Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

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

Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Mon May 01, 2017 9:37 am

Ben Goessling addresses post-draft questions still to be answered by the Minnesota Vikings:

http://www.espn.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/ ... ive-tackle
Who backs up Riley Reiff and Mike Remmers? The Vikings plan to sign TCU tackle Aviante Collins as an undrafted free agent and could take a longer look at Rashod Hill after adding him to the roster late last season. But at a position where they're mostly working with Day 3 draft picks and undrafted free agents behind Reiff and Remmers, the Vikings will again try to find enough depth from that class of players unless they add a veteran at some point closer to the season.

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by mansquatch » Mon May 01, 2017 11:39 am

Well there are some answers to that question, but perhaps not answers people want to hear.

Clemmings/Hill/Sirles are the obvious answer. The real question to me is the one they should have asked last year: How likely are we to have to play one of those three? Kalil was/is injury prone and Smith wasn't exactly a massive upgrade last year.

So what about the new guys? Reiff has missed exactly one game is NFL career, IMO this is a solid history of durability, no guarrantees, but can we seriously ask for much more than that at LT?Remmers hasn't been a career starter like Reiff, but he has never missed a game due to injury. This one doesn't have the same history as Reiff, but what is there is as good as one would expect.

The back up situation at Tackle isn't exciting, but the durability history of the starters is the best we've seen since 2014, possibly 2013.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

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

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon May 01, 2017 11:40 am

Mothman wrote:Ben Goessling addresses post-draft questions still to be answered by the Minnesota Vikings:

http://www.espn.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/ ... ive-tackle
Well it's hard to do a whole lot there in 1 offseason. We went into free agency with no starting OT's. We gained Reiff and Remmers, we still have Sirles, Hill and Clemmings. And we signed Collins. There isnt much more we could do there this year. I'm sure it will continue to be assessed as we move forward.
Image

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

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Mon May 01, 2017 11:44 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Well it's hard to do a whole lot there in 1 offseason. We went into free agency with no starting OT's. We gained Reiff and Remmers, we still have Sirles, Hill and Clemmings. And we signed Collins. There isnt much more we could do there this year.
Sure there is... they just didn't do it.

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

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon May 01, 2017 11:53 am

Mothman wrote:
Sure there is... they just didn't do it.
Well the next OT that was taken after we picked Cook was the kid from Troy in the 3rd round. That just shows you the lack of depth in this tackle class. I really dont see much of a difference drafting a kid in the 6th or 7th round or just signing a UDFA like we did. You dont waste a draft pick in a weak OT class PLUS can grab Collins who isnt much worse than guys that were taken in the 6th and 7th. And nobody has a clue, we couldve easily not been big on what was out there after that first wave. So no there really wasnt much more we couldve done. We spent plenty of $$ in FA. Were we just suppose to draft a tackle because we HAD to?? No. And I'm sure if we liked one enough, we wouldve made a move and we didnt. So that basically gives you your answer right there.

And to be honest, I would take Hill and Sirles as backups over any late round tackles in this draft I can tell you that. So I really would rather not go down the road of "Oh Spielman flat out ignored the tackle position again", because I dont believe that is the case at all.
Image

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

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Mon May 01, 2017 12:02 pm

mansquatch wrote:Well there are some answers to that question, but perhaps not answers people want to hear.

Clemmings/Hill/Sirles are the obvious answer. The real question to me is the one they should have asked last year: How likely are we to have to play one of those three? Kalil was/is injury prone and Smith wasn't exactly a massive upgrade last year.

So what about the new guys? Reiff has missed exactly one game is NFL career, IMO this is a solid history of durability, no guarrantees, but can we seriously ask for much more than that at LT?Remmers hasn't been a career starter like Reiff, but he has never missed a game due to injury. This one doesn't have the same history as Reiff, but what is there is as good as one would expect.

The back up situation at Tackle isn't exciting, but the durability history of the starters is the best we've seen since 2014, possibly 2013.
It definitely looks like the chances of the starters staying healthy are better but we all know that can change in an instant. Can we seriously ask for much more than a solid history of durability at LT? Yes, I think so. We can ask them to learn from past mistakes and improve depth. As Goessling points out, they're still working primarily with Day 3 draft picks and undrafted free agents behind the starters. It's a collection of players that should inspire very little confidence. Considering how that worked out last season, it's easy to see the relevance of Goessling's question and based on post-draft reactions from quite a few people here on the board, you're right: people don't want to hear that Clemmings, Hill and Sirles are the answers.

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by mansquatch » Mon May 01, 2017 1:43 pm

I get the sentiment, heck I share in it. Although I think Sirles is serviceable as a backup for a short stint of games.

Still, that sentiment in general begs a question: WHO should they have picked up INSTEAD OF or IN ADDITION TO Reiff/Remmers in FA? What would that mean for the CAP? FWIW, I think most of the LT taken at higher values that Reiff were likely overpaid. (Looking at you Okung) If it is the draft decisions, then which choices should they have made instead of the players they took? I presume this mostly is for the 2nd and 3rd round selections.

My view is if they had done more in FA it likely would have cost them next year or the year after when they need to resign their core defensive players. In terms of the draft it is highly unlikely that any OL taken in the draft will contribute day one an that gets worse and worse as you get later in the draft. There is a recent history in the NFL of this playing out, even for 1st round picks. So to me, if the guys on the board were not getting them excited then I'm glad they made choices elsewhere since at the end of the day it is about finding guys who can actually contribute.

