatement as to declare him WRONG on this point. I will deal with the larger issue of my sense of McKinnie in a separate post.
Alaska Darin Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 What statistics do OL have...? Seriously, I'd like to see what you're talking about.CW 512768[/snapback] Well, he has given up only one sack for an offense that can't remain on the field.
Recommended Posts