Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a 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

fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by fiestavike »

halfgiz wrote: I agree, I think Shurmur's approach gives us a little better chance to succeed.
What do you mean by 'succeed'? Honestly asking.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
Alaskan
Starter
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:47 pm
x 17

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by Alaskan »

Mothman wrote:

Which is what I meant by the "death of conversation".
Sorry, my bad, I re-read the post and I understand what your getting at now.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by Mothman »

Alaskan wrote:Sorry, my bad, I re-read the post and I understand what your getting at now.
No worries. :)
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 12790
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 662

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by S197 »

fiestavike wrote:I think they have a higher floor and a much lower ceiling under Shurmur. I understand the benefits of going that direction, but it also has consequences/limitations, not the least of which is what it communicates organizationally.
This may also be true. I'm not sold on Shurmur so it will be interesting to see how the change in dynamic pans out.
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
x 111

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by halfgiz »

fiestavike wrote: What do you mean by 'succeed'? Honestly asking.
Norv's game was power and vertical...which didn't match up with our personal.

Shurmur Game is more finesse which matches our personal better and gives him a better chance to succeed .

There are other differences but they are the two big ones.
Shurmur seems to play to a players strengths. Like Patterson, Shurmur run plays that suited his playing style.
Norv just benched him...
mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3836
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
x 117

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by mansquatch »

A big question I have with Shurmer is on flexibility. I get that all guys have some system, but in reality, the NFL is probably more about flexibility. If you have a guy who could be a HOF player in a different system what should the priority be: Accessing that production or sticking to a system? IMO, it should be the former.

For the most part, I think much of the NFL operates with flexibility. I didn't get the impression that Norv was 100% flexible. I think he curtailed some of what he wanted to do, as a result of the protection, but as we saw last season he was unwilling to do certain things that Shurmer was willing to do.

I want to see if Shurmer is able to not just get talent on the field, but also effectively utilize it as the season goes on and defenses adjust. if we can be flexible in that way, then I think there is reason to be optimistic.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by fiestavike »

mansquatch wrote:A big question I have with Shurmer is on flexibility. I get that all guys have some system, but in reality, the NFL is probably more about flexibility. If you have a guy who could be a HOF player in a different system what should the priority be: Accessing that production or sticking to a system? IMO, it should be the former.

For the most part, I think much of the NFL operates with flexibility. I didn't get the impression that Norv was 100% flexible. I think he curtailed some of what he wanted to do, as a result of the protection, but as we saw last season he was unwilling to do certain things that Shurmer was willing to do.

I want to see if Shurmer is able to not just get talent on the field, but also effectively utilize it as the season goes on and defenses adjust. if we can be flexible in that way, then I think there is reason to be optimistic.
I think its worth considering the same question from a defensive standpoint. Any offense that is not functioning is certainly not intimidating. Its easy to choose any functioning offense over any nonfunctional offense. From that standpoint, I understand Vikings fans being excited about bringing in a more flexible approach. But an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense, when it IS functioning, is far more intimidating than an offense which bends and compromises in order to get the ball into the hands of player X, or "functions" but at a much lower level of stress placed on the defense.

There are at least 3 dimensions to this question, but Vikings fans seem to only comprehend it in 2 dimensions - essentially "will there be more yards and points?" Will there be "improvement"? Will there be more "success"? Depends what that means to you. To me, success is a Super Bowl (or a team consistently playing at a Super Bowl level). On that measure, I don't really understand how anyone can possibly view Shurmur as a step up, even though I agree we will see better "statistical production" or "results".
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by Mothman »

fiestavike wrote:I think its worth considering the same question from a defensive standpoint. Any offense that is not functioning is certainly not intimidating. Its easy to choose any functioning offense over any nonfunctional offense. From that standpoint, I understand Vikings fans being excited about bringing in a more flexible approach. But an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense, when it IS functioning, is far more intimidating than an offense which bends and compromises in order to get the ball into the hands of player X, or "functions" but at a much lower level of stress placed on the defense.


