Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 124

Thread: McKinnie ?

  1. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,207
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: McKinnie ?



    Quote Originally Posted by rd1z View Post
    KO needs to play LG. He even said he isn't fit to play tackle in the NFL.
    Even though he did an above average job of playing RIGHT TACKLE for most of the regular season, which was pretty good for a rookie.

    Can you provide a link where he ever said that anything close to that? All I ever heard is him saying he can play both positions, and will work hard to get good at either.




  2. #50

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSpiderWebb View Post
    I think most would agree with you actually. It's not that Mckinney was that good, it's just that the move improved 3 positions, the biggest jump being at LG. That's why I've been saying I'd sooner take Random Scrub-KO-Gradkowski-Yanda-Oher over any combination featuring Oher at left and KO at right.
    Obviously I've been against re-signing McKinnie and don't feel it's going to happen, but I agree wholeheartedly with this notion. McKinnie was essentially average at LT through the playoffs--not a significant upgrade over Oher--but Oher was surely better at RT and KO was outstanding at LG.

    The problem some don't seem to understand is that McKinnie should receive no individual credit for the improvement at LG and RT; any improvement associated with those positions isn't a reason to re-sign him, especially given that he's only an average LT at best.

    The BETTER option would be to go out and sign Eric Winston or Tyson Clabo... both of whom are significantly better players than McKinnie and unlikely to be much more expensive. Those two guys also have the benefit of having none of the questions surrounding Big Mac.




  3. #51

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    Obviously I've been against re-signing McKinnie and don't feel it's going to happen, but I agree wholeheartedly with this notion. McKinnie was essentially average at LT through the playoffs--not a significant upgrade over Oher--but Oher was surely better at RT and KO was outstanding at LG.

    The problem some don't seem to understand is that McKinnie should receive no individual credit for the improvement at LG and RT; any improvement associated with those positions isn't a reason to re-sign him, especially given that he's only an average LT at best.

    The BETTER option would be to go out and sign Eric Winston or Tyson Clabo... both of whom are significantly better players than McKinnie and unlikely to be much more expensive. Those two guys also have the benefit of having none of the questions surrounding Big Mac.
    Are Right Tackles.




  4. #52

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TDL1000 View Post
    Are Right Tackles.
    Yes, that's correct. Either of those guys would slot in at RT and provide an at-or-near Pro Bowl level performance, while Oher would kick over to LT. It's not an ideal option, but McKinnie is, at best, only a slight upgrade over Oher on pure football merit alone--not even considering his litany of issues.

    We'd have Pro Bowl caliber players at 3 of 5 spots, hopefully Gino will play well at center, and the offense can scheme around Oher's limitations. As long as the interior line holds up and gives Flacco space to step up it'll be fine.




  5. #53

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Oher at LT is not an option.




  6. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Dimas, CA
    Posts
    5,937

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    hopefully Gino will play well at center...
    ...or Barrett Jones, or even Brian Schwenke (I like that guy if he's still around at the end of the 4th round).
    Quote Originally Posted by rd1z View Post
    Oher at LT is not an option.
    Of course it is. It may not be the ideal option, but it is an option.




  7. #55

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by rd1z View Post
    Oher at LT is not an option.




  8. #56

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by alien bird View Post
    Of course it is. It may not be the ideal option, but it is an option.
    It's an option for disaster. What did he grade out at? D-? The only option that represents is an option to fail. And failure is not an option heading into a season with a franchise QB.




  9. #57

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by alien bird View Post
    ...or Barrett Jones, or even Brian Schwenke (I like that guy if he's still around at the end of the 4th round).


    Of course it is. It may not be the ideal option, but it is an option.
    Of course it is just as it's an option to play Justin Tucker there.That's not an ideal option either.




  10. #58

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by rd1z View Post
    Oher at LT is not an option.
    Bingo.

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein




  11. #59

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TDL1000 View Post
    A good comparison might be the two Denver-Baltimore games.The regular season game with Oher at LT that Denver won.Flacco was sacked 3 times and the Denver defense got 9 hits on him.In the playoff game that the Ravens won with McKinnie at LT.Flacco was sacked 1 time and the Denver defense got a total of 3 hits on him.
    That would be a horrible comparison because in the December game Marshal Yanda was out.




  12. #60

    Re: McKinnie ?

    I think they may sign McKinnie for depth and not much more.

    I also think there's a good possibility that if they don't draft an OT with their 1st pick, they may draft Pugh with the 2nd and roll with him at LG and KO at LT.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland