Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings!

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: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:29 am

losperros wrote:I agree with all the above. I'll also admit things could go surprisingly positive and that would be great. Who knows right now?

That said, speaking of the downhill trajectory being a tough climb back, you know what still bothers me? The game against the Colts. I think it was an indicator that much more than a few roster changes were wrong with the team. And certainly more than just injuries. I've got a feeling there is a lot of fixing needed on the Vikings and maybe it can't all be done in a hurry.
That Colts game bothers me too and when I add in the DB insubordination a week later @ Green Bay, Turner's decision to leave mid-season, etc. it clearly indicates deeper issues on the team.

I definitely think there's a lot of fixing to be done and I worry they don't have the right people in place to fix it. Nothing about the team's GM, coaching staff or personnel suggests to me that there's a great deal of postseason success in their near future.

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Texas Vike » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:24 am

Mothman wrote: I think they're just discouraged and some probably see the circumstances differently than others.

I'm not about to jump ship but I'm definitely feeling very discouraged.

Part of it is seeing the Pack do well and feeling nausea.

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

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:35 am

Texas Vike wrote:Part of it is seeing the Pack do well and feeling nausea.
That's definitely not helping.

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by mansquatch » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:53 am

Mothman wrote: We don't know who will be in the Super Bowl this year but you've overlooked something significant above. Do you realize which team allowed the fewest average points per game this season? It was the Patriots (and by a significant margin). They allowed an average of 15.6 ppg and finished 8th in the defensive rankings by yardage allowed. It's also worth nothing that when they beat Seattle in the Super Bowl 2 years ago, they also had a top 10 defense in points allowed and were in the top 13 in the yardage rankings.

Pittsburgh's defense was 10th in ppg this season and 12th in the defensive rankings by yardage allowed so they too, are one of the better defensive teams in the league. Regardless of who comes out of the AFC, it will be a team with a good defense that had enough balance to win the big games.
I'm glad your brought this up because I've been wanting to explore it. :soap

Let's look at the Patriots. They went 14-2. Their average margin of victory is 15.28 points. In only 4 of their 14 wins was the margin of victory one score or less and 2 of those were a margin of 7 points, meaning the opponent needed a TD to tie it, one other game was 5 points meaning they needed a TD as well. Only in week 1 was the margin 2 points and a FG would have done the trick.

In looking at defensive stats and only stats you have to ask yourself a question: How much of the team stat is the defense being great on it's own and how much of it is the offense giving them help by scoring and making the opponent 1 dimensional? I humbly submit that the two teams you are mentioning are playing good defense in the playoffs (no small feat) but that neither team identifies with it's defense as it's primary means to win games. All 4 of the teams currently in the playoffs fit this mold. None of these teams are playing ELITE defense like you see from teams like DEN, HOU, and yes, even our Vikings.

Now you can be snarky and say that none of the elite defensive teams are playing this weekend. That is true. But it hasn't been true the last three years. As an aside to this there seem to be two models for winning the championship:

Model 1: Win the Elite QB lottery and build a high powered offense with just enough defense sprinkled in. See the 4 teams playing on Sunday. Typically these defenses focus on takeaways.
Model 2: Build an Elite Defense and enough playmaking on Offense and then suffocate your opponents to get to victory. These defense focus on PA and the team as a whole focuses on playing clean.

IMO, Model 1 is easier to build in the NFL, but you have to have the QB. Interestingly, prior to 2007 the Patriots were probably more model 2 than model 1, they evolved with Brady. The question I posed earlier in this thread was whether or not Model 2 doesn't work anymore since no Model 2 team is playing on Saturday. (I think the answer is no, but this a different subject for a different time.)

Bringing this back to the Vikings: I think people make a mistake in their thinking and look at the team performance in silos (each unit by itself) without taking into account how they feed off of each other. If our offense had put up even average PF , it is very likely that with our D would have ranked ever higher. Not because they would have played any better, but because they would have had a much greater margin for error.

Now a question about PIT and NE: If you took the same defense, but made their offense average, would they still have the same rank? I think the answer is obviously no.

