View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:06 pm



Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris 
Author Message
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1535
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Mothman wrote:
IrishViking wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Okay, so just to be clear, when you write "go for broke" are you endorsing what I asked about above, that they sell out for a quick fix via free agency, regardless of expense, in an effort to win a Super Bowl next season? Is that what you think they should do and if so, how do you think they should approach the draft in regard to the offensive line?


to chime in here, I don't think "go for broke" and "quick fix" are fair categorizations to make here. Its a framing mechanism that makes a choices automatically unpaletable before the choice is even finished being offered. First there is a massive range between a good deal and "going for broke" when signing a free agent. I know you will inevitably ask "how much is too much" and we don't know yet but there is a very wide range of pay that could be achieved between "Steal for the Vikings" and "shades of Walker" I fully expect the Vikings to be slightly closer to the walker end on that scale but overpaying=/=terrible decision making.


"Go for broke" was the phrase Mansquatch used in his post. I simply asked for clarification on how he was using it.

Quote:
"Quick fix" also bugs me. Wagner is 27, Olinemen regularly play into their early 30s. Outliers make it to 35. It isn't unreasonable to say that since he has made it this far there is a good chance he'll play for 4-5 more years. Since when is half a decade of play a band aid?


Who said it was a band-aid? :) I was using the phrase in a literal sense, to characterize the idea that the Vikings should try to quickly fix/rebuild their offensive line in one offseason, primarily through free agency. I didn't intend it to have a negative connotation.

Why do you think I'm trying to make choices seem unpalatable before they're made? I'm not opposed to signing free agents. I'm just seeking clarity in the conversation.


I never said you were. Those are framing phrases that are almost universally viewed as mistakes in the NFL. So using them to describe the act of carefully vetting a Free Agency player and submitting to them a competitive offer for their services for several years is a choice. Again, never said you did, I am not going to get bogged down in a discussion about words in mouths. They were in your post, they are framing terms, unflattering ones at that. Its like the difference between saying "abusive and authoritarian" vs "aggressive and motivational" on your resume.

Its very clear you are open to it. It is clear that the continued general preference is to build through the draft. Time isn't on our side though. A perfect example is Harrison Smith. Beyond some extreme outliers (woodson) most Safeties retire around 32 years of age. So he has 4-5 years left. Everson griffen is 3-4 years from retiring. Robison is there, literally, any year now could be his last. It is mind boggling to me that the some people (not saying you) think that drafting all of our future oline players is the smart move, We could finish that JUST in time for a terrible season where we complain we don't have solid enough safeties or defensive ends, etc. We should build them through the draft... Just in time to not have an Oline... etc Free Agency is a supplemental tool and one that a team missing its first round pick should lean heavily on. If we manage to restructure AP. we should have nearly 30 million in cap space. We should overpay for Oline talent because its what we need and its the way the league is slanting already. Drafting is key but we need the free agents to shorten the turn around time.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:11 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37189
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
IrishViking wrote:
I never said you were. Those are framing phrases that are almost universally viewed as mistakes in the NFL. So using them to describe the act of carefully vetting a Free Agency player and submitting to them a competitive offer for their services for several years is a choice.


Fair enough but in my defense, that's not what I did. I wasn't referring to any individual player as a "quick fix". I was referring to the idea of quickly repairing the entire line in a single offseason using free agency. Would that not be a "quick fix" of a broken line? Indeed, isn't that exactly what you're arguing for below (leaning on free agency as a tool to quickly turn the line around so the Vikings can take advantage of the defensive talent on their roster)?

Quote:
Its very clear you are open to it. It is clear that the continued general preference is to build through the draft. Time isn't on our side though. A perfect example is Harrison Smith. Beyond some extreme outliers (woodson) most Safeties retire around 32 years of age. So he has 4-5 years left. Everson griffen is 3-4 years from retiring. Robison is there, literally, any year now could be his last. It is mind boggling to me that the some people (not saying you) think that drafting all of our future oline players is the smart move, We could finish that JUST in time for a terrible season where we complain we don't have solid enough safeties or defensive ends, etc. We should build them through the draft... Just in time to not have an Oline... etc Free Agency is a supplemental tool and one that a team missing its first round pick should lean heavily on. If we manage to restructure AP. we should have nearly 30 million in cap space. We should overpay for Oline talent because its what we need and its the way the league is slanting already. Drafting is key but we need the free agents to shorten the turn around time.


