Easton Out for the Year

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

YikesVikes
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:04 am

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by YikesVikes » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:45 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:57 pm
I seriously have to disagree with the statement about coaching.

The O-line played reasonably well last year (7th in rushing yards, 11th in passing yards) in spite of having subpar talent. That's coaching. Almost every competent professional analysis of the Vikings last season has come to that conclusion.

Lack of talent? Probably. No ability to coach? Not even close.
Let me clarify. We have not shown an ability to coach up lower level talent guys into starters. We poor tons of picks into O-linemen in the later rounds and the vast majority of them turn out to be over drafted at that level. When we do draft a high draft pick, we usually go for an athletic guy who we are not able to turn into a viable player (Clemons and Beaver recently).

Are we able to sign guys in FA that can start? Yup! (Hutch, Reiff, Remmers last year). However, the number of homegrown OL that start for us and possess viable talent is limited.

2017 OL
Reiff - FA
Easton - Below average and should have been replaced
Pat - Hit in the 3rd round. However, centers are typically drafted later than most OL. Best Center in the draft.
Berger - Unicorn based on his late-career rise
Remmers - FA.

None of these guys were fledgling NFL players that were coached up into starter caliber players by the Vikings.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:17 am

YikesVikes wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:45 pm
Let me clarify. We have not shown an ability to coach up lower level talent guys into starters. We poor tons of picks into O-linemen in the later rounds and the vast majority of them turn out to be over drafted at that level. When we do draft a high draft pick, we usually go for an athletic guy who we are not able to turn into a viable player (Clemons and Beaver recently).

Are we able to sign guys in FA that can start? Yup! (Hutch, Reiff, Remmers last year). However, the number of homegrown OL that start for us and possess viable talent is limited.

2017 OL
Reiff - FA
Easton - Below average and should have been replaced
Pat - Hit in the 3rd round. However, centers are typically drafted later than most OL. Best Center in the draft.
Berger - Unicorn based on his late-career rise
Remmers - FA.

None of these guys were fledgling NFL players that were coached up into starter caliber players by the Vikings.
But you're overlooking the fact that somebody has to bring these guys together as a unit in the first place. You're basing everything on talent or previous accomplishments. Reiff, Remmers and Elflein had never played together. And if Easton is as below-average as you say he is, then why was the Vikings line, as a whole, as good as they were? Also, there's no way that Elflein's rise was solely a function of his talent.

This is coaching, pure and simple.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Cliff
Site Admin
Posts: 8451
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Kentucky

Vikings Sign Kaleb Johnson, Place Nick Easton on IR

Post by Cliff » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:17 pm

The Vikings on Monday announced the addition of guard Kaleb Johnson and the placement of Nick Easton on Injured Reserve.

Johnson, 25, joins Minnesota after he was recently release by the Chicago Bears. He first entered the NFL as an undrafted free agent with Baltimore in 2015.

Johnson spent time on the Ravens practice squad that season. He also has spent time with the Browns, Cardinals and Chiefs.
Read more
0 x
"Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson/Mike Zimmer Led Defenses

YikesVikes
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:04 am

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by YikesVikes » Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:09 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:17 am
But you're overlooking the fact that somebody has to bring these guys together as a unit in the first place. You're basing everything on talent or previous accomplishments. Reiff, Remmers and Elflein had never played together. And if Easton is as below-average as you say he is, then why was the Vikings line, as a whole, as good as they were? Also, there's no way that Elflein's rise was solely a function of his talent.

This is coaching, pure and simple.
Who sId they were good? Last time i checked pff had us as a below average oline. Also the eye test showed Case running for his life last season. I belive were someone in the middle. An OK line after spending 60 million or so in FA. Again, where is the proof of coaching low level drafted guys in to viable starters? Thats what we believe is going to happen. Where hVe we done it? Sullivan?
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:31 pm

YikesVikes wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:09 pm
Who sId they were good? Last time i checked pff had us as a below average oline. Also the eye test showed Case running for his life last season. I belive were someone in the middle. An OK line after spending 60 million or so in FA. Again, where is the proof of coaching low level drafted guys in to viable starters? Thats what we believe is going to happen. Where hVe we done it? Sullivan?
Oh here we go again with PFF. A bunch of dudes who watch tape and make assessments based on a super-secret formula they won't divulge to anybody. We don't even know who's doing the evaluating. How do we know it's not regular Joes like you and me?

Here's what I KNOW ...

In 2017, the Vikings were 10th in scoring offense, 11th in total offense, 11th in passing offense, and 7th in rushing offense. We allowed the 8th fewest sacks, we were third in 3rd-down conversion percentage, and we finished 12th in yards per play. We were 3rd in fewest turnovers, 8th in the league with scoring on 41% of drives, and 11th in passing yards per attempt. We managed to accomplish all that with our 3rd quarterback, our backup running back, and a slew of injuries across the O-line. I don't care what PFF says ... the offense wasn't 1998 Vikings, but it was also nowhere near below average. You don't do that with a crappy O-line.

And the eye test? Give it a rest. That's your opinion. I saw a line that overperformed based on its personnel and the number of injuries they sustained. That's my eye test.

This argument is pointless. You think the Vikings have no chance because of the offensive line. You've been consistent in that opinion, which is your right. I happen to think you're wrong, especially when it comes to coaching. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so let's just drop this.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Purple Domination
Franchise Player
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by Purple Domination » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:02 am

I agree with Kapp that we had a decent to good O Line last year. I also agree with Yikes that we haven’t drafted all that many of our starters. But I think this has to do with where we draft our O Line, not with coaching. The NFL on a whole is offensive line needy and if you want a starter, you need to draft them high because O lineman come off the board early and often. Rounds 3-7 likely won’t cut it. If we had invested our draft capital into offensive line throughout the Zimmer years instead of DB our present situation would be a different story.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I believe our offensive line was decent to good last year. Stating the obvious here, but most of that line has turned over due to injuries or retirement and we haven’t replaced them with “par” or better players IMO. This is what worries me. I sure hope our young guys step up this year and we are all pleasantly surprised!
0 x

YikesVikes
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:04 am

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by YikesVikes » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:16 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:31 pm
Oh here we go again with PFF. A bunch of dudes who watch tape and make assessments based on a super-secret formula they won't divulge to anybody. We don't even know who's doing the evaluating. How do we know it's not regular Joes like you and me?

Here's what I KNOW ...

In 2017, the Vikings were 10th in scoring offense, 11th in total offense, 11th in passing offense, and 7th in rushing offense. We allowed the 8th fewest sacks, we were third in 3rd-down conversion percentage, and we finished 12th in yards per play. We were 3rd in fewest turnovers, 8th in the league with scoring on 41% of drives, and 11th in passing yards per attempt. We managed to accomplish all that with our 3rd quarterback, our backup running back, and a slew of injuries across the O-line. I don't care what PFF says ... the offense wasn't 1998 Vikings, but it was also nowhere near below average. You don't do that with a crappy O-line.

And the eye test? Give it a rest. That's your opinion. I saw a line that overperformed based on its personnel and the number of injuries they sustained. That's my eye test.

This argument is pointless. You think the Vikings have no chance because of the offensive line. You've been consistent in that opinion, which is your right. I happen to think you're wrong, especially when it comes to coaching. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so let's just drop this.
Holy hell! Where do I start correcting all the logical fallacies in this post.

1. I never said we have no chance. I am simply lamenting the fact that we passed on a chance to improve our oline greatly.

2. Our oline over performed in 2017 and that inflation is not likely to repeat itself.

3. You lambasted me saying eye test but use a bunch of stats that are easily skewed by a multitute of factors arent even oline specific. Thats truly amazing.

4. ***Just because the Oline performed ok when Reiff went down with Hill in the line up and then Easton, doesnt mean it was a billiant idea to play him as a starter this season***. We've bet a season on it and thats foolish. Why take that gamble with this talented a roster.

5. You continue to try and argue everything but what I said. I said... we dont have a history of coaching up our late rounders in to viable linemen. Kinda of silly that we keep trying to draft them there almost exclusively. I also said we would jave been better off with a Hernandez and Josh Jackson vs Hughes and Oneil.
0 x

YikesVikes
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:04 am

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by YikesVikes » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:21 pm

Purple Domination wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:02 am
I agree with Kapp that we had a decent to good O Line last year. I also agree with Yikes that we haven’t drafted all that many of our starters. But I think this has to do with where we draft our O Line, not with coaching. The NFL on a whole is offensive line needy and if you want a starter, you need to draft them high because O lineman come off the board early and often. Rounds 3-7 likely won’t cut it. If we had invested our draft capital into offensive line throughout the Zimmer years instead of DB our present situation would be a different story.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I believe our offensive line was decent to good last year. Stating the obvious here, but most of that line has turned over due to injuries or retirement and we haven’t replaced them with “par” or better players IMO. This is what worries me. I sure hope our young guys step up this year and we are all pleasantly surprised!
I think we overperformed as well. I think even Kapp thinks so too. The loss of Berger should have been addressed. I pray the guys we have are capable of handling it. However, all the moving around we are doing (ecen woth the injuries) points to us not having a working plan. You cant ignore the offensive line like we have. It comes back to bite you.
0 x

User avatar
halfgiz
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by halfgiz » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:15 am

I think the OL line was average last season. And Case helped it look better with him keeping plays going. Rick put a lot of money into Reiff and Remmers....He had no choice because of neglect.

