Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 124

Thread: McKinnie ?

  1. #31

    Re: McKinnie ?



    Quote Originally Posted by RavensRule21215 View Post
    It's a VERY legitimate question. It's one thing to be all bravado when you've GOT a backup plan. It's quite another to be all bravado when you don't. The Ravens have nothing at LT as of this moment. Nothing. I don't care how much Castillo might THINK that KO will fill in at LT. Until he's DONE it, it's all speculation. McKinnie is more than speculation. The fact that he's less than perfect really means little; the world is less than perfect. All the moves so far have been fine as far as fixing the defense. Now it's time to fix the O-line. Or it's not going to be pretty.
    Good post




  2. #32

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by helloharv View Post
    Good post
    Thanks Harv. I appreciate the fact that you started this thread. I honestly don't understand the casual approach a lot of fans are taking to this void at LT, especially those thinking out of hand that McKinnie is not a legit solution. There have been lots of things that Ozzie has done well. Most things, in fact. The O-line, unfortunately, has just not been one of them. And I would have assumed that after signing Joe to a huge contract (that he clearly earned, IMO), the O-line would have been priority #1. It does not appear as if it is, and that's a legit concern.




  3. #33

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by BcRaven View Post
    bmorecareful "McKinnie IS NOT coming back next year."



    You both may be right, but let's ponder the situation. Question : "Would the Ravens had gotten to/won the Super Bowl without McKinnie @ LT?" IMO the answer is "NO." So, if he would agree to a bit more than the veteran minimum, considering the Ravens do not have an LT replacement at this time, why sholdn't Ozzie resign him? It's a legitimate question... Bc
    First of all, I'm not at all sure that McKinnie's play at LT was the SOLE factor, or even the most important factor, in the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Go back and look at Filmstudy's grades of McKinnie during the playoffs, and you'll find that McKinnie wasn't actually playing all that great overall. Flacco and the offense were stepping up and making plays despite that.

    vs. IND .85 B+
    @ DEN .74 C+
    @ NWE .70 C
    vs. SFO .68 C-

    And Filmstudy gave him an aggregate C, albeit better than Oher. So it wasn't as if McKinnie was playing at some herculean level individually. Now, if your argument is that "well, it wasn't really McKinnie at LT, it was just KO at LG and Oher at RT..." if that argument is true, they don't need McKinnie anyway! They just need someone ELSE to step in at LT, so why is McKinnie the best option? He's an average-to-mediocre player EVEN IN LIMITED ACTION, and is totally untrustworthy as a 16+ game starter.

    I just can't grasp this notion that McKinnie--a guy the team DIDN'T WANT TO PLAY AT ALL LAST YEAR and never even sniffed overtaking Oher, even after some truly horrible showings at LT--is somehow necessary to the offense playing well in 2013. It's just not going to happen, not with this head coach and this FO. They don't WANT McKinnie at ANY price, period, and I can't say I disagree with them.

    By the way... regarding this whole meme that franchise QBs need elite LTs above all else... Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning (before 2012), Eli Manning etc. etc. etc... all say hello. Franchise QBs that NEVER had elite LTs, but have 7 Super Bowl rings between them. Obviously having an elite LT is very nice to have, but it is NOT the be-all end-all of offensive success.




  4. #34

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by BcRaven View Post
    bmorecareful "McKinnie IS NOT coming back next year."



    You both may be right, but let's ponder the situation. Question : "Would the Ravens had gotten to/won the Super Bowl without McKinnie @ LT?" IMO the answer is "NO." So, if he would agree to a bit more than the veteran minimum, considering the Ravens do not have an LT replacement at this time, why sholdn't Ozzie resign him? It's a legitimate question... Bc
    I don't think we would have won the Superbowl without McKinnie at LT. I know we wouldn't have won it without Boldin. That doesn't factor into the thought process. For the record, I am all for bringing back McKinnie as a stop gap, but it is apparent that they are letting Harbaugh have a lot more input in personnel decisions, and there is no way he brings McKinnie back. The guy that said that Bryant would have never played if Jah Reid didn't get injured is absolutely correct. Harbaugh had no intention of McKinnie ever taking a snap last season. It wasn't a motivational tactic that ended up paying dividends like a lot of fans are suggesting. It was a move forced by injury.




  5. #35

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Purpleguy View Post
    I don't think we would have won the Superbowl without McKinnie at LT. I know we wouldn't have won it without Boldin. That doesn't factor into the thought process. For the record, I am all for bringing back McKinnie as a stop gap, but it is apparent that they are letting Harbaugh have a lot more input in personnel decisions, and there is no way he brings McKinnie back. The guy that said that Bryant would have never played if Jah Reid didn't get injured is absolutely correct. Harbaugh had no intention of McKinnie ever taking a snap last season. It wasn't a motivational tactic that ended up paying dividends like a lot of fans are suggesting. It was a move forced by injury.
    As long as he's got some alternative, fine. I'm not wedded to McKinnie at all. It's just that in the absence of any real alternative, McKinnie wins my vote by default. I felt the Ravens should have gone after Bushrod. But that's water over the dam at this point. I don't see any LTs in the draft, aside from the top three, and they'll be gone long before the Ravens pick. So what's left? McKinnie. Oher. KO. Hmmmmmmmm....

    (And as an aside...if one is to assume that Harbaugh would never take McKinnie back, then all the news reports of Harbaugh calling McKinnie to tell him he'd like him back are false?)




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cub Hill, MD
    Posts
    2,691

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Maybe Ozzie wants to see how fat (or in shape) McKinnie is going to get before making a decision.


