Vikings vs. New Orleans (preseason) ... thoughts

[J. Kapp 11]

The penalties don't bother me at all. In my opinion preseason is somewhat for seeing what refs will let you get away with.

Kirk Cousins did well but it's preseason. In my opinion he always plays really well against weak teams (which is basically most teams in preseason as they're using a limited playbook, trying things, etc.). I still think he's a .500 QB. He'll beat the average-to-bad teams and then look like a different (and not great) player against better defenses.

Also - game day threads don't really happen anymore. People were using the chat though; Starts on the middle of this page mchat/archive?start=50

I know about the chats. I use them. However, post-game threads still happen. That's what I was talking about.

In talking about Cousins, I'm referring to his command of the new offense. I thought he looked good, as did the entire team. I also believe that in the right system, Cousins can be better than a .500 QB and can beat quality teams. Maybe that's not a popular opinion, but it happens to be mine. I've also said many times that I believe Gary Kubiak's influence on this offense is going to be very positive. Yes, it's preseason, but when you move the ball and score points, no matter who's in the game, that's a good sign.

[VikingsVictorious]

The penalties don't bother me at all. In my opinion preseason is somewhat for seeing what refs will let you get away with.

Kirk Cousins did well but it's preseason. In my opinion he always plays really well against weak teams (which is basically most teams in preseason as they're using a limited playbook, trying things, etc.). I still think he's a .500 QB. He'll beat the average-to-bad teams and then look like a different (and not great) player against better defenses.

Also - game day threads don't really happen anymore. People were using the chat though; Starts on the middle of this page mchat/archive?start=50

I know about the chats. I use them. However, post-game threads still happen. That's what I was talking about.

In talking about Cousins, I'm referring to his command of the new offense. I thought he looked good, as did the entire team. I also believe that in the right system, Cousins can be better than a .500 QB and can beat quality teams. Maybe that's not a popular opinion, but it happens to be mine. I've also said many times that I believe Gary Kubiak's influence on this offense is going to be very positive. Yes, it's preseason, but when you move the ball and score points, no matter who's in the game, that's a good sign.

Great post and I agree with everything.

[StumpHunter]

The penalties don't bother me at all. In my opinion preseason is somewhat for seeing what refs will let you get away with.

Kirk Cousins did well but it's preseason. In my opinion he always plays really well against weak teams (which is basically most teams in preseason as they're using a limited playbook, trying things, etc.). I still think he's a .500 QB. He'll beat the average-to-bad teams and then look like a different (and not great) player against better defenses.

Also - game day threads don't really happen anymore. People were using the chat though; Starts on the middle of this page mchat/archive?start=50

I know about the chats. I use them. However, post-game threads still happen. That's what I was talking about.

In talking about Cousins, I'm referring to his command of the new offense. I thought he looked good, as did the entire team. I also believe that in the right system, Cousins can be better than a .500 QB and can beat quality teams. Maybe that's not a popular opinion, but it happens to be mine. I've also said many times that I believe Gary Kubiak's influence on this offense is going to be very positive. Yes, it's preseason, but when you move the ball and score points, no matter who's in the game, that's a good sign.

It sure isn't a bad sign.

More of a meaningless sign if anything.

[Cliff]

The penalties don't bother me at all. In my opinion preseason is somewhat for seeing what refs will let you get away with.

Kirk Cousins did well but it's preseason. In my opinion he always plays really well against weak teams (which is basically most teams in preseason as they're using a limited playbook, trying things, etc.). I still think he's a .500 QB. He'll beat the average-to-bad teams and then look like a different (and not great) player against better defenses.

Also - game day threads don't really happen anymore. People were using the chat though; Starts on the middle of this page mchat/archive?start=50

I know about the chats. I use them. However, post-game threads still happen. That's what I was talking about.

In talking about Cousins, I'm referring to his command of the new offense. I thought he looked good, as did the entire team. I also believe that in the right system, Cousins can be better than a .500 QB and can beat quality teams. Maybe that's not a popular opinion, but it happens to be mine. I've also said many times that I believe Gary Kubiak's influence on this offense is going to be very positive. Yes, it's preseason, but when you move the ball and score points, no matter who's in the game, that's a good sign.

