View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:28 am



Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle 
Author Message
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Ben Goessling addresses post-draft questions still to be answered by the Minnesota Vikings:

http://www.espn.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/ ... ive-tackle

Quote:
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.


Mon May 01, 2017 9:37 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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


Mon May 01, 2017 11:39 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4396
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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

Quote:
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.


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


Mon May 01, 2017 11:40 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
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

Quote:
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.


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.


Mon May 01, 2017 11:44 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4396
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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


Mon May 01, 2017 11:53 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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.


Mon May 01, 2017 12:02 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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


Mon May 01, 2017 1:43 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4396
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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


Mon May 01, 2017 1:59 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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.


Mon May 01, 2017 2:12 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2287
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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


Mon May 01, 2017 3:13 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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.


Mon May 01, 2017 3:15 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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....


Mon May 01, 2017 6:10 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4396
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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


Mon May 01, 2017 10:21 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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.


Tue May 02, 2017 8:53 am
Profile
Backup

Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 73
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
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


Tue May 02, 2017 9:50 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
chicagopurple wrote:
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.


Some light reading for you to consider:
http://www.theintelligencer.net/sports/ ... y-for-nfl/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... /80918122/

The days of College OL being the safest high draft picks are over. The Vikings are not alone in their plight either, which is why the guys in FA were so expensive this year. This is also why expecting to fix this problem in the draft is not a very viable short term strategy. It is entirely likely that all the mock drafts / draft analyses are over valuing college OL vs. how the NFL GMs are rating them.

Consider that 25% of the first round picks were DBs who will also have a steep learning curve due to the differences in the NFL game both physically and in the rules for PI and Defensive Holding. At the same time, only 2(!) selections were OL and the first one didn't go until pick 20 and the second one was pick 32. In 2015 only 2 of the fist 30 OL taken cracked the starting line up for their respective teams the following season.

It is a mistake to just look at this from the perspective of the Vikings. You have to consider what is going on in the league as well.

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


Tue May 02, 2017 11:52 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
mansquatch wrote:
The days of College OL being the safest high draft picks are over. The Vikings are not alone in their plight either, which is why the guys in FA were so expensive this year. This is also why expecting to fix this problem in the draft is not a very viable short term strategy.


It doesn't need to be a short term strategy. The Vikings signed two veterans to play tackle, which actually put them in a good position to draft a tackle this year and develop him for a year or two. Hopefully, they will do that next year.


Tue May 02, 2017 12:14 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
I am aware of the competition for Ol in the league, many many months ago I stated repeatedly here that we are in a tough spot because Spielman failed to address the Ol for YEARS. Now that he must fix it, and fix it at pretty much EVERY position, we are doing so when OL players are at a a premium. Its kind of a perfect storm of his own creation.......I think he DID do som good this year but we are likely still in need on 1-2 more guys to compete and Clemmings/Sirles are just dead weight, much like Kalil was for so many years.....time to cut bait....


Tue May 02, 2017 12:31 pm
Profile
Practice Squad
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 4:35 pm
Posts: 25
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Has Ryan Clady signed anywhere yet? I know he's not what he once was but he could provide some depth/competiion. Just a thought.


Tue May 02, 2017 1:45 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Mothman wrote:
It doesn't need to be a short term strategy. The Vikings signed two veterans to play tackle, which actually put them in a good position to draft a tackle this year and develop him for a year or two. Hopefully, they will do that next year.


That is true, but why do we think the guys in the 4th-7th rounds were viable candidates for said long term strategy? If you are criticizing the choice to not draft OL because we need OL, then your criticism is dependent on there actually being viable starters available to draft. Has anyone considered the possibility that rather than neglecting the position the Vikings simply felt that none of the players on the board were NFL caliber, potential or otherwise.

That is why I keep asking the question: If you think the picks suck, then which pick would you have swapped and why that OL guy vs. the guy we picked vs. other guys on the board at the time? It feels like a lot of people are just mad because they didn't draft enough OL guys. I'm curious what this alternate path is that we should have taken. Please late it out for me.

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


Tue May 02, 2017 1:49 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Dakotavike wrote:
Has Ryan Clady signed anywhere yet? I know he's not what he once was but he could provide some depth/competiion. Just a thought.


I think he's still unsigned.


Tue May 02, 2017 2:04 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:57 pm
Posts: 2460
Location: Melbourne,Fl
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Dakotavike wrote:
Has Ryan Clady signed anywhere yet? I know he's not what he once was but he could provide some depth/competiion. Just a thought.


Clady is still out there. He would be an interesting pickup. Though I wonder if he would accept being a backup at this point. Also how much money would he want?


Tue May 02, 2017 2:11 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of NFL players at any position come through the draft. Whether you draft them or are signing another teams pick. Wasn't Remmers on our PS?
-
The key to me is understanding which players fit your system and having the ability to coach them up. It's nice to have a system in place that is stable....and luck always plays into it.
-
My feel is that most GMs and scouts (and analysts for that matter) haven't really examined the technical details of o-line play when looking at prospects. They see player X: all- conference, highly touted, from a big school....he must be good.
Some teams have been ahead of the curve in that dept. and find guys that work based on things more technically 'intimate'....i assume anyway. New England has a good track record for finding UDFA O-linemen who can flourish in their system. If memory serves me Pitt and Denver are others.
-
Zimmer shows this apptitude all over the place on Defense. From what I've seen he rarely misses when he sees a guy who he thinks will fit.
The Vikes are not up to snuff on the other side.
The Elfein pick could be huge as many have suggested.
For me, the most important positions on Offense are QB, LT and Center. If this kid can play and be healthy it will be great for the Vikes.


Tue May 02, 2017 2:30 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
mansquatch wrote:
Mothman wrote:
It doesn't need to be a short term strategy. The Vikings signed two veterans to play tackle, which actually put them in a good position to draft a tackle this year and develop him for a year or two. Hopefully, they will do that next year.


That is true, but why do we think the guys in the 4th-7th rounds were viable candidates for said long term strategy?


Why limit the discussion to 4th-7th round players?

Quote:
If you are criticizing the choice to not draft OL because we need OL, then your criticism is dependent on there actually being viable starters available to draft.


There were viable tackles to draft. I don't think that should be in question, even if this draft was short on them. After all, they were drafted.

Quote:
That is why I keep asking the question: If you think the picks suck, then which pick would you have swapped and why that OL guy vs. the guy we picked vs. other guys on the board at the time? It feels like a lot of people are just mad because they didn't draft enough OL guys. I'm curious what this alternate path is that we should have taken. Please late it out for me.


I didn't say I think the picks suck! I didn't say I was mad either. Please, As a group, let's not spend our time here debating about what it "feels" like people are saying, debating perceived arguments instead of what has actually been written.

I started the thread because the Vikings still have a depth problem on the offensive line and because I wanted to share an article about it. I don't want to go down the path of posting hypothetical scenarios like what you've suggested above because it's almost always a dead end. I addressed some possibilities in the draft thread yesterday and I don't want to repeat them here because I didn't intend this thread to become an argument about Rick Spielman's draft choices in the first place. We know the results of the draft, we know which players were available and we know the Vikes were willing to re-position themselves to either select players or get more picks. It's easy enough to see the possibilities from there. They could have selected a tackle if they'd wanted one. Perhaps, as you and others have suggested, they simply didn't feel any of them were worth the effort. If so, that's a perfectly legitimate position for them to take. They need to trust their assessments but the depth problem remains and I intended the thread to be about that issue. Where do they go from here? That's the question that concerns me. Have they taken enough steps toward addressing their issues in the long term or have they just put another band-aid over a broken leg, like they did last season? I feel they still have quite a bit of work to do and while I realize it's not a problem that can be wholly solved in one offseason, I don't think they've done enough to address it yet this year.


Tue May 02, 2017 2:50 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:07 pm
Posts: 1369
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Mothman wrote:
I started the thread because the Vikings still have a depth problem on the offensive line and because I wanted to share an article about it. I don't want to go down the path of posting hypothetical scenarios like what you've suggested above because it's almost always a dead end. I addressed some possibilities in the draft thread yesterday and I don't want to repeat them here because I didn't intend this thread to become an argument about Rick Spielman's draft choices in the first place. We know the results of the draft, we know which players were available and we know the Vikes were willing to re-position themselves to either select players or get more picks. It's easy enough to see the possibilities from there. They could have selected a tackle if they'd wanted one. Perhaps, as you and others have suggested, they simply didn't feel any of them were worth the effort. If so, that's a perfectly legitimate position for them to take. They need to trust their assessments but the depth problem remains and I intended the thread to be about that issue. Where do they go from here? That's the question that concerns me. Have they taken enough steps toward addressing their issues in the long term or have they just put another band-aid over a broken leg, like they did last season? I feel they still have quite a bit of work to do and while I realize it's not a problem that can be wholly solved in one offseason, I don't think they've done enough to address it yet this year.

This thread could have been started 5 years ago. Along with a QB, LB, G, and a half dozen other positions on both sides of the ball. Does anyone remember all the bemoaning everyone did about WR's a few years ago? What do we have after all of these years? One proven guy that was drafted. I'm amazed at how bad the line was and how well Bradford did in spite of it. And to not bolster the sorest spot on the offense long term befuddles me. If the Vikings play it right, Sam will get us where we want to go. Have to put the right pieces in front of him. It wouldn't have killed us to draft at least one frickin tackle. Someone needs to tell Rick that Moss is not walking through that door to play ever again and there was only one. Lay off the wr's for a minute. How many have been drafted since Rick has been here?

_________________
Image
Don't hate on my Buckeyes. Some of the best Vikings went to Ohio State.
Including now, HOF WR #80 Cris Carter


Tue May 02, 2017 4:14 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10500
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Nunin wrote:
Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of NFL players at any position come through the draft. Whether you draft them or are signing another teams pick. Wasn't Remmers on our PS?
-
The key to me is understanding which players fit your system and having the ability to coach them up. It's nice to have a system in place that is stable....and luck always plays into it.
-
My feel is that most GMs and scouts (and analysts for that matter) haven't really examined the technical details of o-line play when looking at prospects. They see player X: all- conference, highly touted, from a big school....he must be good.
Some teams have been ahead of the curve in that dept. and find guys that work based on things more technically 'intimate'....i assume anyway. New England has a good track record for finding UDFA O-linemen who can flourish in their system. If memory serves me Pitt and Denver are others.
-
Zimmer shows this apptitude all over the place on Defense. From what I've seen he rarely misses when he sees a guy who he thinks will fit.
The Vikes are not up to snuff on the other side.
The Elfein pick could be huge as many have suggested.
For me, the most important positions on Offense are QB, LT and Center. If this kid can play and be healthy it will be great for the Vikes.


I've noticed that with a lot of the line picks this year, the players have wrestling backgrounds (think this was mentioned on NFLN during the draft). They're also good in space either as a pulling guard or in a zone blocking scheme. The Vikings seem to be focusing more on athleticism and technique rather than your prototypical sized linemen.


Tue May 02, 2017 4:31 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
CbusVikesFan wrote:
This thread could have been started 5 years ago. Along with a QB, LB, G, and a half dozen other positions on both sides of the ball. Does anyone remember all the bemoaning everyone did about WR's a few years ago? What do we have after all of these years? One proven guy that was drafted. I'm amazed at how bad the line was and how well Bradford did in spite of it. And to not bolster the sorest spot on the offense long term befuddles me. If the Vikings play it right, Sam will get us where we want to go. Have to put the right pieces in front of him. It wouldn't have killed us to draft at least one frickin tackle. Someone needs to tell Rick that Moss is not walking through that door to play ever again and there was only one. Lay off the wr's for a minute. How many have been drafted since Rick has been here?


12 (13 if you count Joe Webb, who was initially drafted to play WR). 4 of them were drafted in the first 2 rounds.


Tue May 02, 2017 4:32 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
S197 wrote:
Nunin wrote:
Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of NFL players at any position come through the draft. Whether you draft them or are signing another teams pick. Wasn't Remmers on our PS?
-
The key to me is understanding which players fit your system and having the ability to coach them up. It's nice to have a system in place that is stable....and luck always plays into it.
-
My feel is that most GMs and scouts (and analysts for that matter) haven't really examined the technical details of o-line play when looking at prospects. They see player X: all- conference, highly touted, from a big school....he must be good.
Some teams have been ahead of the curve in that dept. and find guys that work based on things more technically 'intimate'....i assume anyway. New England has a good track record for finding UDFA O-linemen who can flourish in their system. If memory serves me Pitt and Denver are others.
-
Zimmer shows this apptitude all over the place on Defense. From what I've seen he rarely misses when he sees a guy who he thinks will fit.
The Vikes are not up to snuff on the other side.
The Elfein pick could be huge as many have suggested.
For me, the most important positions on Offense are QB, LT and Center. If this kid can play and be healthy it will be great for the Vikes.


I've noticed that with a lot of the line picks this year, the players have wrestling backgrounds (think this was mentioned on NFLN during the draft). They're also good in space either as a pulling guard or in a zone blocking scheme. The Vikings seem to be focusing more on athleticism and technique rather than your prototypical sized linemen.

That would represent a significant change IMO. I thought they were going that route when the picked Yankey...but he never made the grade. At any rate it looks like there is some shift of focus...just with the wrestling backround stuff. That would represent technical intimacy to me.


Tue May 02, 2017 4:39 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Mothman wrote:
CbusVikesFan wrote:
This thread could have been started 5 years ago. Along with a QB, LB, G, and a half dozen other positions on both sides of the ball. Does anyone remember all the bemoaning everyone did about WR's a few years ago? What do we have after all of these years? One proven guy that was drafted. I'm amazed at how bad the line was and how well Bradford did in spite of it. And to not bolster the sorest spot on the offense long term befuddles me. If the Vikings play it right, Sam will get us where we want to go. Have to put the right pieces in front of him. It wouldn't have killed us to draft at least one frickin tackle. Someone needs to tell Rick that Moss is not walking through that door to play ever again and there was only one. Lay off the wr's for a minute. How many have been drafted since Rick has been here?


12 (13 if you count Joe Webb, who was initially drafted to play WR). 4 of them were drafted in the first 2 rounds.

and a few FA pickups to boot. More of the cart before the horse stuff. Not sure how one can truly evaluate what a WR can bring to the table if you can't keep your QB upright.


Tue May 02, 2017 4:40 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10500
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle
Mothman wrote:
Where do they go from here? That's the question that concerns me. Have they taken enough steps toward addressing their issues in the long term or have they just put another band-aid over a broken leg, like they did last season? I feel they still have quite a bit of work to do and while I realize it's not a problem that can be wholly solved in one offseason, I don't think they've done enough to address it yet this year.


I think it's somewhere in the middle right now. The projected starting line is an upgrade and with players who do not have the injury history of our previous tackles. They shored up the interior of the line and I think they have pretty good depth there.

That being said, it's football and if Reiff and/or Remmers goes down, it may spell trouble. Hill looked decent and may provide depth but his body of work is limited. Sirles may work in a pinch but difficult to tell.

I think depending on how the rookie's work out determines if they've done enough. Ideally Elflein becomes your long-term center and perhaps Isidora can take over for Berger who probably has a year or two left in the tank. Hopefully someone (anyone!) can beat Clemmings out of a backup job.

My early assessment is they could probably use a better depth player at RT. They may have that in a guy like Shepherd but that remains to be seen.


Tue May 02, 2017 4:41 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 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.