Scoggins: Offensive line might block Vikings from success

[dead_poet]

Count me as one very worried.

http://www.startribune.com/offensive-li ... 325514221/

Even if Sullivan returns to practice this week and plays in Monday’s opener at San Francisco — which still is unknown at this point — the sensitive nature of a back injury creates worry that it could flare up on the 30-year-old again.

The offensive line already is taking on water and the season hasn’t even started.

That’s a red flag flapping in the wind because the success of their season hinges largely on that group’s ability to demonstrate significant improvement.

On paper, the Vikings look like an eight- to 10-win team, possibly a playoff team. But that’s operating under the assumption that their line doesn’t remain a weak link. That’s still to be determined.

[Mothman]

Thanks for the link. Scoggins did a nice job with that piece. There's plenty of cause for concern with the o-line and Sullivan's back issues make a shaky situation shakier. Berger's a solid backup but depth on that unit is already thin. It doesn't need to get thinner.

I'm worried too.

[mmvikes]

For me, that is the key to our season. If they can protect, and give Teddy time to utilize our entire gameplan, we will do well. If Norv has to shrink the playbook to cover for oline weaknesses, we could have a tough time.

[frosted]

I'm very worried about the offensive line.

[losperros]

A good but depressing article. Yes, I share the concern.

We're all waiting to see Teddy progress and AD come back. But it's all for nothing if the current OL can't do its job. That's an unsettling thought.

[mansquatch]

Listening to the radio this AM, Mike Florio was discussing with Paul Allen how Offensive Line woes are common across the league right now. That doesn’t help us, but perhaps this is a trend in the league and not just an issue we have?

I get the general view that solid OL play is important, but in terms of an offense is the difference between and “average” NFL OL and a great one determined simply by the talent of the guys blocking or is it a function of the guys they are blocking for? I’m sure it is a mix of both, but take a few examples. The 49ers had a great OL, maybe the best in football, and Kaepernick was never been more than average. By contrast, GB has never invested much in their OL and they are routinely the #1 offense.

I’m sure there are counter examples, but I’m not sure having issues here means we are DOA. It certainly isn’t going to help us, but I do not think it means we are just done for.

Another question, why do teams let blue chip OL like Iupati or Jake Long walk if they are so critical to the success of an offense? Did Steve Hutchinson break Seattle, much less make the Vikings elite when he shifted teams?

I think we a greater share of issues along the OL, but I’m not 100% sold on the doom and gloom.

[Mothman]

Listening to the radio this AM, Mike Florio was discussing with Paul Allen how Offensive Line woes are common across the league right now. That doesn’t help us, but perhaps this is a trend in the league and not just an issue we have?

I get the general view that solid OL play is important, but in terms of an offense is the difference between and “average” NFL OL and a great one determined simply by the talent of the guys blocking or is it a function of the guys they are blocking for? I’m sure it is a mix of both, but take a few examples. The 49ers had a great OL, maybe the best in football, and Kaepernick was never been more than average. By contrast, GB has never invested much in their OL and they are routinely the #1 offense.

I’m sure there are counter examples, but I’m not sure having issues here means we are DOA. It certainly isn’t going to help us, but I do not think it means we are just done for.

I don't think it means they're done for either but it's a worrisome situation. Poor o-line play could certainly cost the team games or even ruin a potentially good season. It's not guaranteed to happen but it's a concern.

Regarding your question (which is interesting): personally, I think the difference between an average OL and a great one is definitely determined by the performance of the OL players themselves but I'm referring to actual performance, not simply a statistical measure of their worth. Great skill position play can certainly help an OL look good statistically in terms of rushing yards gained, sacks allowed, etc. but that doesn't really change how the OL players themselves performed.

Another question, why do teams let blue chip OL like Iupati or Jake Long walk if they are so critical to the success of an offense? Did Steve Hutchinson break Seattle, much less make the Vikings elite when he shifted teams?

Sometimes cap issues force their hand and sometimes they don't have a choice unless they want to franchise tag the player. Long was offered an extension by the Dolphins but left for the Rams in free agency.

Iupati was a free agent too. I don't know if SF didn't sign him for cap reasons, if they found his disappointing pass blocking in 2014 bad enough to consider him expendable or if there was another reason he wasn't re-signed but again, once a player hits free agency, unless a team is willing to tag that player, it's really his decision to stay or accept an offer to play elsewhere.

