Vikings Message Board.Com

halfgiz wrote:The #Vikings entered OTAs with nine O-linemen with at least 16 starts. With Andre Smith gone, they're down to four. strib.mn/2dHbFRt

Yikes. And Boone missed half of the CAR game.

Boon wrote:Dude really just say to trade Barr? rofl

This deserves a second chuckle. Trade Barr, really?!?!?!?

Let us once again travel down memory lane...

Going into this season it was expected we'd get back Loadholt, have Mike Harris at guard, Sullivan would return, we picked up Alex Boone, and Kalil was finally healthy. In 2015 we had Kalil-Fusco-Berger-Harris-Clemmings as our OL. In 2016 it was supposed to be Kalil-Boone-Sullivan-Harris/Fusco-Loadholt. By week 1 Loadholt and Sullivan were not in the NFL anymore. Harris is off doing the Dimitrius Underwood routine and we have Kalil-Boone-Berger-Fusco-Smith. Into the Bye it is now Clemmings-Boone-Berger-Fusco-Sirles. Note that we also switched OL coaches.

2015
Coach: Davidson
Kalil-Fusco-Berger-Harris-Clemmings

2016
Coach Sparano (new)
Kalil-Boone (new) - Berger - Fusco (Changed sides) - Smith (new)

So to start the season we had 2 new players that were not on the roster in 2015 as well as a new coach and a player (Fusco) who went back to playing RG from LG. Only Kalil and Berger were static from the year before. Out of 6 positions (if you count the coach), 4 changed or 66%. That is A LOT of change.

The real question is what happens as teams start to game plan Sirles/Clemmings after a few more games. That typically is the difference between a backup and a starter. The starter can continue to get results after teams game plan him. Clemmings wasn't up to that last year, but the left side is more his natural position. I expect in his case we'll start to maybe miss Kalil a bit. This also is why I'm guessing they had Jake Long in. Maybe it is a case where Long's defects are less painful than Sirles in competitive play.

Tackle was always the soft spot in the 2016 group and it turned up lame.

It seems to me that the interior OL has made a lot of strides from their lowpoint in week 2 when Daniel manhandled Fusco. They have firmed up and gotten better. We seem to forget that before his torn pec 3 years ago, some considered Fusco our best OL. He hasn't lived up to that, but they didn't give him a nice contract for nothing. he has some talent, so lets see if he can put it together. Tackle remains an open question, but has been better since the week 2 low point. I'm not as confident in this group maintaining a competitive level of play. It is worth reminding folks that this OL was as bad or worse last year and we still made the playoffs. This year it has gone through probably it's toughest defensive gauntlet in GB-CAR-HOU and came out 3-0.

Time will tell.

mansquatch wrote: This deserves a second chuckle. Trade Barr, really?!?!?!?

Let us once again travel down memory lane...

Going into this season it was expected we'd get back Loadholt, have Mike Harris at guard, Sullivan would return, we picked up Alex Boone, and Kalil was finally healthy. In 2015 we had Kalil-Fusco-Berger-Harris-Clemmings as our OL. In 2016 it was supposed to be Kalil-Boone-Sullivan-Harris/Fusco-Loadholt. By week 1 Loadholt and Sullivan were not in the NFL anymore. Harris is off doing the Dimitrius Underwood routine and we have Kalil-Boone-Berger-Fusco-Smith. Into the Bye it is now Clemmings-Boone-Berger-Fusco-Sirles. Note that we also switched OL coaches.

2015
Coach: Davidson
Kalil-Fusco-Berger-Harris-Clemmings

2016
Coach Sparano (new)
Kalil-Boone (new) - Berger - Fusco (Changed sides) - Smith (new)

So to start the season we had 2 new players that were not on the roster in 2015 as well as a new coach and a player (Fusco) who went back to playing RG from LG. Only Kalil and Berger were static from the year before. Out of 6 positions (if you count the coach), 4 changed or 66%. That is A LOT of change.