I've always believed a team should use every means available to improve so naturally, I agree that free agency should be one method used on the road to improvement. That said, overpaying in the name of short term improvement is the kind of strategy that can lead to cap issues and make it harder to keep young players like Smith and Griffen when they get to their second contracts. Those two obviously are on their second deal now but players like Kendricks, Rhodes, Waynes and Barr are also seen as integral parts of the Vikings young defense and hopefully, they're all players the Vikes will eventually want to re-sign. It's obviously a matter of degree: slightly overpaying to fill an immediate need at one position isn't likely to prove all that detrimental but significantly overpaying, particularly at several positions, could become problematic. I think the team needs to be responsible, not reckless, in their effort to improve.

As for the idea that the Vikings should ignore free agency and build their OL exclusively through the draft: it's basically an outlier, an extreme point of view and probably not something worth spending too much time discussing since there's almost nobody actually arguing for that strategy.

I feel like everybody keeps talking past each other on this. Most of us seem to agree the team should aggressively try to improve. Most seem to agree they should use free agency and the draft to do so. I would hope most fans think the team should be responsible, not reckless or desperate as they make decisions about how to improve. What's so controversial here, the idea that paying a free agent right tackle like Wagner $10 million a year might be too much?


Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:52 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3119
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
For me the big question on a FA lineman is why go after a guard? I get that the guards out there today are probably more attainable than the Tackles. However, isn't it readily obvious that the major crisis is at Tackle and not the interior? Or is there something I'm not seeing?

When they cut Fusco and Harris I began to wonder if they were going to go into the season starting either Sirles or Hill at one of the tackle spots. Especially if they sign one of the big FA guards. But then it begs the question of what do they do at the other Tackle spot?

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


Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:59 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37189
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
mansquatch wrote:
For me the big question on a FA lineman is why go after a guard? I get that the guards out there today are probably more attainable than the Tackles. However, isn't it readily obvious that the major crisis is at Tackle and not the interior? Or is there something I'm not seeing?


A significant improvement at guard could go a long way toward improving their 32nd-ranked running game. They've also allowed a lot of interior pressure the last few years so that could be another reason.

With at least 3 open positions, I think the crisis is pretty much all along the line.

Quote:
When they cut Fusco and Harris I began to wonder if they were going to go into the season starting either Sirles or Hill at one of the tackle spots. Especially if they sign one of the big FA guards. But then it begs the question of what do they do at the other Tackle spot?


It's hard to tell what their plan is at this point. I imagine they'll try to add at least 2 or 3 free agent linemen and I wouldn't be surprised to see them draft as many as 3 too. Considering their situation, I'm guessing the strategy will be to "throw" players at the problem, create competition and see what shakes out.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:14 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
fiestavike wrote:
The team was certainly closer to a Super Bowl at this time last year than they are today. They took several steps backward during the 2016 season.

That said, they still have a good group of young players, and could have an extended period of being competitive. Its not worth mortgaging that for a fairly longshot attempt by putting all your eggs in the 2017 basket.

The priority should be to lock up their top young players for the next 5 years. The next priority should be to create an offensive line good enough to allow them to compete. That might mean a high price FA spending spree, but multi year mid range players like Boone, Short 1-2 year 3rd contract guys or players coming off injury like Clady, Kalil, and rookies taken in the draft are a more likely combination.

In a two year period, from 2016-2018, they are likely to have 5 new starters on the offensive line. If they are lucky, one of those players is a young player already on the roster.

The overhaul is going to be dramatic. Two big mistakes, in my opinion, would be (1) to go all in on top FA offensive linemen and blow the cap or (2) think holding on for another year of Kalil, Boone, Berger makes any sense. They need to bring in a young replacement for every one of those three players THIS YEAR and hope that they can beat them out for immediate playing time. If Hill and Easton are those youngs guys, they should have been playing LAST YEAR. They'll have to sign a RT in free agency. They'll have to sign a RG in free agency. They are fools if they don't draft a LT, G, and C THIS YEAR, to play in 2018,


But my question is, what's so different about us "now" compared to us last year at this point that makes us further from the SB?? Our OL is worse and we need a RB, could use a DT? Our QB now is better. We desperately needed a WR last year at this point. OL might have been a little better but not much. Our kicker was terrible last year. Sendejo was terrible last year. It's not all that different. Just because we lost 3 more games than last year doesn't mean we're "further away". Especially considering the injuries we suffered

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:18 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
mansquatch wrote:
For me the big question on a FA lineman is why go after a guard? I get that the guards out there today are probably more attainable than the Tackles. However, isn't it readily obvious that the major crisis is at Tackle and not the interior? Or is there something I'm not seeing?

