KnightRider Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Seems to me Freeney was shut down when Syracuse played Miami back when they both were seniors. Freeney has improved a great deal and might just have wanted another crack at McKinnie. It's a shame these two aren't in the same division... I can definately see an arguement that we should have drafted Freeney, but not McKinnie...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Here is one. First, right now my only concern for Big Mike is his health. That aside, the vikes gave up all of 2 sacks while being forced to pass for much of the night, as Manning just kept tossing td passes. Big friggin deal. Oh, and the vikes ran for how many yards? We can fantasize as we choose, but MW has not produced as a #4 should, and I think that this is beyond logical question. If you want to judge McKinnie by one game against an all-pro, by all means do. Will you then judge Big Mike only by his stellar outing in the first jest game? Didn't think so. 109147[/snapback] Team stats don't tell a story about an OL and you know that as well as anyone. If you are bashing Mike Williams and saying he isn't any good or is a bust, okay, although we all know how you feel about that. This thread is about the people constantly or sporadically harping about how good mcKinnie is or how much better a pick he would be. Every single time I have watched McKinnie he has looked weak to me. I still would much rather have MW than BM.
Guest BADOL Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Team stats don't tell a story about an OL and you know that as well as anyone. If you are bashing Mike Williams and saying he isn't any good or is a bust, okay, although we all know how you feel about that. This thread is about the people constantly or sporadically harping about how good mcKinnie is or how much better a pick he would be. Every single time I have watched McKinnie he has looked weak to me. I still would much rather have MW than BM. 109183[/snapback] McKinnie is a far superior player to Fat Mike. The argument for Williams is non-existent. He was seen by the Bills as a great pass blocker and run blocker, and frankly he is only adequate as a run-blocker and horrendous in pass protection. He has had more awful games this year than adequate ones. Meanwhile Culpepper has been torching the league thanks in no small part to the outstanding blindside protection he gets from McKinnie, and his Vikes are playoff bound. Maybe the light will turn on for His Fatness and he will start to bring it, but so far we have been sold a bill of goods on this stiff.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 McKinnie is a far superior player to Fat Mike. The argument for Williams is non-existent. He was seen by the Bills as a great pass blocker and run blocker, and frankly he is only adequate as a run-blocker and horrendous in pass protection. He has had more awful games this year than adequate ones. Meanwhile Culpepper has been torching the league thanks in no small part to the outstanding blindside protection he gets from McKinnie, and his Vikes are playoff bound. Maybe the light will turn on for His Fatness and he will start to bring it, but so far we have been sold a bill of goods on this stiff. 109214[/snapback] He may be a stiff, although I don't think he has been as bad as some say. I have watched McKinnie quite a few times because I have a few vikings on my fantasy team and he looks like crap to me. Just as bad on pass protection as Big Mike and half the plays he barely even tries on runs. Good to see you back stirrin' up trouble though.
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 No doubt Mckinnie had a tough game last night against Freeny, but he is a LEFT tackle which means he has to face Frenny type rushers every week. I realize some of you don't know the difference between a left tackle and a right tackle, but there is a reason the left tackles make the big $$$$. For those who think McKinnie stinks, well I know this, Minny has the #1 offense in football and you don't achieve that by having a "revolving door" at left tackle covering your qb's blind side. At this point the McKinnie vs. Williams debate is still not even a debate. When Mike can shut down no name d-ends like P. Spicer of Jacksonville we'll talk. Also I thought the plan was to move Mike to the left side eventually when they drafted him ? I guess they forgot that. I will give MW some props though as he has shown some improvement the last couple of weeks, of course they haven't had to throw as much either. I glad to see his injury wasn't serious. Do you think he will play this week ? I don't.