DEN by contrast has a new QB and their defense is still playing at very high level. The Vikings had a total dumpster fire on offense and the defense was still elite. The point here on the Purple: In terms of model 2: we just need more offense, the Defense is there. This is the reason why I think there is reason to still be excited for the Vikings. Our Def was ranked #3 despite having the #28 Offense. The AVG PF in the NFL ins 2016 was 22.8. The Vikings were 20.4. How much of that PF was due to the horrendous play at Tackle by backups and the Kicker missing so many opportunities in the first half of the season? They've fixed the kicker issue. Can they fix the tackles? In the grand scheme of things though, They are not that far away.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by mansquatch » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:59 am

Mothman wrote: That's definitely not helping.
They got hot when it matters. If ATL can keep scoring it is going ot be a tough one for the Pack. I do not see anyone on the GB Defense that will match up with Julio Jones. The question is if the ATL defense can do get a stop or two so they can pull ahead. I'm curious to see how Dan Quinn plays it. Quinn had success against Rogers in SEA, but that was with a much better Defense.

As an aside it would be interesting to see how many people think Jason Garret's mistake was not going for it on 4th and 3 and instead kicking the Field Goal? IMO, that was when he lost the game. Rogers making his magnificent plays was just an afterthought, the DAL defense had so little success it was to be expected. There was a fun stat I heard on the radio that on passed of 30 yards or more in the last 30 seconds of a game the entire NFL is something like 4 of 46. Rogers is 5 of 8. You can't use the same rules to play him, and that is why DAL lost that game.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3604
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Texas Vike » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:42 am

mansquatch wrote: They got hot when it matters. If ATL can keep scoring it is going ot be a tough one for the Pack. I do not see anyone on the GB Defense that will match up with Julio Jones. The question is if the ATL defense can do get a stop or two so they can pull ahead. I'm curious to see how Dan Quinn plays it. Quinn had success against Rogers in SEA, but that was with a much better Defense.

As an aside it would be interesting to see how many people think Jason Garret's mistake was not going for it on 4th and 3 and instead kicking the Field Goal? IMO, that was when he lost the game. Rogers making his magnificent plays was just an afterthought, the DAL defense had so little success it was to be expected. There was a fun stat I heard on the radio that on passed of 30 yards or more in the last 30 seconds of a game the entire NFL is something like 4 of 46. Rogers is 5 of 8. You can't use the same rules to play him, and that is why DAL lost that game.

I thought spiking the ball with a timeout in their pocket was unwise. They definitely needed 7 on that drive and when they settled for a FG, I had a feeling it was over.

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

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:56 am

mansquatch wrote:Let's look at the Patriots. They went 14-2. Their average margin of victory is 15.28 points. In only 4 of their 14 wins was the margin of victory one score or less and 2 of those were a margin of 7 points, meaning the opponent needed a TD to tie it, one other game was 5 points meaning they needed a TD as well. Only in week 1 was the margin 2 points and a FG would have done the trick.

In looking at defensive stats and only stats you have to ask yourself a question: How much of the team stat is the defense being great on it's own and how much of it is the offense giving them help by scoring and making the opponent 1 dimensional? I humbly submit that the two teams you are mentioning are playing good defense in the playoffs (no small feat) but that neither team identifies with it's defense as it's primary means to win games. All 4 of the teams currently in the playoffs fit this mold. None of these teams are playing ELITE defense like you see from teams like DEN, HOU, and yes, even our Vikings.
I saw a LOT of talk about elite defense from the Vikings this year and precious little of it. However, to your point: I don't think it matters if the Patriots offense is helping their defense be better. That just reinforces the importance of balance and underlines how badly the Vikes have once again botched their attempts to build a championship team by focusing far too much on one aspect of the team while allowing the other to become a mess.

