Vikings Message Board.Com

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.

fiestavike wrote: Yes, and yes.

Jim is on a roll today.

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

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.
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??

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.

Texas Vike wrote:
Jim is on a roll today.

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

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.

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

Mothman wrote: 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

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 ?

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 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.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 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?

fiestavike wrote: 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.

Purple Reign wrote:

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

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

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 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

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.

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.