Fezmid Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 McKinnie is a far superior player to Fat Mike. The argument for Williams is non-existent. He was seen by the Bills as a great pass blocker and run blocker, and frankly he is only adequate as a run-blocker and horrendous in pass protection. He has had more awful games this year than adequate ones. Meanwhile Culpepper has been torching the league thanks in no small part to the outstanding blindside protection he gets from McKinnie, and his Vikes are playoff bound. Maybe the light will turn on for His Fatness and he will start to bring it, but so far we have been sold a bill of goods on this stiff. 109214[/snapback] Have you actually SEEN BM play on a routine basis? No offense, but I don't think you have. CW
Fezmid Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 No doubt Mckinnie had a tough game last night against Freeny, but he is a LEFT tackle which means he has to face Frenny type rushers every week.I realize some of you don't know the difference between a left tackle and a right tackle, but there is a reason the left tackles make the big $$$$. For those who think McKinnie stinks, well I know this, Minny has the #1 offense in football and you don't achieve that by having a "revolving door" at left tackle covering your qb's blind side. At this point the McKinnie vs. Williams debate is still not even a debate. When Mike can shut down no name d-ends like P. Spicer of Jacksonville we'll talk. Also I thought the plan was to move Mike to the left side eventually when they drafted him ? I guess they forgot that. I will give MW some props though as he has shown some improvement the last couple of weeks, of course they haven't had to throw as much either. I glad to see his injury wasn't serious. Do you think he will play this week ? I don't. 109247[/snapback] Culpepper is a scrambling QB, which means LT protection isn't anywhere near as important as you're making it out to be. Also, Abraham (who is probably a probowler this year, if not in the past) was shutdown by MW. At least WATCH Vikings games before saying that BM is the best player since Munoz. CW
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 No doubt Mckinnie had a tough game last night against Freeny, but he is a LEFT tackle which means he has to face Frenny type rushers every week.I realize some of you don't know the difference between a left tackle and a right tackle, but there is a reason the left tackles make the big $$$$. For those who think McKinnie stinks, well I know this, Minny has the #1 offense in football and you don't achieve that by having a "revolving door" at left tackle covering your qb's blind side. At this point the McKinnie vs. Williams debate is still not even a debate. When Mike can shut down no name d-ends like P. Spicer of Jacksonville we'll talk. Also I thought the plan was to move Mike to the left side eventually when they drafted him ? I guess they forgot that. I will give MW some props though as he has shown some improvement the last couple of weeks, of course they haven't had to throw as much either. I glad to see his injury wasn't serious. Do you think he will play this week ? I don't. 109247[/snapback] In case you don't actually watch the games, or notice who is playing, Mike Williams faced far superior football players head up last season at RT on a game to game basis than Bryant McKinnie did at LT.
Bill from NYC Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 In case you don't actually watch the games, or notice who is playing, Mike Williams faced far superior football players head up last season at RT on a game to game basis than Bryant McKinnie did at LT. 109268[/snapback] And in case YOU weren't watching the games, or noticing what was happening, he stunk up the field and got his ass handed to him virtually every week.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 And in case YOU weren't watching the games, or noticing what was happening, he stunk up the field and got his ass handed to him virtually every week. 109302[/snapback] I never said he played very well, or didn't have tough games. Mt post was in response to the erroneous charge that LTs automatically face tougher DEs than RTs. In this case, they most certainly did not. MW also had two of his very best games if I recall, against Michael Strahan and Javon Kearse.
Alaska Darin Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 And in case YOU weren't watching the games, or noticing what was happening, he stunk up the field and got his ass handed to him virtually every week. 109302[/snapback] Damn it Bill, offensive line is the ultimate team position and MW was covering for the weakest player on the team, with an immobile QB, piss poor coaching, etc. We can keep reliving last season over and over again, or we can move on. Williams has improved measurably this season and is actually starting to look like a football player. Get off his back.