Gotcha.

I have some hope but I'm just kind of down on Cousins and haven't been able to regain enthusiasm for him. I think it's a pretty good split on Cousins as far as how people feel about him. I don't think it's a bad sign that they moved the ball, of course. I wouldn't have thought he was the worst ever had he thrown an INT out of the gate instead but it certainly wouldn't have been great!

I hope he continues to look great this off season!

[VikingLord]

It sure isn't a bad sign.

More of a meaningless sign if anything.

I agree. Preseason defenses are so vanilla its more noteworthy when a veteran QB doesn't lead his team down the field for an initial score than when he does. I also remember the Vikings scored on their 1st preseason drive last year, too, and everyone was so fixated on that as a good omen. In the end, it meant nothing and indicated nothing.

What I found myself watching more was the play of the offensive line, specifically, Elflein at LG and Bradbury at center and how they held up in the various situations they were put into. While I think both played OK, neither really stood out, either. The running plays the Vikings called on that first drive didn't produce any notable holes. The runs were positive, so that is good, but honestly both looked very much like what we saw throughout last year. O'Neill wasn't on the field so we also didn't get to see him.

Pass blocking broke down quickly on the 3rd-and-9 play. I wasn't too pleased to see that. Part of me wondered if it was supposed to be a screen that the Saints sniffed out and so Kirk had to take off, but looking at it I don't think that was it as the routes all seemed designed to go past the sticks. Cousins made a good decision to take off and pick it up with his feet, and the drive continued, but that clearly wasn't planned and the pressure was why.

Hard for me to even say the line overall was improved over last year. It's still early and Zimmer says he likes what he's seeing from them in camp, but based on that first drive I can't say I personally see a much improved unit.

[J. Kapp 11]

It sure isn't a bad sign.

More of a meaningless sign if anything.

I agree. Preseason defenses are so vanilla its more noteworthy when a veteran QB doesn't lead his team down the field for an initial score than when he does. I also remember the Vikings scored on their 1st preseason drive last year, too, and everyone was so fixated on that as a good omen. In the end, it meant nothing and indicated nothing.

What I found myself watching more was the play of the offensive line, specifically, Elflein at LG and Bradbury at center and how they held up in the various situations they were put into. While I think both played OK, neither really stood out, either. The running plays the Vikings called on that first drive didn't produce any notable holes. The runs were positive, so that is good, but honestly both looked very much like what we saw throughout last year. O'Neill wasn't on the field so we also didn't get to see him.

Pass blocking broke down quickly on the 3rd-and-9 play. I wasn't too pleased to see that. Part of me wondered if it was supposed to be a screen that the Saints sniffed out and so Kirk had to take off, but looking at it I don't think that was it as the routes all seemed designed to go past the sticks. Cousins made a good decision to take off and pick it up with his feet, and the drive continued, but that clearly wasn't planned and the pressure was why.

Hard for me to even say the line overall was improved over last year. It's still early and Zimmer says he likes what he's seeing from them in camp, but based on that first drive I can't say I personally see a much improved unit.

They played one series ... drove 81 yards and scored! How on earth can you make a conclusion based on that?

On the 3rd-and-9 play -- and by the way, it was 3RD-AND-9, which always puts the offense at a disadvantage -- New Orleans blitzed up the middle. So much for vanilla defense. Cousins did what he was supposed to do ... step up in the pocket, and then take off when the secondary was in man and had their backs turned.

For the night, the Vikings took zero sacks and racked up more than 200 yards rushing. I know, I know ... it's preseason. So let's come to an agreement. If you get to conclude that the line isn't improved, based on one preseason series that covered 81 yards and ended in a touchdown, then I get to use the stats from the same game to argue the contrary. Again, zero sacks, 200+ yards rushing, 2 punts. I rest my case.