I'm not sure I understand your point regarding Hutchinson. He didn't make the Vikes elite (which wouldn't have been a reasonable expectation) but he made them better.

[dead_poet]

Listening to the radio this AM, Mike Florio was discussing with Paul Allen how Offensive Line woes are common across the league right now. That doesn’t help us, but perhaps this is a trend in the league and not just an issue we have?

That's a complex question. It could go as deep as the development/training of bigger/faster defensive linemen compared to injuries and talent.

I get the general view that solid OL play is important, but in terms of an offense is the difference between and “average” NFL OL and a great one determined simply by the talent of the guys blocking or is it a function of the guys they are blocking for? I’m sure it is a mix of both, but take a few examples. The 49ers had a great OL, maybe the best in football, and Kaepernick was never been more than average. By contrast, GB has never invested much in their OL and they are routinely the #1 offense.

I think, like you elude to, they're symbiotic. I think the truly elite quarterbacks can almost transcend most "problems" (meaning perhaps a lack of quality receivers and/or offensive line). The better, more accurate the decision-maker behind center, the better the offense will fare. Conversely, a guy that takes longer to make a decision and release the ball is going to need a "better", more consistent offensive line to find an open receiver. This, of course, is just taking into account pass-blocking.

Spotrac.com is a good site to look at things like this. For example, in 2015 the Vikings are #13 in amount allocated to the offensive line. For comparison, Green Bay is #14. The Jets are #1 (followed by the Raiders, Cardinals and Redskins).

Here are the top-5-spending offensive lines the last couple of years (by cap dollars):

2014: Redskins, Jets, Saints, Broncos, Seahawks (MIN: #18, GB: #14, SF #10)
2013: Seahawks, Buccaneers, Titans, Redskins, Browns (MIN: #10, GB #20, SF #18)

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/2 ... sive-line/

What jumps out here to me is that some teams invest heavily and end up having dynamic offenses (Denver, Seattle, New Orleans), while others spend a lot on the offensive line but have offenses in the lower-tier of the league. Of course there are variables in play (did a guy get a ton of cash via free agency and stopped trying? Was there a coaching change and the expensive guys had a hard time adapting or weren't a schematic fit? Are you getting high-quality line play from guys still on their first/rookie contracts?) and these can't be taken at face value but it provides a bit of information as far as a team's "value" of having a "good" offensive line. Something to keep in mind that Seattle has dropped to #29 this year and Denver to #26 (8.58 & 9.83% of cap dollars allocated, respectively) and I expect both to still have productive offenses.

I’m sure there are counter examples, but I’m not sure having issues here means we are DOA. It certainly isn’t going to help us, but I do not think it means we are just done for.

I don't think we're "done for" either, but a lot hinges on their play as the old saying goes: "Everything starts up front." Teddy has shown that he can perform well under pressure, but I don't think it's a stretch to pine for offensive line play like we've all seen the Patriots have in years past when Brady literally can STAND STILL for seemingly five seconds and wait for someone to get open. The more time to throw, the bigger the holes the RB can run through the better. And the fewer hits on "Skinny Knees" Teddy, the better as well. Not only from a physical but psychological standpoint. You do often wonder how many quarterbacks are "ruined" by absorbing so many hits, especially early in their careers. That's not to say that's all on line line if they perpetually hold onto the ball too long. However I'm not sure how much of a fluke it was that Romo had his best year behind what many considered to be the best offensive line in football. The Cowboys were #8 last year and #23 this year in terms of cap space allocated to that position group.

Another question, why do teams let blue chip OL like Iupati or Jake Long walk if they are so critical to the success of an offense? Did Steve Hutchinson break Seattle, much less make the Vikings elite when he shifted teams?

I think it really is a case-by-case basis. In the case of Long, he has an extensive injury history. But it was reported he was offered more money from Miami than he signed for in St. Louis but he ultimately chose St. Louis because of "a disconnect with the front office." But a real effort was made by the Dolphins to retain him, signaling their understanding he was a key player for them. Iupati, as is the case almost universally these days, was looking for a big payday and sounds like he priced himself out of their plans (I just looked and the 49ers have about $10 of 2015 cap space remaining and Iupati signed a five-year, $40 million contract with $22.5 million guaranteed, including a $6 million signing bonus and an initial roster bonus of $4 million. Another $5 million is available through incentives). And perhaps he wanted out of the train wreck that seems to be San Francisco (understandably).

