View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:52 pm



Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17 
Author Message
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Mothman wrote:

It's time to take off the goggles and face the fact that it was a bad plan in the first place and it's not surprising at all that injury-prone players got injured or retired and that previously disappointing players gave disappointing performances. Continually excusing it all and writing off as mere misfortune due to injury is sheer obstinance and ignores the very obvious fact that a poor strategy for improving the line failed, in large part, because it was a poor strategy. Everything from Loadholt's potential retirement to the lack of depth and the unreliability of the team's OL "solutions" was pointed out before it all went wrong. When fans can easily identify such pitfalls in advance and the team ignores them and plods ahead into a mess, that's a problem.



Yes, and yes.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3488
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
fiestavike wrote:
Mothman wrote:

It's time to take off the goggles and face the fact that it was a bad plan in the first place and it's not surprising at all that injury-prone players got injured or retired and that previously disappointing players gave disappointing performances. Continually excusing it all and writing off as mere misfortune due to injury is sheer obstinance and ignores the very obvious fact that a poor strategy for improving the line failed, in large part, because it was a poor strategy. Everything from Loadholt's potential retirement to the lack of depth and the unreliability of the team's OL "solutions" was pointed out before it all went wrong. When fans can easily identify such pitfalls in advance and the team ignores them and plods ahead into a mess, that's a problem.



Yes, and yes.



Jim is on a roll today. :appl:


Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:26 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Again, I think we all know what ended up costing us that game. If Walsh hits that field goal, this isn't even being talked about right now nor are you saying it had a big impact on a game we won.


Sure I would.The outcome of the FG had no impact on how the OL performed or on my assessment of their performance.

Quote:
It worked out so poorly because of injuries.


It's time to take off the goggles and face the fact that it was a bad plan in the first place and it's not surprising at all that injury-prone players got injured or retired and that previously disappointing players gave disappointing performances. Continually excusing it all and writing off as mere misfortune due to injury is sheer obstinance and ignores the very obvious fact that a poor strategy for improving the line failed, in large part, because it was a poor strategy. Everything from Loadholt's potential retirement to the lack of depth and the unreliability of the team's OL "solutions" was pointed out before it all went wrong. When fans can easily identify such pitfalls in advance and the team ignores them and plods ahead into a mess, that's a problem.

Quote:
However, I think they'll address it through the draft and FA this year and find some quality lineman


I hope they do.


I'm not saying it was a great plan. But I don't think it was necessarily a bad one. Injury prone players? Only one would be Smith. Kalil has had minor injuries but never missed a game. Harris isn't injury prone. So really it's only Smith. I've said before that if we took the "right plan" we'd be missing a lot of what's on our defense. And then guess what you're complaining about??

_________________
Image


Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:38 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
I'm not saying it was a great plan. But I don't think it was necessarily a bad one. Injury prone players? Only one would be Smith. Kalil has had minor injuries but never missed a game. Harris isn't injury prone. So really it's only Smith.


Let's review:

Loadholt had missed 22 straight games due to injury.

Sullivan was coming off a missed season and 2 back surgeries.

Kalil has battled injuries for most of his career. He hadn't missed many games but they had a very negative impact on his performance at times (which, in turn, had a very negative impact on the offense). A player who kept suffering injuries and not missing games was obviously at risk to suffer one that would actually keep him on the sidelines.

Smith was also injury-prone, as you agreed.

In other words, all 3 tackles (and a center) that were in the mix to start were clear injury risks and none of them were particularly good in pass protection in the first place. Clemmings was the primary backup at left tackle, after utterly failing to play the less demanding position of right tackle! That was insane.

It was clearly a bad plan, especially since the goal was supposedly to improve the line over last year's group.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:01 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Texas Vike wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
Mothman wrote:

It's time to take off the goggles and face the fact that it was a bad plan in the first place and it's not surprising at all that injury-prone players got injured or retired and that previously disappointing players gave disappointing performances. Continually excusing it all and writing off as mere misfortune due to injury is sheer obstinance and ignores the very obvious fact that a poor strategy for improving the line failed, in large part, because it was a poor strategy. Everything from Loadholt's potential retirement to the lack of depth and the unreliability of the team's OL "solutions" was pointed out before it all went wrong. When fans can easily identify such pitfalls in advance and the team ignores them and plods ahead into a mess, that's a problem.



Yes, and yes.



Jim is on a roll today. :appl:


Absolutely correct. Great post, Jim. Excellent reality check!

