Mounting losses up front could become a "real problem"

[S197]

The #Vikings entered OTAs with nine O-linemen with at least 16 starts. With Andre Smith gone, they're down to four. strib.mn/2dHbFRt

This basically sums up the issue. There's no way you can foresee this sort of circumstance nor be perfectly ready to deal with it in the modern day NFL.

Jim, if you want to talk about commitment can you at least acknowledge that the team spent more money on the line than any other team? Not to mention they brought in Shurmur and Pagano? Plus Boone in free agency. Loadholt was looking very good by all the reports I read before his injury, who was doubtful on his return? Same with Sully, heck people were upset when he was cut.

I'm not trying to insinuate your criticism is in hindsight as you've wanted change even before the injuries but I think it's unfair to say the Vikings didn't put any commitment into the line.

Everything is a tradeoff, I think Hunter is looking like a great pick. It was almost universally accepted that the Vikings needed a WR. Honestly I think the only questionable pick would be Mac Alexander although many seem to think it was a very good value pick.

Even then, most people were calling for a guard to be drafted more so than a tackle.

[Mothman]

This basically sums up the issue. There's no way you can foresee this sort of circumstance nor be perfectly ready to deal with it in the modern day NFL.

You obviously can't foresee something like what's happened with Harris but you can foresee that a 30 year old tackle who has missed 22 straight games might not be a player you can rely on anymore and that a 31 year old center coming off 2 back surgeries might be similarly unreliable for medical reasons. You can foresee that a left tackle who's struggled with injuries for several years now might eventually suffer one that takes him out of games instead of one that allows him to play through them inconsistently.

Jim, if you want to talk about commitment can you at least acknowledge that the team spent more money on the line than any other team?

I have acknowledged that many times but please consider the expense acknowledged again. Unfortunately, it's really just further evidence of how badly they've blown it. They're paying more for less. However, as I've tried to make clear in the past, when I refer to commitment in regard to the o-line, I'm not simply talking about financial commitment. I'm talking about a commitment over time to building quality and depth on the unit, particularly but not exclusively via the draft.

Not to mention they brought in Shurmur and Pagano? Plus Boone in free agency. Loadholt was looking very good by all the reports I read before his injury, who was doubtful on his return?

I was and so were other people here. As I mentioned above, he had missed 22 straight games. Why wouldn't everyone be doubtful?

Everything is a tradeoff, I think Hunter is looking like a great pick. It was almost universally accepted that the Vikings needed a WR. Honestly I think the only questionable pick would be Mac Alexander although many seem to think it was a very good value pick.

I understand that every choice is a tradeoff, that each one leaves other possibilities on the table. That's what my dissatisfaction with this has been about! Choices. I'm dissatisfied with a philosophy that clearly doesn't prioritize the line until it becomes painfully obvious that it's a liability and moves must be made. It's about what I've considered an illogical approach over the past decade: fielding the best RB in football and spending a substantial portion of that same time trying to develop QBs but not making blocking and pass protection enough of a priority, particularly in the draft. It's about about my main complaint with Spielman, which dates back years, which is that for all the good he does in some areas and for all his talk about constantly looking to make the team better, he's too often a gambler and a "settler" who doesn't sufficiently learn from his mistakes. It's been evident for years, particularly at the QB, WR and OL positions.

I apologize if I sound frustrated. I'm just weary of repeating myself on this subject.

[mansquatch]

I'm not sure I follow on the gambler theme. Most of his picks haven't been reaches although some have. How can you fault them for blowing 1st round picks on QBs when they lacked a QB? He inherited that mess when he drafted Ponder. When they traded up for TB it was either that or start Ponder for a 4th season. I'm not seeing how that is a bad choice?

Later round picks have been more inconsistent, but that is not a unique scenario to the Vikings, all teams have that issue.

For me the disagreement is more on the general theme. Every team has a weakness. Here are a few for your consumption:

GB has a poor secondary and young ILB
DEN has poor QB play and lacks a consistent OL
PIT has a porous Defense
SEA lacks skill position talent on O outside of Wilson, OL isn't great, Defense not as strong as 2013 group
OAK same as PIT
ATL cannot rush the passer effectively
AZ must blitz to pressure QB (this year lacks QB play as well)
CAR has poor secondary and is not getting good play from QB

All of those teams have problems and most of them are likely to have playoff births, some even high seeds. (Maybe not the Panthers). To me it seems like the Vikings are employing a strategy of having a highly talented Defense and great offensive skill players. Along the way they have placed a lower emphasis on Offensive Line, choosing to fill it with late round guys. The question I have is why is the Vikings approach better or worse than some of the above? I'm not convinced it is a bad strategy.