When they cut Fusco and Harris I began to wonder if they were going to go into the season starting either Sirles or Hill at one of the tackle spots. Especially if they sign one of the big FA guards. But then it begs the question of what do they do at the other Tackle spot?


Well I mean we currently have no RG on the roster unless you consider Berger one. We need to go after guard at some point. But they are much easier to find via draft or FA. I like Pat Omemeh as a cheaper reliable option. Or there are some good ones in the draft

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:21 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
Posts: 1465
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
mansquatch wrote:
For me the big question on a FA lineman is why go after a guard? I get that the guards out there today are probably more attainable than the Tackles. However, isn't it readily obvious that the major crisis is at Tackle and not the interior? Or is there something I'm not seeing?

When they cut Fusco and Harris I began to wonder if they were going to go into the season starting either Sirles or Hill at one of the tackle spots. Especially if they sign one of the big FA guards. But then it begs the question of what do they do at the other Tackle spot?


Well I mean we currently have no RG on the roster unless you consider Berger one. We need to go after guard at some point. But they are much easier to find via draft or FA. I like Pat Omemeh as a cheaper reliable option. Or there are some good ones in the draft


We have backup guards.
Austin Shepherd played in 14 games 2015, with 1 start.
Willie Beavers - was a guard for some of the season till we needed tackles
Zac Kerin
Sirles played guard filling in for injuries.
When Fusco got hurt I thought Berger was an improvement at RG.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:13 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3230
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
The team was certainly closer to a Super Bowl at this time last year than they are today. They took several steps backward during the 2016 season.

That said, they still have a good group of young players, and could have an extended period of being competitive. Its not worth mortgaging that for a fairly longshot attempt by putting all your eggs in the 2017 basket.

The priority should be to lock up their top young players for the next 5 years. The next priority should be to create an offensive line good enough to allow them to compete. That might mean a high price FA spending spree, but multi year mid range players like Boone, Short 1-2 year 3rd contract guys or players coming off injury like Clady, Kalil, and rookies taken in the draft are a more likely combination.

In a two year period, from 2016-2018, they are likely to have 5 new starters on the offensive line. If they are lucky, one of those players is a young player already on the roster.

The overhaul is going to be dramatic. Two big mistakes, in my opinion, would be (1) to go all in on top FA offensive linemen and blow the cap or (2) think holding on for another year of Kalil, Boone, Berger makes any sense. They need to bring in a young replacement for every one of those three players THIS YEAR and hope that they can beat them out for immediate playing time. If Hill and Easton are those youngs guys, they should have been playing LAST YEAR. They'll have to sign a RT in free agency. They'll have to sign a RG in free agency. They are fools if they don't draft a LT, G, and C THIS YEAR, to play in 2018,


But my question is, what's so different about us "now" compared to us last year at this point that makes us further from the SB?? Our OL is worse and we need a RB, could use a DT? Our QB now is better. We desperately needed a WR last year at this point. OL might have been a little better but not much. Our kicker was terrible last year. Sendejo was terrible last year. It's not all that different. Just because we lost 3 more games than last year doesn't mean we're "further away". Especially considering the injuries we suffered


I don't think the line is significantly worse than it has been the last 3 years. I don't think the QB position is better than it was. I don't care about number of wins. I care that they left themselves further behind the 8 ball at a number of positions, and most importantly, that they compromised the longterm for the short term. They panicked and chased returns and that's a corrupt culture that you can't build a consistently excellent foundation on.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:42 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
fiestavike wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
The team was certainly closer to a Super Bowl at this time last year than they are today. They took several steps backward during the 2016 season.

That said, they still have a good group of young players, and could have an extended period of being competitive. Its not worth mortgaging that for a fairly longshot attempt by putting all your eggs in the 2017 basket.

The priority should be to lock up their top young players for the next 5 years. The next priority should be to create an offensive line good enough to allow them to compete. That might mean a high price FA spending spree, but multi year mid range players like Boone, Short 1-2 year 3rd contract guys or players coming off injury like Clady, Kalil, and rookies taken in the draft are a more likely combination.

