Vikings Message Board.Com

I agree, solid post Kapp. I have enjoyed reading your exchange with Moth and I found myself nodding along with everything you wrote. I'd buy you a beer and toast to our Vikes, if I could!

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I disagree. Offense, yeah Seattle's was better but this is something guys on here have been talking about. Seattle's offense was middle of the road to a little above average in the main categories:

-19th in the NFL in points (we were 23rd). Not a big difference there.
-12th in yards (we were 28th). Big difference
-10th in passing yards (we were 18th). Not a huge difference
-25th in rushing yards (we were 32nd). Even though both were bad, still not a big difference.

Point being...just like Kapp said, by improving in these areas, we really aren't that far off at all from what Seattle did offensively. We don't need to improve drastically (in rushing, yeah) but overall its not some crazy jump we need to make. I feel like we've made steps in the right direction in doing so already this offseason and still have the draft.


As for defense, Seattle's defense is still very good but to say we are "nowhere near" dominant is false. A lot of guys like to hinge on the Indy and GB losses. We gave up 38 vs. GB. Well so did Seattle. Got killed 38-10. So vs. GB that is a wash. So essentially our defense had one more BAD game than Seattle's did. Not only that, but our defense outranked them in 2 out of 4 of those main categories.

-We were 6th in points (Seattle was 3rd). Not a big difference
-3rd in yards (Seattle was 5th). Not a big difference
-3rd in passing yards (Seattle was 8th). Not a huge difference
-20th in rushing yards (Seattle was 7th). Big difference. However, when you look into it, Seattle allowed 93 yards per game, we allowed 106. And I'm sure if you took Jordan Howards first game out of there, we are very close to Seattle.

Either way, we were 3rd in total defense. Seattle was 7th. Seattle's defense was elite a few years ago but it has tailed off a little compared to what it was and guys are starting to get old, especially in the back end and pass rushers.

Overall, these stats prove that we aren't really that far off of what Seattle has and are better in some areas on the defensive side of the ball. What Kapp, myself and a few others have been saying on here is if we can get better protection from the OL and in turn establish a run game, plus continue great play on defense which I feel we will, this team could be a regular playoff team year after year. No less, we still have the draft to come and can continue to improve on the offensive and defensive side of the ball. Either way, yes Seattles offense is better but by making the right changes, I don't see us being far off them and so far, I feel we've done that. And our defense is definitely up there as one of the best in the league. There is no question about that.

You're comparing the two 2016 teams but I think the original point was about Seattle's Super Bowl-winning team, not their 2016 team.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Thank you for not flaming. Sorry ... I've been working 70 hours a week and just had my first day off in a month.

I understand. I have a lot of months like that...

I get that we haven't been very good over the past, well, couple of decades. Like you, Jim, I grew up with the Vikings winning the division every single year. This sucks.

But here's the weird thing ... I'm also a Cubs fan (not that weird, I guess, since the Iowa Cubs are right here where I live) and I waited my entire life for last season. Never lost optimism, even though most of the years I've been alive, they've had no shot. Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment. Or maybe it's the Cub fan in me that's not afraid to say, "Wait until next year." I don't know.

Leadership is everything, no matter the organization. We saw with Childress that you can overcome a crappy leader, but not for very long. My personal opinion is that we have an excellent head coach in Mike Zimmer who is only going to get better. I honestly believe we're in really good hands. Let's not forget that the man also has had four eye surgeries (or however many it is) and went through a LOT last year in his personal life. He'd never, ever use it as an excuse, so I'll do it for him. The man lost his wife not that long ago, and has had the eye trouble, but he also has legions of players all over the league who would run through a cinder-block wall for him. So for me, Zim is the man to lead us.

On the other hand, I just don't know about Spielman. Sometimes he seems incredibly shrewd, especially on draft day. But some of his moves, shrewd as they seem at the time, haven't worked out. And the O-line has been an issue since the days of Randall McDaniel. Spielman deserves heavy criticism for that. On the other hand, I think his acquisition of Sam Bradford was a great move. Some will disagree, but I thought it was a stroke of genius. We paid a first-round draft choice for Bradford -- what are the odds we could have drafted a quarterback who's as good as Bradford was last year? Especially this draft class, where there may be NO viable quarterback options. It's a mixed bag with Rick.

It's a very mixed bag and I see that as increasingly problematic because if the Vikings are going to get where they need to go, I think that needs to change. Spielman needs a higher percentage of his decisions to work out favorably if the Vikes are ever going to win a championship on his watch.

As for Zimmer: I like quite a bit about the man but the kind of inner strength and leadership that inspires fierce loyalty is only part of what makes a great head coach. He needs to improve in other areas and one thing I like about him is I suspect he'd be the first to admit it. That gives me hope. It also bring me to your next point...