[VikingsVictorious]

I agree. Preseason defenses are so vanilla its more noteworthy when a veteran QB doesn't lead his team down the field for an initial score than when he does. I also remember the Vikings scored on their 1st preseason drive last year, too, and everyone was so fixated on that as a good omen. In the end, it meant nothing and indicated nothing.

What I found myself watching more was the play of the offensive line, specifically, Elflein at LG and Bradbury at center and how they held up in the various situations they were put into. While I think both played OK, neither really stood out, either. The running plays the Vikings called on that first drive didn't produce any notable holes. The runs were positive, so that is good, but honestly both looked very much like what we saw throughout last year. O'Neill wasn't on the field so we also didn't get to see him.

Pass blocking broke down quickly on the 3rd-and-9 play. I wasn't too pleased to see that. Part of me wondered if it was supposed to be a screen that the Saints sniffed out and so Kirk had to take off, but looking at it I don't think that was it as the routes all seemed designed to go past the sticks. Cousins made a good decision to take off and pick it up with his feet, and the drive continued, but that clearly wasn't planned and the pressure was why.

Hard for me to even say the line overall was improved over last year. It's still early and Zimmer says he likes what he's seeing from them in camp, but based on that first drive I can't say I personally see a much improved unit.

They played one series ... drove 81 yards and scored! How on earth can you make a conclusion based on that?

On the 3rd-and-9 play -- and by the way, it was 3RD-AND-9, which always puts the offense at a disadvantage -- New Orleans blitzed up the middle. So much for vanilla defense. Cousins did what he was supposed to do ... step up in the pocket, and then take off when the secondary was in man and had their backs turned.

For the night, the Vikings took zero sacks and racked up more than 200 yards rushing. I know, I know ... it's preseason. So let's come to an agreement. If you get to conclude that the line isn't improved, based on one preseason series that covered 81 yards and ended in a touchdown, then I get to use the stats from the same game to argue the contrary. Again, zero sacks, 200+ yards rushing, 2 punts. I rest my case.

Excellent post.

[VikingLord]

They played one series ... drove 81 yards and scored! How on earth can you make a conclusion based on that?

I was watching two players along an offensive line that I felt had the most to prove and based on what I saw I didn't see evidence either is going to be a huge improvement over what we saw at those spots last year. I also stated O'Neill wasn't out there, and it's just the first preseason game. I tried to qualify what I said and leave wiggle room for the possibility of improvement.

I don't think I made a conclusion or prediction about their future. Maybe about Bradbury needing at least a full season and offseason to really develop into the player I hope he will become. That should hardly be controversial, though.

On the 3rd-and-9 play -- and by the way, it was 3RD-AND-9, which always puts the offense at a disadvantage -- New Orleans blitzed up the middle. So much for vanilla defense. Cousins did what he was supposed to do ... step up in the pocket, and then take off when the secondary was in man and had their backs turned.

What exactly is different about the offensive line's play in that situation compared to what we saw most of last year? OK, yeah, the Saints blitzed. The Vikings offensive line played matador. Cousins had to escape and then improvise and he made it happen. Good on him, but I see zero evidence to back a claim that the offensive line either couldn't have picked up that blitz or showed any evidence of overall improvement in that situation.

For the night, the Vikings took zero sacks and racked up more than 200 yards rushing. I know, I know ... it's preseason. So let's come to an agreement. If you get to conclude that the line isn't improved, based on one preseason series that covered 81 yards and ended in a touchdown, then I get to use the stats from the same game to argue the contrary. Again, zero sacks, 200+ yards rushing, 2 punts. I rest my case.

You also know that the starting unit didn't put up anywhere close to that 200 yards (I think it was more like 5 of that 81 minus the yards Cousins picked up while scrambling) and had a holding penalty on the first play that put them into the 3rd-and-9 to begin with.

You can rest your case all you want. I just watched to see how an almost historically bad, yet key, unit on the offense performed in its first preseason game and based on what I objectively saw, there wasn't a noticeable improvement. Which is actually not surprising given the composition of the unit and I tried to call that out to be fair to them.