In a two year period, from 2016-2018, they are likely to have 5 new starters on the offensive line. If they are lucky, one of those players is a young player already on the roster.

The overhaul is going to be dramatic. Two big mistakes, in my opinion, would be (1) to go all in on top FA offensive linemen and blow the cap or (2) think holding on for another year of Kalil, Boone, Berger makes any sense. They need to bring in a young replacement for every one of those three players THIS YEAR and hope that they can beat them out for immediate playing time. If Hill and Easton are those youngs guys, they should have been playing LAST YEAR. They'll have to sign a RT in free agency. They'll have to sign a RG in free agency. They are fools if they don't draft a LT, G, and C THIS YEAR, to play in 2018,


But my question is, what's so different about us "now" compared to us last year at this point that makes us further from the SB?? Our OL is worse and we need a RB, could use a DT? Our QB now is better. We desperately needed a WR last year at this point. OL might have been a little better but not much. Our kicker was terrible last year. Sendejo was terrible last year. It's not all that different. Just because we lost 3 more games than last year doesn't mean we're "further away". Especially considering the injuries we suffered


I don't think the line is significantly worse than it has been the last 3 years. I don't think the QB position is better than it was. I don't care about number of wins. I care that they left themselves further behind the 8 ball at a number of positions, and most importantly, that they compromised the longterm for the short term. They panicked and chased returns and that's a corrupt culture that you can't build a consistently excellent foundation on.


They basically left themselves further behind the 8 ball on the OL. Outside of that, I'm not sure what other positions you're referring to.

With RB, granted AP wasnt getting any younger but he was also coming off of leading the NFL in rushing and the McKinnon/Asiata combo showed a little promise in 2014. Plus I'd much rather be drafting a RB in this class than last one.

I wouldnt say DT either. Prior to this year, Floyd only missed 4 games in 3 seasons which isn't that bad at all. Plus we had Stephen who we knew Zim was high on.

Like I said before, I definitely think the QB is better now than before. By a lot? No, but definitely better. I saw a stat the other day (can't remember where) that showed how much quicker Sam got the ball out compared to Teddy. The numbers he put up behind probably a worse offensive line than Teddy had shows promise. And most of all, Sam's deep ball accuracy.

Anyways....I'm really unsure what positions we put ourselves further behind the 8 ball with other than offensive line. Because you did say "a number of positions" so I'm just curious

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:03 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
halfgiz wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
mansquatch wrote:
For me the big question on a FA lineman is why go after a guard? I get that the guards out there today are probably more attainable than the Tackles. However, isn't it readily obvious that the major crisis is at Tackle and not the interior? Or is there something I'm not seeing?

When they cut Fusco and Harris I began to wonder if they were going to go into the season starting either Sirles or Hill at one of the tackle spots. Especially if they sign one of the big FA guards. But then it begs the question of what do they do at the other Tackle spot?


Well I mean we currently have no RG on the roster unless you consider Berger one. We need to go after guard at some point. But they are much easier to find via draft or FA. I like Pat Omemeh as a cheaper reliable option. Or there are some good ones in the draft


We have backup guards.
Austin Shepherd played in 14 games 2015, with 1 start.
Willie Beavers - was a guard for some of the season till we needed tackles
Zac Kerin
Sirles played guard filling in for injuries.
When Fusco got hurt I thought Berger was an improvement at RG.


Sorry I worded that wrong. I meant more from a starters standpoint. Berger is really the only one I would trust there.

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:04 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 6585
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
fiestavike wrote:

I don't think the line is significantly worse than it has been the last 3 years. I don't think the QB position is better than it was. I don't care about number of wins. I care that they left themselves further behind the 8 ball at a number of positions, and most importantly, that they compromised the longterm for the short term. They panicked and chased returns and that's a corrupt culture that you can't build a consistently excellent foundation on.


Pretty much agree. The only positions on offense where I believe we don't need to emphasize this offseason are TE and WR.

Defensively, corner play will be considerable worse this year. There is still a major hole at defensive tackle. Sendejo still shouldn't be the full-time starter at SS.

I don't see how this team improves vastly in one offseason. We are probably looking at a competitive season, but not a Super Bowl.

_________________
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.


Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:56 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
fiestavike wrote:

I don't think the line is significantly worse than it has been the last 3 years. I don't think the QB position is better than it was. I don't care about number of wins. I care that they left themselves further behind the 8 ball at a number of positions, and most importantly, that they compromised the longterm for the short term. They panicked and chased returns and that's a corrupt culture that you can't build a consistently excellent foundation on.


Pretty much agree. The only positions on offense where I believe we don't need to emphasize this offseason are TE and WR.

Defensively, corner play will be considerable worse this year. There is still a major hole at defensive tackle. Sendejo still shouldn't be the full-time starter at SS.

I don't see how this team improves vastly in one offseason. We are probably looking at a competitive season, but not a Super Bowl.


Why corner? Because I'm guessing you're assuming we lose Cap and Newman? I think we should try and sign Dre Kirkpatrick to begin with. But either way, the offseason hasn't even hit yet but how can anyone say "CB will be considerably worse? How does anyone even know that when the draft and FA hasn't even hit yet? Sorry but I can't hop on that bandwagon of saying something is going to be worse when you have no clue what's going to happen in the coming months. Once again....how about we wait and see before we start making rash assumptions that we really have no idea about

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:07 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Quote:
Since the Minnesota Vikings made him a top-five draft pick back in 2012, Matt Kalil has done very little to establish himself as the cornerstone of the O-line the Vikings hoped they were getting. He made over $11 million during a 2016 campaign spent mostly as a spectator.

Many fans of the purple and gold would just as soon the team move on. They aren't going to want to hear this:

Assuming his contract demands aren't wonky, the Vikings should bring Kalil back in 2017.

There are any number of hard truths at work here. Odds are a Vikings team sitting with just over $20 million in cap space isn't going to be able to find an upgrade on Kalil in free agency. There certainly isn't one on Minnesota's roster.

Even if the Vikings address the tackle position early in the 2017 draft (which isn't a bad idea), throwing a rookie out there on Sam Bradford's blind side isn't apt to end much better than any of the other potential solutions the Vikes tried to fix their woeful line last season.

Now, if some team comes along and offers Kalil $9 million a season, all bets are off. But if Spotrac's estimated market value of $7 million a season is correct, the best place for Kalil is in the Twin Cities.

At least until someone better comes along.


Exactly my take regarding Kalil. Recently saw this article

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:12 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2862
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I'm surprised about all of the talk about 8-8 in this thread and others; and that we were just a win or 2 from the playoffs meaning we were very very close to being a contender.

I see that point, but to me, there is a big difference between a season split of 4-4 / 4-4.....and a season split of 5-0 / 3-8.

the 2nd half of the season was absolutely brutal. and the defensive collapse in the last quarter of the season was even more disturbing.

in my opinion, the last quarter of a season is much more indicative of the next year than the 1st quarter. And in this case, the Vikes were one of the worst teams in the NFL. Definitely bottom third, maybe worse.

I think this is biggest reason for the arguments on this and other threads.....some people are looking at the season as a whole, others are looking at the last 8 or 4 games

Just my $0.02 :smilevike: :smilevike:


Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:20 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37189
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
VikingPaul73 wrote:
I'm surprised about all of the talk about 8-8 in this thread and others; and that we were just a win or 2 from the playoffs meaning we were very very close to being a contender.

I see that point, but to me, there is a big difference between a season split of 4-4 / 4-4.....and a season split of 5-0 / 3-8.

the 2nd half of the season was absolutely brutal. and the defensive collapse in the last quarter of the season was even more disturbing.

in my opinion, the last quarter of a season is much more indicative of the next year than the 1st quarter. And in this case, the Vikes were one of the worst teams in the NFL. Definitely bottom third, maybe worse.

I think this is biggest reason for the arguments on this and other threads.....some people are looking at the season as a whole, others are looking at the last 8 or 4 games

Just my $0.02 :smilevike: :smilevike:


Good observation. I definitely think you've hit upon one of the main reasons there's so much disagreement. It's hard to ignore that collapse and there really is a difference between an 8-8 season where the wins and losses are distributed relatively evenly and an 8-8 season where the team only won 3 of it's last 11 games (and that win against the Bears came against a team with a third string QB and one foot out the door).


Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:15 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1267
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
any team that has a plan that relies on Kalil is doomed. He will suck while in there, he will commit critical fouls, and then by game 5 will be injured, sitting on the bench and counting his paychecks......

