Mounting losses up front could become a "real problem"

[PurpleMustReign]

What is the actual basis for that reputation because he hasn't spent much time as an OL coach in the NFL. He's bounced around a lot between being a TE coach, head coach, occasional OC and a line coach (but he's rarely been in this role for long). He was an OL coach at the college level but when and where did he demonstrate that he's one of the very best O-line coaches in the game? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just wondering because Vikes fans have been saying that since he was hired and I cant find any real basis for it. I know he has a rep for putting together effective run-blocking lines (partially earned during his HC stints) but he doesn't seem to be a "tried and true" top OL coach and the results in MN so far have been a sorry sight.

Look at wyat he's dealing with, Jim. It is like all backups. Bradford has time to throw the ball despite the injuries.

[Mothman]

Look at wyat he's dealing with, Jim. It is like all backups. Bradford has time to throw the ball despite the injuries.

Yes, I'm aware of the injuries, Josh. I'm just unclear on where Sparano's reputation as a great OL coach comes from.

[autobon7]

Some really good points, counter points in this thread.

Personally I would mortgage more of Vikes future, picks and/or Treadwell for a stud OL. And yes Thomas from Browns comes to mind (depending on asking price). Prior to TD Browns won't be only team going fire sale. Reason being, Vikes are going to draft a OL with 2nd and/or 1-2 of their 3rd round picks anyways, why not trade for sure thing? Note: said player has to have 2-4 years minimum left not a rental, and ideally 28 or younger (unless pro bowl super stud like Thomas). Kind of reminds me of the Allen trade.

Vikes also this offseason need to spend some of their big cap dollars, mostly from their overpriced failed 2016 middling OL signed/retained players gone (Kalil, Smith, etc.) and need to land at least 1 stud OL 28yo or younger. The FA list is pretty promising. Combine that with the player traded for this season (as mentioned above), plus Boone who has been solid, and Vikes should go into 2017 with 3 OL locked in. That would be unbelievable to have 3 solid starters turn-key to start season. What a difference vs. the questions marks everywhere Vikes had to start this season on the OL.

I would have no problems with the Viks sending Treadwell for Thomas as I see us retaining CP.

[mansquatch]

Yes, I'm aware of the injuries, Josh. I'm just unclear on where Sparano's reputation as a great OL coach comes from.

This is just speculation, but I think one of the reasons Sparano was brought in was because his general philosophy towards the game is more physically oriented and thus fits better into Zimmer's view of football. I also think it is fair to assume that if he has been an OC and a HC he knows something of how an OL should perform.

The overall NFL OL woes have been a story for the past two seasons. One might make a case that this is a good reason to not invest top picks in OL. If the guys coming out of college do not translate well then investing top picks in OL may not be the safe bet it was five or six years ago.

[Mothman]

This is just speculation, but I think one of the reasons Sparano was brought in was because his general philosophy towards the game is more physically oriented and thus fits better into Zimmer's view of football.

I think he's also coached with Zimmer before, in Dallas.

I also think it is fair to assume that if he has been an OC and a HC he knows something of how an OL should perform.

Of course he does. I didn't question whether "he knows something of how an OL should perform". He's qualified to coach offensive line but what is the basis for him being one of the best?

The overall NFL OL woes have been a story for the past two seasons. One might make a case that this is a good reason to not invest top picks in OL. If the guys coming out of college do not translate well then investing top picks in OL may not be the safe bet it was five or six years ago.

On the contrary, I think it reinforces the importance of investing earlier in o-line players because the pool of players that can come into the NFL and have a positive impact in their first couple of years without a long development process seems to be shrinking.

[mansquatch]

On the contrary, I think it reinforces the importance of investing earlier in o-line players because the pool of players that can come into the NFL and have a positive impact in their first couple of years without a long development process seems to be shrinking.

Jim, this is where i think we have the biggest difference of opinion. I'm not sold on the OL being top notch as a necessity to win a championship let alone a necessity to be competitive in the NFL. Obviously there are limits to how bad the OL can be, but there are also limits on how much of an impact it has if it is great. I would argue that adding high picks in other areas will offer more "bang for the buck" vs. the linemen. We are seeing that strategy play out this season with the purple. We saw it last year in DEN where their OL woes were probably over more documented than ours.