Not sure where your strong reaction to that is coming from, but I call it like I see it and what I saw didn't give me any confidence they're going to markedly improved over last year. On the bright side, they really can't be worse than last year and they have a lot of room to grow yet, so I am looking forward to seeing them do that throughout the preseason and on into the regular season.

[J. Kapp 11]

They played one series ... drove 81 yards and scored! How on earth can you make a conclusion based on that?

I was watching two players along an offensive line that I felt had the most to prove and based on what I saw I didn't see evidence either is going to be a huge improvement over what we saw at those spots last year. I also stated O'Neill wasn't out there, and it's just the first preseason game. I tried to qualify what I said and leave wiggle room for the possibility of improvement.

I don't think I made a conclusion or prediction about their future. Maybe about Bradbury needing at least a full season and offseason to really develop into the player I hope he will become. That should hardly be controversial, though.

On the 3rd-and-9 play -- and by the way, it was 3RD-AND-9, which always puts the offense at a disadvantage -- New Orleans blitzed up the middle. So much for vanilla defense. Cousins did what he was supposed to do ... step up in the pocket, and then take off when the secondary was in man and had their backs turned.

What exactly is different about the offensive line's play in that situation compared to what we saw most of last year? OK, yeah, the Saints blitzed. The Vikings offensive line played matador. Cousins had to escape and then improvise and he made it happen. Good on him, but I see zero evidence to back a claim that the offensive line either couldn't have picked up that blitz or showed any evidence of overall improvement in that situation.

For the night, the Vikings took zero sacks and racked up more than 200 yards rushing. I know, I know ... it's preseason. So let's come to an agreement. If you get to conclude that the line isn't improved, based on one preseason series that covered 81 yards and ended in a touchdown, then I get to use the stats from the same game to argue the contrary. Again, zero sacks, 200+ yards rushing, 2 punts. I rest my case.

You also know that the starting unit didn't put up anywhere close to that 200 yards (I think it was more like 5 of that 81 minus the yards Cousins picked up while scrambling) and had a holding penalty on the first play that put them into the 3rd-and-9 to begin with.

You can rest your case all you want. I just watched to see how an almost historically bad, yet key, unit on the offense performed in its first preseason game and based on what I objectively saw, there wasn't a noticeable improvement. Which is actually not surprising given the composition of the unit and I tried to call that out to be fair to them.

Not sure where your strong reaction to that is coming from, but I call it like I see it and what I saw didn't give me any confidence they're going to markedly improved over last year. On the bright side, they really can't be worse than last year and they have a lot of room to grow yet, so I am looking forward to seeing them do that throughout the preseason and on into the regular season.

I don't mean to make a huge deal out of it, VL. Sorry to come off as defensive.

On the 3rd-and-9 play, you and I saw different things. Last year, a middle blitz would have buried Cousins. This time, he at least had a lane to escape. C.J. Ham was a little late picking up one of the blitzers, and that made things dicey. But honestly, there was a hat on a hat, which tells me that play is an indicator of improvement, not stagnation. You're never going to bat 1.000 for any length of time blocking against the blitz.

As for the 200 yards and no sacks, my point is that every unit that took the field accomplished the same level of play. To me, that's significant. Yeah, Kyle Sloter was going up against their 3's. But he was playing with our 3's, and our 3's won. To me, that indicates the players are adapting well to the system.

The last thing that was significant to me was play-action. Because we showed that we would run the football and stay with the run, play-action was effective the entire night. Know why the Rams' offense went into hibernation in the playoffs last year? Because Todd Gurley was hurt. Without the threat of Gurley out of the backfield, defenses didn't have to respect the running game. It all culminated in the L.A. offense, led by the greatest offensive mind in the history of the NFL in Sean McVay (hype alert) scoring only 3 points in the Super Bowl and only reaching the red zone once. That was us last year for about 15 of 16 games. I love that Stefubiak (my mashup of the names) seems to be willing to run the ball and stick with it.

As you said, this means NOTHING going forward. It's my observation from one meaningless preseason game. And if we lay an egg against Seattle, I'll probably be back on double doses of Xanax.