[Mothman]

I'm not sure I follow on the gambler theme.

I'm referring to some of the riskier moves he’s made, mainly in the draft but also with personnel.

How can you fault them for blowing 1st round picks on QBs when they lacked a QB? He inherited that mess when he drafted Ponder.

He was partially responsible for that mess. He didn't just inherit it.

When they traded up for TB it was either that or start Ponder for a 4th season. I'm not seeing how that is a bad choice?

The bad choice is continually employing strategies that leave the team in a situation in which they must spend a first round pick on a QB. On top of that, I think Bridgewater was a risky choice because there were warning signs about his game (that proved accurate) and he wasn't really a fit for Turner's system. A trade up for Carr would have made more sense because his skill set made more sense for the scheme. Thank goodness the Browns took Manziel because if the rumors were true, the Vikes might have ended up with that train wreck at QB!

I had initially written more than this but most of my frustration with team management stems from this simple problem: if fans can grasp many of the issues and potential pitfalls facing the team and see legitimate paths to solutions, the GM should be able to do likewise because he is supposed to be the expert. However, Spielman has repeated obvious mistakes and stuck with some failed strategies throughout his tenure with the Vikes.

All of those teams have problems and most of them are likely to have playoff births, some even high seeds. (Maybe not the Panthers). To me it seems like the Vikings are employing a strategy of having a highly talented Defense and great offensive skill players.

Other than Peterson, who is unavailable, who are the Vikings great offensive skill players? Maybe Bradford, who is playing really well but he wasn't even a part of their original plans. Are any of their other skill players "great" by NFL standards? Diggs has shown flashes but he hasn't exactly established himself as a great player yet. Ditto for Rudolph.

It seems to me they're trying to win by leaning very heavily on defense and it may work, especially because they've stumbled into an upgrade at QB and I think that's probably enabling them to generate more offense than they would have otherwise. I'm just hoping the heavy focus on the defensive side of the ball doesn't work out for Zimmer the way it's worked out for some past DCs-turned-HCs who were able to put together great defenses but were unable to complement them with sufficiently good offenses.

Along the way they have placed a lower emphasis on Offensive Line, choosing to fill it with late round guys. The question I have is why is the Vikings approach better or worse than some of the above? I'm not convinced it is a bad strategy.

My main concern is how the Vikings strategy works for them in both the short and long term. I’m well aware that all teams have weaknesses. We’ve discussed that before. However, it should be obvious how a bad offensive line could hurt the team's chances to win a championship. Maybe they'll win one anyway. I hope so but I've never said the OL issues would prevent that, only that they make it harder.

So... good strategy or bad strategy? Time will tell. All I can tell you is I'm not crazy about it.

[S197]

You obviously can't foresee something like what's happened with Harris but you can foresee that a 30 year old tackle who has missed 22 straight games might not be a player you can rely on anymore and that a 31 year old center coming off 2 back surgeries might be similarly unreliable for medical reasons. You can foresee that a left tackle who's struggled with injuries for several years now might eventually suffer one that takes him out of games instead of one that allows him to play through them inconsistently.

Sure. But that's why you have guys like Andre Smith, Joe Berger, Sirles, Harris, Clemmings, and Nick Easton. It's reasonable to assume one of those guys goes down or can't come back but 80% of our line being injured at some point in time? There's no contingency for that.

I have acknowledged that many times but please consider the expense acknowledged again. Unfortunately, it's really just further evidence of how badly they've blown it. They're paying more for less. However, as I've tried to make clear in the past, when I refer to commitment in regard to the o-line, I'm not simply talking about financial commitment. I'm talking about a commitment over time to building quality and depth on the unit, particularly but not exclusively via the draft.

If I recall correctly, you and a few others wanted AJ Cann in the 2nd round. So lets assume the Vikings pass on Kendricks and drafted Cann. Is he likely an upgrade over Fusco? To be honest I haven't watched him play much but for the sake of argument, lets say he is a big upgrade. We're still starting Clemmings at LT and Sirles at RT. And probably Audi Cole at MLB instead of the guy that leads the team in passes defensed.

That would be a 1st (Kalil), 2nd (Loadholt), and 2nd (Cann) invested on the line and we would still be more or less where we are today. Add Boone and you have 80% of your line through the draft or free agency and really, we're marginally better off.