I think the Patriots identify with team play to win games. It's been that way all along. They don't make the mistake of viewing their defense or their offense alone as their primary way to win.
Now you can be snarky and say that none of the elite defensive teams are playing this weekend. That is true.
I don't think it is true. The team with the defense that allowed the fewest points in the league this year is still playing. I'm not sure how you are defining an elite defense if you don't think the Patriots defense fits that description. Is there some reason a defense can't be considered elite if they're actually paired with a top offense? I don't think playing complementary football undermines either unit.
But it hasn't been true the last three years. As an aside to this there seem to be two models for winning the championship:

Model 1: Win the Elite QB lottery and build a high powered offense with just enough defense sprinkled in. See the 4 teams playing on Sunday. Typically these defenses focus on takeaways.
Model 2: Build an Elite Defense and enough playmaking on Offense and then suffocate your opponents to get to victory. These defense focus on PA and the team as a whole focuses on playing clean.
Those are two potential models for winning a Super Bowl but there are clearly other approaches that can lead to a Super Bowl win. For example, the 2012 Ravens certainly didn't fit either model.
Bringing this back to the Vikings: I think people make a mistake in their thinking and look at the team performance in silos (each unit by itself) without taking into account how they feed off of each other. If our offense had put up even average PF , it is very likely that with our D would have ranked ever higher. Not because they would have played any better, but because they would have had a much greater margin for error.

Now a question about PIT and NE: If you took the same defense, but made their offense average, would they still have the same rank? I think the answer is obviously no.

DEN by contrast has a new QB and their defense is still playing at very high level. The Vikings had a total dumpster fire on offense and the defense was still elite. The point here on the Purple: In terms of model 2: we just need more offense, the Defense is there. This is the reason why I think there is reason to still be excited for the Vikings. Our Def was ranked #3 despite having the #28 Offense.
Yes, but keep in mind the first 5 games were a big part of why they finished so high in those rankings. They didn't sustain an elite level of play. Perhaps they could with a better offense but I think there's reason to question that and "just" needing more offense isn't exactly a trivial, easily overcome hurdle. What makes you think this GM and coaching staff can overcome that hurdle? Spielman has almost no history of putting together above average passing games or offenses. It's obviously not Zimmer's specialty. Shurmur's past offenses have not done well when Chip Kelly wasn't both designing them and calling the plays (in other words, that offense in Philly really wasn't Shurmur's). I don't see the likely architects of a significantly better offense on the Vikings and there are obviously some serious personnel issues.
The AVG PF in the NFL ins 2016 was 22.8. The Vikings were 20.4. How much of that PF was due to the horrendous play at Tackle by backups and the Kicker missing so many opportunities in the first half of the season? They've fixed the kicker issue. Can they fix the tackles? In the grand scheme of things though, They are not that far away.
It's not inconceivable that they could make all the right moves and quickly become a contender but the "elite" defense folded again and again when it counted this season and the offense has miles to go. I understand the argument you're making but it's very hard for me to imagine this Vikings team is about to transform into a Super Bowl contender next season. I think their roster needs serious work and the same doubts I expressed above about the ability of Rick Spielman and the coaching staff to fix the offense apply to postseason success. Spielman has seen minimal postseason success as an NFL executive The same goes for key members of the coaching staff. Zimmer has never been on the winning side of a playoff game as a coordinator or head coach. He's never fielded the kind of suffocating, truly elite defense that carries a team all the way. Former HCs on the staff like Shurmur and Sparano haven't had postseason success either and neither has DC George Edwards. I understand that you're looking at this from the point of view of what's possible: elite defense plus improved offense could equal a "model 2" championship. That could happen but in terms of what's probable, when I consider the history of the players, coaches and GM involved, combined with the evident problems and collapse in 2016, a Vikings championship in the near future looks very unlikely to me.

Believe me, I wish I felt differently but I think the Vikes are just another one of the NFL's mediocre teams... again.

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Jordysghost » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:51 pm

Texas Vike wrote:
I thought spiking the ball with a timeout in their pocket was unwise. They definitely needed 7 on that drive and when they settled for a FG, I had a feeling it was over.
Agreed, the spike was critical, I would have used the timeout if I were them, they were trying to play for the TD, but didn't do it smartly.

The lost down on the spike really may have cost them the game in a very direct fashion, the 2nd down play was a 7 yard reception and the 3rd down was a batted ball at the line, and Dez was open.
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by mansquatch » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:54 pm

Sorry Jim I'm not buying the pessimism. Team Morale was a factor in the latter half of the season. I've stated many times that I felt that if they had fixed Walsh sooner some of those games might have swung and then the contagion of losing might not have been as severe.

