What happened to our offensive line

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: What happened to our offensive line

Post by Mothman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:30 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Another thing regarding this OL and the posts I'm seeing saying "it wasnt good to begin with so the injuries are just an excuse". Another reason I completely disagree with this (not saying original OL was great or anything before guys jump down my throat) is that our original OL was NOT season altering. This current offensive line is. With this offensive line, we've gotten our QB absolutely killed, ended up losing our OC mainly due to the OL issues and in turn had to modify our entire offense around quick drops and quick passes, no less we have no running game with AP out. Sit there and say what you will about AP but if I remember correctly, everyone on this board was saying he was washed up last year when he ran for 31 yards against SF, yet he ended up leading the league in rushing yards. The only game he really got a legitimate amount of carries was the Tennessee game which wasnt good just like SF last year.

But bottom line is, our starting OL we had all year last year wasn't the reason we lost in the playoffs.
It was certainly one of the reasons they lost that game. Seattle's defense dominated the Vikings offensive front. The Vikings gained just 58 yards on 29 rushing plays. That's indicative of poor OL play and it was obvious during the game the OL couldn't create room for the backs.

Bridgewater was sacked 3 times too and pressured more than that.

Last year's OL was obviously detrimental to the team. That's why Davidson was fired and why upgrading it was supposed to be a priority this offseason.
So it wasnt a season altering type OL that we had to modify our offense around like this current one is. And going into this year, we had a better LG than last year in Boone and a better RT than last year in Smith. Even with our original OL playing at their worst, it wouldn't have been season altering. If anything there were better players on it than last year (minus Fusco).
It sure looked season-altering when the season began. Articles about the negative impact the OL was having were appearing before both tackles were lost for the year. In fact, they were appearing after week 1. Vikings backs were barely able to gain a yard before contact against the Titans. Bradford was hammered by the Packers in week 2 and the running game couldn't even muster an average of 1.5 yards per rush.

I don't care how the line looked on paper in May. They looked bad on the field from the start. Injuries exacerbated a problem that was already glaringly obvious.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5318
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: What happened to our offensive line

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:22 am

Mothman wrote: It was certainly one of the reasons they lost that game. Seattle's defense dominated the Vikings offensive front. The Vikings gained just 58 yards on 29 rushing plays. That's indicative of poor OL play and it was obvious during the game the OL couldn't create room for the backs.

Bridgewater was sacked 3 times too and pressured more than that.

Last year's OL was obviously detrimental to the team. That's why Davidson was fired and why upgrading it was supposed to be a priority this offseason.
Lets be honest we had the game won if it wasnt for one person. We're also talking about arguably the best defense in the NFL outside of Denver last year.

I mean Dallas has the best OL in football and we sacked them 3 times this year. And had pressure on Dak all night. So is it really saying much that the Seattle Seahawks of all teams had 3 sacks on Teddy Bridgewater? No. Bottom line is, we had the game won last year.
It sure looked season-altering when the season began. Articles about the negative impact the OL was having were appearing before both tackles were lost for the year. In fact, they were appearing after week 1. Vikings backs were barely able to gain a yard before contact against the Titans. Bradford was hammered by the Packers in week 2 and the running game couldn't even muster an average of 1.5 yards per rush.

I don't care how the line looked on paper in May. They looked bad on the field from the start. Injuries exacerbated a problem that was already glaringly obvious.
But there is a difference. We were winning. Now we have 2 garbage cans out there for tackles and we can no longer win. Blame it on whatever else you want. The tackle situation has gotten so bad that we had to use a new offensive scheme. And we cant win. Notice the pattern here? I sure do. Point being, if our line was SO bad last year, we wouldnt have been in that opportunity to beat Seattle. What do you think would happen this year if we played them after these injuries??? I can guarantee you we wouldnt be in a 1 point game with them. If we had Matt Kalil, Andre Smith, Mike Harris and Adrian Peterson, we very well could be.