:appl:


Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:05 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
The attitude that we can make the line respectable with one or two competent OTs or better injury luck is so frustrating. I want to see that unit become dominant. I want to see the Vikings invest in an interior that can shove defenders around and open holes, not settle for Berger, Boone, and Harris. Ya, that's "respectable" but it isn't good...its not even average by NFL standards.


Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:37 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
fiestavike wrote:
The attitude that we can make the line respectable with one or two competent OTs or better injury luck is so frustrating. I want to see that unit become dominant. I want to see the Vikings invest in an interior that can shove defenders around and open holes, not settle for Berger, Boone, and Harris. Ya, that's "respectable" but it isn't good...its not even average by NFL standards.


Well good luck with that. That takes at least a few years to do

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:43 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
I'm not saying it was a great plan. But I don't think it was necessarily a bad one. Injury prone players? Only one would be Smith. Kalil has had minor injuries but never missed a game. Harris isn't injury prone. So really it's only Smith.


Let's review:

Loadholt had missed 22 straight games due to injury.

Sullivan was coming off a missed season and 2 back surgeries.

Kalil has battled injuries for most of his career. He hadn't missed many games but they had a very negative impact on his performance at times (which, in turn, had a very negative impact on the offense). A player who kept suffering injuries and not missing games was obviously at risk to suffer one that would actually keep him on the sidelines.

Smith was also injury-prone, as you agreed.

In other words, all 3 tackles (and a center) that were in the mix to start were clear injury risks and none of them were particularly good in pass protection in the first place. Clemmings was the primary backup at left tackle, after utterly failing to play the less demanding position of right tackle! That was insane.

It was clearly a bad plan, especially since the goal was supposedly to improve the line over last year's group.


I was referring to the 3 guys that got hurt this year. Kalil, Harris and Smith

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:44 pm
Profile
Transition Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:02 pm
Posts: 358
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Here's an idea... Build the absolute best interior OL possible ! Much less expensive than elite OT.
Then add experienced LT with length. Experienced can be NFL or even College.
At this stage we potentially have a good interior with Boone, Berger, and maybe Harris !!! Otherwise, we suck.
Definitely not elite, but good.
An OT like Wagner provides length and athleticism. A draft pick like Banner or Skipper gives another big strong RT. Wagner was a college LT !!! I wanted him out of college.
IF, we can add 1 or 2 pieces in FA, the draft, and develop returners.... We might have something.

I think we can be close, but need to take a solid look at who we want them to be !!!
#2 is who's going to coach them up ?


Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:38 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
The attitude that we can make the line respectable with one or two competent OTs or better injury luck is so frustrating. I want to see that unit become dominant. I want to see the Vikings invest in an interior that can shove defenders around and open holes, not settle for Berger, Boone, and Harris. Ya, that's "respectable" but it isn't good...its not even average by NFL standards.


Well good luck with that. That takes at least a few years to do


That's why some of us have been pushing them to take the position seriously for at least a few years.

I don't know why your smarmy comment "good luck with that" is neccessary or contributes anything of even the most remote value to this board or conversation. Its just smarmy and revolting.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:54 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1239
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
The attitude that we can make the line respectable with one or two competent OTs or better injury luck is so frustrating. I want to see that unit become dominant. I want to see the Vikings invest in an interior that can shove defenders around and open holes, not settle for Berger, Boone, and Harris. Ya, that's "respectable" but it isn't good...its not even average by NFL standards.


Well good luck with that. That takes at least a few years to do


So if it takes a couple of years to build an OL then we shouldn't attempt it? :roll:


Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:55 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
fiestavike wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
The attitude that we can make the line respectable with one or two competent OTs or better injury luck is so frustrating. I want to see that unit become dominant. I want to see the Vikings invest in an interior that can shove defenders around and open holes, not settle for Berger, Boone, and Harris. Ya, that's "respectable" but it isn't good...its not even average by NFL standards.


Well good luck with that. That takes at least a few years to do


That's why some of us have been pushing them to take the position seriously for at least a few years.

I don't know why your smarmy comment "good luck with that" is neccessary or contributes anything of even the most remote value to this board or conversation. Its just smarmy and revolting.


I'm saying it's not going to be done in a year. But either way, relax dude. I was saying "good luck with that" because I was saying it's not going to be done in one year. If you're referring to doing it over a few years then yeah. You're blowing one comment well out of proportion.

