View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:20 am



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks 
Author Message
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Berger is a back up not a starter, on a true contender.

as far a RB, I really do think he will hedge his bet and continue on with one of our current guys. It wouldnt be so frustrating if we werent so very much on the cusp with the rest of the team. We have a really good defense (that WILL age out), good special teams (finally), adn we HAD the best RB in the league for nearly a decade. We might be letting all that slip away due to a very long run wherein the GM failed to provide a QB or OL. Its just not good enough. Spielmans had plenty of time, a very Deep pocket thanks to WIlf, and little to show for it all.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:50 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
In addition to RB and virtually the entire OL, there are a number of other positions that need examination and consideration too, including QB and WR. Patterson's a free agent. What will it cost to keep him? Thielen's a restricted free agent so... same question.

Who will be the genuine difference-makers on offense, creating matchup problems for opposing defenses?

I think it's a mistake for anybody to think the team is just set with Bradford at QB. I like aspects of his game quite a bit and he's heading into his prime, seemingly getting better but he's also expensive, signed for just one more season, and two franchises have decided he wasn't their future at QB. That doesn't mean those teams were right but we are talking about a QB on his 3rd NFL team without a single winning season and with a career record below .500. Again, some of that has been beyond his control but I think we should acknowledge the difference between having a legitimate NFL starting QB and a QB who might be able to lead a successful postseason run. Bradford's the former and he may be the latter but the jury is still out on him in a pretty big way.... and we don't know if the Vikings e him as a long term solution or a stopgap.

There's very little depth behind Bradford going into this season unless we buy into the idea that Bridgewater will not only be ready to play but ready to play well, which seems unlikely.

Overall, the depth on offense is thin-to-non-existent, depending on which positions we discuss.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:16 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1614
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Mothman wrote:
In addition to RB and virtually the entire OL, there are a number of other positions that need examination and consideration too, including QB and WR. Patterson's a free agent. What will it cost to keep him? Thielen's a restricted free agent so... same question.

Who will be the genuine difference-makers on offense, creating matchup problems for opposing defenses?

I think it's a mistake for anybody to think the team is just set with Bradford at QB. I like aspects of his game quite a bit and he's heading into his prime, seemingly getting better but he's also expensive, signed for just one more season, and two franchises have decided he wasn't their future at QB. That doesn't mean those teams were right but we are talking about a QB on his 3rd NFL team without a single winning season and with a career record below .500. Again, some of that has been beyond his control but I think we should acknowledge the difference between having a legitimate NFL starting QB and a QB who might be able to lead a successful postseason run. Bradford's the former and he may be the latter but the jury is still out on him in a pretty big way.... and we don't know if the Vikings e him as a long term solution or a stopgap.

There's very little depth behind Bradford going into this season unless we buy into the idea that Bridgewater will not only be ready to play but ready to play well, which seems unlikely.

Overall, the depth on offense is thin-to-non-existent, depending on which positions we discuss.


From what I have seen Bridgewaters injury rehab was projected at 19 months. It could change some but I don't think I would count on him playing in the upcoming season...just my opinion. We know what happen to Sully & Phil when we was counting on them.
In a few years time Zimmer turned the Defensive around. Lets hope he can do something similar with the offense.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:36 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
yeah, you are right, he is doing a great job and our RB are real solid players who can carry an offense....how silly of me....every team in the league is trying to recruit our RB by committee away from us.....lol


Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:02 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
chicagopurple wrote:
Berger is a back up not a starter, on a true contender.

as far a RB, I really do think he will hedge his bet and continue on with one of our current guys. It wouldnt be so frustrating if we werent so very much on the cusp with the rest of the team. We have a really good defense (that WILL age out), good special teams (finally), adn we HAD the best RB in the league for nearly a decade. We might be letting all that slip away due to a very long run wherein the GM failed to provide a QB or OL. Its just not good enough. Spielmans had plenty of time, a very Deep pocket thanks to WIlf, and little to show for it all.


Dude no offense, but I'm not sure where you come up with these views.

Joe Berger has been a top 8 Center according to PFF for the past 2 years now. He is not a back up. He's actually a very good starter.

As for the RB thing, like I said, I have no idea where you get this stuff from. Why would he possibly "hedge his bet" when we had the worst run offense in the NFL. Where does anyone even come up with something like that?

The defense WONT age out if we continue to draft well on that side of the ball. Teddy was good enough to win. He actually had one of the better winning percentages in his first two seasons compared to others in the past. He didnt put up the gaudy numbers but he got the job done. I wouldnt say Spielman failed with Teddy. No less then he went on to make a move for a good QB in Bradford as well. We've had some fairly decent QB play for the past few years now.

Either way, what does QB have anything to do with what we've been talking about. We have a good QB. We are missing OL and RB which isnt impossible to fix.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Pondering Her Percy on Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:34 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
chicagopurple wrote:
yeah, you are right, he is doing a great job and our RB are real solid players who can carry an offense....how silly of me....every team in the league is trying to recruit our RB by committee away from us.....lol


Did anyone refer to RBs being solid players that can carry an offense??

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black :lol:

_________________
Image


Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:19 pm
Profile
Backup

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Posts: 89
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Mothman wrote:
In addition to RB and virtually the entire OL, there are a number of other positions that need examination and consideration too, including QB and WR. Patterson's a free agent. What will it cost to keep him? Thielen's a restricted free agent so... same question.

Who will be the genuine difference-makers on offense, creating matchup problems for opposing defenses?

I think it's a mistake for anybody to think the team is just set with Bradford at QB. I like aspects of his game quite a bit and he's heading into his prime, seemingly getting better but he's also expensive, signed for just one more season, and two franchises have decided he wasn't their future at QB. That doesn't mean those teams were right but we are talking about a QB on his 3rd NFL team without a single winning season and with a career record below .500. Again, some of that has been beyond his control but I think we should acknowledge the difference between having a legitimate NFL starting QB and a QB who might be able to lead a successful postseason run. Bradford's the former and he may be the latter but the jury is still out on him in a pretty big way.... and we don't know if the Vikings e him as a long term solution or a stopgap.

There's very little depth behind Bradford going into this season unless we buy into the idea that Bridgewater will not only be ready to play but ready to play well, which seems unlikely.

Overall, the depth on offense is thin-to-non-existent, depending on which positions we discuss.


Solid Post. I agree with this assessment for the most part. A lot of the depth concerns depend on the personal decisions they make over the next few months, so we will have to wait and see how it ends up. My guess is it won't be quite as " doom and gloom " as the picture your painting. QB is the one position where most teams have a significant drop off from there starter. I don't expect the Viking to be much different. Taylor Hienkie will probably be the number 2 heading into the season, assuming reports on Teddy's health are accurate.

As far as the difference makers and mismatches. They have some now in Bradford, Diggs, mcKinnon and Rudolph. I think its safe to say they will retain some of the other FA skill players, if not all of them. They have the draft and FA as well. Of course this is just speculation, but that's what we do here. I think its safe to say that the way this team is being build is a lot like the 15 Bronco's where built. With a dominant defense and average offense. Bronco's 15 offense was 19th overall and there passing game was weak. Manning had something like 9 TD's and 17 Int's and Osweillier was the back-up. They had a STRONG running game with multiple RB's carrying the load. There OLine was below average and still is. I think Bradford and the present weapons at receiver and TE are comparable to what they had in 15. Bradford far outperformed there QB's both in 15 and 16. The present RB's are comparable (with AP). Oline is worse no question. The other difference is the running scheme the Bronco's used. They ran a heavy zone run blocking scheme. These schemes are historically known for being able to do more with less as far as talent on the Oline. Our new offensive coaching staff all have strong Zone Scheme backgrounds.

My point being; With the goal of building a team like the 15 Bronco's (which I believe is what the Viking are shooting for) I don't think they are really all that far away. They were almost there in 15 with much more inexperienced on Defense and a weaker passing game.

Without that Elite Franchise QB, like Rodgers, Luck, Ryan, Brady, Brees, Rivers etc...having an explosive offense is nearly impossible in todays NFL. Finding one of those guys is easier said than done and involves as much luck as skill. So the way I see it, the way the Vikings have chosen to build there roster is a common sense approach given the fact the don't have that Elite QB on the roster right now


Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:57 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2746
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
If the Vikings truly need to replace every position on the OL(which I don't think is the case) , it's not going to happen in a year and we should start looking for a new head coach now.

For the people that see the glass half full, Miami had a struggling OL but it got better as the year went on. I think if there's any position that continuity makes a big difference, it's the OL. Fix the weak links and the OL should be solid by mid-season.

As far as QB depth, every team in the league (except for Dallas) has a huge drop off in depth. It's the nature of the league. You lose your starting QB, your season is essentially over.

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:31 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Alaskan wrote:
Solid Post. I agree with this assessment for the most part. A lot of the depth concerns depend on the personal decisions they make over the next few months, so we will have to wait and see how it ends up. My guess is it won't be quite as " doom and gloom " as the picture your painting. QB is the one position where most teams have a significant drop off from there starter. I don't expect the Viking to be much different. Taylor Hienkie will probably be the number 2 heading into the season, assuming reports on Teddy's health are accurate.


It's not my intent to paint a picture of "doom and gloom" because some of the situations I listed can and will be resolved in a positive way. My point was just that the depth and talent questions on the offense aren't limited to OL and RB.

Quote:
As far as the difference makers and mismatches. They have some now in Bradford, Diggs, mcKinnon and Rudolph.


Those players can create mismatches on the field at times but I should have been more clear: I was referring to big-time difference-makers, the kind of players that force defenses to adapt their game plans to stop them. Peterson's been that kind of player for most of his career. Moss was that kind of player. Fitzgerald has been that sort of player in Arizona and Jones is that player for Atlanta. There are obviously some QBs around the league who fit that description too but I wouldn't put any of the players listed above in that category.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:07 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
808vikingsfan wrote:
If the Vikings truly need to replace every position on the OL(which I don't think is the case) , it's not going to happen in a year and we should start looking for a new head coach now.


I don't think they need to replace every position the line but they probably need 4 new starters in the next 2 years and improved depth so they're facing a huge task.

Quote:
For the people that see the glass half full, Miami had a struggling OL but it got better as the year went on. I think if there's any position that continuity makes a big difference, it's the OL. Fix the weak links and the OL should be solid by mid-season.


The problem is there are weak links across the entire line.

Quote:
As far as QB depth, every team in the league (except for Dallas) has a huge drop off in depth.


Why do people keep bringing that up as if it makes the need for depth any less important? It doesn't.

Quote:
It's the nature of the league. You lose your starting QB, your season is essentially over.


More than one team has shown that's not the case.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:11 pm
Profile
Backup

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Posts: 89
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
It's not my intent to paint a picture of "doom and gloom" because some of the situations I listed can and will be resolved in a positive way. My point was just that the depth and talent questions on the offense aren't limited to OL and RB.

I understand the point you were making and I agree with it for the most part. The QB backup situation is most likely something that is money related. The way I understand it is teams are willing to roll the dice that there Starter won't miss significant time each season because having a high end back up QB is expensive insurance. Teams would rather allocate capital elsewhere to improve depth. I agree though, they need to evaluate this seriously......Bradford's injury history is extensive.

The "doom and gloom" comment above is as much directed your overall tone regarding the organization and the direction its heading as it was to the comments you made in this post. Don't get me wrong, generally speaking, you make some valid arguments and I respect your position's on most topics even if I don't agree with the substance of the argument. I just see things glass half full with this team, more so than I have in many years.

Quote:
As far as the difference makers and mismatches. They have some now in Bradford, Diggs, mcKinnon and Rudolph.