Sure, but an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense and IS functioning doesn't need to bend or compromise because it's already working as designed. Increased flexibility becomes necessary when it's not functioning because, as you said, an offense in that situation isn't intimidating. It's actually detrimental. An offense can bend and compromise without abandoning core principles or stunting it's long term development. The latter doesn't depend on inflexibility. Getting the ball into the hands of playmakers is one of the primary means by which an offense taxes a defense when it is functioning at a high level. Adapting to circumstances in an effort to keep doing that places more stress on a defense than failing to adapt and continuing to operate an offense that isn't functioning effectively.
There are at least 3 dimensions to this question, but Vikings fans seem to only comprehend it in 2 dimensions - essentially "will there be more yards and points?" Will there be "improvement"? Will there be more "success"? Depends what that means to you. To me, success is a Super Bowl (or a team consistently playing at a Super Bowl level). On that measure, I don't really understand how anyone can possibly view Shurmur as a step up, even though I agree we will see better "statistical production" or "results".
"Results" are just results, positive or negative. Putting that word in quotes might confuse the issue. After all, consistently playing at a Super Bowl level, as you defined success above, would also be a result.

I agree that it's hard to view Shurmur as a step up and I understand that pursuit of statistical production as a goal in itself can be detrimental but moving the ball and scoring points is the goal on offense and good statistical production is typically a by-product of effective offense. The ultimate goal is to win and to sustain winning so for the sake of this discussion, "improvement" and "success" might best be defined as a winning strategy. In other words, results matter and scoring more points definitely matters but building sustainable success is also important and ultimately, it's better to put up 300 yards of offense every week, take care of the ball and score efficiently than it is to put up 500 yards of offense every week, turn it over too often and end up settling for too many field goals and losing. The stats might look good but the team won't be achieving it's real goals.

In the end, they have to consider long-term team-building goals along with their more immediate needs.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by fiestavike »

Sure, but an aggressive offensive system which is designed to tax the defense and IS functioning doesn't need to bend or compromise because it's already working as designed.
So, I think the question is how to get there, because nobody starts there. Personnel and development are huge, but more than anything, its culture. Compromise that, and you won't get it back without an organizational overhaul. Do we have that compromise at the coaching level? The ownership level? Again?
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by Mothman »

fiestavike wrote: So, I think the question is how to get there, because nobody starts there. Personnel and development are huge, but more than anything, its culture. Compromise that, and you won't get it back without an organizational overhaul. Do we have that compromise at the coaching level? The ownership level? Again?
It's hard to say definitively but I share your concern that things may not be moving in the right direction. :( I get the impression we both feel the team is headed down the road to an organizational overhaul.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by fiestavike »

Mothman wrote: It's hard to say definitively but I share your concern that things may not be moving in the right direction. :( I get the impression we both feel the team is headed down the road to an organizational overhaul.
I hope we are wrong. Would love to see Shurmur's approach be enough to get the Vikings over the hump, which seems to be the predominant line of thinking for those who are more optimistic. I don't see that happening unless the defense takes its game to another level and regularly perform like they did in the early part of last season.

skimping on the offensive line and aggressively trying to address DT, MLB, and S probably gives this team the best chance to compete for a Super Bowl this year, but they begin (and have already begun) to undermine their longterm health by chasing their "window".
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3836
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
x 117

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by mansquatch »

I feel differently. I think balance is the biggest obstacle. The defense has shown the ability to compete at an elite level and shut down elite passing attacks. The rushing numbers have not been as dominant, but some of that is probably a result of playing close games. If you get a 2 score lead, your rushing defense benefits since the opponent has to throw. Obviously more to it than that.

For me the major concern is (obviously) the offense and within that realm (again obvious) the OL.

Where I'm worried is it seems like they've added challenges by cutting Fusco and Harris. They are essentially naked at both tackle slots and now they are also naked at RG. Current depth chart is this:

LT: ???
LG: Boone
C: Berger / Easton
RG: ???
RT: ???

Fusco wasn't great and Harris had a lot to still prove. I do not feel like we lost in terms of talent. However, it means right now we now need to replace 3 full positions on the OL and that is what concerns me.

It seems increasingly unlikely that teams will find competitive, NFL linemen in the draft. Now, admittedly, we are replacing performers who were rather pedestrian (In 2016), so in that sense maybe it might be more likely for the Vikings to find an improvement since the bar is set so low.

An interesting side bar to this. NE asked a former OL coach of theirs to come out of retirement specifically because he was good at getting guys ready to play, this helped them a lot this year. It remains undetermined if Sparano is able to be competitive in this "new normal" for OL in the NFL. So far the results are obviously poor.

Overall I'd be happy if they found one guy in the draft to start in 2017 although I am skeptical that they'll achieve that.

That brings us to Free Agency. Can they reliably find two or three competitive starters in FA without compromising the salary cap? Competitive is again somewhat relative. Even an average player at Tackle will probably be a dramatic upgrade from what we saw last season or the last two seasons at RT. (This is actually a source of optimism. TJ Clemmings is really awful, even a mediocre guy would be a big improvement.)

Lastly, what about guys currently on the roster? Does Rashod Hill have a chance to start? Or Sirles?

I suspect that Hill or Sirles will be a starter in 2017. I do not think they'll be able to make three replacements. I wonder if line will be something like this:

LT: FA, likely Kalil/Wentworth
LG: Boone
C: Berger/Easton
RG: One of several FA or draft pick
RT: FA or draft pick or Sirles/Hill

I've said this a lot, but just not having a player as bad 2016 #68 should help a great deal. Also, having season long continuity will help as well. Is that enough to give them a 3-7PPG improvement? I think it is. The running game will also likely improve and we won't have 7 games with Walsh shanking Field Goals extra points. That should give the defense a lot more help than it had in 2016 which should add up to a better performance. Is that enough for a deep playoff run? With a 3rd place divisional schedule it might be.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by fiestavike »

mansquatch wrote:
Lastly, what about guys currently on the roster? Does Rashod Hill have a chance to start? Or Sirles?

I suspect that Hill or Sirles will be a starter in 2017. I do not think they'll be able to make three replacements. I wonder if line will be something like this:
Interesting post. Guys like Sirles and Hill are really the only thing to be hopeful about. It was a small sample size, but Hill looked good. It won't shock me if the vikings OL heading into preseason is something like

LT: Kalil
LG: Boone
C: Berger
RG: Sirles
RT: Hill

If Sirles and Hill can hold down those spots, your rookies are hopefully being groomed to take over 1 or 2 of those other spots the following year. In such a case, I would not be opposed to drafting 4 or 5 offensive linemen to get them in house as early as possible (1 to 2 years before they are ever expected to play).

As far as Fusco and Harris, I think the holes existed on the roster whether they were on the team or not. I really don't think they are any more desperate for a RG than they were before.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3836
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
x 117

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by mansquatch »

I disagree in the sense that now they MUST fix that position where before they could have focused on tackle. From a talent stand point I agree. IMO, the move to cut them indicates they likely have their eyes on one of the Free Agents out there.

The biggest concern I have is that in cutting the two most likely starters at RG they are not now naked at both Tackle slots as well as RG.

I really hate to say this, but I wonder if they intend to Franchise Matt Kalil if a deal cannot be reached? That will not sit well with the Fan base (nor should it.) and wreak of desperation, but it is possible. The start of the new league year (next week?) is really going to be interesting.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Offensive staff has almost completely turned over in a y

Post by fiestavike »

mansquatch wrote:I disagree in the sense that now they MUST fix that position where before they could have focused on tackle. From a talent stand point I agree. IMO, the move to cut them indicates they likely have their eyes on one of the Free Agents out there.
I think they HAD to fix that position before they cut them, and they still MUST fix it. There was never an option not to.
mansquatch wrote:The biggest concern I have is that in cutting the two most likely starters at RG they are not now naked at both Tackle slots as well as RG.
I don't know what the deal was with Harris, but I'm pretty sure neither one was a likely starter. The idea that they would be the starter was evidently a non-starter.
mansquatch wrote:I really hate to say this, but I wonder if they intend to Franchise Matt Kalil if a deal cannot be reached? That will not sit well with the Fan base (nor should it.) and wreak of desperation, but it is possible. The start of the new league year (next week?) is really going to be interesting.
I don't think they would. If Kalil doesn't want to play here for a reasonable salary, they could sign a better option in FA for less than the tag number they'd be paying him, I would think. And that player might have something to offer in 2018 and even 2019.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
Post Reply