I understand that every choice is a tradeoff, that each one leaves other possibilities on the table. That's what my dissatisfaction with this has been about! Choices. I'm dissatisfied with a philosophy that clearly doesn't prioritize the line until it becomes painfully obvious that it's a liability and moves must be made. It's about what I've considered an illogical approach over the past decade: fielding the best RB in football and spending a substantial portion of that same time trying to develop QBs but not making blocking and pass protection enough of a priority, particularly in the draft. It's about about my main complaint with Spielman, which dates back years, which is that for all the good he does in some areas and for all his talk about constantly looking to make the team better, he's too often a gambler and a "settler" who doesn't sufficiently learn from his mistakes. It's been evident for years, particularly at the QB, WR and OL positions.

You pick your poison and it's clear the Vikings chose to prioritize the defense. Luckily (or strategically) this seems to have worked out well. If the offense continued to play like they did against the Titans, I think I would be more upset but the offense is putting up points and is doing well in the redzone. Even if you consider Bradford and upgrade over Teddy, all things considered that's still really good considering the injuries to the line, TE's, and Peterson.

I apologize if I sound frustrated. I'm just weary of repeating myself on this subject.

And I don't want to be too argumentative because I do think you have a point. I'd like to see the needle shift towards a focus on the line as well, I just don't see a scenario of had we drafted player x instead of player y, our line would be significantly better right now. Maybe you can provide that scenario, I just see holes everywhere that couldn't be patched by a high draft pick or two.

I think when you can't prioritize picks on a position, you can still make it a priority via adding coaching (we have 3 former head coaches now on offense), free agency (think Boone was a good pickup), and scouting (hopefully a Sirles or Easton works out). In those aspects, I feel the Vikings have done okay.

[kurtkeoki]

One thing I've noticed lately is that there an awful lot of teams that are having OL problems. It could be a combination of a weaker than average OL talent pool, combined with defenses that have gotten creative. Whatever the cause, it seems like NFL defenses are making NFL offensive lines look bad on a regular basis. It seems every game I watch, the commentators mention how weak the OL is, and how many issues the OL has. Obviously our OL is worse than most, but I don't think it's as bad relative to the rest of the NFL as some might believe.

[Mothman]

Sure. But that's why you have guys like Andre Smith, Joe Berger, Sirles, Harris, Clemmings, and Nick Easton. It's reasonable to assume one of those guys goes down or can't come back but 80% of our line being injured at some point in time? There's no contingency for that.

But if I'm understanding where you got that percentage correctly, it can only be considered 80% because they made the bad bet of thinking Loadholt and Sullivan would be starters in the first place, correct? That set them up to go into their depth right out of the gate and I think signing a guy like Smith exacerbated the problem because I don't believe he's starting material anymore. That basically meant they had one starting caliber tackle from the outset: Kalil (if you consider him starting-caliber, which I do). In my opinion, Clemmings was never a viable choice to back up the LT position and I don't think Harris, Smith or Sirles were either. They were set up better on the inside with the addition of Boone but not great if the goal was to improve on last season. The injury to Harris hurt because he could have been a backup at guard and tackle.

Their overall plan at tackle looked terrible to me from the start and there's also the issue of quality, which we discussed last year and during the offseason. Throwing money and bodies at the line isn't the same as truly addressing the quality of the line.

If I recall correctly, you and a few others wanted AJ Cann in the 2nd round. So lets assume the Vikings pass on Kendricks and drafted Cann. Is he likely an upgrade over Fusco? To be honest I haven't watched him play much but for the sake of argument, lets say he is a big upgrade. We're still starting Clemmings at LT and Sirles at RT. And probably Audi Cole at MLB instead of the guy that leads the team in passes defensed.

.. or another LB drafted instead of some of the other choices they've made. I doubt they;d be stuck with Cole. Again, they've had options and this bed wasn't made in one offseason. It's been made over years.

You're correct about Cann. I did want him in that draft and I definitely think he'd be an upgrade at guard.

That would be a 1st (Kalil), 2nd (Loadholt), and 2nd (Cann) invested on the line and we would still be more or less where we are today.

That's a first and 2 seconds over 8 years. It's not as if Loadholt was a recent pick. They've drafted something like 57 players since 2011 and they could potentially have drafted even more.

And I don't want to be too argumentative because I do think you have a point. I'd like to see the needle shift towards a focus on the line as well, I just don't see a scenario of had we drafted player x instead of player y, our line would be significantly better right now. Maybe you can provide that scenario, I just see holes everywhere that couldn't be patched by a high draft pick or two.

Well, part of my point is that this needed to happen steadily, over time, not in a big patchwork fix during one offseason.