Overall, I just want the Vikings to have a plan and stick to it, especially on offense. If they're going to go with Pat Shurmur as OC, then they need to go all-in. They need to acquire and draft players who fit what he does. That's why I give the Murray signing a thumbs-up. I think he's the right kind of player for Shurmur's offense, where he might NOT have been the right kind of player for Bill Musgrave's offense in Oakland.

As for AP, it sucks to see him go out this way, but the fact that he hasn't made a single visit to any team tells me that the Vikings were right in cutting ties. As the Patriots have shown over and over, a team is always better off dropping the sentimentality and doing what's necessary.

I have a pretty different view of this but I won't elaborate on it unless someone wants me to go into more detail. Suffice to say, I'm not surprised that Peterson's still unsigned or that he hasn't had many visits yet (he's had one). His current situation doesn't affirm for me that the Vikings made the right move. It speaks to market forces, age and baggage but I don't think it says much about his actual potential value to a team as a football player in 2017. That will be determined on the field and I have a feeling he's still capable of playing at a pretty high level.

As for the offense: they definitely need to have a vision for it and seriously commit to making that vision work. I'm not convinced the hiring and subsequent promotion of Shurmur reflects that or is indicative of commitment to a better offense in the long term but we'll see. Hopefully, Shurmur's learned enough over his last few stops to be able to elevate the offense well beyond where it's been in recent years and hopefully, he'll have the personnel to do it.

Finally, Remmers and Reiff aren't all-pros, but they're solid veterans who still have plenty of tread on the tires. To expect the Vikings to go from dumpster fire to an O-line full of Pro Bowlers in a single season is pretty unrealistic. Especially when league average gets us in the playoffs. We just need IMPROVEMENT.

This is where we really differ. I also get the impression much of the board has misunderstood my comments on this subject. I had no expectation the Vikes would be able to take their o-line from dumpster fire to Pro Bowl-caliber in a single offseason. I understand building a top-notch line takes time and that's one of the reasons I've been aggravated to see the line moving in the opposite direction for years now.

I don't think they just need improvement. I think they need significant improvement. Reiff and Remmers are necessary steps along the way but only because the line was allowed to become a dumpster fire in the first place. They represent improvement over last year but the bar needs to be set higher than that and they're coming at a very hefty price for solid veterans (I'm not sure I'd even apply that description to Remmers). That doesn't mean they're bad signings. I'm not even criticizing the team for signing them because they put themselves in a position where they had to make moves like this. I'm just not convinced either is a long-term solution. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way but when last year's line was historically awful, I think the standard needs to be higher than "better than last year".

Anyway, that's my take. I don't mind the moves. They're not splashy moves that make headlines. But I think they improve our offense, and with our defense, that might just be good enough, at least to get into the playoffs.

I hope so. I don't mind the moves either. I don't care if they're splashy or not. I'm just trying to keep them in perspective and "good enough to get to the playoffs" just isn't what I'm looking for from this team at this point. One of the issues I have with both Spielman and the Vikings is they seem far too willing to settle for "good enough". I think that's been strongly reflected in the way they've done business since Spielman joined the team.

We're clearly in different places when it comes to the Vikes. I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of optimism about them. I haven't lost hope but I have lost that sense of optimism. I understand how to fit the pieces together to paint an optimistic picture of the team's immediate future and I can see other fans here doing it but I'm not going to force that viewpoint on myself. The team's going to have to bring it out of me. They've done it before and I'm sure they'll do it again.

Mothman wrote:I don't think they just need improvement. I think they need significant improvement. Reiff and Remmers are necessary steps along the way but only because the line was allowed to become a dumpster fire in the first place. They represent improvement over last year but the bar needs to be set higher than that and they're coming at a very hefty price for solid veterans (I'm not sure I'd even apply that description to Remmers). That doesn't mean they're bad signings. I'm not even criticizing the team for signing them because they put themselves in a position where they had to make moves like this. I'm just not convinced either is a long-term solution. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way but when last year's line was historically awful, I think the standard needs to be higher than "better than last year".

Well said. As for me, where I think I disagree with many on the board is I feel the entire offensive line needs replacing and/or more decent depth. Every single position. I don't base this just on last season, not when the team dedicated years into making the OL seem as if it was an afterthought. Reiff and Remmers are improvements but no way should they be viewed as the solution by fans, particularly in Remmers' case.

I realize this may come off as harsh but we've seen anemic offensive production from this team on many levels. That includes pitiful blocking from the OL. I don't believe it ever had to get so bad.

losperros wrote: Well said. As for me, where I think I disagree with many on the board is I feel the entire offensive line needs replacing and/or more decent depth. Every single position. I don't base this just on last season, not when the team dedicated years into making the OL seem as if it was an afterthought. Just how bad was it? Reiff and Remmers are considered to be major upgrades to many fans. I find that mind-boggling, particularly in Remmers' case.

