O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Moderator: Moderators
- chicagopurple
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1498
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
- x 88
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Shurmur made some comments today about how the '17 offense will be different and more effective in the running game. Not sure how that will happen without some quality at OL AND a RB change......I wonder if this implies any real news, ie a deal for RB or free agent OL.
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I'm aware of what you wrote. I was responding directly to the point you made. You suggested the offense was the biggest source of the Vikings defensive inconsistency. I think that's putting too way much responsibility for the aforementioned inconsistency on a unit that wasn't even on the field when it occurred.mansquatch wrote:I didn't say the offense was the sole cause of defensive issues. I said I felt that fixing the offense would do more for the defense than just about any personnel moves they might make on the defensive side of the ball.
Improving the offense would benefit the defense but suggesting the offense is the biggest cause of defensive inconsistency overstates the case.
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
It's difficult to gauge their impact but those issues certainly didn't help.Texas Vike wrote:Our D looked solid early on this season before Norv-Gate and Zim's vision issue and then the OL unravelling. It seemed to me that all of those issues pulled his attention away from his pet project, the D. Just my hunch.
- chicagopurple
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1498
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
- x 88
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
there WAS a big slide on defensive performance in the second half without any big changes due to injury. There also wasnt any big change in defensive schemes. I would have to believe either it was fatigue from over use (offenses fault but ALSO a failure to prevent teams from grinding things out on the ground) and, or, by the second half the league had figured out the Vikes schemes and the Vikes Defensive coordinators failed to adapt/change things up a bit. I dont think it was due to a tougher second half schedule.
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I think it's simply that they have some vulnerable spots. The main one is that a team with the will and personnel to do so can run on them very effectively. They struggle to get off the field at times and give up some long, draining drives. They're vulnerable in the middle, especially when Smith is out or playing hurt. Their pass rush is good overall but disappears for stretches. Keep them in base personnel and a team can take advantage of their LBs in coverage.chicagopurple wrote:there WAS a big slide on defensive performance in the second half without any big changes due to injury. There also wasnt any big change in defensive schemes. I would have to believe either it was fatigue from over use (offenses fault but ALSO a failure to prevent teams from grinding things out on the ground) and, or, by the second half the league had figured out the Vikes schemes and the Vikes Defensive coordinators failed to adapt/change things up a bit. I dont think it was due to a tougher second half schedule.
All defenses have vulnerable areas so none of that is meant to sound overly harsh. My point is that I don't think we have to look off the field or past the defense itself to see where their inconsistency begins.
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I think part of it is the style of defense that's utilized. It's a defense that is very aggressive, which entails high risk. This magnifies any poor play call or player out of position. You're going to see a good defense the majority of the time but you're also going to see a defense that gets beat in certain circumstances. I don't think this will ever change under Zimmer, he might be able to reduce the amount of volatility to some degree but it's always going to be a defense that takes chances and with those risks come both high rewards but also failures.
I think the current structure of the NFL makes this type of defense almost a necessity. The offense has a tremendous advantages so you need to create a defense that can cause turnovers and create pressure. It's extremely difficult to keep offenses off the score board these days.
I think the current structure of the NFL makes this type of defense almost a necessity. The offense has a tremendous advantages so you need to create a defense that can cause turnovers and create pressure. It's extremely difficult to keep offenses off the score board these days.
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I agree. When you play a lot of man-to-man coverage and you like to blitz, sometimes you're just going to get burned.S197 wrote:I think part of it is the style of defense that's utilized. It's a defense that is very aggressive, which entails high risk. This magnifies any poor play call or player out of position. You're going to see a good defense the majority of the time but you're also going to see a defense that gets beat in certain circumstances. I don't think this will ever change under Zimmer, he might be able to reduce the amount of volatility to some degree but it's always going to be a defense that takes chances and with those risks come both high rewards but also failures.
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3836
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
- Location: Coon Rapids, MN
- x 117
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
The biggest problem they had late in the season was that their margin for error was almost zero. The offense was giving them next to nothing. Consider that in most of our wins, it required a score in the return game or from the defense to cement the victory. That level of offensive play, as detailed here relentlessly was/is pathetic.
Did they come out and play poorly at times? Absolutely. Did they surrender some 4th quarter leads? Yes. But it wouldn't have mattered nearly as much if the offense would have turned around and made even 5 extra plays in some of those games. That would mean they are on the field for one less series, they get a few extra minutes to relax, more time on the sidelines to adjust, etc. etc. etc. None of this is rocket science.
A fun exercise, related to this debate:
How much better would the Vikings offense have been if TJ Clemmings (and his unique "ability" to sabotage drives) was replaced with the 20th best LT in the league? One player isn't the solution? Probably not, but i think people are undervaluing just how terrible #68 was last season. His mistakes were all magnified by the fact that the rest of the offense just wasn't good enough to over come them. I bet if fix that one position and it would probably eliminate at least 1 3 & out per game, add 2-3 minutes to TOP, and maybe even add 2-3PPG. That alone dramatically changes the dynamic of how a lot of the games played last year turned out. It probably would have beaten Dallas and as well as winning one of the DET games. How much does that change the conversation on the defense?
If they have to keep the defense exactly the same to address the situation at Tackle then that better be what they do. If they go into next year with the same mess at Tackle then it won't matter if even Aaron Donald signs with us.
Did they come out and play poorly at times? Absolutely. Did they surrender some 4th quarter leads? Yes. But it wouldn't have mattered nearly as much if the offense would have turned around and made even 5 extra plays in some of those games. That would mean they are on the field for one less series, they get a few extra minutes to relax, more time on the sidelines to adjust, etc. etc. etc. None of this is rocket science.
