O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris

[Pondering Her Percy]

There's nothing sudden about it. Bradford's currently under contract for one more season and he's never posted a winning record as a starter. That's not all his fault and I think he's a better QB than the last few the Vikings have had but if we're talking about Super Bowl-winning potential, he still has a LOT to prove. I don't think he's even been in a postseason game, has he?

No but think about the teams he's been on. In all of his years playing, the best WR he's had is probably either Thielen or Diggs. The best TE he's ever had is Rudy. The best defense he's ever been around is this one. The poor guy has been on some pretty poor teams. When you're posting a 20:5 ratio standing behind a terrible line and being sacked the most in your career AND having no running game, I would have to imagine if you surround him with the right pieces, you'll see the success.

That's like asking if a career Brown or Bill has ever been to a playoff game or won a playoff game. The guy played for the Rams the majority of his career and they failed to ever put an OL or WR or TE around him. I don't care if he was Tom Brady. You'd be hard pressed to make the playoffs on any of those Rams teams. I really don't care what he did or didn't do in the past. Bottom line is, if you put a RB and OL in this offense with what we already have, this will be a solid offense. We just have to make the right signs and picks

I mean the guy set an NFL record for completion percentage, went 20:5 TD:INT, showed toughness, threw for almost 4,000 which he would've had if he played week 1 and showed some durability. If I sat here and told you guys last year that this year we would have a QB that did all that, would you be all for it? I sure would. Who cares if he went to the playoffs or not. Why does that matter. That doesn't mean he isn't a good QB. Marino never won a SB, does that mean he was just another guy or was he great? I'd say the latter. This sounds like the whole Spielman thing and guys holding Miami over his head. Now we're holding the playoffs over Sams?

[S197]

the idea that WE are in a Super Bowl window is absurd. Did you even watch the Super Bowl? We arent even in the same league as the Pats or the Cowboys, we have so many holes to fill. Our pass defense is solid but our run defense is beginning to look questionable, we have ZERO OL, and QB is still a bit of a question mark. We have no real established RB, just a fading star and 2 career back ups. We will have to do some serious building and it all starts with the front lines, There is NO quick fix, just another big job for the Vikes......again.....and I am not sure Spielman is the guy to get it done.

Atlanta was 8-8 last year. The NFL, especially the NFC, is very dynamic. Teams rise and fall very quickly. If you look at Atlanta's trajectory (they had a similar strong out the gate performance then collapse in 2015) it's actually very close to the Vikings.

If I had said last year that the Panthers and Cardinals would miss the playoffs but the Lions would get in, I think everyone would have had a good laugh. But it happened.

Success in the NFL is a combination of talent, timing, and luck. Past performances are not indicative of future results

[Mothman]

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.

"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.

[Mothman]

If they believe they are in a window then I endorse them doing whatever is necessary to win it all now. Does that mean they give a guy a 1 year $100MM contract? No. But does it mean getting guys under contract in the short term, knowing they will lose them in the long term? Maybe.

I'm not Rick. I do not know what the market is currently doing. My previous comments have just attempted to communicate that the statistically LIKELY outcomes indicate that Free Agency is the MOST LIKELY avenue to repair the OL in short term. However, does that mean they go for the long run and try to sign a 25 or 27 year old guy who will add value over 5-6 seasons vs. paying a guy like Wentworth a large sum of money so the can win today? I don't know. I'm not Rick.

What I would hate is if they believe they are in a window and then didn't adjust their strategy accordingly or played it conservative and let the window slip away.

Conceptually this idea makes since. How they execute it properly is less clear.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks for explaining it further.

[Mothman]

No but think about the teams he's been on. In all of his years playing, the best WR he's had is probably either Thielen or Diggs. The best TE he's ever had is Rudy. The best defense he's ever been around is this one. The poor guy has been on some pretty poor teams. When you're posting a 20:5 ratio standing behind a terrible line and being sacked the most in your career AND having no running game, I would have to imagine if you surround him with the right pieces, you'll see the success.

That's like asking if a career Brown or Bill has ever been to a playoff game or won a playoff game. The guy played for the Rams the majority of his career and they failed to ever put an OL or WR or TE around him. I don't care if he was Tom Brady. You'd be hard pressed to make the playoffs on any of those Rams teams. I really don't care what he did or didn't do in the past. Bottom line is, if you put a RB and OL in this offense with what we already have, this will be a solid offense. We just have to make the right signs and picks

I mean the guy set an NFL record for completion percentage, went 20:5 TD:INT, showed toughness, threw for almost 4,000 which he would've had if he played week 1 and showed some durability.

... and once again had a losing record as a starter on an offense that struggled to score points. As I've already said, that's not all his fault but the point is there are, and should be, questions about whether Bradford is the kind of QB who can lead a team to a Super Bowl and there's also a question about his future with the Vikings beyond 2017. Chicagopurple wasn't wrong to say QB is still a bit of a question mark. We know the Vikings have a legitimate starter but how far they can go with that starter and how long he'll remain the starter are both open questions.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Atlanta was 8-8 last year. The NFL, especially the NFC, is very dynamic. Teams rise and fall very quickly. If you look at Atlanta's trajectory (they had a similar strong out the gate performance then collapse in 2015) it's actually very close to the Vikings.

If I had said last year that the Panthers and Cardinals would miss the playoffs but the Lions would get in, I think everyone would have had a good laugh. But it happened.