[Bowhunting Viking]

I was watching two players along an offensive line that I felt had the most to prove and based on what I saw I didn't see evidence either is going to be a huge improvement over what we saw at those spots last year. I also stated O'Neill wasn't out there, and it's just the first preseason game. I tried to qualify what I said and leave wiggle room for the possibility of improvement.

I don't think I made a conclusion or prediction about their future. Maybe about Bradbury needing at least a full season and offseason to really develop into the player I hope he will become. That should hardly be controversial, though.



What exactly is different about the offensive line's play in that situation compared to what we saw most of last year? OK, yeah, the Saints blitzed. The Vikings offensive line played matador. Cousins had to escape and then improvise and he made it happen. Good on him, but I see zero evidence to back a claim that the offensive line either couldn't have picked up that blitz or showed any evidence of overall improvement in that situation.



You also know that the starting unit didn't put up anywhere close to that 200 yards (I think it was more like 5 of that 81 minus the yards Cousins picked up while scrambling) and had a holding penalty on the first play that put them into the 3rd-and-9 to begin with.

You can rest your case all you want. I just watched to see how an almost historically bad, yet key, unit on the offense performed in its first preseason game and based on what I objectively saw, there wasn't a noticeable improvement. Which is actually not surprising given the composition of the unit and I tried to call that out to be fair to them.

Not sure where your strong reaction to that is coming from, but I call it like I see it and what I saw didn't give me any confidence they're going to markedly improved over last year. On the bright side, they really can't be worse than last year and they have a lot of room to grow yet, so I am looking forward to seeing them do that throughout the preseason and on into the regular season.

I don't mean to make a huge deal out of it, VL. Sorry to come off as defensive.

On the 3rd-and-9 play, you and I saw different things. Last year, a middle blitz would have buried Cousins. This time, he at least had a lane to escape. C.J. Ham was a little late picking up one of the blitzers, and that made things dicey. But honestly, there was a hat on a hat, which tells me that play is an indicator of improvement, not stagnation. You're never going to bat 1.000 for any length of time blocking against the blitz.

As for the 200 yards and no sacks, my point is that every unit that took the field accomplished the same level of play. To me, that's significant. Yeah, Kyle Sloter was going up against their 3's. But he was playing with our 3's, and our 3's won. To me, that indicates the players are adapting well to the system.

The last thing that was significant to me was play-action. Because we showed that we would run the football and stay with the run, play-action was effective the entire night. Know why the Rams' offense went into hibernation in the playoffs last year? Because Todd Gurley was hurt. Without the threat of Gurley out of the backfield, defenses didn't have to respect the running game. It all culminated in the L.A. offense, led by the greatest offensive mind in the history of the NFL in Sean McVay (hype alert) scoring only 3 points in the Super Bowl and only reaching the red zone once. That was us last year for about 15 of 16 games. I love that Stefubiak (my mashup of the names) seems to be willing to run the ball and stick with it.

As you said, this means NOTHING going forward. It's my observation from one meaningless preseason game. And if we lay an egg against Seattle, I'll probably be back on double doses of Xanax.

Kapp , another perfect example of why your posts are so great. You have an excellent way of presenting your views, opinions and your assessment of how you see situations without being arrogant or argumentative. Them, in the case that someone starts arguing with you , trying to twist your words or discredit you, you come back with a very non confrontational response. Kudos to you Sir. It is a pleasure reading your posts. In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a nugget of trivia. Did you know that the pharmaceutical labs technicians that perfected the perfect formula for Xanax were Viking fans who did all lab trials during divisional games, regular season games to decide playoff births, playoff games and NFC Championship games?

[J. Kapp 11]

I don't mean to make a huge deal out of it, VL. Sorry to come off as defensive.

On the 3rd-and-9 play, you and I saw different things. Last year, a middle blitz would have buried Cousins. This time, he at least had a lane to escape. C.J. Ham was a little late picking up one of the blitzers, and that made things dicey. But honestly, there was a hat on a hat, which tells me that play is an indicator of improvement, not stagnation. You're never going to bat 1.000 for any length of time blocking against the blitz.