A fun exercise, related to this debate:
How much better would the Vikings offense have been if TJ Clemmings (and his unique "ability" to sabotage drives) was replaced with the 20th best LT in the league? One player isn't the solution? Probably not, but i think people are undervaluing just how terrible #68 was last season. His mistakes were all magnified by the fact that the rest of the offense just wasn't good enough to over come them. I bet if fix that one position and it would probably eliminate at least 1 3 & out per game, add 2-3 minutes to TOP, and maybe even add 2-3PPG. That alone dramatically changes the dynamic of how a lot of the games played last year turned out. It probably would have beaten Dallas and as well as winning one of the DET games. How much does that change the conversation on the defense?
If they have to keep the defense exactly the same to address the situation at Tackle then that better be what they do. If they go into next year with the same mess at Tackle then it won't matter if even Aaron Donald signs with us.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
No, it's not but nobody is arguing that more production from the offense wouldn't have helped the defense in some capacity. I simply took issue with your assertion that the offense was the biggest source of the Vikings defensive inconsistency.mansquatch wrote:The biggest problem they had late in the season was that their margin for error was almost zero. The offense was giving them next to nothing. Consider that in most of our wins, it required a score in the return game or from the defense to cement the victory. That level of offensive play, as detailed here relentlessly was/is pathetic.
Did they come out and play poorly at times? Absolutely. Did they surrender some 4th quarter leads? Yes. But it wouldn't have mattered nearly as much if the offense would have turned around and made even 5 extra plays in some of those games. That would mean they are on the field for one less series, they get a few extra minutes to relax, more time on the sidelines to adjust, etc. etc. etc. None of this is rocket science.
Fortunately, they don't have to do that.If they have to keep the defense exactly the same to address the situation at Tackle then that better be what they do.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 9241
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
- Location: Watertown, NY
- x 1117
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
No it's just obvious needs right now which they are going to assess. I would hope there is no "deal for a RB". We need to draft one. I'm sure they will assess OL in both FA and draftchicagopurple wrote:Shurmur made some comments today about how the '17 offense will be different and more effective in the running game. Not sure how that will happen without some quality at OL AND a RB change......I wonder if this implies any real news, ie a deal for RB or free agent OL.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
-Chazz Palminteri
-
- Starting Wide Receiver
- Posts: 19150
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Crystal, MN
- x 114
- Contact:
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
What was odd is the defense seemed to "fall apart" when Sendejo got hurt. He made the INT in Philly and hurt himself on the return if I recall correctly, and things weren't the same after that. I wonder if some players had to overcompensate or try to figure out different players around them and that affected things? Smith and Sendejo sure seemed to be playing well together. Harris and Kearse were not nearly as effective as Sendejo was.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I think the problem with the Defense was a combination of things.
It hurt the D not having Floyd all season long.
Another thing was stupid penalties or questionable penalties called againest us.
Couple times 3rd and 4 and Griffen jumped offsides. Giving the other team a first down only to continue a drive that gave up points.
Greenaway didn't have the speed to cover TE & RB's - Colts game in particular
Barr not having a good year.
And the younger players giving up some big plays.
It all adds up.
It hurt the D not having Floyd all season long.
Another thing was stupid penalties or questionable penalties called againest us.
Couple times 3rd and 4 and Griffen jumped offsides. Giving the other team a first down only to continue a drive that gave up points.
Greenaway didn't have the speed to cover TE & RB's - Colts game in particular
Barr not having a good year.
And the younger players giving up some big plays.
It all adds up.
- VikingPaul73
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3371
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
- x 141
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
I agree. Now is this because sendejo is better than we give him credit for? Or is it that Harris and Kearse were so God-awful that their drop-off from a slightly below average sendejo is obvious?????PurpleMustReign wrote:What was odd is the defense seemed to "fall apart" when Sendejo got hurt. He made the INT in Philly and hurt himself on the return if I recall correctly, and things weren't the same after that. I wonder if some players had to overcompensate or try to figure out different players around them and that affected things? Smith and Sendejo sure seemed to be playing well together. Harris and Kearse were not nearly as effective as Sendejo was.
Sort of like replacing Kalil with TJ Clemmings
-
- Starting Wide Receiver
- Posts: 19150
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Crystal, MN
- x 114
- Contact:
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
Sendejo has turned into a pretty decent safety. Harris isn't bad, and Kearse was a 6th round rookie, so you can't expect much from him.VikingPaul73 wrote: I agree. Now is this because sendejo is better than we give him credit for? Or is it that Harris and Kearse were so God-awful that their drop-off from a slightly below average sendejo is obvious?????
Sort of like replacing Kalil with TJ Clemmings
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3836
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
- Location: Coon Rapids, MN
- x 117
Re: O-line changes have begun -- Vikes release Fusco, Harris
The Safeties in question are young. It is the same reason Waynes and Alexander do not see more significant playing time. Mistakes in the secondary can be very costly in the NFL, plus the HC has extremely low tolerance for them, thus the young guys sit. I suspect much of Treadwell's issues are in a similar vein. We saw an example in the Dallas game where he ran a total boneheaded route and cost them in the red zone.
On a side note: If Waynes can learn to stop being so grabby he is going to be an incredible CB. He seems capable of playing even tighter coverage that Rhodes.
On a side note: If Waynes can learn to stop being so grabby he is going to be an incredible CB. He seems capable of playing even tighter coverage that Rhodes.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi