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: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Thu May 04, 2017 9:57 am

Nunin wrote:Can you play tackle, Jim?
-
I can see it now: Vikings sign converted artist from Chicago for depth at tackle. High risk high reward and a feel good story.
He'll start out on the PS alongside the German Unicorn.
Spielman: 'The sky is the limit with this guy and we're particularly excited that he's happy to play for 1/4 of Clemming's salary, so, it was really a no brainer.'
:lol:

If you give me 6 months to train and bulk up, I'm sure I could be wholly inadequate for a play or two. At 5' 8", I have the ideal height and reach for the position!
0 x

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 » Thu May 04, 2017 10:19 am

You would also do well to have a viral video of you knocking people on their butts in someone's backyard and acting ferocious.
-
Now that I think about it, you should have one of those anyway.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Thu May 04, 2017 10:23 am

Nunin wrote:You would also do well to have a viral video of you knocking people on their butts in someone's backyard and acting ferocious.
-
Now that I think about it, you should have one of those anyway.
:rofl:
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5380
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 » Thu May 04, 2017 10:44 am

CbusVikesFan wrote: Yea, and you missed what I said after that, it "doesn't" get addressed until after it's a "hot mess". I don't give a crap who else has a hot spot, I'm talking about Vikings. When you have a certain need that is more glaring than any other position and year after year it is ignored is what I am talking about. Need O-line, grab a wr or two. Need a LB, draft one late and hope for the best.
When has LB all of the sudden become some glaring need?? We had no WLB. A player that plays about 20-30 snaps a game. And no we didnt "draft one late and hope for the best". We drafted two (one in the 4th and one in the 7th) plus still have Lamur who could play the spot. So no LB is nowhere near a "hot mess".

What you're saying has literally only happened with OL. Every other glaring need we've had over the past few years has pretty much been addressed. Need a CB, drafted Waynes. Need a LB, drafted Kendricks. Need a WR, drafted Treadwell. Need a RB, drafted Cook. I dont see anything else that has recently become a "hot mess" other than the OL. And we grabbed a WR or two because it was a GLARING need before last years draft. Many people seem to forget about that. Who was Adam Thielen last offseason? A special teams player. Who was CP? A special teams player that couldnt learn an offense. Jarius Wright was a middling talent at best. Charles Johnson came off a practice squad. Yeah OL was a big need but are we really going to sit here and say we didnt need a WR last offseason just as bad?? Come on now.

Bottom line is, the offensive line is what became a "hot mess" over the years. Since Zimmer has gotten here, I would say we've improved just about every position on the team outside of OL. I cant really say any position on this team is WORSE than it was in 2014 when he got here when you look at our current roster. They also addressed the OL very heavily this offseason so the jury is out there
0 x
Image

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5380
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 » Thu May 04, 2017 10:46 am

Mothman wrote:I'm not sure why Beavers is still on the roster either, although I doubt he'll make it any further than the practice squad this year, if he even gets that far.
Pretty pointless to release a 4th round guard going into his second year when you dont even know what you have in him yet. You've talked about us not "developing" talent on the OL. Well how can you "develop" a 4th round pick if you cut him after year 1?? Thats the definition of impatience. Similar to what some fans have with Treadwell and had with Waynes
0 x
Image

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Thu May 04, 2017 10:49 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: When has LB all of the sudden become some glaring need??


He was just throwing out examples from past years.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5380
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 » Thu May 04, 2017 10:57 am

Mothman wrote:
He was just throwing out examples from past years.
Are you sure about that? Because it sure sounds like he was talking about this year. He followed up the OL/WR thing (which was last year) with the drafting a LB late (I'm guessing he was referring to Lee this year?). We had bad LB's way back when Frazier was here which has very little relevance to now. They've been pretty stellar since he left so I'm not really concerned.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Thu May 04, 2017 11:06 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Pretty pointless to release a 4th round guard going into his second year when you dont even know what you have in him yet. You've talked about us not "developing" talent on the OL. Well how can you "develop" a 4th round pick if you cut him after year 1?? Thats the definition of impatience. Similar to what some fans have with Treadwell and had with Waynes
There's a difference between impatience and just cutting your losses. Some drafted players don't even make the teams that drafted them. It's not pointless to cut them.

I want them to develop players whose performance merits the investment of time and resources. I don't want them to stick with players whose performance doesn't appear to justify that effort but if they feel Beavers deserves another year and they think they can actually develop him into a quality NFL lineman, they should keep him around. After all, it's their call, not mine.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Thu May 04, 2017 11:07 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Are you sure about that?
Yes... at least I thought so. :lol: He talked about that LB issue for years when it was definitely a hot spot that needed to be addressed but it's possible he was only referring to this past draft. However, he made it clear in his initial post that his frustration extended beyond this year.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5380
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 » Thu May 04, 2017 12:08 pm

Mothman wrote: There's a difference between impatience and just cutting your losses. Some drafted players don't even make the teams that drafted them. It's not pointless to cut them.

I want them to develop players whose performance merits the investment of time and resources. I don't want them to stick with players whose performance doesn't appear to justify that effort but if they feel Beavers deserves another year and they think they can actually develop him into a quality NFL lineman, they should keep him around. After all, it's their call, not mine.
Yeah but at the same time, I'm not sure you can say the guy is a "loss" after 1 year in the league. Guys like Sullivan and Fusco didnt started a combined zero games in their rookie seasons. Were they considered a loss after their rookie year? I'm sure some people thought that. You gotta give some of these guys time. That's my thing. So many fans seem to get impatient (not referring directly to you) with draft picks. It drives me nuts. Do you know how many guys across this league never made an impact whatsoever in their first year or two?? A LOT. We drafted these guys, give them time to adapt and see if they can make an impact. You cut your losses in year 3 or 4. Not the offseason going into a guys 2nd year. When he hasnt even gotten on the field to prove if he's any good or not
0 x
Image

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37407
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by Mothman » Thu May 04, 2017 12:21 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Yeah but at the same time, I'm not sure you can say the guy is a "loss" after 1 year in the league.
You're right, I certainly can't do so definitively.
Guys like Sullivan and Fusco didnt started a combined zero games in their rookie seasons. Were they considered a loss after their rookie year? I'm sure some people thought that. You gotta give some of these guys time. That's my thing. So many fans seem to get impatient (not referring directly to you) with draft picks. It drives me nuts. Do you know how many guys across this league never made an impact whatsoever in their first year or two?? A LOT. We drafted these guys, give them time to adapt and see if they can make an impact. You cut your losses in year 3 or 4. Not the offseason going into a guys 2nd year. When he hasnt even gotten on the field to prove if he's any good or not
I see your point but sometimes, a player is a loss after one year. That happens too so these things run a full range and not every draft pick gets a 3 or 4 window in which to prove himself. With some players, patience is merited and with others, it's not. The reason I made that comment about Beavers is because he's off to a particularly poor start. He not only didn't play in his first year, he's a 4th round pick who couldn't even make the final roster on a team that needed OL help. He was cut at the end of the preseason and then signed to the practice squad, perhaps because he was a 4th round investment and they were reluctant to give up on him too fast.
0 x

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3506
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 » Thu May 04, 2017 3:20 pm

S197 wrote: 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.
Hill played in the last game of the season and did OK. That is positive, but we've yet to see what happens if he plays in several games and teams start to figure out his tendencies. The latter is what did Clemmings in. Once the league realized he stand to far upright it was a feeding frenzy.

The under analyzed angle on the OL is the coaching. Clemmings was an obvious disaster for basically the entire season and he didn't improve with experience. This is on top of his awful performance in 2015 playing in place of Loadholt. The question I've had is why did it take until Week 17 to try Hill? Is Hill THAT much worse than Clemmings? Or are the coaches TOO stubborn? Why has Clemmings failed to improve at all after 2 full seasons as a starter? Is he THAT stupid? I have no proof, but it feels like there is more here than just the talent level.
0 x
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

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 » Thu May 04, 2017 3:34 pm

@Squatch
I too am somewhat dubious of the coaching on that side of the ball. It seems, mostly, that the guys who prevail have inherent natural ability.
Theilen has improved....he's not the only one...but how difficult is it to coach an AD? or a Diggs?
Still...rather than chalk it up to straight coaching, my feel is that it's more systemic. QB play and blocking schemes effect line play and so on. I'm not convinced that the offense has had a flow from coordinator-coaches-scheme-talent/abilities....weaknesses/strengths of players, since Zimmer has been here. Throw Spielman into that mix too.
In short...aside from the legacy of bad O-line play, I think Turner was the square peg...the line play and injuries just exaccerbated it.
Musgrave did well here and is killing it in Oakland. I hope Shurmur can ake advantage of his opportunity.
0 x

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24547
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Vikings still have to add depth at offensive tackle

Post by dead_poet » Thu May 04, 2017 4:00 pm

mansquatch wrote:Hill played in the last game of the season and did OK. That is positive, but we've yet to see what happens if he plays in several games and teams start to figure out his tendencies. The latter is what did Clemmings in. Once the league realized he stand to far upright it was a feeding frenzy.
I disagree that Clemmings was EVER competent. Hill showed more in that one game than Clemmings ever did. I really want to see more of Hill in camp/preseason.
The under analyzed angle on the OL is the coaching. Clemmings was an obvious disaster for basically the entire season and he didn't improve with experience. This is on top of his awful performance in 2015 playing in place of Loadholt. The question I've had is why did it take until Week 17 to try Hill? Is Hill THAT much worse than Clemmings? Or are the coaches TOO stubborn? Why has Clemmings failed to improve at all after 2 full seasons as a starter? Is he THAT stupid? I have no proof, but it feels like there is more here than just the talent level.
It's so frustrating. I assume it's because he got a lot more reps and that whole "continuity" and "chemistry" thing. They also may have been worried what that may have done for his confidence and were likely none too eager to throw in the towel, which may have been what a move like that would've suggested.

Still...MORE HILL.
0 x
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly

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 » Thu May 04, 2017 5:57 pm

Rashod Hill is the 'cowbell' of O-linemen.
0 x

Post Reply