If it IS the Vikes big plan to keep Kalil and Berger as our most experienced stable starters on OL, we are certain to fail again......you all know the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thinf over and over even though it doesnt work?? That is our fine leaderships mindframe if they dont revamp especially with Kalil.


Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:00 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
chicagopurple wrote:
any team that has a plan that relies on Kalil is doomed. He will suck while in there, he will commit critical fouls, and then by game 5 will be injured, sitting on the bench and counting his paychecks......


This is pure speculation and pretty much an overreaction as well. You really just won't look at the big picture huh? Instead you just repeat how much you hate Kalil and how certain you are that this will happen. If you've paid any attention to what I've written regarding Kalil I've said multiple times that we should resign him to a 1-2 year deal AND draft a LT. So does that, in any sense mean we are "relying on Matt Kalil". No. It provides us with insurance and depth. For some reason you keep looking past that. As for an injury, let me put this into perspective for you since it's about the 3rd time I've repeated myself regarding this.

His game log currently reads:

2012: 16 games, 16 started
2013: 16 games, 16 started
2014: 16 games, 16 started
2015: 16 games, 16 started
2016: 2 games, 2 started.

This year was the first year the guy EVER missed a game in the NFL. But you're so sure he will be injured by week 5? Saying something like that has zero backing behind it.


Quote:
If it IS the Vikes big plan to keep Kalil and Berger as our most experienced stable starters on OL, we are certain to fail again......you all know the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thinf over and over even though it doesnt work?? That is our fine leaderships mindframe if they dont revamp especially with Kalil.


:confused: This is quite tiring. But AGAIN, have I not said that Joe Berger has been a top 8 center 2 years in a row now according to PFF. Yet you continue to throw digs at him basically saying we're doomed if he starts. So I'll leave this one in your hands. Please, please tell me why Joe Berger will cause the Vikings to be doomed. You've explained yourself with Kalil and it was simply pure speculation and quite frankly an overreaction that strayed away from my reasoning behind keeping him. So I would like to hear your take regarding Berger. And yes I'm aware of his age and no it hasn't effected his play. Please tell me why Joe Berger dooms the Vikings....... :popcorn:

_________________
Image


Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:54 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1267
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Kalil's poor performances have frequently been attributed to "playing injured" (what nfl line ISNT injured and playing?). I dont buy it. He just isnt a good player. Last year it went beyond using injury as an excuse, he just sat out. It was probably better that he did so.

Berger just isnt a starter quality guy. He would be a back up guy on any contender. He is a utility guy, and valuable in that role.

If these 2 are considered the bedrock veteran starters for 2017, it will not work.


Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:14 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
chicagopurple wrote:
Kalil's poor performances have frequently been attributed to "playing injured" (what nfl line ISNT injured and playing?). I dont buy it. He just isnt a good player. Last year it went beyond using injury as an excuse, he just sat out. It was probably better that he did so.

Berger just isnt a starter quality guy. He would be a back up guy on any contender. He is a utility guy, and valuable in that role.

If these 2 are considered the bedrock veteran starters for 2017, it will not work.


Where are you getting this information regarding Kalil? First of all Matt Kalil just sat out? Dude he had a torn labrum in his hip and had surgery. That's not just "sitting out". He was actually seriously injured. So a good portion of the first paragraph is completely false. Has he been good? No. I would say he's average to below average. It's a stop gap dude. We aren't relying on him and only him if we draft a LT to compete with him which I've been saying this whole time.

As far as Berger, I'll also ask, where are you getting this information from? Last year he was the #3 pass blocking center and #7 run blocking center. In 2015 he allowed 1 sack all year.

Quote:
The play of center Joe Berger saves this unit from being ranked among the very worst in the league, and while Alex Boone didn’t exactly justify his contract, he was solid in his first year with the team.


To say he wouldn't start for any contender....what are you even basing that off?? I can tell you right now he would start over Seattle's Justin Britt and New England's David Andrews because neither of them were very good this year. So there's a contender and Super Bowl champ for you so I won't bother going any further. Either way, I have zero clue what you're basing any of this off of. I've provided you stats and you've came back with "he just isn't starting quality" and "he wouldn't start for a contender". Both of those claims are beyond false. Give me some kind of reasoning behind this stuff because outside of that, it just looks like you're plucking this out of thin air.

