Pyrite Gal Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 Well to be fair, JJ DID have a superb rookie season. His future at RT was high and it was a great pick by TD. However with MW being a rookie and the Bills thinking JJ was a better option at LT than TT, they ended up making the switch. Had they drafted McKinnie, they likely would have played HIM at LT and kept JJ at RT, which might have worked out better. But as I said, given the same circumstances (being drafted 4th overall, same contract, same production as he's had in Minny), right now we'd be talking about what a bust McKinnie has been for the 4th overall, even though he is an average-at-best starter at LT. 612447[/snapback] I just think it really is an exaggeration from my recollection to deem JJ's rookie season superb. If you think that either you or I am biased, then as a third party I think one need look no further than the official SF website which is paid to be biased and supportive of their players. Even they only go so far as to descibe JJ's rookie season as "solid". A lot of this is semantics and perhaps the mistake here is that I am misinterpreting your labeling of his rookie year as "superb" as being more enthusiastic than you are and by superb you mean the same thing as solid, but I don't think so. In my view, I think that it would be fair to describe MW's first season as solid as well. However, since he started from his first game and started 14 games compared to JJ's 12 I think that MW actually had a better rookie year than JJ and I would not describe MW's rookie year as being anything near superb, nor would I use this adjective to describe JJ's initial season. I guess what surpises me is that so many folks hold JJ in such high regard. His injury proneness emerged right away. It reallu is instructive to review the history of JJ on the SF website. Rookie year- Left a game with a leg injury and was inactive the next game. It also sites him having a recurring foot injury that brought him in and out of the lineup (interestingly though he did apparently start a couple of games at LT his rookie year) 2nd year- Probably his best year IMHO but once again was knocked out of game and was inactive for the next with a leg injury 3rd year- This time it was a hip flexor injury which forced him out of a game and left him inactive for the next one. he deserves credit for coming back but this merely led to a toe injury which put him on IR and he was gone for the end of the season 4th year- This year they note he was inactive for the first time that season with an ankle injury and again he deserves credit for playing through pain with a shoulder injury they deemed serious enough to site. However, this description does leave out a concussion JJ suffered which I remember which knocked him out of a game for us. 5th year- His first year with the Niners saw him sign a huge contract and start all of 3 games before he ended up again on IR. I was quite pleased that the Bills refused to sign him to a big deal as an FA and actually though that SF did us a big favor by taking him off our hands. JJ plays well when he is in there, but as bad as our OL was, it would have been worse with an unjury prone player slotted in as our LT. I hav been somewhat repetitive about this simply because I keep responding to any revisionist history which attempts to claim JJ was superb, he was not in there consistently enough to be judged one of the best and SF is paying for this now in their salary cap.
Pyrite Gal Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 I don't know that anyone has said that BM is a good player. All I've really seen is people claiming he is a better player than MW.Who is claiming that? 612446[/snapback] Badol among others who make this claim as part of their attempting to paint TD as a complete failure (actually he did somethings well and somethings poorly IMHO, the thing he did most poorly was picking an HC he could control who was not the best HC candidate out there and it was fatal to TD and unfortunately the Bills Aren't you doing what exactly what you are claiming everyone else is does in the following quote? 612446[/snapback] Actually, I think you are right and I will try to watch myself not to do this )but I do tend to get worked up when people try to revise history such as when JJ's rookie season was described in one post as being "superb" "solid" is actually only as far as the SF site which is putting its players in the best possible light was as far as they would go and "promising" is about as far as I would go to describe his rookie campaign. Actually people are taking you to task because your criticism has little to do with on field performance. You are being taken to task in areas where you are wrong (contract holdouts) or simply don't matter (how does sex on a party boat translate to poor play on a football field?) 612446[/snapback] Actually, I think that contract holdouts are entirely relevant to on field performance because when you hold out your on field contribution is guaranteed to be zero. The holdout cost him half the season with MN and cost him the usual development that all rookies must go through as he started the final 7 games but for at least part of it had to split time with a reserve. Sex on the party boat does not translate to the huddle (unless he is servicng guys in the huddle, but certainly part of the reason that Vikes coach Mike Tice got fired was that between his own dinging for scalping tickets and the many problems that the Vikes had off the field clearly impacted this product which in the end is entertainment. One irony here is that I think actually the Vikes silly off field antics translated in part to better play on the field. It got so bad for the team interacting with outside parties at one point they seemed to look inward and hunker down and put on a nice winning streak this season. It did not prove to be enough to save Tice's job, but while off field antics and on field play are different things it goes a bit far to claim that they are not related or not to be mentioned or considered.