Those players can create mismatches on the field at times but I should have been more clear: I was referring to big-time difference-makers, the kind of players that force defenses to adapt their game plans to stop them. Peterson's been that kind of player for most of his career. Moss was that kind of player. Fitzgerald has been that sort of player in Arizona and Jones is that player for Atlanta. There are obviously some QBs around the league who fit that description too but I wouldn't put any of the players listed above in that category.[/quote]

I kind of figured that's what you were getting at with "difference makers". They may have some in Patterson and Diggs, we'll see. Potential is there. To me it seems like they would rather have an offense that keeps defenses off balance with a balanced attack and a lot of ways to beat you depending what your weaknesses are and what the defense is willing to give up. A strong running game is a huge part of that approach though and they have some work to do there. I am not sure if they would need a real " difference maker" if they had a solid offense with depth at each postion and a lot of ways to attack offenses.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:19 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Alaskan wrote:
I understand the point you were making and I agree with it for the most part. The QB backup situation is most likely something that is money related. The way I understand it is teams are willing to roll the dice that there Starter won't miss significant time each season because having a high end back up QB is expensive insurance. Teams would rather allocate capital elsewhere to improve depth. I agree though, they need to evaluate this seriously......Bradford's injury history is extensive.


Money is definitely part of the issue. That's why I'm a big believer in teams investing in quality young QBs in the draft, players with genuine starting potential. The rookie cap makes that affordable for a good 4 years and a player like that can not only provide good short term insurance but can offer long term starting potential.

Quote:
The "doom and gloom" comment above is as much directed your overall tone regarding the organization and the direction its heading as it was to the comments you made in this post. Don't get me wrong, generally speaking, you make some valid arguments and I respect your position's on most topics even if I don't agree with the substance of the argument. I just see things glass half full with this team, more so than I have in many years.


I think many do and I understand it. I wish I felt the same way because it's more fun but I'm just trying to be honest in my assessment.

Quote:
I kind of figured that's what you were getting at with "difference makers". They may have some in Patterson and Diggs, we'll see. Potential is there.


It is and I'm hoping Patterson will still be on the team next year. Maybe Treadwell or a rookie will emerge as that kind of player too.

Quote:
To me it seems like they would rather have an offense that keeps defenses off balance with a balanced attack and a lot of ways to beat you depending what your weaknesses are and what the defense is willing to give up. A strong running game is a huge part of that approach though and they have some work to do there. I am not sure if they would need a real " difference maker" if they had a solid offense with depth at each postion and a lot of ways to attack offenses.


Perhaps not. An offense can certainly be efficient and effective without superstars.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:39 pm
Profile
Backup

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Posts: 89
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Money is definitely part of the issue. That's why I'm a big believer in teams investing in quality young QBs in the draft, players with genuine starting potential. The rookie cap makes that affordable for a good 4 years and a player like that can not only provide good short term insurance but can offer long term starting potential.

Agreed! They can also create some equity if they develop the young asset properly. They can draft a 2nd, 3rd, 4th round QB and turn them into a net gain in trading for draft picks. Quality QB's are always in high demand. The hard part is, it is difficult to identify those young QB's with that potential.


Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:23 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
808vikingsfan wrote:
If the Vikings truly need to replace every position on the OL(which I don't think is the case) , it's not going to happen in a year and we should start looking for a new head coach now.


No we definitely don't need to replace everyone on the OL. Thats an overreaction. But to have to look for a new coach right now doesnt make much sense to me. Just because they didnt assess the OL the way people would like the past few years doesnt mean they won't do it this year. It seems like some just want to continue to look at the past and think it's a given for whats to come in the future. I've seen a lot of that on here and I don't believe thats the case.

_________________
Image


Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:01 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2746
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Mothman wrote:
808vikingsfan wrote:
If the Vikings truly need to replace every position on the OL(which I don't think is the case) , it's not going to happen in a year and we should start looking for a new head coach now.


I don't think they need to replace every position the line but they probably need 4 new starters in the next 2 years and improved depth so they're facing a huge task.