As for the 200 yards and no sacks, my point is that every unit that took the field accomplished the same level of play. To me, that's significant. Yeah, Kyle Sloter was going up against their 3's. But he was playing with our 3's, and our 3's won. To me, that indicates the players are adapting well to the system.

The last thing that was significant to me was play-action. Because we showed that we would run the football and stay with the run, play-action was effective the entire night. Know why the Rams' offense went into hibernation in the playoffs last year? Because Todd Gurley was hurt. Without the threat of Gurley out of the backfield, defenses didn't have to respect the running game. It all culminated in the L.A. offense, led by the greatest offensive mind in the history of the NFL in Sean McVay (hype alert) scoring only 3 points in the Super Bowl and only reaching the red zone once. That was us last year for about 15 of 16 games. I love that Stefubiak (my mashup of the names) seems to be willing to run the ball and stick with it.

As you said, this means NOTHING going forward. It's my observation from one meaningless preseason game. And if we lay an egg against Seattle, I'll probably be back on double doses of Xanax.

Kapp , another perfect example of why your posts are so great. You have an excellent way of presenting your views, opinions and your assessment of how you see situations without being arrogant or argumentative. Them, in the case that someone starts arguing with you , trying to twist your words or discredit you, you come back with a very non confrontational response. Kudos to you Sir. It is a pleasure reading your posts. In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a nugget of trivia. Did you know that the pharmaceutical labs technicians that perfected the perfect formula for Xanax were Viking fans who did all lab trials during divisional games, regular season games to decide playoff births, playoff games and NFC Championship games?

OK, please tell me you're kidding about the Xanax. Cuz' I'm kinda gullible.

Thanks on the kudos. VL and I just saw things differently during that game. No big deal. I just really believe in what Stefubiak is trying to do (sorry, I know it's a stupid mashup, but from where I sit, they're joined at the hip). Gary Kubiak, unlike Norv Turner before him, has actually done something in a Super Bowl within the last 25 years. He has a track record of making stars out of low-round running backs and middle-of-the-road quarterbacks. To me, the best example was his work is his one year as Baltimore's OC in 2014. Calling their personnel average would be an overstatement, yet they finished 8th in the league in scoring offense. Justin Forsett, a 7th-round draft choice playing for his 6th team, rushed for 1,200 yards. Joe Flacco, not exactly a Hall-of-Famer, had 27 TDs to 12 INTs. I believe this offensive scheme -- zone blocking, run the ball, play-action, rollouts -- is perfect for not only our personnel, but also Mike Zimmer's philosophy. I'm bullish on our Vikings this year.

And yeah, I'm generally more optimistic than most Vikings fans. This is my 51st year as a fan, and the only explanation I have for it is that the law of averages has to catch up at some point. Mike Zimmer says, "Somebody's gonna win a Super Bowl in Minnesota. Might as well be me." That's how I feel as a fan. It's going to happen someday. This is a talented roster. Might as well be this season.

[VikingLord]

As you said, this means NOTHING going forward. It's my observation from one meaningless preseason game. And if we lay an egg against Seattle, I'll probably be back on double doses of Xanax.

One thing I thought I'd mention to put my original response in context is that for me, the Vikings offense last year was pretty well set. By that, I mean I think they have top skill players at WR, TE, and RB. Not just good players - top players among all NFL players at those positions. I think they have a top 10 guy at QB too in Cousins. That might be a little controversial, but Cousins is more than capable of creating a lot of big plays in the passing game and he legitimately threatens every part of the field. If he gets protection and is put into favorable positions, defenses have to play him honest.

This is an offense that, on paper at least, should easily finish in the top 10 overall and be competing for at top 5 finish if you just look at their skill positions.

And I think those skill positions got stronger with this last draft. Mattison is going to get on the field, as will Irv Smith, and I think both are big play threats.

So I'm just not worried about that aspect of the offense.