Scraps Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 Badol among others who make this claim as part of their attempting to paint TD as a complete failure (actually he did somethings well and somethings poorly IMHO, the thing he did most poorly was picking an HC he could control who was not the best HC candidate out there and it was fatal to TD and unfortunately the Bills 612552[/snapback] I don't believe Badol has said anything other than BM was a better tackle than MW at the college level and hence should have been considered a better pick. Can you provide a link to one of his posts where he claims BM is a good player at the NFL level? Actually, I think that contract holdouts are entirely relevant to on field performance because when you hold out your on field contribution is guaranteed to be zero. The holdout cost him half the season with MN and cost him the usual development that all rookies must go through as he started the final 7 games but for at least part of it had to split time with a reserve. I'll grant you that contract holdouts can affect on field performance but don't consider it to be a personal flaw in BMs case, given the contract offer the Vikings made. BM made it clear long before the season started that he would sign a contract commensurate with his slotting and did just that when the Vikings finally broke.
Rico Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 I just think it really is an exaggeration from my recollection to deem JJ's rookie season superb. If you think that either you or I am biased, then as a third party I think one need look no further than the official SF website which is paid to be biased and supportive of their players. Even they only go so far as to descibe JJ's rookie season as "solid". 612525[/snapback] FWIW, Bills Daily gave him a B-. Jennings B-: Showed a lot of promise and got some good on the job training, could be fixture at left tackle if Fina goes. Pretty fair assessment IMO. Neither "superb" nor "solid", but "promising"... though I will say that the 2001 OL was so bad, JJ the rookie looked rock-solid compared to the other clowns that started.
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 I don't believe Badol has said anything other than BM was a better tackle than MW at the college level and hence should have been considered a better pick. Can you provide a link to one of his posts where he claims BM is a good player at the NFL level? 612597[/snapback] At least part of the argument made was that BM was a LT and still is a LT. MW was not a LT and is still not a LT. #4 overall and the gigantic contract that comes with that was way too high and makes no sense for a RT.
Scraps Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 At least part of the argument made was that BM was a LT and still is a LT. MW was not a LT and is still not a LT. #4 overall and the gigantic contract that comes with that was way too high and makes no sense for a RT. 612761[/snapback] Okay, using the words that he hasn't "said anything other than ..." was a poor choice of words on my part. My point really was that I haven't read a post where Badol has claimed that BM is a good NFL tackle. Maybe he has in some other thread, but I haven't seen it.
Dawgg Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 I still do not understand why you continue to belabor this point regarding BM's holdout. The holdout was more the Vikings fault than BM's. He was offered a contract that was well-below the market value for his draft slot. He stated numerous times that he just wanted to be slotted. While there are numerous cases in which rookies make exorbitant contract demands, this is NOT one of them. Why you continue to harp on this point, I do not know... Actually, I think that contract holdouts are entirely relevant to on field performance because when you hold out your on field contribution is guaranteed to be zero. The holdout cost him half the season with MN and cost him the usual development that all rookies must go through as he started the final 7 games but for at least part of it had to split time with a reserve. 612552[/snapback]
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 Okay, using the words that he hasn't "said anything other than ..." was a poor choice of words on my part. My point really was that I haven't read a post where Badol has claimed that BM is a good NFL tackle. Maybe he has in some other thread, but I haven't seen it. 612799[/snapback] I wasn't arguing with what you wrote, merely adding to it.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 27, 2006 Posted February 27, 2006 IIRC, Jennings made some all-rookie teams at RT. Maybe "superb" was goign overboard, but he had a good rookie season, for essentially an early 4th round pick.
(2).thumb.jpeg.6e78fe3142ec9e6bfedbf027610db26f.jpeg)
Recommended Posts