Mounting losses up front could become a "real problem"

[IrishViking]

It sure seems like there's an enormous amount of effort being expended in this thread to circle around or justify the elephant in the room instead of just acknowledging it's presence. Why is that so hard?

Its not that we don't acknowledge it, its just that it isn't an elephant. the Oline is the consensus point of weakness, we all agree it needs to be addressed. But the pass protection is holding up through various means that actually seem to be working on a technical level not just a whisper and a prayer. And while the run blocking is atrocious, since the loss of the Best Running back ever in our uniform our offense has average 90+ yards a game in 66% of the the games played and improved every week. It seems the split is on whether or not it should have been addressed earlier, the camps are; yes it should have versus; tit for tat happy with what we got against what we would have had to give up.


It could be that it suffers later on or falters, but as of now everything is trending in the right direction in spite of the borderline laughable number of injuries we have suffered around the running game and the oline.

[mansquatch]

It sure seems like there's an enormous amount of effort being expended in this thread to circle around or justify the elephant in the room instead of just acknowledging it's presence. Why is that so hard?

I do not think anyone is saying the O-Line isn't bad, I'm certainly not making that case. I'm just not certain the issues from the GM standpoint are a result of bad GM as opposed to bad luck? In fact, I think there is a case to be made that their using predominantly late round selections and other team's cast offs to fill these roster spots is by design so they could invest in defense and skill positions. (that is what they have done.) So if we are going to go after the GM then it is fair to ask if the above strategy is faulty? I'm just not persuaded that Spielman isn't aware of the fact that using late round picks and other team's castoffs entails a certain risk, as you said he is the professional. For me to blame him that would be the requirement or the starters are just terrible.

This year it seems like a cascade of injuries at Tackle is more of the culprit than bad personnel. That speaks more to bad luck than bad GM, at least to me.

They are 5-0 using the strategy and they've beaten 2 of the best defensive fronts in the NFL. It hasn't been pretty, but it has worked. At least so far.

[mansquatch]

sorry for double post, I hit the wrong button. Please delete.

[Mothman]

Its not that we don't acknowledge it, its just that it isn't an elephant. the Oline is the consensus point of weakness, we all agree it needs to be addressed. But the pass protection is holding up through various means that actually seem to be working on a technical level not just a whisper and a prayer. And while the run blocking is atrocious, since the loss of the Best Running back ever in our uniform our offense has average 90+ yards a game in 66% of the the games played and improved every week. It seems the split is on whether or not it should have been addressed earlier, the camps are; yes it should have versus; tit for tat happy with what we got against what we would have had to give up.

It could be that it suffers later on or falters, but as of now everything is trending in the right direction in spite of the borderline laughable number of injuries we have suffered around the running game and the oline.

I guess time will tell. To me, it's a giant, neon green elephant that screams "trouble down the road".

[Mothman]

I do not think anyone is saying the O-Line isn't bad, I'm certainly not making that case. I'm just not certain the issues from the GM standpoint are a result of bad GM as opposed to bad luck? In fact, I think there is a case to be made that their using predominantly late round selections and other team's cast offs to fill these roster spots is by design so they could invest in defense and skill positions. (that is what they have done.) So if we are going to go after the GM then it is fair to ask if the above strategy is faulty? I'm just not persuaded that Spielman isn't aware of the fact that using late round picks and other team's castoffs entails a certain risk, as you said he is the professional. For me to blame him that would be the requirement or the starters are just terrible.

Haven't the starters been pretty terrible in recent years? I'm not sure who is making the case that Spielman is unaware of the risk in using late round picks and other team's castoffs. I have no doubt what he's done has been by design. That's why I've been so critical of it. In my opinion, the situation has much more to do with a flawed approach than bad luck. Obviously, you and some others see it as just bad luck. For me, it's been going on far too long to credit to simple misfortune.

They are 5-0 using the strategy and they've beaten 2 of the best defensive fronts in the NFL. It hasn't been pretty, but it has worked. At least so far.

That's the overwhelming message I'm getting in all of this: they're 5-0 so everything is just peachy. Maybe it is...

[IrishViking]

That's the overwhelming message I'm getting in all of this: they're 5-0 so everything is just peachy. Maybe it is...

My message is that they are succeeding and improving in spite of the problems so maybe the Oline can wait until the next offseason as oppose to building a time machine because through over a quarter of the season the coaching staff has shown they can protect the QB and produce with what they have.

[Purple Domination]

In fact, I think there is a case to be made that their using predominantly late round selections and other team's cast offs to fill these roster spots is by design so they could invest in defense and skill positions. (that is what they have done.) of

We have certainly invested our draft picks in other places. But as it relates to salary cap, I believe we have the first or second highest paid offensive line in the entire NFL. That's what drives me crazy, our bang for the dollar is nonexistent.