You can say they didn't beat indy and they lost to GB and got blown out at CHI. Yep, they did. But why? Why did it happen. Look at how thoroughly we demolished CHI at the end of the season. We got blown out earlier in a game where the whole team was in dissaray likely due to major coaching infighting. The very next week Turner resigns. Those are a lot of extreme cases in one season and they still went .500.

There is no doubt in my mind that this roster underperformed by 4-5 wings this season. Reasons are:

Scheme Change
OL Injuries
RB Injuries
OL underperformance
Kicking issues

The scheme change and kicking problems are resolved. RB is a question, but could be addressed by keeping AP. That leaves the OL issues. The OL was historically bad. Even if they are just below average we probably win 10-12 games. if they are better than that...

How many teams only need to fix that? The odds are better for us than most teams.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

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

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:28 pm

mansquatch wrote:Sorry Jim I'm not buying the pessimism.


Hey, it's MY pessimism! I think I should get to decide if I buy or sell it. ;)
Team Morale was a factor in the latter half of the season. I've stated many times that I felt that if they had fixed Walsh sooner some of those games might have swung and then the contagion of losing might not have been as severe.


Maybe you're right but I don't find that encouraging.
You can say they didn't beat indy and they lost to GB and got blown out at CHI. Yep, they did. But why? Why did it happen. Look at how thoroughly we demolished CHI at the end of the season.


The Bears had one foot out the door in that game and a third string QB/turnover machine as their starting QB. I'm glad the Vikes showed some pride and closed out the season with a win but that wasn't a terribly impressive victory.
We got blown out earlier in a game where the whole team was in dissaray likely due to major coaching infighting. The very next week Turner resigns. Those are a lot of extreme cases in one season and they still went .500.

There is no doubt in my mind that this roster underperformed by 4-5 wings this season. Reasons are:

Scheme Change
OL Injuries
RB Injuries
OL underperformance
Kicking issues

The scheme change and kicking problems are resolved. RB is a question, but could be addressed by keeping AP. That leaves the OL issues. The OL was historically bad. Even if they are just below average we probably win 10-12 games. if they are better than that...
I think we're attributing some of the losses to different factors, which may be why we see the team so differently right now. Morale and infighting may have been issues in those losses but I think they also lost those games for other reasons. We've seen the same kind of blowouts every season under Zimmer. This past season, the Colts, Eagles, Bears and Packers all attacked weaknesses on the Vikings and were quite successful doing so.

If Walsh was the factor you think he was, it doesn't speak well of the team's leadership or resilience. I don't think the kicking issues have been resolved either. Forbath missed 3 extra points in 7 games!

The scheme change is probably just getting started since Shurmur was operating within Turner's scheme during the season. I don't know if he'll change terminology or not but I imagine he will implement his offense this offseason so we could see some growing pains there (hopefully accompanied by improvement).

The other issues are clearly unresolved at this stage and you left out what I now consider the biggest issue: coaching and management.

Admittedly, I'm pessimistic regarding the team right now but if that view isn't justified after this season's collapse, when is it justified? As I said, there's little in the history of this coaching staff or GM to suggest they're the right people to not only solve the team's problems but solve them so effectively that it leads to postseason success next season. I'm not ruling out success but I sure don't expect it.

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by mansquatch » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:49 pm

Losing is contagious. That is a coaching issue there and Zimmer has said as much. Hindsight is 20/20 on it though.

I think they should have dealt with Walsh sooner, but apparently it wasn't a front burner issue in 2015. It bit them, there is no question about it. The Bears exploited weaknesses, but didn't do anything anyone else hadn't done to that point. (Whitney Mercillus made Clemmings look like a Varsity High School wannabe in week 4.) That is also a coaching issue. However, that Bears game is exceptional in that we now know that there was considerable infighting amongst the coaches on how to run the offense. It is highly doubtful that it is a coincidence that Turner jumped ship after that game. So is the coaching issue one of bad scheming or one of a certain group within the staff not wanting to make the necessary changes before it was too late? It is obvious based on how they played the following week that there were guys on staff who had ideas on how to fix it. This is a management issue, but we'll never get to the bottom of it. (The real question is if we'd have seen more of same had Turner NOT resigned?)

