Hahaha me and you discussed this on the other site I believe.

 

Ooo lol. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

I don't see this trade happening unless the Vikes give up a draft pick as well, atleast a 3rd.

 

I feel the same way. I think they should give up a third. The only thing I dont like is McKinnies contract.

 

Interesting, I remember CK had a thread about this a while back. Getting McKinnie would free us up from having to draft a T at 1 or 32.

 

How old is McKenny?

 

Know when to hold em, and know when to fold em. Right now it's time to hold em.

 

28.

 

Thanks but no thanks. You need a left tackle, you draft one. It's quite simply the only way to do it. If a team wants to get rid of its left tackle, alarm bells should start ringing. Good LTs never become free agents. Good LTs are never available for trade. If you want to trade Taylor for an LT, send him away for a 2nd and draft one with the pick. This class is loaded with OT talent.

 

I think it's more a case of Ziggy Wilf being fed-up with McKinnie's off-field antics. Personally, I believe a change of scenery might do him some good along with the discipline level within the Parcells regime...just so long as we can keep him away from any boats.

 

Full Name: Bryant Douglas McKinnie
Born: September 23, 1979
Woodbury, NJ
Height: 6-8
Weight: 335 lbs.

Age: 28
Pos: OT
Experience: 6 years
College: Miami (FL)
Drafted: Year:2002 Round:1 Pick:7, Vikings

 

:lol:

 

I sincerely doubt that. It seems they are trying to play it that way in order to lure in a buyer(always plenty of Nick Sabans out there who believe that they are able to "upcoach" a player) but I don't buy that. You don't get rid of your left tackle just because you are being fed-up with his off-field antics because you might very well spend the next ten years trying to find an adequate replacement. See Miami, Arizona or Cleveland pre Joe Thomas. If they are indeed willing to let him go, there's going to be some on-field concerns involved.

Personally, I'm not a proponent of the "change of scenery" line of thinking either. It just doesn't work often enough. There are ten failures for each Randy Moss out there. Considering that LT play is going to be crucial in the development of Beck and/or a rookie, it doesn't seem to make sense that you take a one in ten chance. If we'd be talking about a receiver or a running back here, I'd say "let's give it a try". But with a position as important as left tackle? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

I want a draft pick

 

I'm pretty sure he's still regarded as one of the top LT's in the game and have heard nothing about his on-field performance suffering. Pac-man's on-field performance didn't suffer and the Titans are ready to trade him for basically nothing. Don't think for a second a team won't trade a player just because of his off-field issues. I don't think it makes a difference what position it is, if the player wants out bad enough or the people get fed up of his off-field issues it shouldn't matter.

That being said, Bryant has lived in Miami before so he would know the situation down here. Personally, I wouldn't mind this trade at all and in my opinion any extra picks coming out of it would be a bonus.

 

This trade will never happen. If there's a team that needs a pass rusher, it's the Colts and they aren't the type to make these sort of trades.

Besides, Jason Taylor would never agree to play for a team with question marks at QB. If he goes anywhere, it's either the Colts, Patriots, Green Bay (though I doubt it), San Diego.

And Jacksonville, which I do think is more realistic. JAX needs that outside pass rush and has David Garrard plus it's close to Miami enough where he can commute and such.

 

Well, let me put it that way: Offensive line stats are to be taken with a grain of salt, but a left tackle who has given up 46 sacks in 88 starts despite playing next to one of the best interior lines in the business isn't exactly one of the top LTs in my book. The Vikings gave up 38 sacks last year despite calling the fewest passing plays in the league. To me it does seem like Childress realized that McKinnie has never been an elite LT to begin with. The number of sacks he (and the Vikings as a team) gave up over the last couple of years is mind-boggling. He did a great job in run-blocking last season (so, by the way, did Carey) but I'm really at a loss as to why people tend to regard him as one of the top LTs in the game. It doesn't correspond with my personal observations and it doesn't correspond with his "production".

 

Great post. Nice support behind your reasons.

 

And that could be huge for us in terms of how soon we could expect to compete. Getting a quality guy like McKinnie at LT allows us to move Carey to RT, and all of the sudden we are looking pretty good up front.


There will be a stud OL on the board come our Chambers pick at the back of Round 2 or even early round 3.

 

I thought JT moved to Los Angeles to be closer to Hollywood. Did he sell his home in Miami? I don't know...

 

NO!

The Dolphins dealt a 2nd rnd pick to this very team for a qb that isn't even on any other roster at this point...
Now bring in a guy that is a known punk and probably keeps a team of lawyers on retainer to bail his *** out..

Why help the vikings once again by dealing one of the top DE's in the league, albeit a little long in the tooth but still a productive player for a OL with potential but too immature to realize it?
:no:




Marino1983

 

I can't see it unless we get atleast a 3rd, player for player, we are getting ripped.

 

Where did you get that stat? That's a crazy number of sacks for an OT to give up. Vernon Carey gave up like 3 sacks last year. 46 sacks in 88 starts translates to more than 8 sacks a season. That sounds too high for even the worst OT in the league.

 

Well, as far as the 'change of scenery' idea goes, he's gotten into some trouble here in Miami as well, so that may not be the best idea for him...but as to Wilf getting tired of his problems, it goes back to when Wilf took over the Vikes and the "Love Boat" escapade...apparently he was one of the key players in that mess and escaped much punishment. That change of scenery is usually a play related issue, not a behavioral issue as it is with McKinnie, but I'm sure the FO and fans would welcome this change for him away from Minny and adding a significant missing piece in their D.

That said, he's a solid LT maybe just outside the top ten, and would be a great addition from ability standpoint here. He certainly fills a hole (a canyon, in fact) here and would put Carey back to his more comfortable RT spot (although I'm not too displeased with him on the left).

JT's spot could be filled in the draft at #1, IMHO...Of course this trade going down before the draft would compromise Tunaland's smoke and mirrors as to who we are most interested in... For example, Atlanta would breath a sigh of relief that Ryan would be available to them at #3, and no trade up necessary to get him. Jerry Jones would be breathing easier (if in fact he really covets RunMcF) because a move to 4 or 5 would be easier than to #1 or #2...

So I would say, in this case, it would be worth a try for a LT who can anchor the line for the next 5-6 years versus passing on Chris Long because we have JT and/or the fact that we all know that as great as JT has been for us, he's only got a limited time left as a top tier DL/OLB. I guess it comes down to whether you want a rookie T who may not be a LT but is a great prospect and JT for another 2 yrs or a rookie OLB/DE that could be as good as JT has been for us for the next 10 yrs and a good-to-very good LT for the next 5 yrs...I take the latter...

 

Here's one source:

http://stats.cbc.ca/fb/playerstats.asp?id=5893&team=16

Stats LLC is a usually pretty reliable source. I'd still take it with a grain of salt as OL stats are a tricky thing, but generally speaking, his numbers are a concern, especially when considering that he's got Hutchinson playing next to him.

 

I agree with your proposition of switching Carey back to RT and acquiring an LT to anchor the line. I just don't think McKinnie's that guy. His "production" is worrisome, he's got major character issues and he comes with a huge contract to boot (and doesn't strike me as the kind of guy willing to take a steep paycut).

Even if he was a solid LT - and I still have my quarrels with that thesis because it seems to be based on reputation rather than production - I don't fancy the prospect of relying on a guy who isn't very reliable to protect the blindside of a young quarterback with ball control issues. I'd rather keep a what you see is what you get kind of guy like Carey at LT and get a franchise face of your defense kind of guy in Chris Long (if that's what it boils down to) than take a chance at a crucial position like left tackle.

Plus, this is a loaded draft at tackle. It isn't entirly impossible to get two tackles, switch Carey to LG and have a great young line for the future. Or get a tackle and guard (I do like McGlinn from Pittsburgh) and switch Carey back to the right side. Maybe even grab a center and move Satele to LG. There's a lot of options for us in this draft and I like all of them more than acquiring a character issue with worrisome production.

 

you make some very good points Ven, well said. I think my most fervant wish is to see the o line get fixed. With this draft, and the available talent in it, we, as you pointed out, have many options. One of my favorite times of the year is training camp and the o-line breakdowns from Simon, Chris ,Kieth, Marvin, and the others who share their skills and knowlege. Here's to an exciting draft weekend :hi5:

 

IN SOUTH FLORIDA..... How?!?!?!?!?
Seriously, I agree with drafting our own OT in this draft, and even more with getting a 2 and something else for JT.

 

While I have a better opinion of his playing ability than you do, having a veteran, game-experienced LT like McK and moving Carey to RT, could very well solidify the OL and give the same result for a young QB as in your scenario. The pick we wouldn't have to use on an OT could be used for another hole we have. Whether or not he is top tier, he'd better the OL either way.

This draft has a boat-load of tackles, just not as many LTs. It's the same argument for taking Jake...he's can be a great RT, but at this level can he be a solid LT ?? Aside from that, at #32 (assuming we select someone other than Jake Long at #1) the premier OTs will be gone in all likelihood.

Of course, all this is taken with a grain of salt because of the character issues. That would be the stumbling block, IMO, in the decision of Tunaland to make this type of a deal...