The offensive line is the one group that stood out for all the wrong reasons last year, and, fair or not, that unit is the one group I'm going to be picking over with a fine-toothed comb this preseason to see real evidence of improvement. So far, and in very limited snaps, and with that eagle eye on just that group, the first unit didn't show me anything that suggests massive improvement. The depth looks good, and if we look at the overall performance of that position group throughout that first preseason game I think there are a lot of positives, but the starting unit didn't blow my socks off.

Not yet, anyway.

Lots of preseason left to show that improvement, though. I'm particularly excited to see O'Neill get on the field.

[PurpleMustReign]

As you said, this means NOTHING going forward. It's my observation from one meaningless preseason game. And if we lay an egg against Seattle, I'll probably be back on double doses of Xanax.

One thing I thought I'd mention to put my original response in context is that for me, the Vikings offense last year was pretty well set. By that, I mean I think they have top skill players at WR, TE, and RB. Not just good players - top players among all NFL players at those positions. I think they have a top 10 guy at QB too in Cousins. That might be a little controversial, but Cousins is more than capable of creating a lot of big plays in the passing game and he legitimately threatens every part of the field. If he gets protection and is put into favorable positions, defenses have to play him honest.

This is an offense that, on paper at least, should easily finish in the top 10 overall and be competing for at top 5 finish if you just look at their skill positions.

And I think those skill positions got stronger with this last draft. Mattison is going to get on the field, as will Irv Smith, and I think both are big play threats.

So I'm just not worried about that aspect of the offense.

The offensive line is the one group that stood out for all the wrong reasons last year, and, fair or not, that unit is the one group I'm going to be picking over with a fine-toothed comb this preseason to see real evidence of improvement. So far, and in very limited snaps, and with that eagle eye on just that group, the first unit didn't show me anything that suggests massive improvement. The depth looks good, and if we look at the overall performance of that position group throughout that first preseason game I think there are a lot of positives, but the starting unit didn't blow my socks off.

Not yet, anyway.

Lots of preseason left to show that improvement, though. I'm particularly excited to see O'Neill get on the field.

It is amazing how much difference a good or even decent OL can make vs a bad one. Last season was probably their worst line thst I can remember. It goes to show how much of a team game it really is.

[StumpHunter]

One thing I thought I'd mention to put my original response in context is that for me, the Vikings offense last year was pretty well set. By that, I mean I think they have top skill players at WR, TE, and RB. Not just good players - top players among all NFL players at those positions. I think they have a top 10 guy at QB too in Cousins. That might be a little controversial, but Cousins is more than capable of creating a lot of big plays in the passing game and he legitimately threatens every part of the field. If he gets protection and is put into favorable positions, defenses have to play him honest.

This is an offense that, on paper at least, should easily finish in the top 10 overall and be competing for at top 5 finish if you just look at their skill positions.

And I think those skill positions got stronger with this last draft. Mattison is going to get on the field, as will Irv Smith, and I think both are big play threats.

So I'm just not worried about that aspect of the offense.

The offensive line is the one group that stood out for all the wrong reasons last year, and, fair or not, that unit is the one group I'm going to be picking over with a fine-toothed comb this preseason to see real evidence of improvement. So far, and in very limited snaps, and with that eagle eye on just that group, the first unit didn't show me anything that suggests massive improvement. The depth looks good, and if we look at the overall performance of that position group throughout that first preseason game I think there are a lot of positives, but the starting unit didn't blow my socks off.

Not yet, anyway.

Lots of preseason left to show that improvement, though. I'm particularly excited to see O'Neill get on the field.

It is amazing how much difference a good or even decent OL can make vs a bad one. Last season was probably their worst line thst I can remember. It goes to show how much of a team game it really is.

2015 and 2016 were far worse, but I get your point.

[Rhodes Closed]

It is amazing how much difference a good or even decent OL can make vs a bad one. Last season was probably their worst line thst I can remember. It goes to show how much of a team game it really is.

2015 and 2016 were far worse, but I get your point.

2016 was putrid. The 2015 line was definitely saved by Teddy Bridgewater and Adrian Peterson on his last good year.