[mansquatch]

We have certainly invested our draft picks in other places. But as it relates to salary cap, I believe we have the first or second highest paid offensive line in the entire NFL. That's what drives me crazy, our bang for the dollar is nonexistent.

This is an eye sore, but one that will likely be changed next off-season. Fusco has a big contract, so does Kalil. Kalil is in a contract year, so this trip to IR will significantly degrade his market value. The question then becomes if the Vikings pay him a premium so he doesn't hit Free Agency? IMO he will get more than he likely deserves simply because he is a LT and the market will be high, but he won't be paid elite LT money. Fusco is in the latter years of his deal so it wouldn't be surprising if he gets a restructure, although part of that depends on how he finishes this season. His trajectory right now is upward. Boone's contract likely won't change. Not sure what Berger is getting paid, but I can't see him going anywhere after cutting Sullivan. Smith was a 1yr prove it deal and he got hurt. So that contract is gone and replaced with ???

[S197]

That's the overwhelming message I'm getting in all of this: they're 5-0 so everything is just peachy. Maybe it is...

I don't think everything is peachy but I do feel like there should be a little more credit or at the least, less criticism given the team's performance. I guess if we're talking philosophy, is there a particular team that you wished Spielman would emulate?

[halfgiz]

We have certainly invested our draft picks in other places. But as it relates to salary cap, I believe we have the first or second highest paid offensive line in the entire NFL. That's what drives me crazy, our bang for the dollar is nonexistent.

Yeah but not counting Sully or Kalil I wonder where we would rate.

[Mothman]

My message is that they are succeeding and improving in spite of the problems so maybe the Oline can wait until the next offseason as oppose to building a time machine because through over a quarter of the season the coaching staff has shown they can protect the QB and produce with what they have.

That's a very positive spin (and a nice zinger re; the time machine).

We obviously see what's going on very differently.

I don't think they've shown they can protect the QB particularly well. The signing of Jake Long and this recent comment from Zimmer suggest to me that they're not feeling nearly as good about their pass protection as you are:

"We’ve got to protect [Bradford] better," Zimmer said. "We don’t want our guy taking those kind of shots."

Here's another recent comment:

“We’ve got to get some better, more efficient runs than what we had, so that will be our focus going into next week during the bye,” Zimmer said after Minnesota finished with 96 total yards and an average of 2.6 yards per carry.

From the same article:

Zimmer said the offensive line needs to better protect Bradford, who was sacked twice and hit eight times by the Texans. Zimmer was impressed with Bradford’s ability to stand in the pocket and make a nice pass to Jarius Wright on a third-down situation, even while anticipating being hit by a lineman.

[Mothman]

I don't think everything is peachy but I do feel like there should be a little more credit or at the least, less criticism given the team's performance.

Overall, I've been praising their performance all season, from Hill in week 1 to the WRs, Rudolph, the defense and Bradford. I've commended Turner for the adjustments he's made and complimented Zimmer and the defensive staff for the job they've done. Earlier in this thread I agreed that Sparano deserves some credit just for getting what he has out of the ever-shifting lineup too. However, from the outset the OL's performance hasn't been particularly praiseworthy this season. "Less criticism" shouldn't mean "no criticism", right?

I guess if we're talking philosophy, is there a particular team that you wished Spielman would emulate?

Well, I'd say the Patriots have done a pretty good job of managing their roster over the past 15-16 years so they might be a good choice! However, I don't have a particular team in mind that I'd like them to emulate.

Honestly, I'd just like to see a more logical approach than I feel we've seen over the past 9 years and I hope to see Spielman do a better job of anticipating potential problems and issues when team-building. I'm aware of the irony of criticizing the GM when the team is 5-0. They've done a marvelous job of building the defense and they are clearly a contender this year, which makes me happy. I've just seen so many lopsided Vikings teams over the years that I'm tired of it. Here we are again: top 5 defense, bottom 5 offense. History tells us where that usually leads and I'm concerned the success they've had thus far this season will be unsustainable (especially in the postseason) if that doesn't change.

Mansquatch brought up next season and things could get really interesting on the line then. They'll probably have to acquire or re-sign 2 starting tackles and they'll be without a first round pick in the draft. They'll have to decide if Easton is the heir apparent at center or if they need someone else. Berger will be 35 and in the last year of his contract. Depending on what's going on with Harris, his roster spot might be open too, meaning a need for another backup.

[jackal]

I have been very concerned on our OL for years ....

I am surprised all the IR money isn't logged into another fund, at some point at least...