Quote:
For the people that see the glass half full, Miami had a struggling OL but it got better as the year went on. I think if there's any position that continuity makes a big difference, it's the OL. Fix the weak links and the OL should be solid by mid-season.


The problem is there are weak links across the entire line.
How can you accurately grade each linemen since they were either playing out of position, or the player adjacent was always someone different? I think even TJ wouldn't look at bad if he had a second year on the right side instead of being thrown on the left.

Quote:
Quote:
As far as QB depth, every team in the league (except for Dallas) has a huge drop off in depth.


Why do people keep bringing that up as if it makes the need for depth any less important? It doesn't.
Less important, no. Less likely, yes.
Quote:
Quote:
It's the nature of the league. You lose your starting QB, your season is essentially over.


Quote:
More than one team has shown that's not the case.
I'm sure there has but I would guess the odds aren't very great.
Did a quick search. 7 backup QBs have won a SB. Out of those seven, 2 were Heisman Trophy winners (Staubach, Plunkett), and one was the 6th overall pick (Dilfer). The other 4? Bradshaw, Brady, Warner, and Hostettler. These QBs are more starters in waiting than backup material (except for Dilfer and Hos).

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:51 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37219
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
808vikingsfan wrote:
How can you accurately grade each linemen since they were either playing out of position, or the player adjacent was always someone different? I think even TJ wouldn't look at bad if he had a second year on the right side instead of being thrown on the left.


Clemmings might have been better if he'd stayed on the right but he was awful on the right and I think they need a lot more from a starting tackle than not being as bad as he was in 2015.

Regarding grading: I understand the point you're making about continuity but last season didn't occur in a bubble. The intended starters all have previous history in the NFL which we can consider and even without the benefit of the same 5 players performing next to each other all season, we can still see how they each get off the line, how they set, move their feet, drive, sustain blocks, move in space, etc. There's plenty to analyze.

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to suggest the Vikings need to put 4 new starters on the offensive line in the next 2 years. Consider their circumstances: as of right now they don't have a starting-caliber tackle under contract. That's 2 of 4 positions right there. It's pretty hard to make a case for Fusco to continue as a starter. He hasn't looked like a good starting guard for years now.

Berger will be 35 next year, the final year of his contract, and it seems unlikely he'll continue to start at center beyond that. Even if he does, the clock is obviously ticking on his career.

That's 4 of the 5 starting OL positions, 2 of which are currently open. I don't see clear replacements for any of them on the roster, although perhaps Easton can be the next center. I'm guessing that's the plan.

Quote:
Less important, no. Less likely, yes


I'm discussing needs and team-building strategies, not likelihoods. Having quality depth at QB is hardly an impossibility so pointing to how many teams don't have it isn't a good reason not to pursue and develop that depth.


Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:42 am
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10703
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
I don't think we have starting caliber tackles on this team. Hill might be a quality backup/low probability starter but yeah, likely we need those 2 positions.

Easton I think has a shot at center as mentioned. He was a PFF preseason all-star when he came into the league (I think this might be the equivalent of a razzie award). But he's young and a late round guy probably needed those few years in the league to develop.

If Harris could come back and at his original form, that would be nice but likely best case scenario. Sirles maybe an outside candidate to play guard at a respectable level?

It would help tremendously if they could fill one of the two voids in the interior via an internal player. I think they draft a RT and grab a LT in free agency (and a groomer in the draft). Then maybe draft one more swing player.


Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:18 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
S197 wrote:
I don't think we have starting caliber tackles on this team. Hill might be a quality backup/low probability starter but yeah, likely we need those 2 positions.

Easton I think has a shot at center as mentioned. He was a PFF preseason all-star when he came into the league (I think this might be the equivalent of a razzie award). But he's young and a late round guy probably needed those few years in the league to develop.

If Harris could come back and at his original form, that would be nice but likely best case scenario. Sirles maybe an outside candidate to play guard at a respectable level?