The real question is what happens as teams start to game plan Sirles/Clemmings after a few more games. That typically is the difference between a backup and a starter. The starter can continue to get results after teams game plan him. Clemmings wasn't up to that last year, but the left side is more his natural position. I expect in his case we'll start to maybe miss Kalil a bit. This also is why I'm guessing they had Jake Long in. Maybe it is a case where Long's defects are less painful than Sirles in competitive play.

Tackle was always the soft spot in the 2016 group and it turned up lame.

It seems to me that the interior OL has made a lot of strides from their lowpoint in week 2 when Daniel manhandled Fusco. They have firmed up and gotten better. We seem to forget that before his torn pec 3 years ago, some considered Fusco our best OL. He hasn't lived up to that, but they didn't give him a nice contract for nothing. he has some talent, so lets see if he can put it together. Tackle remains an open question, but has been better since the week 2 low point. I'm not as confident in this group maintaining a competitive level of play. It is worth reminding folks that this OL was as bad or worse last year and we still made the playoffs. This year it has gone through probably it's toughest defensive gauntlet in GB-CAR-HOU and came out 3-0.

Time will tell.

*shouts into the void*

How is left tackle Clemmings' "natural position"??!?!?

I've read that in places where they say that is what he is used to playing. Note that just because he is used to playing that side (maybe he is left handed?) that doesn't mean he is effective at the NFL level.

If Jake Long starts, does he start at RT or LT?

mansquatch wrote: This deserves a second chuckle. Trade Barr, really?!?!?!?

Let us once again travel down memory lane...

Going into this season it was expected we'd get back Loadholt, have Mike Harris at guard, Sullivan would return, we picked up Alex Boone, and Kalil was finally healthy. In 2015 we had Kalil-Fusco-Berger-Harris-Clemmings as our OL. In 2016 it was supposed to be Kalil-Boone-Sullivan-Harris/Fusco-Loadholt. By week 1 Loadholt and Sullivan were not in the NFL anymore. Harris is off doing the Dimitrius Underwood routine and we have Kalil-Boone-Berger-Fusco-Smith. Into the Bye it is now Clemmings-Boone-Berger-Fusco-Sirles. Note that we also switched OL coaches.

2015
Coach: Davidson
Kalil-Fusco-Berger-Harris-Clemmings

2016
Coach Sparano (new)
Kalil-Boone (new) - Berger - Fusco (Changed sides) - Smith (new)

So to start the season we had 2 new players that were not on the roster in 2015 as well as a new coach and a player (Fusco) who went back to playing RG from LG. Only Kalil and Berger were static from the year before. Out of 6 positions (if you count the coach), 4 changed or 66%. That is A LOT of change.

The real question is what happens as teams start to game plan Sirles/Clemmings after a few more games. That typically is the difference between a backup and a starter. The starter can continue to get results after teams game plan him. Clemmings wasn't up to that last year, but the left side is more his natural position. I expect in his case we'll start to maybe miss Kalil a bit. This also is why I'm guessing they had Jake Long in. Maybe it is a case where Long's defects are less painful than Sirles in competitive play.

Tackle was always the soft spot in the 2016 group and it turned up lame.

It seems to me that the interior OL has made a lot of strides from their lowpoint in week 2 when Daniel manhandled Fusco. They have firmed up and gotten better. We seem to forget that before his torn pec 3 years ago, some considered Fusco our best OL. He hasn't lived up to that, but they didn't give him a nice contract for nothing. he has some talent, so lets see if he can put it together. Tackle remains an open question, but has been better since the week 2 low point. I'm not as confident in this group maintaining a competitive level of play. It is worth reminding folks that this OL was as bad or worse last year and we still made the playoffs.

... and lost a game in which the Seahawks defense dominated the Vikings OL.

I don't think anybody has forgotten that Fusco had one good season but that was 3 years ago now. You're right that there's been a lot of change on the line but it's the wisdom of the team's choices that's been in question and addressed in detail here on the board. This line looks like another botched job in an area of the team that has been problematic for years.

mansquatch wrote:I've read that in places where they say that is what he is used to playing. Note that just because he is used to playing that side (maybe he is left handed?) that doesn't mean he is effective at the NFL level

He was converted from a DL position to RT, and he played on the right side in college so I'm not sure when he ever played LT or how he would have become accustomed to that position. He came into the league as a "green" RT, needing a lot of development.

If Jake Long starts, does he start at RT or LT?

LT.

Mothman wrote:
... and lost a game in which the Seahawks defense dominated the Vikings OL.

I don't think anybody has forgotten that Fusco had one good season but that was 3 years ago now. You're right that there's been a lot of change on the line but it's the wisdom of the team's choices that's been in question and addressed in detail here on the board. This line looks like another botched job in an area of the team that has been problematic for years.

They lost that game after TB made plays and put them in a position to kick a winning field goal. Walsh missed said field goal. OL wasn't great, but they were in a position to win it despite that issue.

Aside from signing Jake Long, what are they going to do about it right now?

While neglecting OL they also succeeded in building an elite defense. Another angle on this might be that they were willing to gamble with a weak OL in favor of a dominant defense. Everyone knows the OL sucks, but at the same time they are 5-0. That would seem to vindicate the gamble would it not?

As I've brought up many times before, in terms of the draft if they pick an OL "sooner" that means they don't pick someone else. Is that someone else Barr, Kendricks, Floyd, Rhodes, Waynes, Treadwell? The CP84 trade is probably fair to criticize. One could also argue the FA signings, but most of the guys they've passed on got enormous contracts. Maybe it is AP's fault with his contract? Maybe they've over committed to WR talent? (I think this point is arguable)

No one is denying that they've done poorly in addressing this unit, but personnel is all about opportunity cost. What should they have not done in order to add to the OL? Would the team be better without that piece and instead having better blocking? I'm not so certain of that.

mansquatch wrote:They lost that game after TB made plays and put them in a position to kick a winning field goal. Walsh missed said field goal. OL wasn't great, but they were in a position to win it despite that issue.

That rather misses the point.

I wouldn't say the OL was as bad or worse last year either. It's worse this season.

Aside from signing Jake Long, what are they going to do about it right now?

While neglecting OL they also succeeded in building an elite defense. Another angle on this might be that they were willing to gamble with a weak OL in favor of a dominant defense. Everyone knows the OL sucks, but at the same time they are 5-0. That would seem to vindicate the gamble would it not?

I don't think so. As Vikings players have been saying, 4-0 or 5-0 wins you nothing.

They've never faced an either/or choice between building a dominant defense and building the OL. They aren't mutually exclusive options.

As I've brought up many times before, in terms of the draft if they pick an OL "sooner" that means they don't pick someone else. Is that someone else Barr, Kendricks, Floyd, Rhodes, Waynes, Treadwell?

Maybe it is... as I've said many times in response to that argument: so what? The OL is important. Games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage. How crucial have Floyd or Treadwell or Alexander been this year?

The CP84 trade is probably fair to criticize. One could also argue the FA signings, but most of the guys they've passed on got enormous contracts. Maybe it is AP's fault with his contract? Maybe they've over committed to WR talent? (I think this point is arguable)

It's not AP's fault. He has nothing to do with it, aside from being a good reason the Vikes should have been more focused on building a better line over the past decade.

No one is denying that they've done poorly in addressing this unit, but personnel is all about opportunity cost. What should they have not done in order to add to the OL?

I keep having to answer that same question.

The simple answer is: they should have made a greater commitment to building a better o-line.

They could have handled any number of things differently over the years, from expending at least some draft picks higher than 4th rounders on o-lineman (Kalil remains the lone exception since Loadholt was drafted) to their use of free agency, to their approach to player development. Patterson remains a great illustration of missed opportunity because not only did they trade multiple picks to draft him but they didn't sufficiently commit to following through and developing him. If they had, maybe they wouldn't have felt the need to invest a first round pick in Treadwell, who is now languishing at the bottom of the depth chart as a rookie anyway. Those choices alone represent what, 5 draft picks?

I don't want to get bogged down in that same tired argument again. Better and/or different choices in some areas could have opened up more opportunities to build the line and there have been opportunities anyway.