    WORLD CHAMPIONS 2000 * 2012




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,307
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: McKinnie ?

    I love how you hear fans saying things like "we wouldn't have won the superbowl without.....".

    Yeah no shit, we wouldn't have won the superbowl without a number of different players. Comments like that are silly and obvious.

    Maybe we should live in a world where a superbowl team can win a superbowl without any of their starting players!




  8. #38

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    I love how you hear fans saying things like "we wouldn't have won the superbowl without.....".

    Yeah no shit, we wouldn't have won the superbowl without a number of different players. Comments like that are silly and obvious.

    Maybe we should live in a world where a superbowl team can win a superbowl without any of their starting players!
    That's sort of silly. Some players made a bigger impact than others. McKinnie over Oher was clearly, demonstrably better. That's all posters are saying. And while no one is irreplaceable, to date, McKinnie has not been replaced, and there are few options available to replace him, as has amply been discussed.




  9. #39

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    I love how you hear fans saying things like "we wouldn't have won the superbowl without.....".

    Yeah no shit, we wouldn't have won the superbowl without a number of different players. Comments like that are silly and obvious.

    Maybe we should live in a world where a superbowl team can win a superbowl without any of their starting players!
    I would say the play of the OL was the single biggest factor in the teams post season success because without that Flacco wouldn't have went on the run he did.It seems like the best lines are the ones that have continuity and not the ones who are constantly shifting players around from position to position.They can depend on the two OG's that are starting right now and on Oher at RT and they should stay put.




  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,307
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by RavensRule21215 View Post
    That's sort of silly. Some players made a bigger impact than others. McKinnie over Oher was clearly, demonstrably better. That's all posters are saying. And while no one is irreplaceable, to date, McKinnie has not been replaced, and there are few options available to replace him, as has amply been discussed.
    That's not my point. Of course we wouldn't have won the SB without a number of players. We wouldn't have won the SB without Flacco, Yanda, Rice, KO, Tucker, Pitta, Ngata, hell, maybe even Upshaw and Kruger. Its just people like to point at the players that aren't on our roster anymore (I'm obviously hoping McKinnie is back soon) like Boldin, yet they forget to mention that there are a bunch of players on our roster right now, that would have also been irreplaceable in the SB run. There are also additional players added to the roster that would have likely made the SB run even easier.




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    8,180
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    That's not my point. Of course we wouldn't have won the SB without a number of players. We wouldn't have won the SB without Flacco, Yanda, Rice, KO, Tucker, Pitta, Ngata, hell, maybe even Upshaw and Kruger. Its just people like to point at the players that aren't on our roster anymore (I'm obviously hoping McKinnie is back soon) like Boldin, yet they forget to mention that there are a bunch of players on our roster right now, that would have also been irreplaceable in the SB run. There are also additional players added to the roster that would have likely made the SB run even easier.
    leach, you missed the point. Flacco, Rice, Pitta, etc. played at their usual positions. With McKinnie...Oher was back to RT and KO was @ Lg, and that bolstered our OLine to the max.
    Without McKinnie, where/who do you line up the OLinemen at? THAT is the point of his upgrading 3 positions... Bc




  12. #42

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by BcRaven View Post
    leach, you missed the point. Flacco, Rice, Pitta, etc. played at their usual positions. With McKinnie...Oher was back to RT and KO was @ Lg, and that bolstered our OLine to the max.
    Without McKinnie, where/who do you line up the OLinemen at? THAT is the point of his upgrading 3 positions... Bc
    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.




  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Dimas, CA
    Posts
    7,804

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    I'm not at all sure that McKinnie's play at LT was the SOLE factor, or even the most important factor, in the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Go back and look at Filmstudy's grades of McKinnie during the playoffs, and you'll find that McKinnie wasn't actually playing all that great overall. Flacco and the offense were stepping up and making plays despite that.
    Exactly. The easy answer is that putting McKinnie in as LT made the difference, but correlation is not causation. I am sure I am in the minority, but I think that KO at left guard had the bigger impact. Flacco all throughout the post season was able to step up into the pocket - which never existed when anyone else playing left guard was getting knocked back - and make one big play after another. It is entirely possible that replacing McKinnie with any average LT would net the same results, as long as KO remained at left guard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Purpleguy View Post
    If you watch the mic'ed up highlights of the AFC Championship there is a part where Reed is on the bench saying "this is the o-line we have been talking about all year. They're invincible".
    And if you watch the mic'ed up highlights of the Super Bowl, you can clearly hear Flacco saying - after being sacked on a completely missed blocking assignment, "I don't know what McKinnie was doing out there."




  14. #44

    Re: McKinnie ?

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    That's not my point. Of course we wouldn't have won the SB without a number of players. We wouldn't have won the SB without Flacco, Yanda, Rice, KO, Tucker, Pitta, Ngata, hell, maybe even Upshaw and Kruger. Its just people like to point at the players that aren't on our roster anymore (I'm obviously hoping McKinnie is back soon) like Boldin, yet they forget to mention that there are a bunch of players on our roster right now, that would have also been irreplaceable in the SB run. There are also additional players added to the roster that would have likely made the SB run even easier.
    Okay. I see what you're saying.




  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Land of Verdite
    Posts
    13,365
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: McKinnie ?

    The issue with McKinnie isn't about what you get when he's motivated and properly conditioned, it's that it takes too many circumstances and too much time for him to get there. Ozzie is going to lowball him and he probably won't have much choice, but to take it.
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




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