But, ultimately, guys like Long, Iupati, etc. are just one of the five guys on the line. He might shore up his guard position but if the tackle position is still a dumpster fire, he may have done his job but the stat sheet will still be filled with hurries/sacks. It's also important to remember that even if a team invests a lot in their offensive line, their top guys could end up injured so it will appear on the stat sheet that the team isn't getting the return when they may not be operating at full strength.

I think we a greater share of issues along the OL, but I’m not 100% sold on the doom and gloom.

Sorry for the long reply. Ultimately I don't think there's a lot of gloom (yet...zero regular season sacks given up!) but I don't think anyone disagrees that the offensive line isn't important. The Vikings were a team with significant issues last year who did very little to fix them over the offseason. Their depth is troubling. Arguably their best offensive lineman (Loadholt) is out for the season. They replaced him with a fourth-round rookie. Their second-best (or best), Sullivan, has missed like 13 straight practices. Kalil is a huge wild card that is coming off two consecutive sub-par seasons (conservatively a bottom-10 NFL starting left tackle). Harris is a converted tackle that has started all of 17 games (none at guard I don't think). As a unit they ranked 28th in average yards per carry (3.0) this preseason (yes, without Peterson) and generated very little running room.

There seems to be more reasons for worry than for optimism with this group. At least from my perspective.

[mansquatch]

Your last sentence sums up where I'm at. We've got a concentration of injuries at that position and at the very least we are starting guys who the coaches did not feel were the top guys on the squad at their position. In general that situation is less than ideal. However, as you said, we haven't played a game yet, so is it s a disaster? Not yet...

The other side of the coin is stuff like the commonly stated refrain that quite often the difference between a good player and a great player in the NFL is small. So in that vein of thought maybe we'll be OK. Loss of experience hurts, but can these guys become serviceable by week 6? Maybe.

Perhaps our early Bye Week could end up being a blessing for our young and untested OL?

[VikingLord]

I'm worried, but if there is one unit on a football team where the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts its the offensive line. As long as the guys out there do their job and handle their assignments consistently, a "less talented" line can equal or surpass a line of better individual players. I could see this being a big problem for the Vikings, but I could also see it become largely a non-issue for them, and perhaps even a blessing in disguise as a few younger guys get to shine.

[jackal]

Peterson and the screenpass should complicate things some .. The won't be able to bull rush and let Peterson
or one of the TE's out in the flat after a chip block. I think Teddy is very good at reading defenses and reacting
to their alignments.

[Mothman]

Zimmer focused on 'lots of concerns,' not just Vikings' offensive line

Zimmer also talked about pushing the offensive line harder this summer when it came to emphasizing pass protection, which is just a tad important in this league.

“Yes, much, much harder,” he said. “It was a point of emphasis that we had to get better at.”

Turner then singled out left tackle Matt Kalil as a player who has impressed him this preseason.

“Actually, throughout the preaseason, Kalil has had a really good preseason,” Zimmer said. “He’s blocked his guys all the time. I think he got beat one time on a spin move or something, but for the most part, Matt has really improved.”

[mansquatch]

The early signs are pointing towards us grabbing OL talent in the upcomign draft. That position group is currently the one with the biggest holes. Of course, no games have been played, thus come December the view on that topic could be quite different.

[fiestavike]

The run blocking this preseason has been concerning, however I found Turner's comments about spreading the field a little bit for Adrian to be a reason for optimism. Peterson gets from the handoff to the line so quickly that draws and dives against a spread out defense are really exciting propositions. They may not require dominant run blocking. It also creates a threat from spread formations that might force defenders to respect the run and allow more weapons more time to get open in the pass game.

[jackal]

The early signs are pointing towards us grabbing OL talent in the upcomign draft. That position group is currently the one with the biggest holes. Of course, no games have been played, thus come December the view on that topic could be quite different.

Tice was the last coach who actually taught fundamentals of the game. Childress just was angry and yelled a lot and
was convinced he knew more than others. Frazier just tried to repair the damage Childress caused and looked confused.