We've seen teams try to reach the big game with elite OL. the Jim Harbaugh 49ers certainly come to mind. They made it to the NFCCG 3x, and the SB once, they never won it all. SEA, with a much worse line went to two SB and would have won both if not for a really awful play call by Pete Carroll in the 2nd one. DEN won the last SB with a patchwork OL.

The Vikings are attempting to punch their ticket with great defense, and a Bradford led passing attack behind a poor OL.

FWIW, I agree with you on taking TB over Carr, I think that was a mistake as well. Spielman has lucked into Sam Bradford after failing miserably over the years with QBs. Although, who knows what TB might have done this season to change that perception?

[Mothman]

Jim, this is where i think we have the biggest difference of opinion. I'm not sold on the OL being top notch as a necessity to win a championship let alone a necessity to be competitive in the NFL.

I haven't been saying a top notch OL is a necessity to win a championship. I don't believe that so we don't have a difference of opinion on that point.

Obviously there are limits to how bad the OL can be, but there are also limits on how much of an impact it has if it is great. I would argue that adding high picks in other areas will offer more "bang for the buck" vs. the linemen. We are seeing that strategy play out this season with the purple. We saw it last year in DEN where their OL woes were probably over more documented than ours.

We've seen teams try to reach the big game with elite OL. the Jim Harbaugh 49ers certainly come to mind. They made it to the NFCCG 3x, and the SB once, they never won it all. SEA, with a much worse line went to two SB and would have won both if not for a really awful play call by Pete Carroll in the 2nd one. DEN won the last SB with a patchwork OL.

We've also seen teams reach the Super Bowl with an elite OL and win it. I think we can agree there's no single formula that works. Really good defensive teams have lost the Super Bowl too. Winning a championship doesn't require a great defense or a great offensive line.

The Vikings are attempting to punch their ticket with great defense, and a Bradford led passing attack behind a poor OL.

Yes, clearly, and it might work.

Where several of us really seem to part ways on this is with the idea that building this current Vikings defense and also building a quality offensive line (it doesn't have to be great) were somehow mutually exclusive goals, that one had to suffer for the other to succeed. I just don't believe that's true. People keep explaining the Vikes defense-focused philosophy to me as if I don't understand it but it's not that I don't grasp it, it's simply that I disagree with the approach Spielman has taken to the OL over the years. It's led to some very real problems for the team. The quality of the line play has been and remains a legitimate concern and I don't understand why that simple idea is met with so much resistance whenever it comes up. It seems readily apparent so I would think most people would agree with the point.

FWIW, I agree with you on taking TB over Carr, I think that was a mistake as well. Spielman has lucked into Sam Bradford after failing miserably over the years with QBs. Although, who knows what TB might have done this season to change that perception?

There's no way to know.

[mansquatch]

I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, I'm saying each move is a decision point. If, by your view they should have invested more in OL, then that means one of the choices they did make would be traded to add more OL talent. To echo Poet's point about AJ Cann (name?) I'm not convinced that the trade off would have produced a more competitive roster than we have now. Admittedly there is no way to know who's view on this is right.

[Mothman]

I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, I'm saying each move is a decision point. If, by your view they should have invested more in OL, then that means one of the choices they did make would be traded to add more OL talent. To echo Poet's point about AJ Cann (name?) I'm not convinced that the trade off would have produced a more competitive roster than we have now. Admittedly there is no way to know who's view on this is right.

True, it's differing philosophies at work. I obviously can't be sure changing a few of those decisions would have produced a better roster either but changing a few of them might have produced a more balanced roster and perhaps even a stronger team as a whole. As you said, there's no way to know.

Speaking of philosophies.... I just don't think the Vikings philosophy regarding the OL makes much sense. Few things help an elite RB and a developing QB more than good blocking. They obviously needed to improve on defense. They've done that under Zimmer but it's also clear the team still wants to run the ball. It's a core component of their approach and that makes sense as a complement to their defense. They were among the top 5 teams in the league in rushing attempts last year and they are again this year. When a team is placing a great deal of importance on it's running game, being the worst in the league in that department (as the Vikes have been so far in 2016) seems highly problematic, doesn't it?

One philosophy seems at odds with the other. I've never understood it.

[IrishViking]

True, it's differing philosophies at work. I obviously can't be sure changing a few of those decisions would have produced a better roster either but changing a few of them might have produced a more balanced roster and perhaps even a stronger team as a whole. As you said, there's no way to know.

Speaking of philosophies.... I just don't think the Vikings philosophy regarding the OL makes much sense. Few things help an elite RB and a developing QB more than good blocking. They obviously needed to improve on defense. They've done that under Zimmer but it's also clear the team still wants to run the ball. It's a core component of their approach and that makes sense as a complement to their defense. They were among the top 5 teams in the league in rushing attempts last year and they are again this year. When a team is placing a great deal of importance on it's running game, being the worst in the league in that department (as the Vikes have been so far in 2016) seems highly problematic, doesn't it?

One philosophy seems at odds with the other. I've never understood it.

I think you are imagining the planning of a football organization to be cleaner than it is.

I think its been very clear for the last couple of years that defense and a solution at QB and nothing else has been the major focus. On the one hand I agree, better Oline play would make sense for a team that wants to run the ball as much as we do. On the other hand, they have reduced the TFL numbers on run plays and produced 90+ yards the last two games. There is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak. Solid Oline play is the "easiest" way to have solid run game production, but if you have the pieces to run for 90+ yards a game behind a shaky Oline, that frees you to spend those resources elsewhere.

[mansquatch]

Well in 2013 the team was coming off a year where it had averaged in the high 20s for Points per game, but the defense was completely terrible. So in that respect it made a lot of sense to go defense. We drafted Barr that year and finally added the first real bit of LB talent since taking Chad Greenway.

Zimmer came in and immediately we saw dividends via some of our now mainline players (smith,rhodes,griffen). On offense, 2014 was the year of the AP Child Abuse scandal so we saw TB coming in and struggle before slowly growing. That offseason they added Kendricks and Trae Waynes. We also saw them pick up gems like Hunter. That season we saw the OL start to play terribly due to numerous injuries. (Fusco torn Pec, Kalil playing on bad knees, etc.)

There is a definitely a case to add defense after 2013 given how terrible the unit was under Frasier. (especially the secondary) Last year we saw Loadholt go down as well as Sullivan and the OL sucked hard. Defensively they were ascendant though.

One question that jumps out of this is the fact we are now in our 3rd consecutive season with serious OL injuries. Perhaps there is an issue with the training staff on top of the other problems? That certainly seems like something worth investigating.

[IrishViking]

One question that jumps out of this is the fact we are now in our 3rd consecutive season with serious OL injuries. Perhaps there is an issue with the training staff on top of the other problems? That certainly seems like something worth investigating.

I tend to not believe its coaching or training issues for these types of things. These guys are professionals who either have decades of experience, years of professional training/school, and in most cases both. I know fans tend to crap on coaching for various decision but on the technical side of getting the bodies to peak performance it really has become a science

If its anything like this I would guess it more likely a sub culture in our locker room amongst those players to push themselves to set PRs or Locker room records.

[PacificNorseWest]

Yes, I'm aware of the injuries, Josh. I'm just unclear on where Sparano's reputation as a great OL coach comes from.

Heck if I know, but commentators always brought it up when he was in Miami and elsewhere.

I'm not at practice, so it's all I have to go by.

[Mothman]

I think you are imagining the planning of a football organization to be cleaner than it is.

Maybe, but I doubt it. There are certainly teams who appear to plan for and achieve the kind of results I'm talking about.

I think its been very clear for the last couple of years that defense and a solution at QB and nothing else has been the major focus. On the one hand I agree, better Oline play would make sense for a team that wants to run the ball as much as we do. On the other hand, they have reduced the TFL numbers on run plays and produced 90+ yards the last two games. There is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak. Solid Oline play is the "easiest" way to have solid run game production, but if you have the pieces to run for 90+ yards a game behind a shaky Oline, that frees you to spend those resources elsewhere.

The last 2 games don't exactly prove they have the pieces to rush for 90+ yards a game with any consistency but time will tell.

It sure seems like there's an enormous amount of effort being expended in this thread to circle around or justify the elephant in the room instead of just acknowledging it's presence. Why is that so hard?

[Mothman]

Heck if I know, but commentators always brought it up when he was in Miami and elsewhere.

I'm not at practice, so it's all I have to go by.

Fair enough! Thanks.