Success in the NFL is a combination of talent, timing, and luck. Past performances are not indicative of future results

This couldn't be more accurate. Luck is definitely a factor in there. That's why I question guys that say it's ridiculous for the Vikings to be considered a contender next year. There a team that has a lot of talent. Atlanta was the same way but more on the offensive side of the ball. We have a good coach as do they. There's no reason this team couldn't contend next year if we sign and draft right

[Pondering Her Percy]

... and once again had a losing record as a starter on an offense that struggled to score points. As I've already said, that's not all his fault but the point is there are, and should be, questions about whether Bradford is the kind of QB who can lead a team to a Super Bowl and there's also a question about his future with the Vikings beyond 2017. Chicagopurple wasn't wrong to say QB is still a bit of a question mark. We know the Vikings have a legitimate starter but how far they can go with that starter and how long he'll remain the starter are both open questions.

Because once again the guy was practically by himself without a run game or OL. If a washed up Peyton Manning that had a horrible year two seasons ago can win a SB I would say Bradford could IF he has the right pieces around him. We'll see but I don't look at it as a question mark at all. Even if he's not the guy, what could we really do at this point?

[halfgiz]

Free Agent Right Tackles
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/ ... t-tackles/

Free Agent Left Tackles
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/ ... t-tackles/

The links shows who could be available in FA

[Mothman]

Because once again the guy was practically by himself without a run game or OL. If a washed up Peyton Manning that had a horrible year two seasons ago can win a SB I would say Bradford could IF he has the right pieces around him. We'll see but I don't look at it as a question mark at all. Even if he's not the guy, what could we really do at this point?

Well, that's something to seriously consider since he's only under contract for one more year but the point here is simply that it's legitimate to say "QB is still a bit of a question mark" for the Vikings. Is it that hard to simply acknowledge that?

Bridgewater's career is potentially in jeopardy and he's entering the last year of his current contract. Bradford's on his 3rd NFL team, has never had a winning record as a starter and he's also entering the last season of his current contract. QB clearly is a bit of a question mark going forward. That doesn't mean the potential answers to questions about the position are all negative but there are obviously some big questions about it, including who will be playing QB for the Vikes in 2018.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Well, that's something to seriously consider since he's only under contract for one more year but the point here is simply that it's legitimate to say "QB is still a bit of a question mark" for the Vikings. Is it that hard to simply acknowledge that?

Bridgewater's career is potentially in jeopardy and he's entering the last year of his current contract. Bradford's on his 3rd NFL team, has never had a winning record as a starter and he's also entering the last season of his current contract. QB clearly is a bit of a question mark going forward. That doesn't mean the potential answers to questions about the position are all negative but there are obviously some big questions about it, including who will be playing QB for the Vikes in 2018.

I mean I would hope we would try and extend Bradford. If so, then we could be set for some time. I mean if you're looking at it in a way that he could be a free agent next year, yeah I suppose. But I really don't care what he did in the past. Especially given the teams he was on. This is the best team he's ever been on and best players he's ever been around. I'm not really worried about the QB position. I'm worried about a backup. But not a starter. If we don't extend him this year, I highly doubt we let him walk next year unless he suffers a major injury or completely flops but I don't see him flopping.

[Boon]

the idea that WE are in a Super Bowl window is absurd. Did you even watch the Super Bowl? We arent even in the same league as the Pats or the Cowboys, we have so many holes to fill. Our pass defense is solid but our run defense is beginning to look questionable, we have ZERO OL, and QB is still a bit of a question mark. We have no real established RB, just a fading star and 2 career back ups. We will have to do some serious building and it all starts with the front lines, There is NO quick fix, just another big job for the Vikes......again.....and I am not sure Spielman is the guy to get it done.

so with a top 15 oline last year we couldn't have made a push? That in itself is absurd. This team with the 30th ranked offensive line was a stupid play or two away from a playoff berth.If they could actually block it WOULD have turned out different, that is a fact, no doubting that. Every single offensive problem, from the abysmal running game, to bradford having to take two step drops started with that blocking.

[Mothman]

I mean I would hope we would try and extend Bradford. If so, then we could be set for some time. I mean if you're looking at it in a way that he could be a free agent next year, yeah I suppose. But I really don't care what he did in the past. Especially given the teams he was on. This is the best team he's ever been on and best players he's ever been around. I'm not really worried about the QB position. I'm worried about a backup. But not a starter. If we don't extend him this year, I highly doubt we let him walk next year unless he suffers a major injury or completely flops but I don't see him flopping.

It's very simple: unresolved issues and previously unachieved goals are open questions. It's not a question of what you think or believe will happen. That isn't the point. The point is that these things remain open, unanswered questions so it's appropriate to describe them that way.

[fiestavike]

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,

[Mothman]

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,

Excellent post. I agree that this is going to be a dramatic overhaul and I think you've correctly identified 2 big potential mistakes to be avoided. This year (and probably in 2018 too) they definitely need to start aggressively drafting the kind of young OL talent they should have been drafting in recent years. Easton did see some significant playing time in the latter part of 2016 so perhaps they have one young piece in place but I'd like to see them look for a young center (preferably with the flexibility to play guard) in the draft anyway. By the end of 2018, the vast majority of players listed on the OL depth chart should be players that aren't on it now.

[fiestavike]

Free Agent Right Tackles
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/ ... t-tackles/

Free Agent Left Tackles
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/ ... t-tackles/

The links shows who could be available in FA

Its the riskier option, but identifying young players who aren't quite there yet,--players who come cheaper and have growth potential-- could be the ideal solution for a team that needs to replace 5 offensive linemen in a two year period. Adding one or two guys who won't break the bank and might be able to give you 3-4 years of competent service would make a huge difference for this team.

From these lists, players who might fit that mold would be
Austin Pasztor, Cleveland Browns
Jordan Mills, Buffalo Bills
Kelvin Beachum, Jacksonville Jaguars