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:00 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Purple Reign wrote:


So if it takes a couple of years to build an OL then we shouldn't attempt it? :roll:


Because I said that??? Once again, I was saying its not going to be done in a year. I just did a mock offseason having us draft 3 OL and signing 2 FA OL. But yeah, I don't think we should attempt it :confused:

_________________
Image


Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:02 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1239
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:


So if it takes a couple of years to build an OL then we shouldn't attempt it? :roll:


Because I said that??? Once again, I was saying its not going to be done in a year. I just did a mock offseason having us draft 3 OL and signing 2 FA OL. But yeah, I don't think we should attempt it :confused:


It was your 'good luck with that' comment that made it sound like you don't even think it is worth the effort to attempt to rebuild. I don't recall the OP mentioning that he thought it could be done in 1 year (at least the part that you quoted and replied to). He just was wishing for a dominant offensive line and your response was 'good luck with that'? How are we supposed to know you were really referring to it taking more than 1 year? But even so, no one said it wouldn't take more than a year.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:57 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
fiestavike wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
The attitude that we can make the line respectable with one or two competent OTs or better injury luck is so frustrating. I want to see that unit become dominant. I want to see the Vikings invest in an interior that can shove defenders around and open holes, not settle for Berger, Boone, and Harris. Ya, that's "respectable" but it isn't good...its not even average by NFL standards.


Well good luck with that. That takes at least a few years to do


That's why some of us have been pushing them to take the position seriously for at least a few years.


Exactly and the kind of line you described is exactly the kind of line I want to see them build. I'm tired of watching them settle.


Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:30 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Mothman wrote:
fiestavike wrote:

That's why some of us have been pushing them to take the position seriously for at least a few years.


Exactly and the kind of line you described is exactly the kind of line I want to see them build. I'm tired of watching them settle.


I see retaining Shurmur as an indication that they are likely to minimize investment in the OL. If they can make that unit respectable, that's probably enough to run his offense effectively, and they'll get greater return from investing in some other positions. It drives me crazy that during a three year run with Norv Turner, a run heavy offense, and a deep passing offense, they did nothing to significantly bolster the OL. That was a stretch of time when investment in the OL would have paid huge dividends. I think the narratives around here would be dramatically different if this team had managed to develop a top 10 OL over the past three seasons.


Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:29 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Purple Reign wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:


So if it takes a couple of years to build an OL then we shouldn't attempt it? :roll:


Because I said that??? Once again, I was saying its not going to be done in a year. I just did a mock offseason having us draft 3 OL and signing 2 FA OL. But yeah, I don't think we should attempt it :confused:


It was your 'good luck with that' comment that made it sound like you don't even think it is worth the effort to attempt to rebuild. I don't recall the OP mentioning that he thought it could be done in 1 year (at least the part that you quoted and replied to). He just was wishing for a dominant offensive line and your response was 'good luck with that'? How are we supposed to know you were really referring to it taking more than 1 year? But even so, no one said it wouldn't take more than a year.


Do you actually think that anyone in the right mind on this board believes we shouldn't rebuild the OL??? Come on man

_________________
Image


Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:34 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3226
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Pondering Her Percy wrote:

Do you actually think that anyone in the right mind on this board believes we shouldn't rebuild the OL??? Come on man


That depends what you mean by 'rebuild'. Do you mean the equivalent of bringing back John Sullivan and Phil Loadholt, and adding a player like Andre Smith, and an Alex Boone and calling the line 'rebuilt'?

The analagous plan would be to bring back Kalil and Jake Long, bring back Andre Smith, sign a middle tier FA to replace Fusco and call the line rebuilt.

I think it would be better to just stick with Hill and Sirles and add more young depth than to follow that plan.

My guess is that Sirles will be the starting RG, they'll bring in a RT in FA, they'll retain Kalil for one year, draft a LT at some point and allow that player and Rashod Hill compete and eventually start in place of Kalil at that position.

The day one lineup (assuming no injuries) will be Kalil, Boone, Berger, Sirles, and free agent RT. Just a guess.


Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:47 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
fiestavike wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:

Do you actually think that anyone in the right mind on this board believes we shouldn't rebuild the OL??? Come on man


That depends what you mean by 'rebuild'. Do you mean the equivalent of bringing back John Sullivan and Phil Loadholt, and adding a player like Andre Smith, and an Alex Boone and calling the line 'rebuilt'?