FWIW, the first Lion's loss was almost entirely due to Walsh. They called the game differently because they didn't have confidence in him. (Turning over the ball after failing on 4th and 1 instead of taking points...) To your point it NEVER should have gotten that far. That is a management issue.

This is particular game is important to me because IMO, it was the bounce back game. PHI smacked them in the face. The Bears took advantage of a team swooning from getting it's first loss and obvious internal infighting amongst the coaches on how the fix the issues on OL. They settled the coaching mess down and then the Walsh issue boiled over and they lost the 3rd game in a row to a BAD Lions team. That to me was the moment when the season fell apart. They couldn't break the funk at that point. They went to WSH and the defense started showing signs of psychological stress and they blew a 4Q lead for the 2nd week in a row. They got lucky against AZ with two return scores, but it didn't matter. The losing had taken root and that was it.

That is my speculation on how things unwound from a morale standpoint. Certainly subject to debate as we can't read their minds.

Still, despite the above no one has yet to explain to me how this roster is so far removed from the 2015 campaign if we discount the injuries on OL and RB. The pessimistic position seems to essentially be that even if AP and Kalil/Smith had stayed healthy the results would have been the same. On top of that, just about everyone here acknowledges that we are now incrementally, maybe even significantly, better at QB. I just can't square that one. We were the #3 seed in 2015, we got a lot better at QB, but have issues at tackle and now we are mediocre. Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I'm not getting it. I think they can bring in average guys at Tackle and we'll see marked improvement.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

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

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Mothman » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:53 pm

mansquatch wrote:Losing is contagious. That is a coaching issue there and Zimmer has said as much. Hindsight is 20/20 on it though.

I think they should have dealt with Walsh sooner, but apparently it wasn't a front burner issue in 2015. It bit them, there is no question about it. The Bears exploited weaknesses, but didn't do anything anyone else hadn't done to that point. (Whitney Mercillus made Clemmings look like a Varsity High School wannabe in week 4.) That is also a coaching issue. However, that Bears game is exceptional in that we now know that there was considerable infighting amongst the coaches on how to run the offense. It is highly doubtful that it is a coincidence that Turner jumped ship after that game. So is the coaching issue one of bad scheming or one of a certain group within the staff not wanting to make the necessary changes before it was too late? It is obvious based on how they played the following week that there were guys on staff who had ideas on how to fix it. This is a management issue, but we'll never get to the bottom of it. (The real question is if we'd have seen more of same had Turner NOT resigned?)

FWIW, the first Lion's loss was almost entirely due to Walsh. They called the game differently because they didn't have confidence in him. (Turning over the ball after failing on 4th and 1 instead of taking points...) To your point it NEVER should have gotten that far. That is a management issue.
Exactly, although I still think you're giving the rest of the team way too much of a break for that game. A kicker can only influence a game so much on the handful of plays in which he participates and Walsh certainly didn't have anything to do with the Lions driving for the winning TD on the first possession of overtime.
This is particular game is important to me because IMO, it was the bounce back game. PHI smacked them in the face. The Bears took advantage of a team swooning from getting it's first loss and obvious internal infighting amongst the coaches on how the fix the issues on OL. They settled the coaching mess down and then the Walsh issue boiled over and they lost the 3rd game in a row to a BAD Lions team. That to me was the moment when the season fell apart. They couldn't break the funk at that point. They went to WSH and the defense started showing signs of psychological stress and they blew a 4Q lead for the 2nd week in a row. They got lucky against AZ with two return scores, but it didn't matter. The losing had taken root and that was it.