Bill from NYC Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Damn it Bill, offensive line is the ultimate team position and MW was covering for the weakest player on the team, with an immobile QB, piss poor coaching, etc. We can keep reliving last season over and over again, or we can move on. Williams has improved measurably this season and is actually starting to look like a football player. Get off his back. 109324[/snapback] Fair enough AD, but please, look at the post to which I responded. It left out one little fact, no? And yes, he HAS improved quite a bit. Not to the level one would expect from a #4 mind you, but improvement? Sure.
Bill from NYC Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 I never said he played very well, or didn't have tough games. Mt post was in response to the erroneous charge that LTs automatically face tougher DEs than RTs. In this case, they most certainly did not. MW also had two of his very best games if I recall, against Michael Strahan and Javon Kearse. 109321[/snapback] I agree with your point, but the blind side is still the blind side, and it seems as if it would be harder to defend.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Fair enough AD, but please, look at the post to which I responded. It left out one little fact, no? And yes, he HAS improved quite a bit. Not to the level one would expect from a #4 mind you, but improvement? Sure. 109342[/snapback] Again, the post you responded to was ONLY referring to the fact that MW faced tougher competition than BM did, after the previous poster said that LT is a tougher position to play.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 I agree with your point, but the blind side is still the blind side, and it seems as if it would be harder to defend. 109351[/snapback] So tell me, which in your opinion is harder to defend as an OL? The left/blind side of Dante Culpepper and the Vikings offense against slightly less competition, or the right side of Drew Bledsoe and the Bills offense and slightly stiffer competition.
Bill from NYC Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Again, the post you responded to was ONLY referring to the fact that MW faced tougher competition than BM did, after the previous poster said that LT is a tougher position to play. 109353[/snapback] Gotcha. I think that yes, Big Mike very well may have faced tougher competion, AND that LT, by very nature, is a harder position to play. If this were not the case, more RTs would go in the top 5 picks. Do we agree on something else?
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Gotcha. I think that yes, Big Mike very well may have faced tougher competion, AND that LT, by very nature, is a harder position to play. If this were not the case, more RTs would go in the top 5 picks. Do we agree on something else? 109362[/snapback] No, it is in no way a harder position to play. It may be a more important position to play, because you don't want your QB killed from behind, causing more sacks and fumbles and injuries and interceptions. But it is by no means a harder position to play, and in fact, in recent years there are as many or more good LDE's playing against RTs than there are RDEs against LTs.
Bill from NYC Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 So tell me, which in your opinion is harder to defend as an OL? The left/blind side of Dante Culpepper and the Vikings offense against slightly less competition, or the right side of Drew Bledsoe and the Bills offense and slightly stiffer competition. 109359[/snapback] Last year (that is what we are talking about), MW had a tougher task because of who he was playing next to, and Drew's lack of mobility. That said, he did little to help his own cause. A dominant RT would have carried Pucillo just a tad more. NOT made him look good mind you, but on pass protection, they were both bad. That said, AD is right. MW has shown improvement. I merely want much more for a 36 million dollar cap hit, and I don't think that I am being unreasonable here.
Alaska Darin Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Last year (that is what we are talking about), MW had a tougher task because of who he was playing next to, and Drew's lack of mobility. That said, he did little to help his own cause. A dominant RT would have carried Pucillo just a tad more. NOT made him look good mind you, but on pass protection, they were both bad. That said, AD is right. MW has shown improvement. I merely want much more for a 36 million dollar cap hit, and I don't think that I am being unreasonable here. 109377[/snapback] Well, now that it looks like he's actually getting some coaching and has a competent partner playing next to him... Seriously, we've done a great disservice to this kid over the past couple of seasons. He has been absolutely crushing in short yardage this season - when our running backs have actually gotten to the hole.
Bill from NYC Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 No, it is in no way a harder position to play. It may be a more important position to play, because you don't want your QB killed from behind, causing more sacks and fumbles and injuries and interceptions. But it is by no means a harder position to play, and in fact, in recent years there are as many or more good LDE's playing against RTs than there are RDEs against LTs. 109374[/snapback] I will await the influx of RTs drafted in the top 5.
Recommended Posts