Yeah I agree VL. I understand that teams aren't going to have NFL starter quality depth at every position. They'd be starters otherwise. I do expect some depth though, especially depth that the HC can at least work with if pressed into duty. Lineman.... are going to get hurt. They are in a collision every play. You have to have depth on both lines. The fact that when a olineman has gotten hurt they've had to trade or sign a FA makes me wonder what in the world they're using roster spots for of the current backups??
I am really curious if we're going to see KOC change his passing game at all, or we're going to just continue to see so many longer developing passing plays, or if he really will add more quick hitters.
I think there's a significant difference between having a backup you feel ok coming in for a game or two while the starter heals up and changing that backup into a full time starter. It could also be that they feel they have quality depth but want to keep it that way. When the starter goes down, even if they start his current backup, they then need another player behind him ready to go.
Basically I think what we're seeing is the difference between the starter going down for the entire season rather than just a couple of games.
That's fair. I understand the difference. Without looking at all, it feels like KAM (or koc) knee jerks with injuries. That might just be my internal bias though.
I think there's a significant difference between having a backup you feel ok coming in for a game or two while the starter heals up and changing that backup into a full time starter. It could also be that they feel they have quality depth but want to keep it that way. When the starter goes down, even if they start his current backup, they then need another player behind him ready to go.
Basically I think what we're seeing is the difference between the starter going down for the entire season rather than just a couple of games.
That's fair. I understand the difference. Without looking at all, it feels like KAM (or koc) knee jerks with injuries. That might just be my internal bias though.
Fwiw I hope Robinson is a world beater for us.
I think LT is just a very high value position in general but especially for a team that likes to run a lot of long developing plays like the Vikings. I think if he was going to be a "world beater" they wouldn't have been able to get him. It's just like you wrote up thread, injuries happen and linemen are going to get hurt. You're already going down to your #2 LT which is going to be a significant downgrade compared to Darrisaw because just about any LT would be, but what does your #3 option look like?
CharVike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 9:47 am
I don't know if we have a guy for quick hitters. Nailor? He has a hard time catching the ball. They hit Mundt on some quick throws with very little pay back. He's a blocker more than anything else. Basically a wasted play with high risk. Addison could be used but that hasn't happened. Perhaps he's not suited for that. I thought about the depth myself. They drafted a guy this year but he can't play right now. That's the killer. The Rams plug 2 rookies in and one was an UDFA and they handle our front easily. When you can't draft this is the only other option.
Hockenson is back. He should be primary for those.
JJ should be running slants too. We keep hearing how koc told JJ he was going to use him like Kupp. I just haven't seen that yet. He should be imho. JJ should be running every route on the tree.
You're right. Hock was a key weapon and he will be the guy. He will help everyone.
Just wanted to add to this thread that after watching Robinson play at LT last night, if he continues that level of play he was worth the trade and possibly then some. He battled bigtime and did a fantastic job at least by the eye test.
makila wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:09 pm
Yeah I thought he played really well given the circumstances and lack of time within this offense!
Bradbury on the other hand......
Bradbury made the highlight reel for the wrong reason on that play, but I wonder what his net play rating was for the game. In the 2nd half it sure seemed like the Vikings OL got the situation under control as the pressure the Colts got from their front 7 was noticeably lower than what we saw in the first half. I'd have to imagine Bradbury played a role in that.
makila wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:09 pm
Yeah I thought he played really well given the circumstances and lack of time within this offense!
Bradbury on the other hand......
Bradbury made the highlight reel for the wrong reason on that play, but I wonder what his net play rating was for the game. In the 2nd half it sure seemed like the Vikings OL got the situation under control as the pressure the Colts got from their front 7 was noticeably lower than what we saw in the first half. I'd have to imagine Bradbury played a role in that.
I wonder if Bradbury being left one on one is an assignment issue. Us fans see the real bad plays because they stick out big time. Obviously this isn't happening on every play but it shows he has some limitations one on one against the better players. I'm sure the coach's see it along with the players. I mentioned it in pre game comments. When I saw this Buckner guy I felt oh no he could be a problem. Of course it could be just a Bradbury issue. With that can you live with these horrible plays and even hope to compete for a SB? When your QB takes that kind of hit it will be trouble. One play Darnold seem to be out of it from a hit but came right back in after a play but wasn't the same player. That's the problem when the protection breaks down. Leaving him one on one is a coaching problem. Don't let that happen.