As I said, it's just a botched job.

Jim, I'm sorry but the point about Opportunity Cost is highly relevant. They have limited resources in the form of draft picks and salary cap. The current roster reflects those decisions. Criticizing those decisions is completely fair. However, my point is that if they were to do things differently and say put a greater focus on OL then that means they do not allocate their resources somewhere else. In the case of the Vikings that is most likely Defense. Are we as good if we lack one of the Defensive players we've added in the past three years and replace with another linemen? I'm not sold on that at all.

Spielman and co have set a table where the team has invested most of it's talent acquisition resources in top Defensive Talent and Offensive Skill Players. In order to over weight the defense they have chosen to neglect OL to an extent. that is the backdrop over the past 3 years. This season they set out to "address the issue" and as a result they added Boone and Smith. They also replaced Davidson with Sparano as coach.

Boone still needs to justify his contract.
Fusco has markedly improved since week 2
Berger has shown to be solid at Center.
Kalil and Smith are on IR - Note this was not predictable.

So of the fixes done, the coach has gotten performance out of Fusco lately and Berger is shown to be good. Boone has yet to prove his value. The Tackles are both on IR which is not the fault of the GM or the Coaching staff. You can blast them for depth, but please, which team in the NFL is going to handle losing both tackles better than the Vikings have handled it?

Ultimately, to me the question of the "job" they've done on OL is whether or not the decision to over weight the other areas pays off. Denver had a terrible OL last year just as we did, and also not the best running game. They won the SB. Obviously our OL is not great and even bad. But is it really an achilles heal? We've played against two of the best front sevens in the NFL and beat the crap out of them. That seems to fly in the face of the achilles heal argument.

mansquatch wrote:Jim, I'm sorry but the point about Opportunity Cost is highly relevant. They have limited resources in the form of draft picks and salary cap. The current roster reflects those decisions. Criticizing those decisions is completely fair. However, my point is that if they were to do things differently and say put a greater focus on OL then that means they do not allocate their resources somewhere else. In the case of the Vikings that is most likely Defense. Are we as good if we lack one of the Defensive players we've added in the past three years and replace with another linemen? I'm not sold on that at all.

Spielman and co have set a table where the team has invested most of it's talent acquisition resources in top Defensive Talent and Offensive Skill Players. In order to over weight the defense they have chosen to neglect OL to an extent. that is the backdrop over the past 3 years. This season they set out to "address the issue" and as a result they added Boone and Smith. They also replaced Davidson with Sparano as coach.

Boone still needs to justify his contract.
Fusco has markedly improved since week 2
Berger has shown to be solid at Center.
Kalil and Smith are on IR - Note this was not predictable.

So of the fixes done, the coach has gotten performance out of Fusco lately and Berger is shown to be good. Boone has yet to prove his value. The Tackles are both on IR which is not the fault of the GM or the Coaching staff. You can blast them for depth, but please, which team in the NFL is going to handle losing both tackles better than the Vikings have handled it?

Ultimately, to me the question of the "job" they've done on OL is whether or not the decision to over weight the other areas pays off. Denver had a terrible OL last year just as we did, and also not the best running game. They won the SB. Obviously our OL is not great and even bad. But is it really an achilles heal? We've played against two of the best front sevens in the NFL and beat the crap out of them. That seems to fly in the face of the achilles heal argument.

Furthermore they are making it work, per several other posts. The OL isn't good independently, but the offense they have developed and the protection schemes they have created are actually working out pretty well. I know it not the answer that anyone wants but the truth is that the Vikings are shooting for "good enough" at OL and "Dominate" at Defense as a whole. It can be argued whether or not this is the best strategy but as mansquatch said; Average to slightly below average OLs have been part of superbowl winning teams before. I know I am going to be roasted got for this but saying that "Olines win championships" or "The game is won in the trenches" is just one philosophy regarding football. It is not the definitive end all be all of how to build a Superbowl winning team or even a dynasty. It very well is a strategy and some crazy good teams/dynasties have had good to great Oline play. But many winners have average to supbar OL play but excel at other facets (in some rare cases every other facet) of the game.

I do hope that they focus on the Oline this Offseason, as weird as it is to say, I believe its our only serious need, but while the path they took can be criticized its clear they did make decisions that played to the strengths of what they had and built from there.

supporting Speilman on his OL performance is a joke....
1. Fusco is not "markedly improved"...he is, and always will be nothing more then a journeyman player who would never be a starter on a contender. He is a known quantity that should not have been projected asa starter for another season.
2. Kalil is injured, Kalil is always injured, and when he isnt injured he is a liability on the field that, once again, should never have been projected as a starter on a contender. Speilman refuses to move on from a failed pick like Kalil.
3. Stussy had a very serious back problem and wasnt ever going to play a full season, let alone play at a high level..again, should NOT have been projected as a starter, a critical starter , on a contender.
4. Loadholt, you COULD make a case for planning on his return but that was iffy and he had a record of injuries.

ALL of the above facts meant that Spielman was obliged to start grooming replacements for the last 2 years and he had succeeded in next to nothing on the OL with very little real efforts made. Clemmings was a gamble that hasnt paid off. At least he tried in that one instance...........

mansquatch wrote:Jim, I'm sorry but the point about Opportunity Cost is highly relevant. They have limited resources in the form of draft picks and salary cap. The current roster reflects those decisions. Criticizing those decisions is completely fair. However, my point is that if they were to do things differently and say put a greater focus on OL then that means they do not allocate their resources somewhere else. In the case of the Vikings that is most likely Defense. Are we as good if we lack one of the Defensive players we've added in the past three years and replace with another linemen? I'm not sold on that at all.

Well, they're the #1 scoring defense in the league right now without Floyd, although he wasn't drafted in the last 3 drafts. Do they need Scott Crichton or MacKensie Alexander or for that matter, even Danielle Hunter to be a successful defense? I'm not saying players like Alexander or Hunter were bad picks. I love their potential and hunter's contributions but they aren't absolutely essential to the team's success on defense. Treadwell's not even a factor on offense. That's 4 players from the first 3 rounds of the last 3 drafts, 5 from the last 4. They couldn't afford to miss out on one of them to pick an o-lineman?

I don't think your point about opportunity cost is irrelevant. I'm just okay with the idea of different choices. Utilizing the resources they've had differently could have yielded different results and it could have provided more opportunities too. The 2013 draft illustrates that clearly.

Spielman and co have set a table where the team has invested most of it's talent acquisition resources in top Defensive Talent and Offensive Skill Players. In order to over weight the defense they have chosen to neglect OL to an extent. that is the backdrop over the past 3 years. This season they set out to "address the issue" and as a result they added Boone and Smith. They also replaced Davidson with Sparano as coach

... and in setting out to address the issue, they spent their first 2 draft picks on players they aren't playing. Smith was a stopgap choice in free agency coming off two sub-par seasons. He solved and solves little.

I'm not convinced the Davidson for Sparano exchange was even wise. Sparano's spent little actual time as an OL coach in his NFL career, although that doesn't mean he doesn't know the job. I've just never been clear on why he was supposed to be an upgrade and thus far, what we've seen has been a downgrade in OL performance although, admittedly, it's early.

So of the fixes done, the coach has gotten performance out of Fusco lately and Berger is shown to be good. Boone has yet to prove his value.

The Tackles are both on IR which is not the fault of the GM or the Coaching staff. You can blast them for depth, but please, which team in the NFL is going to handle losing both tackles better than the Vikings have handled it?

Any team with better backups?

Come on, enough with the excuses. They went into the season with Clemmings as the primary backup at tackle and he stunk last season. Surprise! He still stinks. How is that okay after an offseason in which the team, and everybody else, knew they needed to improve the OL and after a season in which Clemmings was terrible at right tackle? They looked as bad with Smith as they have without him so they don't get any sympathy points for that loss because I think they blew it from the start(er).

Ultimately, to me the question of the "job" they've done on OL is whether or not the decision to over weight the other areas pays off. Denver had a terrible OL last year just as we did, and also not the best running game. They won the SB. Obviously our OL is not great and even bad. But is it really an achilles heal?

Yes, I believe so. Whether it proves enough of one to keep them out of the Super Bowl remains to be seen and if they do win it all this season, I'll be ecstatic and more than happy to acknowledge that their plan paid off but right now, I think their 5-0 record is earning them a lot of forgiveness and Bradford is covering up a lot of warts. They are very lucky he was available, even though at a high cost, or I doubt they'd be 5-0 and that line might look like a much bigger concern to forgiving Vikes fans.

We've played against two of the best front sevens in the NFL and beat the crap out of them. That seems to fly in the face of the achilles heal argument.

It doesn't. You're conflating game results with o-line results. The Vikings o-line hasn't "beat the crap" out of any opponent this season. In fact, the Texans front 7 (I assume that's one of the units you were referring to) clearly got the better of that matchup.

Where it could prove to be a costly achilles heel is if/when the Vikes come up against a team that matches up sufficiently well with them. The Packers were almost that team in week 2 and the Vikes could definitely encounter teams like that in the postseason. Heck, they might be facing one after the bye, although I hope not.

Time will tell.

IrishViking wrote:Furthermore they are making it work, per several other posts. The OL isn't good independently, but the offense they have developed and the protection schemes they have created are actually working out pretty well. I know it not the answer that anyone wants but the truth is that the Vikings are shooting for "good enough" at OL and "Dominate" at Defense as a whole. It can be argued whether or not this is the best strategy but as mansquatch said; Average to slightly below average OLs have been part of superbowl winning teams before. I know I am going to be roasted got for this but saying that "Olines win championships" or "The game is won in the trenches" is just one philosophy regarding football. It is not the definitive end all be all of how to build a Superbowl winning team or even a dynasty. It very well is a strategy and some crazy good teams/dynasties have had good to great Oline play. But many winners have average to supbar OL play but excel at other facets (in some rare cases every other facet) of the game.

"The game is won in the trenches" is not a reference to o-line play but to line play. It's not the equivalent of "o-lines win championships". It's about winning at the line of scrimmage and refers to both offense and defense. It's pretty much a fundamental truth in football and exceptions are exceedingly rare.

Nobody is saying this OL will prevent them from winning the Super Bowl, only that it makes the task more difficult and that it could, and should, have been addressed more effectively,

IMO the Treadwell pick was the head scratching move. I never understood why they were going WR in last year's draft. We have a player like CP84 who is struggling to get snaps, plus Diggs, CJ, and Thielen. Not exactly hurting in this area. IMO, they should have gone OL or S with that pick, but hind sight is 20/20. It is quite possible that Thielen was a surprise and they obviously weren't high on CP84 since they didn't pick up his 5th year option. Still, even in spite of that, the WR group had much better depth than OL.

This kind of gets back to my previous points though. I think there is a pattern here where they are just not that willing to invest top picks in OL. That might change after this season given the dire straits at Tackle.

mansquatch wrote:IMO the Treadwell pick was the head scratching move. I never understood why they were going WR in last year's draft. We have a player like CP84 who is struggling to get snaps, plus Diggs, CJ, and Thielen. Not exactly hurting in this area. IMO, they should have gone OL or S with that pick, but hind sight is 20/20. It is quite possible that Thielen was a surprise and they obviously weren't high on CP84 since they didn't pick up his 5th year option. Still, even in spite of that, the WR group had much better depth than OL.

This kind of gets back to my previous points though. I think there is a pattern here where they are just not that willing to invest top picks in OL.

I agree with you. There is a pattern and it extends back quite far. I think that's why many of us have been hard on the team about it. It's certainly why I have because I think the problem has much more to do with a failed strategy than bad luck (even though there's been some of that too).

That might change after this season given the dire straits at Tackle.

I sure hope so but it shouldn't have taken dire straits to force the issue.

Anyway, hopefully, they'll continue finding ways to win even with their OL problems.