I'm not going to get into specific players and specific draft scenarios because I don't think it's worth the time. Suffice to say there have been quality linemen available in every draft and the Vikes have had extra picks stockpiled in many of those drafts to give them maneuverability if they wanted it. As the saying goes, where there's a will there's a way. I think we've seen a lack of will. I thought that was very evident in this past draft.

I think when you can't prioritize picks on a position, you can still make it a priority via adding coaching (we have 3 former head coaches now on offense), free agency (think Boone was a good pickup), and scouting (hopefully a Sirles or Easton works out). In those aspects, I feel the Vikings have done okay.

I'm not convinced Sparano is anything more than a lateral move if that. I think Davidson may have been made a scapegoat. Shurmur is a nice addition though.

I appreciate the discussion (with Mansquatch too) and I'm glad you feel I have a point, even if we don't completely agree. You do too. I just think you're being too forgiving but I realize to many reading this I appear too unforgiving!

[Mothman]

One thing I've noticed lately is that there an awful lot of teams that are having OL problems. It could be a combination of a weaker than average OL talent pool, combined with defenses that have gotten creative.

I've also heard it attributed to changing styles of play in college football and reduced practice time in the NFL due to the CBA.

Whatever the cause, it seems like NFL defenses are making NFL offensive lines look bad on a regular basis. It seems every game I watch, the commentators mention how weak the OL is, and how many issues the OL has. Obviously our OL is worse than most, but I don't think it's as bad relative to the rest of the NFL as some might believe.

You probably have a point there.

[PacificNorseWest]

^ Definitely.

Offensive line play in the NFL has damn near reached an epidemic. A lot of it has to do with the college game being vastly different than the NFL. The spread offense has depleted the number of lineman who come into the league with sound and relative (from college to the NFL) technique.

Spielman, with the help of Zimmer, has built an amazing defense and a defense that has depth. They invested in skill position assets to help a quarterback excel, but a lot of people take issue with the idea that the Vikings haven't "invested" in the offensive line. Investments aren't always a long-term approach. If you're in your teens/20's, what do they say? 90% stocks. You can withstand the volatility, but the older you get to maturity, the less volatile you want, so you take a more "tried and true" approach. What I'm getting at is that the offensive lineman at the college level are nowhere near ready and an "investment" means that you have yourself an art project of trying to mold out a top tier lineman, but you won't see that finished product for another 3-4 years. Vikings took the approach of their big investment being Tony Sparano. He's not a player, but he's one of the few best O-line coaches in the game -- he's tried and true.

The Vikings window is now -- and if you disagree with how fast a window shuts, look no further than the Cardinals, Bengals and Panthers -- what if the philosophy never was to draft a 3-4 year project at offensive line when you're looking at a team that is at it's peak now (Suddenly, it's different kind of investment). A defense with another 2 years of assured peak-level play. So, what do you do? You sign some aging vets, but guys that have been there and done that (Boone, Smith and now Long) -- entrust in Sparano.

I'll say this...I hate the Seahawks. I won't call Zimmer a copycat, but the the Seahawks have set the new precedent of success in today's NFL. I digress, but the underlying point with the offense is that their invest was Tom Cable. They have a couple UDFA's and 4th rounder starting for them on the offensive line. Now, don't get me wrong, those guys have suucckkked...but this really isn't new for a team that just won the Super Bowl three seasons ago. It's been like this for them, but they get better through the season and they trust the process. Oakland goes out and gets Tice to protect their #1 asset in Carr. Maybe the Vikings meant to do this and most fans don't realize the state of college OL prospects.

Don't get me wrong, their O-line sucks...But sometimes, by investing in the right coach(es), you see improvement and it gets better. It will be a concern the whole season, but it is not a unique situation. The great news is that they have what's about to be an all-world defense to tip the balance in their favor.

If Bradford gets hurt though, that's a wrap. The vicious circle is recycled.

[Crax]

You obviously can't foresee something like what's happened with Harris

Anyone have more details on this issue? Based on what I've read from back in camp, he said something about a "head issue" and "as soon as my doctor clears me", but he's on the non football illness(not injury) list. Is it a mental illness issue? With how vague people have been about it and nobody really knows the timelines, it almost seems that way.

[dead_poet]

Anyone have more details on this issue? Based on what I've read from back in camp, he said something about a "head issue" and "as soon as my doctor clears me", but he's on the non football illness(not injury) list. Is it a mental illness issue? With how vague people have been about it and nobody really knows the timelines, it almost seems that way.