The analagous plan would be to bring back Kalil and Jake Long, bring back Andre Smith, sign a middle tier FA to replace Fusco and call the line rebuilt.

I think it would be better to just stick with Hill and Sirles and add more young depth than to follow that plan.

My guess is that Sirles will be the starting RG, they'll bring in a RT in FA, they'll retain Kalil for one year, draft a LT at some point and allow that player and Rashod Hill compete and eventually start in place of Kalil at that position.

The day one lineup (assuming no injuries) will be Kalil, Boone, Berger, Sirles, and free agent RT. Just a guess.


I think the mock I wrote up explains how I would rebuild it

_________________
Image


Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:30 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1239
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Do you actually think that anyone in the right mind on this board believes we shouldn't rebuild the OL??? Come on man


No, but that's not the point. I was just defending why your 'good luck with that' comment was interpreted the way it was. You expect us to know what you 'really meant', but yet don't seem to understand how that response came across to us. Suffice it to say that we now know what you meant, but you can't blame us for taking it the way it was worded in the first place.


Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:08 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Purple Reign wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Do you actually think that anyone in the right mind on this board believes we shouldn't rebuild the OL??? Come on man


No, but that's not the point. I was just defending why your 'good luck with that' comment was interpreted the way it was. You expect us to know what you 'really meant', but yet don't seem to understand how that response came across to us. Suffice it to say that we now know what you meant, but you can't blame us for taking it the way it was worded in the first place.


Well it's no different than how I took the OP regarding rebuilding the OL

_________________
Image


Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:35 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1239
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Do you actually think that anyone in the right mind on this board believes we shouldn't rebuild the OL??? Come on man


No, but that's not the point. I was just defending why your 'good luck with that' comment was interpreted the way it was. You expect us to know what you 'really meant', but yet don't seem to understand how that response came across to us. Suffice it to say that we now know what you meant, but you can't blame us for taking it the way it was worded in the first place.


Well it's no different than how I took the OP regarding rebuilding the OL


Just can't accept the fact that you worded it wrong is see. No, it's not even close to being the same thing. The OP only said he wanted a dominant offensive line - he never said anything about it taking only a year. Go back and read his post - there is no way you can say he even remotely implied it could be done in a year. You are the one who pulled that out of the blue.

When you said 'good luck with that' you were actually saying 'good luck with building a dominant offensive line'.


Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:54 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
One thing to consider is they can make a more concerted effort on the O-line now that a lot of other holes have been filled. I think what's getting lost in the scrum a bit is the number of holes this team had and that all of them couldn't be filled via the draft. This team was badly in need of a secondary, LB corp, WR, and to an extent QB. Lets break it down:

Safety -- We have Harrison and a much improved Sendejo. Both Harris and Kearse provide modest depth. Overall decent, with Sendejo not the greatest but also not the liability he once was.

Corner -- Solid long-term duo in Rhodes and Waynes. Alexander will need to live up to his 2nd round pick to play nickel. You then either re-sign or pick up guys who can play dime. It's a good nucleus.

LB -- Personally, I think Kendricks is the best MLB in the league and Barr while having fallen off some this year is still solid. After that the quality drops but that's par for the league and most of the time the D is in nickel anyway.

DL -- Solid group, lead the NFL in sacks. Add on an emerging guy like Hunter on top of Linval, Everson, and Robison and you have quality and depth. Not to mention Stephen and Johnson.

WR -- Diggs, Thielen, Patterson/Treadwell is a solid starting lineup with Johnson and Wright/late round pick-up providing depth.

QB -- Bradford, Teddy, and Heinecke. Best depth we've had in... well since I can remember.

RB -- AD is a question mark but McKinnon/Asiata and perhaps a draft pick may be able to compensate.

That's my take. A solid nucleus of young and productive players that you augment via FA and the draft. This allows you to focus on O-line more than in the past when we were trying to figure out who to compliment Diggs, or replace Audie Cole, or Josh Robinson, etc.

Even when it comes to O-line, I think Boone is a good player and Easton/Sirles show promise. If Harris can come back, even better. If they can get two tackles I think the line gets substantially better. Push it out another year and perhaps they'll even be at the point of reloading every year rather than rebuilding.


Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:06 pm
Profile
Transition Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:02 pm
Posts: 358
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Here's an idea, we may already have our LT.
What if we move Boone to LT ? His strength is in pass pro. His weakness is run blocking. Guards are more available and seem easier to find.
Like PHP says, add OT Ricky Wagner to play RT.
Maybe Harris is back and is our RG or our RT if not Wagner.
With a 2nd rd pick we nab OG Crowder from Clemson.
OL looks like: Boone, Crowder, Berger, Harris, Wagner
I would resign Jake Long and have Hill and Sirles as backup OT. Easton, Shepherd, and Fusco as backup interior OL.
I would also add another draft pick or 2. I particularly like Bolles, Wheeler, Banner, and Skipper.


Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:49 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
Purple Reign wrote:

Just can't accept the fact that you worded it wrong is see. No, it's not even close to being the same thing. The OP only said he wanted a dominant offensive line - he never said anything about it taking only a year. Go back and read his post - there is no way you can say he even remotely implied it could be done in a year. You are the one who pulled that out of the blue.

When you said 'good luck with that' you were actually saying 'good luck with building a dominant offensive line'.


Dude I know what I said and how I meant it. I was figuring that that was something he wanted to do THIS offseason. That's why I said "good luck with that" saying you aren't going to build one in one offseason. If I worded it wrong I worded it wrong. I don't care. My bad. Whatever. It's a message board it happens. No skin off my back.

And why would I say, "good luck with building a dominant offensive line". Clearly it's not impossible to do since teams have done it. Like if you want me to say "I worded it wrong" just so you can get some kind of satisfaction out of it then ok. Clearly that's important to you because you won't drop it. :giveup: We can move on now.....

_________________
Image


Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:57 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
IIsweet wrote:
Here's an idea, we may already have our LT.
What if we move Boone to LT ? His strength is in pass pro. His weakness is run blocking. Guards are more available and seem easier to find.
Like PHP says, add OT Ricky Wagner to play RT.
Maybe Harris is back and is our RG or our RT if not Wagner.
With a 2nd rd pick we nab OG Crowder from Clemson.
OL looks like: Boone, Crowder, Berger, Harris, Wagner
I would resign Jake Long and have Hill and Sirles as backup OT. Easton, Shepherd, and Fusco as backup interior OL.
I would also add another draft pick or 2. I particularly like Bolles, Wheeler, Banner, and Skipper.


I like the sounds of that. Just not sure if they would go that route or not

_________________
Image


Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:59 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
IIsweet wrote:
Here's an idea... Build the absolute best interior OL possible ! Much less expensive than elite OT.
Then add experienced LT with length. Experienced can be NFL or even College.
At this stage we potentially have a good interior with Boone, Berger, and maybe Harris !!! Otherwise, we suck.
Definitely not elite, but good.
An OT like Wagner provides length and athleticism. A draft pick like Banner or Skipper gives another big strong RT. Wagner was a college LT !!! I wanted him out of college.
IF, we can add 1 or 2 pieces in FA, the draft, and develop returners.... We might have something.

I think we can be close, but need to take a solid look at who we want them to be !!!
#2 is who's going to coach them up ?


The wild card being we have no idea what is wrong with Harris. I think for the time being he shouldn't be considered. Boone seems like a guy who can play LT in a pinch but I think they need to grab a true LT. It speaks volumes that despite our big losses at T, he never moved over.


Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:28 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4605
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Bears @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 17
S197 wrote:
IIsweet wrote:
Here's an idea... Build the absolute best interior OL possible ! Much less expensive than elite OT.
Then add experienced LT with length. Experienced can be NFL or even College.
At this stage we potentially have a good interior with Boone, Berger, and maybe Harris !!! Otherwise, we suck.
Definitely not elite, but good.
An OT like Wagner provides length and athleticism. A draft pick like Banner or Skipper gives another big strong RT. Wagner was a college LT !!! I wanted him out of college.
IF, we can add 1 or 2 pieces in FA, the draft, and develop returners.... We might have something.

I think we can be close, but need to take a solid look at who we want them to be !!!
#2 is who's going to coach them up ?


The wild card being we have no idea what is wrong with Harris. I think for the time being he shouldn't be considered. Boone seems like a guy who can play LT in a pinch but I think they need to grab a true LT. It speaks volumes that despite our big losses at T, he never moved over.


True thats what I was thinking as well. This is really a head scratcher with Harris. It's very odd to literally never hear why a guy is out for the year. Doesnt make much sense to me

_________________
Image


Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:20 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bauce, Cliff, halfgiz, Husker Vike, J. Kapp 11, Yahoo [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.