I realize this may come off as harsh but we've seen anemic offensive production from this team on many levels. That includes pitiful blocking from the OL. I don't believe it ever had to get so bad.

We had the worst LT of the decade starting for us last year. Yes, the decade. So how is us saying Reiff is an upgrade "mind-boggling"??

Pondering Her Percy wrote: We had the worst LT of the decade starting for us last year. Yes, the decade. So how is us saying Reiff is an upgrade "mind-boggling"??

He obviously reconsidered that choice of words, since he re-phrased his post. The sentiment he was obviously trying to convey is pretty clear now: he sees both players as improvements, not solutions.

It's also worth noting that Clemmings was a backup forced into a starting role by Kalil's injury, so the "bottom line" changes here, in terms of the intended starters, are Reiff for Kalil and Remmers for Smith. What may not have changed (yet anyway) is the possibility that Clemmings could still end up being considered the primary backup at one of those tackle positions, an injury away from starting yet again. That really would be mind-boggling!

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
We had the worst LT of the decade starting for us last year. Yes, the decade. So how is us saying Reiff is an upgrade "mind-boggling"??

Poor sentence structure on my part. As Jim pointed out you, I reworded it before your post. Maybe you should reread what I wrote.

The most telling stat for me during the SB runs by SEA was PA. They averaged somewhere around 15. That was something like 3 PA better than the next best defense. The SB teams also were able to sub in several good to elite pass rushers on a rotation, effectively rushing the opposing QB with fresh legs while also requiring the same QB to throw into the league’s best secondary.

Another important difference between those teams and the current incarnation was Marshawn Lynch on offense.

On the defensive side of the ball I think we are have the roster in place to play at a similar level. Our rush defense is obviously not at the same level as theirs, but it is my view that this statistic will be helped far more by our offense netting a higher PF than by adding some new talent to the defensive side of the ball.

losperros wrote: Poor sentence structure on my part. As Jim pointed out you, I reworded it before your post. Maybe you should reread what I wrote.

I dont really see anyone on here saying, "hey our OT issue is fixed for years to come". We all realized, at least I hope we all did, that this OL wasnt going to be fixed in one year. And with a limited tackle FA market, a weak tackle draft class and no first round pick, yeah, I say we did pretty good for ourselves.

I disagree with the whole line being replaced as well. Nor is it really realistic. Boone and Berger are fine as of right now. Yes Berger retires soon so we need to look there unless they plan on Easton but I dont agree with the "everything needs to be replaced mentality". Thats a little overboard if you ask me. We need to see how this group plays together before we start throwing stuff like that out there.

mansquatch wrote:The most telling stat for me during the SB runs by SEA was PA. They averaged somewhere around 15. That was something like 3 PA better than the next best defense.

That was the most telling stat to me too. The 2013 Seahawks (the team that won the Super Bowl) allowed an average of 14.4 points per game, which is just outstanding. The 2014 team allowed 15.9 points per game, which is also excellent, just not quite as impressive as 14.4!

What also stands out to me (statistically) when looking at that 2013 team, is they averaged 26.1 points per game. Combine that average with their average points allowed and it yields an impressive 11.7 point differential. Contrast that with the differential for the 2016 Vikings, which was 1.2, and it reveals a major difference between the two teams.

Another important difference between those teams and the current incarnation was Marshawn Lynch on offense.

Exactly. They led the league in rushing by a substantial margin in 2014 and were 4th in rushing in 2013. A running game like that, combined with a strong defense and a resourceful QB is a mighty effective combination. It's worth noting that they had 27 TD passes in 2013 too so although that team had an "average" offense in terms of total yardage gained, they were a top 8 team in actual scoring.

On the defensive side of the ball I think we are have the roster in place to play at a similar level.

Maybe but for the most part, they were a long way from that level after the bye last season and they haven't really approached that level of play for a season yet under Zimmer. They allowed an average of 22.1 points per game after the bye in 2016, which is moving in the wrong direction. That number is helped by their 10 point performance against the hapless, Matt Barkley-led Bears in the final game of the season. After the bye the Vikes allowed 20+ points per game in 5 straight games, followed that up by holding their next 3 opponents to 16, 17 and 16 points respectively, but then they ran into back-to-back offensive buzzsaws in Indy and GB.

That said, over the first 5 games, they allowed a superb average of just 12.6 ppg, so the potential for a truly dominant defensive season is clearly there.

Our rush defense is obviously not at the same level as theirs, but it is my view that this statistic will be helped far more by our offense netting a higher PF than by adding some new talent to the defensive side of the ball.

It sure wouldn't hurt.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I dont really see anyone on here saying, "hey our OT issue is fixed for years to come". We all realized, at least I hope we all did, that this OL wasnt going to be fixed in one year. And with a limited tackle FA market, a weak tackle draft class and no first round pick, yeah, I say we did pretty good for ourselves.