Now this season the OL is going to make or break us. Berger gone and not actually replaced in the draft. Heck Gosset might not even make the team. Easton to IR Compton is a downgrade in my opinion.
Next season will Reiff and Remmers be gone because of the salary cap?
Zimmer keeps getting his first & 2nd picks for his Defense. Be interesting to see how it all plays out with our 85mil QB.
0 x

User avatar
halfgiz
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by halfgiz » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:18 am

I think the OL line was average last season. And Case helped it look better with him keeping plays going. Rick put a lot of money into Reiff and Remmers....He had no choice because of neglect.

Now this season the OL is going to make or break us. Berger gone and not actually replaced in the draft. Heck Gosset might not even make the team. Easton to IR Compton is a downgrade in my opinion.
Next season will Reiff and Remmers be gone because of the salary cap?
Zimmer keeps getting his first & 2nd picks for his Defense. Be interesting to see how it all plays out with our 85mil QB.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:22 pm

YikesVikes wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:16 pm
Holy hell! Where do I start correcting all the logical fallacies in this post.

1. I never said we have no chance. I am simply lamenting the fact that we passed on a chance to improve our oline greatly.

2. Our oline over performed in 2017 and that inflation is not likely to repeat itself.

3. You lambasted me saying eye test but use a bunch of stats that are easily skewed by a multitute of factors arent even oline specific. Thats truly amazing.

4. ***Just because the Oline performed ok when Reiff went down with Hill in the line up and then Easton, doesnt mean it was a billiant idea to play him as a starter this season***. We've bet a season on it and thats foolish. Why take that gamble with this talented a roster.

5. You continue to try and argue everything but what I said. I said... we dont have a history of coaching up our late rounders in to viable linemen. Kinda of silly that we keep trying to draft them there almost exclusively. I also said we would jave been better off with a Hernandez and Josh Jackson vs Hughes and Oneil.
You can't overperform in the NFL with bad coaching. Period. THAT is the point. That is the argument. You say our O-line coaches don't do a good job coaching up late-rounders. You're simply wrong. My stats may not point exclusively to O-line play, but they're better than "eye test." And besides, in 2016, our team statistics were far worse with virtually the same cast of characters EXCEPT for the O-line. It's far from a perfect argument, but it's a hell of a lot better than "eye test."
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:34 pm

Rather than continue this stupid argument about coaching, why don't we play GM and look at actual options.

Option 1 -- stick with who we have
I'll let others talk about that.

Option 2 -- Free Agents
Jahari Evans -- He's older (35) but he's available. He's also tough. From 2006 to 2012, he never missed a game, and he missed only two with Green Bay last year. Solid player who's probably not getting interest because of his age.

Luke Joeckel -- Probably a Matt Kalil situation, where a very high draft pick (2nd overall in 2013) just didn't pan out, but he's out there and unsigned. Maybe a change of coaching would help (and hey, YikesVikes, since he's not a low-round draft pick, maybe our coaches could do better with him).

Alex Boone -- Part of the suckitude that was the 2016 Vikings' O-line, but hey ... he's unsigned.

Option 3 -- Trade for somebody
Chance Warmack, Philadelphia -- Pretty good player who was a first-rounder in 2011 and played several years for the Titans. He's currently listed 2nd at left guard on Philly's depth chart. My fear here is that the Eagles would hammer us in a trade here in much the same way they hammered us in the Sam Bradford deal. But he's a decent player who hasn't reached his 27th birthday.

Thoughts?
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

autobon7
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by autobon7 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:21 pm

I think Evans and Warmack could be interesting additions. Just don't want Philly to rape us again. A move has to be made and waiting until cut time COULD be a mistake.
0 x

User avatar
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 11370
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by S197 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:21 pm

Of those names, Evans is the only guy I would take a chance on but I wonder if he's still in football shape. Warmack depends on the trade and also the contract, we don't have much $ to work with.
0 x

YikesVikes
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:04 am

Re: Easton Out for the Year

Post by YikesVikes » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:55 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:22 pm
You can't overperform in the NFL with bad coaching. Period. THAT is the point. That is the argument. You say our O-line coaches don't do a good job coaching up late-rounders. You're simply wrong. My stats may not point exclusively to O-line play, but they're better than "eye test." And besides, in 2016, our team statistics were far worse with virtually the same cast of characters EXCEPT for the O-line. It's far from a perfect argument, but it's a hell of a lot better than "eye test."
Again...
Our starting oline last year are not the young, late rounders we are trying to coach up this year. The stats you use to prove that we can develop young later rounders are from an oline full of veterans and 1 3rd rounder. The one guy that you can argue for is Easton and he was the player I wanted to address the most. Let's try and get on the same page.

You keep harping on the eye test as if that was my only proof in the statement. I pointed to PFF that you dismissed and then you dismissed my own opinion. Your stats do not tell the whole story. We have had a substantial reduction in QB maneuverability in case you missed it.

Let me remind you.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... ut-of-sack

http://www.nfl.com/videos/minnesota-vik ... -yard-gain
0 x

Post Reply