It would help tremendously if they could fill one of the two voids in the interior via an internal player. I think they draft a RT and grab a LT in free agency (and a groomer in the draft). Then maybe draft one more swing player.


The only issue on the interior right now is RG. Berger has at least another year in him and is a very good C. I think it will be the other way around with the tackles. The only LT I would care for with Whitworth and I'm not even big on that. My #1 priority would be Wagner and he's a RT.

_________________
Image


Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:48 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10703
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
S197 wrote:
I don't think we have starting caliber tackles on this team. Hill might be a quality backup/low probability starter but yeah, likely we need those 2 positions.

Easton I think has a shot at center as mentioned. He was a PFF preseason all-star when he came into the league (I think this might be the equivalent of a razzie award). But he's young and a late round guy probably needed those few years in the league to develop.

If Harris could come back and at his original form, that would be nice but likely best case scenario. Sirles maybe an outside candidate to play guard at a respectable level?

It would help tremendously if they could fill one of the two voids in the interior via an internal player. I think they draft a RT and grab a LT in free agency (and a groomer in the draft). Then maybe draft one more swing player.


The only issue on the interior right now is RG. Berger has at least another year in him and is a very good C. I think it will be the other way around with the tackles. The only LT I would care for with Whitworth and I'm not even big on that. My #1 priority would be Wagner and he's a RT.


I'm hopeful Berger can go another year at the same level but the statement was over the next 2 years we may have 4 new starters. I could see Berger not making it another 2 and/or a guy like Easton outplaying him. I haven't really looked at the T free agent class but if it's weak at LT then that may be an issue. It will be tough to get a starting LT in the draft in round 2 (assuming they go T). I'd hate to see another year of betting on the health of Kalil should they re-sign him.


Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:17 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3300
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
This is just my opinion on the situation:

Seems very unlikely they add anything at C or G. Fusco is weak link in near term, but he isn't the unit's biggest problem and Mike Harris could be waiting in the wings. This situation isn't great, but Tackle is worse.

I think it is highly unlikely that they will be successful in replacing both Tackles with competitive starters in a single offseason. Furthermore, it is not likely that they'll find immediate help in the college ranks via the draft. I posted an article awhile back that made the point that something like 2 of the first 16 OL drafted in 2015 cracked the starting line up. That means that Free Agency is the likely avenue to find immediate help. Not sure how it shapes up? Maybe they sign Wentworth and some also ran at RT. Maybe they get Kalil on the cheap and then spend big(er) money at RT?

I think they'll spend big money on one side and small money on the other. The net positive here is that just not having TJ Clemmings on the field will be a significant improvement. He was beyond awful and it is hard to imagine any Free Agent with even a modest pedigree not playing considerably better than #68.

Also worth noting is that the 2015 group wasn't just mired by injuries, it was also impacted by lack of continuity. Just having the same guys taking the majority of the snaps will lead to more competitive play. How much better remains to be seen, but this was an additional hurdle for the position group in 2016.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4617
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: The future of the Vikings, part 1: The quarterbacks
S197 wrote:

I'm hopeful Berger can go another year at the same level but the statement was over the next 2 years we may have 4 new starters. I could see Berger not making it another 2 and/or a guy like Easton outplaying him. I haven't really looked at the T free agent class but if it's weak at LT then that may be an issue. It will be tough to get a starting LT in the draft in round 2 (assuming they go T). I'd hate to see another year of betting on the health of Kalil should they re-sign him.


Even if Berger drops off a bit, I dont think it would be anything significant. There are two kids that are interesting C/G prospects that I am very interested in and are spoken very highly of. Ethan Pocic from LSU and Pat Elfein from Ohio State. Both are legitimate interior lineman. So there is nothing wrong with drafting one of them, putting them at RG and leaving Berger at C or vice versa

But yeah LT is a weak class. This is why I have been saying all along that it is smart to re-sign Kalil. You have a weak FA class AND no first round pick.

_________________
Image


Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:24 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Dmizzle0 and 11 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.