View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:19 pm



Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a year 
Author Message
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37214
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Exactly. Granted, we'll see how everything goes in a few months but some are acting like the sky is falling.


That description could probably be applied to one or two people here at most but there's an emphasis now in multiple threads on the possibility that the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team IF they play their cards right, get lucky, stay healthy and basically just have everything go well for them. Now that it's reached the point where people are just voting +1, +2, etc. it's basically become the death of conversation.

Let's just acknowledge what almost the entire board has acknowledged already and say yes, it's possible the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team next year. The main disagreement about this subject on the board doesn't seem to be about possibility in the first place but about probability, about expectations. If we're going to keep discussing it, let's at least have an actual discussion about that rather than this repeated jousting against a nearly non-existent opposing view of "some" that "the sky is falling" and the Vikings have no chance at all.

Can we all agree that it's reasonable for people to disagree about the direction of a Vikings team with a highly-ranked defense that won the division in 2015, lost a close playoff game and started last season 5-0 but that's also struggled on offense for years now, collapsed last season and is facing a major rebuild on their offensive line? There's no more reason to ignore the 3-8 finish than there is to ignore the 11 win season that preceded it so it shouldn't be controversial for fans here to have hopes or doubts. After all, we're talking about a team with both obvious strengths and significant weaknesses, a team that just followed a clear upswing with an equally clear downturn in back-to-back seasons. They finished .500, which literally wasn't a winning or losing record so the overall trajectory of the team is clearly debatable. Can we please just discuss them rather than trying to divide the board into hostile camps of believers and non-believers? It's football, not faith.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:57 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:03 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37214
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
halfgiz wrote:
Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.


Amen. Let's see how the team deals with the many roster decisions they need to make and then we'll have more information with which to assess their chances for success.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:07 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:14 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
halfgiz wrote:
@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.


Yikes, that doesn't bode well.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:15 am
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10272
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
fiestavike wrote:
halfgiz wrote:
@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.


Yikes, that doesn't bode well.


I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:35 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10037
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
S197 wrote:
I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.


I agree. I took the comment to mean Johnson didn't like being force-fed into a system, especially one that wasn't working. It's the "pound square pegs into round holes" dynamic.

I hope the the Vikings re-sign Patterson and play Wright more often because they both could be more successful in Shurmur's offense than in Norv's restrictive system. In fact, I think all the WRs would be better off.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:06 pm
Profile
Backup

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Posts: 69
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
S197 wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
halfgiz wrote:
@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.


Yikes, that doesn't bode well.


I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.


That's how I took it as well and I see it the same way as you do when it comes to chemistry and improvisation. Norv was a very "rigid" manager, resistant to change and new ideas. He very much had a my way or the highway approach. It really hasn't worked out too well for him over the years. Outside of Dallas, 25 years ago with a HOF QB, RB, WR and an all time great O- line. "Excellence" really hasn't been a very good way to define his carreer.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:15 pm
Profile
Backup

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Posts: 69
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Exactly. Granted, we'll see how everything goes in a few months but some are acting like the sky is falling.


That description could probably be applied to one or two people here at most but there's an emphasis now in multiple threads on the possibility that the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team IF they play their cards right, get lucky, stay healthy and basically just have everything go well for them. Now that it's reached the point where people are just voting +1, +2, etc. it's basically become the death of conversation.

Let's just acknowledge what almost the entire board has acknowledged already and say yes, it's possible the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team next year. The main disagreement about this subject on the board doesn't seem to be about possibility in the first place but about probability, about expectations. If we're going to keep discussing it, let's at least have an actual discussion about that rather than this repeated jousting against a nearly non-existent opposing view of "some" that "the sky is falling" and the Vikings have no chance at all.

Can we all agree that it's reasonable for people to disagree about the direction of a Vikings team with a highly-ranked defense that won the division in 2015, lost a close playoff game and started last season 5-0 but that's also struggled on offense for years now, collapsed last season and is facing a major rebuild on their offensive line? There's no more reason to ignore the 3-8 finish than there is to ignore the 11 win season that preceded it so it shouldn't be controversial for fans here to have hopes or doubts. After all, we're talking about a team with both obvious strengths and significant weaknesses, a team that just followed a clear upswing with an equally clear downturn in back-to-back seasons. They finished .500, which literally wasn't a winning or losing record so the overall trajectory of the team is clearly debatable. Can we please just discuss them rather than trying to divide the board into hostile camps of believers and non-believers? It's football, not faith.


I wouldn't classify my (x2) comment as contributing to the death of conversation. I just agreed with that post. Some of these topics and issues have really become so stale and beat to death. I have already given my thoughts on most of them. I don't feel anyone is trying to divide the board. People's inherently competitive nature may make it seem that way, but at the end of the day, I believe MOST people here believe that everyone's opinion should be respected, whether they agree with it or not.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:40 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4158
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
halfgiz wrote:
Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.