I disagree with the whole line being replaced as well. Nor is it really realistic. Boone and Berger are fine as of right now. Yes Berger retires soon so we need to look there unless they plan on Easton but I dont agree with the "everything needs to be replaced mentality". Thats a little overboard if you ask me. We need to see how this group plays together before we start throwing stuff like that out there.

If the goal is to build an outstanding o-line over the next few years, there's a good chance most of the current personnel will need to be replaced in that time. It's not realistic to expect that to happen all at once but I don't think that's what anybody is suggesting.

How people view this seems to be based on where they set the bar. To me (and apparently to Craig), "Fine" is not the where the bar should be set. They will need a new starting center sooner rather than later, possibly even this year. Reiff is clearly going to be playing tackle for a few years but he's a less-than-ideal left tackle, which is why the Lions eventually moved him to the right side. His contract is structured to give the Vikes an out after 2 years. Remmers' contract is structured to give the Vikes an out after just one year for a reason: he's a questionable long term solution. They don't really have a starting RG so we know that position needs to be filled and that leaves Boone and his $6.7 million per year salary. He's probably not going anywhere soon but if he doesn't play better than he did last season, replacing him won't be a bad idea.

We're already looking at a scenario where this year's line will probably feature 3 new starters.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I dont really see anyone on here saying, "hey our OT issue is fixed for years to come". We all realized, at least I hope we all did, that this OL wasnt going to be fixed in one year. And with a limited tackle FA market, a weak tackle draft class and no first round pick, yeah, I say we did pretty good for ourselves.

I'm hoping some day to see the Vikings surpass "pretty good" and "good enough." I didn't say anything about anyone claiming the OT issue is or isn't fixed for years to come. I was talking about how Reiff and Remmers aren't the sole solution for the ineptitude of the entire offensive line.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I disagree with the whole line being replaced as well. Nor is it really realistic. Boone and Berger are fine as of right now. Yes Berger retires soon so we need to look there unless they plan on Easton but I dont agree with the "everything needs to be replaced mentality". Thats a little overboard if you ask me. We need to see how this group plays together before we start throwing stuff like that out there.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm not budging on my view regarding replacing and/or adding depth to the entire OL. And yeah, it's realistic. It can't be done overnight but working on it now is far better than procrastination or ignoring the problem. That's another thing I won't waiver about. As I said, Reiff and Remmers are improvements. I hope the momentum continues and things get better. A lot better. As a fan, I'm in no mood for anything else. Not at this point, anyway.

We need to see how this group plays together before we can start throwing Pollyanna positives out there.

@ Jim and Craig

But what we're saying is our offensive line needs to just be average this year. We arent saying, "Yeah lets have a mediocre line forever". We want to get it to a very good level eventually but as of right now, we have to make "fine" work. Trust me, nobody on this board wants this offense to just remain average. We were simply pointing out that with a good defense like we have, average right now can get us to the playoffs and beyond. Atlanta did it with an average to below average defense. No less went 8-8 the year before and started off 5-0.......

The NFL is a constant whirlwind. In the Moss days, we had an unreal OL and an explosive offense. Defense was very shaky. Now, its the complete opposite. Look how quick the 49ers went from very good, to horrid. Things change all the time.

Obviously, at some point down the road, Boone and Berger will be gone. Thats pretty obvious. But the way you said it, you said it like it had to happen right now or ASAP. If you didnt mean it in that way, then I dont know why you would mention it. We all know those guys will eventually be gone at some point.

Jim, IMO the increase in PA in 2016 was a direct correlation to the terrible PF the team was producing over the same stretch. I suspect an interesting analysis to compare the 2016 team vs. the 2013 SEA club would be the amount of rushing snaps the two defenses faced. If I were to venture a guess, it would be that the 2016 Vikings saw quite a few more since they were constantly struggling against their own inept offense.

The main take away I get is that offensive production affects defensive performance far more than the opposite since offensive production most often results in points while defensive production most often results in possessions. In 2016 the vikings OL crippled the majority of our positions, significantly reducing the advantage we gained from our defense.

So shift this to our achilles heel in '16, the OL. TJ Clemmings AKA the Saboteur, hampered all by himself something like 40% of the drives he played on due to penalties and awful pass protection, 2016 That is a massive detriment to the team. I know guys are not that excited by Reif / Remmers, but they probably have the potential of reducing the OL sabotage by a massvie margin (over 50%) just by playing below average NFL football.

That should provide an improvement to our PF, which if you buy the above should also lead to an improvement in our Rush D and PA numbers.

Wow Kapp, a Vikings and Cubs fan, talk about glutton for punishment. Are you a Sacramento Kings fan too?

Seriously though, glad you finally got to see your team win the pennant.