Bottom line is this current OL is game and season altering. If Matt Kalil, Andre Smith and Mike Harris were healthy and starting right now, along with Berger and Boone, we would be well into the playoff hunt, probably still have Norv Turner, and I would imagine have a better running game as well (something Harris was very good at, Fusco, not so much). The original line could obviously be better, but they werent going to cost you a season like this current one is. They didnt cost us a season last year and TJ Clemmings was starting and we didnt have Alex Boone
0 x
Image

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: What happened to our offensive line

Post by Mothman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:50 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Lets be honest we had the game won if it wasnt for one person. We're also talking about arguably the best defense in the NFL outside of Denver last year.
That's the kind of competition a team can expect to face when trying to get to a Super Bowl. The quality of Seattle's defense isn't an argument against the point I was making, which is that OL play was one of the reasons the Vikings lost the game. Their OL was dominated by Seattle's defense. in other words, they couldn't match up. That clearly hurt their chances to win.

An honest assessment of the game takes the team's overall performance into consideration, not just one kick at the end.
But there is a difference. We were winning.
That doesn't alter the fact the OL was highly problematic from the start. It just means the Vikings were finding ways to win despite that.
Bottom line is this current OL is game and season altering. If Matt Kalil, Andre Smith and Mike Harris were healthy and starting right now, along with Berger and Boone, we would be well into the playoff hunt, probably still have Norv Turner, and I would imagine have a better running game as well (something Harris was very good at, Fusco, not so much).
That's pure conjecture and not supported by the performance of the OL this season when all of those players except Harris were healthy and playing.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5318
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: What happened to our offensive line

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:25 pm

Mothman wrote:
That's the kind of competition a team can expect to face when trying to get to a Super Bowl. The quality of Seattle's defense isn't an argument against the point I was making, which is that OL play was one of the reasons the Vikings lost the game. Their OL was dominated by Seattle's defense. in other words, they couldn't match up. That clearly hurt their chances to win.

An honest assessment of the game takes the team's overall performance into consideration, not just one kick at the end.
I understand what you're saying but the game was literally over. If we had any other kicker on our team outside of Walsh that day, this wouldnt even be discussed.

Also, like I said, were talking about Seattles defense here. If you told me we were dominated by a terrible DL like Indy's last week and we had a healthy OL, then yeah thats a huge concern. But we're talking about one of the better defenses in the league. We dominated Dallas' OL this year and Oaklands last year. Those are the two best OLs in the league. Does that mean they are bad because they got dominated by a good OL? No.

I'm not saying our original OL was "good". But I am saying that they were manageable. This current one is not. It altered the coaches, the play calling, the scheme, the entire season.

That's pure conjecture and not supported by the performance of the OL this season when all of those players except Harris were healthy and playing.
The two games that Kalil and Smith were both on the field, we allowed 0 sacks and 3 sacks. So it was up and down. Not sure if having Bradford in there for the first time could have been a cause or not for the 3 sack game. These current guys are downright horrific. I mean we have the worst tackle of the decade in TJ Clemmings (got like a 24.9 rating which was the worst grade PFF has given out in the last decade) manning our blindside right now. That's how bad it has gotten. This line isnt manageable. Our original line was. Either way it obviously needs to get better but this just shows how much these injuries to Kalil, Harris and Smith hurt this team.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: What happened to our offensive line

Post by Mothman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:35 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I understand what you're saying but the game was literally over. If we had any other kicker on our team outside of Walsh that day, this wouldnt even be discussed
It might simply be discussed in a different context. After all, we're discussing the OL's performance in the game, not simply the outcome of the game. the result of that FG has no real bearing on how the line played.
Also, like I said, were talking about Seattles defense here. If you told me we were dominated by a terrible DL like Indy's last week and we had a healthy OL, then yeah thats a huge concern. But we're talking about one of the better defenses in the league.
So what? That's not the only defense the line struggled against last year and as i said earlier, it's the type of defense a team can expect to face when trying to get to a Super Bowl so being able to block better against a defense like that matters.
I'm not saying our original OL was "good". But I am saying that they were manageable. This current one is not. It altered the coaches, the play calling, the scheme, the entire season.
I think it altered what they could do last year as well. Again, that's why upgrading their OL was considered a priority going into 2016.

They're managing the line now in much the same way they were managing it in week 1, when Hill was getting the ball out of his hands quickly to avoid sacks.
0 x

Post Reply