_________________
Image


Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:50 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1267
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
stats for Berger dont mean much compared to watching the actual games. No one on the team was respectable for blocking....Our RB never had any holes to run thru, our QB had to run 2 sec release plays all year because the line was an epic failure.....if you think your stats on Berger translate to real quality, every team in the league would be trying to recruit him away....that is NOT the case....no quality team would plug him in as a starter.

as far as Kalil, of course I know his injury and he HAD to sit out this year....my point was the previous years he continually had some injury that gave him some excuse (in the eyes of Spielman) for his chronic under performance....it was all just that, an excuse.

Bottom line, neither of these guys offer a real answer and the team needs to totally move on and build a real winner..not tread water with these guys.


Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:56 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
chicagopurple wrote:
stats for Berger dont mean much compared to watching the actual games. No one on the team was respectable for blocking....Our RB never had any holes to run thru, our QB had to run 2 sec release plays all year because the line was an epic failure.....if you think your stats on Berger translate to real quality, every team in the league would be trying to recruit him away....that is NOT the case....no quality team would plug him in as a starter.

as far as Kalil, of course I know his injury and he HAD to sit out this year....my point was the previous years he continually had some injury that gave him some excuse (in the eyes of Spielman) for his chronic under performance....it was all just that, an excuse.

Bottom line, neither of these guys offer a real answer and the team needs to totally move on and build a real winner..not tread water with these guys.


Lol my god dude. Alex Mack is a really good center. Does that mean "everyone tried to recruit him away" after a good first year in Atlanta?? No. So just because a team didn't try to trade for Joe Berger means he's not good? :roll: Last year when AP ran in between tackle and guard or outside of tackle, he averaged 2.6 YPC. When he ran on either side of Berger he averaged 4.6. But that means nothing right? The guy has given up like 3-4 sacks in two full seasons. That means nothing right? The Seattle Seahawks had a worse line than we did, they were considered contenders, they wouldn't start Joe Berger? False. David Andrews was the worst OL on New England this year, they wouldn't start Joe Berger? False.

I've watched every game this year. More than once because I bought game pass and I can tell you that Joe Berger is a good center. I would imagine anyone else on here would agree. Is it a position we have to consider soon? Yes because of his age but he is a rock solid center. Once again, I've provided everything possible when it comes to facts and statistics and you're picking stuff out of the clouds with no backing behind it. You have zero justification that Berger is not a "starting quality center" and you continue to show that with your fact-less posts. How about agree to disagree because I can tell I'm doing nothing but wasting my time and energy with you regarding this.

_________________
Image


Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:14 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 1923
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
VikingPaul73 wrote:
I'm surprised about all of the talk about 8-8 in this thread and others; and that we were just a win or 2 from the playoffs meaning we were very very close to being a contender.

I see that point, but to me, there is a big difference between a season split of 4-4 / 4-4.....and a season split of 5-0 / 3-8.

the 2nd half of the season was absolutely brutal. and the defensive collapse in the last quarter of the season was even more disturbing.

Just my $0.02 :smilevike: :smilevike:

Wait. How is 5-0/3-8 a season split? Shouldn't it be 5-3/ 3-5?

IMO, the injuries caught up to this team. You need talent on the field to win. For the OL, you also need continuity. I think a lot of people are much more disappointed in this season because the Vikings started 5-0. When you look back on it, considering who they lost to injury, they had no business winning 5 in a row to start.


Quote:
in my opinion, the last quarter of a season is much more indicative of the next year than the 1st quarter. And in this case, the Vikes were one of the worst teams in the NFL. Definitely bottom third, maybe worse.

IMO, it depends. Don't want to beat a dead horse but look at Altanta. They started 5-0 and ended 2015 at 2-6. Every season is a new season. Anything can happen. That's why we watch sports.

As far as being the worst in Q4, there were 22 teams that had the same or worse record than the Vikings.

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


Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:10 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2862
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I said split, not 50-50 split :v):

Injuries definitely hurt on offense but their D was relatively healthy


Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:56 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1267
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
the D paid a price for the pitiful offense...they were able to carry the load in the first half then started breaking down. I cant fault them too much. We do need to bone up the run defense, we gave up way too much on the ground especially as the year went on. Overall, the D is the least of our worries.


Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:02 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
chicagopurple wrote:
the D paid a price for the pitiful offense...they were able to carry the load in the first half then started breaking down. I cant fault them too much. We do need to bone up the run defense, we gave up way too much on the ground especially as the year went on. Overall, the D is the least of our worries.