I've said that more than once on here. Not everyone listens though

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:44 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
S197 wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
halfgiz wrote:
@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.


Yikes, that doesn't bode well.


I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.


I think they have a higher floor and a much lower ceiling under Shurmur. I understand the benefits of going that direction, but it also has consequences/limitations, not the least of which is what it communicates organizationally.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:47 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37214
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
halfgiz wrote:
Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.


I've said that more than once on here. Not everyone listens though


Trust me, everyone gets it.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:06 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37214
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Alaskan wrote:
I wouldn't classify my (x2) comment as contributing to the death of conversation. I just agreed with that post. Some of these topics and issues have really become so stale and beat to death.


Which is what I meant by the "death of conversation".


Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:09 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4158
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
halfgiz wrote:
Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.


I've said that more than once on here. Not everyone listens though


Trust me, everyone gets it.


Alrighty then

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:20 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
S197 wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
halfgiz wrote:
@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.


Yikes, that doesn't bode well.


I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.


I agree, I think Shurmur's approach gives us a little better chance to succeed.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:12 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
halfgiz wrote:
I agree, I think Shurmur's approach gives us a little better chance to succeed.


What do you mean by 'succeed'? Honestly asking.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:44 pm
Profile
Backup

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Posts: 69
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Mothman wrote:
Alaskan wrote:
I wouldn't classify my (x2) comment as contributing to the death of conversation. I just agreed with that post. Some of these topics and issues have really become so stale and beat to death.


Which is what I meant by the "death of conversation".


Sorry, my bad, I re-read the post and I understand what your getting at now.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:35 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37214
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Alaskan wrote:
Sorry, my bad, I re-read the post and I understand what your getting at now.


No worries. :)


Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:20 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10272
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
fiestavike wrote:
I think they have a higher floor and a much lower ceiling under Shurmur. I understand the benefits of going that direction, but it also has consequences/limitations, not the least of which is what it communicates organizationally.


This may also be true. I'm not sold on Shurmur so it will be interesting to see how the change in dynamic pans out.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:41 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
fiestavike wrote:
halfgiz wrote:
I agree, I think Shurmur's approach gives us a little better chance to succeed.


What do you mean by 'succeed'? Honestly asking.


Norv's game was power and vertical...which didn't match up with our personal.

Shurmur Game is more finesse which matches our personal better and gives him a better chance to succeed .

There are other differences but they are the two big ones.
Shurmur seems to play to a players strengths. Like Patterson, Shurmur run plays that suited his playing style.
Norv just benched him...


Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:48 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
A big question I have with Shurmer is on flexibility. I get that all guys have some system, but in reality, the NFL is probably more about flexibility. If you have a guy who could be a HOF player in a different system what should the priority be: Accessing that production or sticking to a system? IMO, it should be the former.

For the most part, I think much of the NFL operates with flexibility. I didn't get the impression that Norv was 100% flexible. I think he curtailed some of what he wanted to do, as a result of the protection, but as we saw last season he was unwilling to do certain things that Shurmer was willing to do.

I want to see if Shurmer is able to not just get talent on the field, but also effectively utilize it as the season goes on and defenses adjust. if we can be flexible in that way, then I think there is reason to be optimistic.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:56 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
mansquatch wrote:
A big question I have with Shurmer is on flexibility. I get that all guys have some system, but in reality, the NFL is probably more about flexibility. If you have a guy who could be a HOF player in a different system what should the priority be: Accessing that production or sticking to a system? IMO, it should be the former.

For the most part, I think much of the NFL operates with flexibility. I didn't get the impression that Norv was 100% flexible. I think he curtailed some of what he wanted to do, as a result of the protection, but as we saw last season he was unwilling to do certain things that Shurmer was willing to do.

I want to see if Shurmer is able to not just get talent on the field, but also effectively utilize it as the season goes on and defenses adjust. if we can be flexible in that way, then I think there is reason to be optimistic.


I think its worth considering the same question from a defensive standpoint. Any offense that is not functioning is certainly not intimidating. Its easy to choose any functioning offense over any nonfunctional offense. From that standpoint, I understand Vikings fans being excited about bringing in a more flexible approach. But an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense, when it IS functioning, is far more intimidating than an offense which bends and compromises in order to get the ball into the hands of player X, or "functions" but at a much lower level of stress placed on the defense.

There are at least 3 dimensions to this question, but Vikings fans seem to only comprehend it in 2 dimensions - essentially "will there be more yards and points?" Will there be "improvement"? Will there be more "success"? Depends what that means to you. To me, success is a Super Bowl (or a team consistently playing at a Super Bowl level). On that measure, I don't really understand how anyone can possibly view Shurmur as a step up, even though I agree we will see better "statistical production" or "results".


Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:58 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37214
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
fiestavike wrote:
I think its worth considering the same question from a defensive standpoint. Any offense that is not functioning is certainly not intimidating. Its easy to choose any functioning offense over any nonfunctional offense. From that standpoint, I understand Vikings fans being excited about bringing in a more flexible approach. But an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense, when it IS functioning, is far more intimidating than an offense which bends and compromises in order to get the ball into the hands of player X, or "functions" but at a much lower level of stress placed on the defense.


Sure, but an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense and IS functioning doesn't need to bend or compromise because it's already working as designed. Increased flexibility becomes necessary when it's not functioning because, as you said, an offense in that situation isn't intimidating. It's actually detrimental. An offense can bend and compromise without abandoning core principles or stunting it's long term development. The latter doesn't depend on inflexibility. Getting the ball into the hands of playmakers is one of the primary means by which an offense taxes a defense when it is functioning at a high level. Adapting to circumstances in an effort to keep doing that places more stress on a defense than failing to adapt and continuing to operate an offense that isn't functioning effectively.

Quote:
There are at least 3 dimensions to this question, but Vikings fans seem to only comprehend it in 2 dimensions - essentially "will there be more yards and points?" Will there be "improvement"? Will there be more "success"? Depends what that means to you. To me, success is a Super Bowl (or a team consistently playing at a Super Bowl level). On that measure, I don't really understand how anyone can possibly view Shurmur as a step up, even though I agree we will see better "statistical production" or "results".


"Results" are just results, positive or negative. Putting that word in quotes might confuse the issue. After all, consistently playing at a Super Bowl level, as you defined success above, would also be a result.

I agree that it's hard to view Shurmur as a step up and I understand that pursuit of statistical production as a goal in itself can be detrimental but moving the ball and scoring points is the goal on offense and good statistical production is typically a by-product of effective offense. The ultimate goal is to win and to sustain winning so for the sake of this discussion, "improvement" and "success" might best be defined as a winning strategy. In other words, results matter and scoring more points definitely matters but building sustainable success is also important and ultimately, it's better to put up 300 yards of offense every week, take care of the ball and score efficiently than it is to put up 500 yards of offense every week, turn it over too often and end up settling for too many field goals and losing. The stats might look good but the team won't be achieving it's real goals.

In the end, they have to consider long-term team-building goals along with their more immediate needs.


Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:20 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Quote:
Sure, but an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense and IS functioning doesn't need to bend or compromise because it's already working as designed.


So, I think the question is how to get there, because nobody starts there. Personnel and development are huge, but more than anything, its culture. Compromise that, and you won't get it back without an organizational overhaul. Do we have that compromise at the coaching level? The ownership level? Again?


Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:56 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37214
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
fiestavike wrote:
Quote:
Sure, but an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense and IS functioning doesn't need to bend or compromise because it's already working as designed.


So, I think the question is how to get there, because nobody starts there. Personnel and development are huge, but more than anything, its culture. Compromise that, and you won't get it back without an organizational overhaul. Do we have that compromise at the coaching level? The ownership level? Again?


It's hard to say definitively but I share your concern that things may not be moving in the right direction. :( I get the impression we both feel the team is headed down the road to an organizational overhaul.


Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:04 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
Mothman wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
Quote:
Sure, but an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense and IS functioning doesn't need to bend or compromise because it's already working as designed.


So, I think the question is how to get there, because nobody starts there. Personnel and development are huge, but more than anything, its culture. Compromise that, and you won't get it back without an organizational overhaul. Do we have that compromise at the coaching level? The ownership level? Again?


It's hard to say definitively but I share your concern that things may not be moving in the right direction. :( I get the impression we both feel the team is headed down the road to an organizational overhaul.


I hope we are wrong. Would love to see Shurmur's approach be enough to get the Vikings over the hump, which seems to be the predominant line of thinking for those who are more optimistic. I don't see that happening unless the defense takes its game to another level and regularly perform like they did in the early part of last season.

skimping on the offensive line and aggressively trying to address DT, MLB, and S probably gives this team the best chance to compete for a Super Bowl this year, but they begin (and have already begun) to undermine their longterm health by chasing their "window".


Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:15 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
I feel differently. I think balance is the biggest obstacle. The defense has shown the ability to compete at an elite level and shut down elite passing attacks. The rushing numbers have not been as dominant, but some of that is probably a result of playing close games. If you get a 2 score lead, your rushing defense benefits since the opponent has to throw. Obviously more to it than that.

For me the major concern is (obviously) the offense and within that realm (again obvious) the OL.

Where I'm worried is it seems like they've added challenges by cutting Fusco and Harris. They are essentially naked at both tackle slots and now they are also naked at RG. Current depth chart is this:

LT: ???
LG: Boone
C: Berger / Easton
RG: ???
RT: ???

Fusco wasn't great and Harris had a lot to still prove. I do not feel like we lost in terms of talent. However, it means right now we now need to replace 3 full positions on the OL and that is what concerns me.

It seems increasingly unlikely that teams will find competitive, NFL linemen in the draft. Now, admittedly, we are replacing performers who were rather pedestrian (In 2016), so in that sense maybe it might be more likely for the Vikings to find an improvement since the bar is set so low.

An interesting side bar to this. NE asked a former OL coach of theirs to come out of retirement specifically because he was good at getting guys ready to play, this helped them a lot this year. It remains undetermined if Sparano is able to be competitive in this "new normal" for OL in the NFL. So far the results are obviously poor.

Overall I'd be happy if they found one guy in the draft to start in 2017 although I am skeptical that they'll achieve that.

That brings us to Free Agency. Can they reliably find two or three competitive starters in FA without compromising the salary cap? Competitive is again somewhat relative. Even an average player at Tackle will probably be a dramatic upgrade from what we saw last season or the last two seasons at RT. (This is actually a source of optimism. TJ Clemmings is really awful, even a mediocre guy would be a big improvement.)

Lastly, what about guys currently on the roster? Does Rashod Hill have a chance to start? Or Sirles?

I suspect that Hill or Sirles will be a starter in 2017. I do not think they'll be able to make three replacements. I wonder if line will be something like this:

LT: FA, likely Kalil/Wentworth
LG: Boone
C: Berger/Easton
RG: One of several FA or draft pick
RT: FA or draft pick or Sirles/Hill

I've said this a lot, but just not having a player as bad 2016 #68 should help a great deal. Also, having season long continuity will help as well. Is that enough to give them a 3-7PPG improvement? I think it is. The running game will also likely improve and we won't have 7 games with Walsh shanking Field Goals extra points. That should give the defense a lot more help than it had in 2016 which should add up to a better performance. Is that enough for a deep playoff run? With a 3rd place divisional schedule it might be.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:53 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
mansquatch wrote:

Lastly, what about guys currently on the roster? Does Rashod Hill have a chance to start? Or Sirles?

I suspect that Hill or Sirles will be a starter in 2017. I do not think they'll be able to make three replacements. I wonder if line will be something like this:



Interesting post. Guys like Sirles and Hill are really the only thing to be hopeful about. It was a small sample size, but Hill looked good. It won't shock me if the vikings OL heading into preseason is something like

LT: Kalil
LG: Boone
C: Berger
RG: Sirles
RT: Hill

If Sirles and Hill can hold down those spots, your rookies are hopefully being groomed to take over 1 or 2 of those other spots the following year. In such a case, I would not be opposed to drafting 4 or 5 offensive linemen to get them in house as early as possible (1 to 2 years before they are ever expected to play).

As far as Fusco and Harris, I think the holes existed on the roster whether they were on the team or not. I really don't think they are any more desperate for a RG than they were before.


Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:09 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
I disagree in the sense that now they MUST fix that position where before they could have focused on tackle. From a talent stand point I agree. IMO, the move to cut them indicates they likely have their eyes on one of the Free Agents out there.

The biggest concern I have is that in cutting the two most likely starters at RG they are not now naked at both Tackle slots as well as RG.

I really hate to say this, but I wonder if they intend to Franchise Matt Kalil if a deal cannot be reached? That will not sit well with the Fan base (nor should it.) and wreak of desperation, but it is possible. The start of the new league year (next week?) is really going to be interesting.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:28 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y
mansquatch wrote:
I disagree in the sense that now they MUST fix that position where before they could have focused on tackle. From a talent stand point I agree. IMO, the move to cut them indicates they likely have their eyes on one of the Free Agents out there.


I think they HAD to fix that position before they cut them, and they still MUST fix it. There was never an option not to.

mansquatch wrote:
The biggest concern I have is that in cutting the two most likely starters at RG they are not now naked at both Tackle slots as well as RG.

I don't know what the deal was with Harris, but I'm pretty sure neither one was a likely starter. The idea that they would be the starter was evidently a non-starter.

mansquatch wrote:
I really hate to say this, but I wonder if they intend to Franchise Matt Kalil if a deal cannot be reached? That will not sit well with the Fan base (nor should it.) and wreak of desperation, but it is possible. The start of the new league year (next week?) is really going to be interesting.


I don't think they would. If Kalil doesn't want to play here for a reasonable salary, they could sign a better option in FA for less than the tag number they'd be paying him, I would think. And that player might have something to offer in 2018 and even 2019.


Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:44 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.