He has chosen to keep it confidential. The team doesn't have to disclose. I think some media folks know or suspect the issue but are not reporting on it due to lack of confirmation and/or out of respect/potential legal implications. I've read some that he has been seen around always looking pretty sad. I don't know but it doesn't sound good and his football career may be over because of it.

[Crax]

He has chosen to keep it confidential. The team doesn't have to disclose. I think some media folks know or suspect the issue but are not reporting on it due to lack of confirmation and/or out of respect/potential legal implications. I've read some that he has been seen around always looking pretty sad. I don't know but it doesn't sound good and his football career may be over because of it.

Yeah, seems that way. You figure if it was an standard injury or concussion, they'd just say it. This seems definitely more along those lines. Hopefully he works it out. He's been quoted at various times saying it shouldn't take long and then later "it won't be career ending", but who knows at this point.

[rugbyrugger23]

Some really good points, counter points in this thread.

Personally I would mortgage more of Vikes future, picks and/or Treadwell for a stud OL. And yes Thomas from Browns comes to mind (depending on asking price). Prior to TD Browns won't be only team going fire sale. Reason being, Vikes are going to draft a OL with 2nd and/or 1-2 of their 3rd round picks anyways, why not trade for sure thing? Note: said player has to have 2-4 years minimum left not a rental, and ideally 28 or younger (unless pro bowl super stud like Thomas). Kind of reminds me of the Allen trade.

Vikes also this offseason need to spend some of their big cap dollars, mostly from their overpriced failed 2016 middling OL signed/retained players gone (Kalil, Smith, etc.) and need to land at least 1 stud OL 28yo or younger. The FA list is pretty promising. Combine that with the player traded for this season (as mentioned above), plus Boone who has been solid, and Vikes should go into 2017 with 3 OL locked in. That would be unbelievable to have 3 solid starters turn-key to start season. What a difference vs. the questions marks everywhere Vikes had to start this season on the OL.

[IrishViking]

Some really good points, counter points in this thread.

Personally I would mortgage more of Vikes future, picks and/or Treadwell for a stud OL. And yes Thomas from Browns comes to mind (depending on asking price). Prior to TD Browns won't be only team going fire sale. Reason being, Vikes are going to draft a OL with 2nd and/or 1-2 of their 3rd round picks anyways, why not trade for sure thing? Note: said player has to have 2-4 years minimum left not a rental, and ideally 28 or younger (unless pro bowl super stud like Thomas). Kind of reminds me of the Allen trade.

Vikes also this offseason need to spend some of their big cap dollars, mostly from their overpriced failed 2016 middling OL signed/retained players gone (Kalil, Smith, etc.) and need to land at least 1 stud OL 28yo or younger. The FA list is pretty promising. Combine that with the player traded for this season (as mentioned above), plus Boone who has been solid, and Vikes should go into 2017 with 3 OL locked in. That would be unbelievable to have 3 solid starters turn-key to start season. What a difference vs. the questions marks everywhere Vikes had to start this season on the OL.

Unless Boone retires and Joe tears a pec and our other pic blows out his hip.

[Mothman]

^ Definitely.

Offensive line play in the NFL has damn near reached an epidemic. A lot of it has to do with the college game being vastly different than the NFL. The spread offense has depleted the number of lineman who come into the league with sound and relative (from college to the NFL) technique.

Spielman, with the help of Zimmer, has built an amazing defense and a defense that has depth. They invested in skill position assets to help a quarterback excel, but a lot of people take issue with the idea that the Vikings haven't "invested" in the offensive line. Investments aren't always a long-term approach. If you're in your teens/20's, what do they say? 90% stocks. You can withstand the volatility, but the older you get to maturity, the less volatile you want, so you take a more "tried and true" approach. What I'm getting at is that the offensive lineman at the college level are nowhere near ready and an "investment" means that you have yourself an art project of trying to mold out a top tier lineman, but you won't see that finished product for another 3-4 years. Vikings took the approach of their big investment being Tony Sparano. He's not a player, but he's one of the few best O-line coaches in the game -- he's tried and true

What is the actual basis for that reputation because he hasn't spent much time as an OL coach in the NFL. He's bounced around a lot between being a TE coach, head coach, occasional OC and a line coach (but he's rarely been in this role for long). He was an OL coach at the college level but when and where did he demonstrate that he's one of the very best O-line coaches in the game? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just wondering because Vikes fans have been saying that since he was hired and I cant find any real basis for it. I know he has a rep for putting together effective run-blocking lines (partially earned during his HC stints) but he doesn't seem to be a "tried and true" top OL coach and the results in MN so far have been a sorry sight.