This I will agree with you on

_________________
Image


Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:54 am
Profile
Starting Wide Receiver
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 17133
Location: Crystal, MN
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
chicagopurple wrote:
the D paid a price for the pitiful offense...they were able to carry the load in the first half then started breaking down. I cant fault them too much. We do need to bone up the run defense, we gave up way too much on the ground especially as the year went on. Overall, the D is the least of our worries.


This I will agree with you on

I agree mostly... It was really disturbing to see teams like Detroit anf Indianapolis move the ball at will and convert so many 3rd downs.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

_________________
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2016‬


Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:14 am
Profile YIM WWW
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
chicagopurple wrote:
the D paid a price for the pitiful offense...they were able to carry the load in the first half then started breaking down. I cant fault them too much. We do need to bone up the run defense, we gave up way too much on the ground especially as the year went on. Overall, the D is the least of our worries.


This I will agree with you on

I agree mostly... It was really disturbing to see teams like Detroit anf Indianapolis move the ball at will and convert so many 3rd downs.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Indy was a weird game. The Detroit games just seems like a lot of dinking and dunking. They knew that if they Stafford held the ball too long they were in trouble. He was getting the ball out quick. Indy kind of reminded me of last year's regular season Seattle game. It seems like we're good for one of those type games a year. We either run with teams and win or lose by a little then there is one game we look worse than the Browns. Not sure what it is but it's starting to seem like a once a year thing. Hopefully we can start to stop that.

I think it was more the 2nd GB game and the Indy game where you really saw this defense start to wear down. As for Detroit I just thought they had really good game plans vs. us. I'm sure if you see this offense scoring more, you won't see that so much from the defense at the end of the season. You didnt see them fade in 2015. If anything they looked better at years end.

_________________
Image


Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:22 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37189
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Indy was a weird game. The Detroit games just seems like a lot of dinking and dunking. They knew that if they Stafford held the ball too long they were in trouble. He was getting the ball out quick. Indy kind of reminded me of last year's regular season Seattle game. It seems like we're good for one of those type games a year. We either run with teams and win or lose by a little then there is one game we look worse than the Browns. Not sure what it is but it's starting to seem like a once a year thing. Hopefully we can start to stop that


I wish it was just a "once a year" thing. It happens more than that. In the last 2 years, we've seen it happen again and again. It occurred @SF, home against GB and home against SEA in 2015. In 2016, they were blown out by Indy and @GB. They were dominated @CHI and @PHI too, even though late, "garbage time" TDs kept the final scores in those last 2 games a little closer than the others.

That's 7 games in 2 seasons in which the Vikes weren't really competitive. :(


Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:42 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4143
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Indy was a weird game. The Detroit games just seems like a lot of dinking and dunking. They knew that if they Stafford held the ball too long they were in trouble. He was getting the ball out quick. Indy kind of reminded me of last year's regular season Seattle game. It seems like we're good for one of those type games a year. We either run with teams and win or lose by a little then there is one game we look worse than the Browns. Not sure what it is but it's starting to seem like a once a year thing. Hopefully we can start to stop that


I wish it was just a "once a year" thing. It happens more than that. In the last 2 years, we've seen it happen again and again. It occurred @SF, home against GB and home against SEA in 2015. In 2016, they were blown out by Indy and @GB. They were dominated @CHI and @PHI too, even though late, "garbage time" TDs kept the final scores in those last 2 games a little closer than the others.

That's 7 games in 2 seasons in which the Vikes weren't really competitive. :(


Philly dominated our offense which isn't hard to do. I would say our defense held its own that game. It's just we couldn't stop turning the ball over. I'm talking about games where both O and D play bad. Philly wasn't one of those games

_________________
Image


Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:40 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1267
Post Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
dinking and dunking is the way to success today....The Pats, Seattle, even GB buy into the "death by a thousand papercuts" offense, and it works (well, not for us, naturally). I guess the big question is how do we do better at defending it, esp vs the run. One BIG step is to have a competent offense that can actually accomplish some ball control time and allow the D to rest and force the opponent to take more risks under pressure. Anyone able to look at how our D performed on Third downs this year? I feel like we gave up alot of 1st down plays on 3rd down, but I am no Stat Master.


Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:59 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 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.