More to the point above I strongly doubt that any player taken in the 4th round or later would be a better backup than Sirles/Hill. Clemming maybe. So did we really leave something on the table or are people upset because they did nothing without considering if whether what they could have done would have been better than nothing? To put it differently: How come we are so sure these mid-round Tackles guys would actually be better given the bust rate of guys taken at these spots in the draft and the overall weakness of the position in this draft class?

These points are all my opinion and obviously debatable.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

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

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon May 01, 2017 1:59 pm

mansquatch wrote:I get the sentiment, heck I share in it. Although I think Sirles is serviceable as a backup for a short stint of games.

Still, that sentiment in general begs a question: WHO should they have picked up INSTEAD OF or IN ADDITION TO Reiff/Remmers in FA? What would that mean for the CAP? FWIW, I think most of the LT taken at higher values that Reiff were likely overpaid. (Looking at you Okung) If it is the draft decisions, then which choices should they have made instead of the players they took? I presume this mostly is for the 2nd and 3rd round selections.

My view is if they had done more in FA it likely would have cost them next year or the year after when they need to resign their core defensive players. In terms of the draft it is highly unlikely that any OL taken in the draft will contribute day one an that gets worse and worse as you get later in the draft. There is a recent history in the NFL of this playing out, even for 1st round picks. So to me, if the guys on the board were not getting them excited then I'm glad they made choices elsewhere since at the end of the day it is about finding guys who can actually contribute.

More to the point above I strongly doubt that any player taken in the 4th round or later would be a better backup than Sirles/Hill. Clemming maybe. So did we really leave something on the table or are people upset because they did nothing without considering if whether what they could have done would have been better than nothing? To put it differently: How come we are so sure these mid-round Tackles guys would actually be better given the bust rate of guys taken at these spots in the draft and the overall weakness of the position in this draft class?

These points are all my opinion and obviously debatable.
This is exactly what I'm saying. It seems like some want to say "we ignored OT again". I dont believe that is the case at all. We had two very good picks before the 4th round. After that, OT was a crap shoot. If we can select other players that are better fits, fill bigger needs and can contribute quicker, thats the much better approach IMO
Image

Nunin
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Nunin » Mon May 01, 2017 2:12 pm

The question to me isn't who else or other they should've picked this offseason, it's the fact that they are in this situation to begin with.
Duh...everyone with a modicum of insight understands that the fix will take more than one draft/offseason, conversely it took more than one offseason of negligence to create the situation. The people who are pointing out this particular difficiency have been warning and griping about how little has been invested in the o-line for years....lots of them.
They did the same BS for the QB position also. When you look at what's really important in terms of positions on offense, O-line and QB are it.
Some teams have done really well at finding and developing o-line talent in later rounds or UDFA....or spend earlier picks on guys they know they can fit ito their system.
For whatever reason the Vikes have mostly whiffed at this since Denny Green was here.
I believe they haven't had the knowledge(scouting-wise) or the cohesion (GM-O coordinator-scheme)...it's a critical flaw, especially when the inevitability of injuries is factored in.
-
What they have now between the FA pickups, QB and scheme, may suffice and work well....but if they don't stay on top of it and keep reloading then hey have learned zilch.

User avatar
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3360
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by 808vikingsfan » Mon May 01, 2017 3:13 pm

Supposed to be a deep OT class next year from what I've heard. Rome wasn't...
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014

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

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Mon May 01, 2017 3:15 pm

Nunin wrote:The question to me isn't who else or other they should've picked this offseason, it's the fact that they are in this situation to begin with.
Duh...everyone with a modicum of insight understands that the fix will take more than one draft/offseason, conversely it took more than one offseason of negligence to create the situation. The people who are pointing out this particular difficiency have been warning and griping about how little has been invested in the o-line for years....lots of them.
Exactly and now that the line has suffered that neglect, it's likely going to need some extra attention to fully recover from it.

User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by chicagopurple » Mon May 01, 2017 6:10 pm

since they invested money and draft picks on Bradford, the time is NOW to cement the OL....clemmings an sirles are worse then useless.
I gotta believe Speilman is going to buy some free agents before the season starts.....if not things will start to suck again in the backfield and players will get hurt...like our QB or shiny new RB....

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

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Mon May 01, 2017 10:21 pm

chicagopurple wrote:since they invested money and draft picks on Bradford, the time is NOW to cement the OL....clemmings an sirles are worse then useless.
I gotta believe Speilman is going to buy some free agents before the season starts.....if not things will start to suck again in the backfield and players will get hurt...like our QB or shiny new RB....
No matter if we sign an OT or not, they aren't going to start. So I'm not sure why things will "start to suck again" if we don't sign an OT.
Image

User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by chicagopurple » Tue May 02, 2017 8:53 am

I disagree.
Tackle is NOT like WR. Many new players get a chance to start especially on teams where the "veteran" is someone who was a total liability in the past. I donlt think Sirles is a lock to start over a rookie by any means. Clemmings should not even be here, He isnt worth the lunch trays they will need to feed him.

AlldayPotter
Backup
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by AlldayPotter » Tue May 02, 2017 9:50 am

I just don't understand why we didn't draft more lineman and kept trading down... last couple years have really shown that you have to have a very good Oline, otherwise your at the bottom of the division. Packers keep picking up lineman every year and rarely sign FA lineman and it's shown well

Post Reply