That is my speculation on how things unwound from a morale standpoint. Certainly subject to debate as we can't read their minds.
Even if we could and your theory is correct, losing morale to that degree after a 5-0 start followed by a few losses suggests this was anything but a team capable of winning or even seriously competing for a Super Bowl. They have to be more mentally resilient than that if they ever expect to win it all.
Still, despite the above no one has yet to explain to me how this roster is so far removed from the 2015 campaign if we discount the injuries on OL and RB.
Why would we discount those two key factors, especially when Peterson was such a huge factor in their success in 2015? Plus, as I already explained, the roster could be quite different. We don't know yet but Munnerlyn, Newman, Floyd, Greenway and Robison could all be gone and they're certainly all going to be two years older which, in a few cases, is very significant.
On top of that, just about everyone here acknowledges that we are now incrementally, maybe even significantly, better at QB. I just can't square that one. We were the #3 seed in 2015, we got a lot better at QB, but have issues at tackle and now we are mediocre. Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I'm not getting it. I think they can bring in average guys at Tackle and we'll see marked improvement.
This is the best way I can think of to explain it:

2015 is as far behind for this Vikings team as the 2012 season was for the 2013 Vikings in January of 2014. That team followed a postseason year with a flop and so did the 2016 Vikes.

We're obviously not talking about the 2015 Vikings entering the 2016 season. We're talking about a 2016 team that collapsed and had problems on and off the field. That's who they are at the moment: an 8-8 team team that had a 3-8 finish, not an 11-5 team coming off a close, hard-fought playoff loss. Sure, many players from the 2015 roster will still be with the Vikings next year but the overall composition of the team will be different and it's likely some key players will be gone.

The Vikes appear to have a number of new and/or bigger problems in the wake of this past season and they already needed to be better if they were going to go deeper into the playoffs. Instead, they got worse and missed the playoffs.

Regarding OL: I can't emphasize enough that they don't just have issues at tackle. They have them all over the line. They're just most obvious and egregious at tackle and I wouldn't assume any of those issues are easily solved. Finding average-or-better tackles isn't easy.

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

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:02 pm

mansquatch wrote: The pessimistic position seems to essentially be that even if AP and Kalil/Smith had stayed healthy the results would have been the same.

I think they can bring in average guys at Tackle and we'll see marked improvement.
Yes and yes.

For your first point, that has been said and I believe it is completely false. If anything, it sounds like guys just blowing smoke out of frustration. I've said time and time again, we had to MODIFY our offense when these injuries hit the OL. It's a big reason why Turner left IMO and thats where I believe the disagreement came with Zimmer and Turner. Zimmer realized we needed to go into a shorter passing game to keep Sam upright and Norv wanted to stick to his ways. His offense wasnt designed for the short passing game. If Kalil and Smith played and even Harris, we aren't changing this offense into more of a quick hitter offense with less 7 step drops. I don't care how bad some might think Kalil/Smith are. It wasnt happening.

Put it this way, Harris is much better than Fusco, we had Kalil last year and had Clemmings on the right side last year. If Kalil was healthy and Harris didnt have this odd-ball injury then there was no need. Smith is clearly better than Clemmings. Who isn't. So why would we need to modify this offense into a quick hitting offense?? No less we had one of the best threats in the NFL in the backfield last year. We didnt this year. I truly question the knowledge of those that think the results would have been the same with or without the injuries. It's not hard to figure out.

As for your second point, of course I don't want to bring in "average" guys and I don't think you believe that either but I understand where you're coming from. Technically thats all you would really need to "fix" the OT problem or at least get by as you try to build the line up. However, I hope our front office and Zim don't look at it that way. I don't think they will
Image

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

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:04 pm

Mothman wrote: Walsh certainly didn't have anything to do with the Lions driving for the winning TD on the first possession of overtime.
I think it's safe to say we would have never been in that position in the first place if Walsh made the XP that game. Makes it a 4 point game and forced Detroit to score with 23 seconds left. Very good chance that wasnt happening.
Image

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

Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:07 pm

Mothman wrote:
Why would we discount those two key factors, especially when Peterson was such a huge factor in their success in 2015? Plus, as I already explained, the roster could be quite different. We don't know yet but Munnerlyn, Newman, Floyd, Greenway and Robison could all be gone and they're certainly all going to be two years older which, in a few cases, is very significant.
I highly doubt all of them would be gone. Wouldnt be surprised if they asked Robison to take a pay cut. Greenway had little impact on this defense anymore. Floyd would result in a dead money hit, Newman could retire or be back for 1 more and I'm hoping they hold onto Munnerlyn unless they feel Alexander is ready.

Either way, I don't see all of them leaving.
Image

Locked