Pondering Her Percy wrote:But they aren't losing yards nearly as much as they were in the beginning of the season. I admitted the line is awful. But our RBs aren't getting tackled in the backfield nearly as much as they were. We have a combination of a fullback in Asiata and somebody thats overly patient in McKinnon. They couldn't hit hole if it was the size of a bus. We have nobody with any kind of elusiveness and speed to hit the line. Asiata hits it 100 mph but has no clue where he's going and McKinnon stops and sits. How is it possible for Seattles line to be so bad and Michael running as good as he was? It doesnt add up. Anytime Hillman has been in, he's been getting positive yards for the most part. Nobody else is and Hillman is a average to below average back but has the right running style. The other two don't. Michael wouldnt fix this running game completely, but I could see him making it a lot better. Thats why I'm baffled that Asiata continues to run the ball and Hillman doesnt.
I am a lurker for the most part, so you haven't heard much from me, but i have read a lot from you, and typically i agree with a lot of what you write, but this time i have to disagree and i feel that you are way off. Mckinnon and Asiata filled in nicely for Peterson a couple years ago and Hillman is coming off of a super bowl winning season in which he contributed a lot. I just cant see how RB is the issue here. I am not saying the Michael wouldn't be a slight upgrade in talent but the main issue with our running game is the O-line and to a lesser extent, play calling.
My original comment was that he is going to be a much bigger upgrade for GB was based on the fact that GB is lacking in RB talent right now. He is going to have more success in GB than he would here.
Grashopa wrote:
I am a lurker for the most part, so you haven't heard much from me, but i have read a lot from you, and typically i agree with a lot of what you write, but this time i have to disagree and i feel that you are way off. Mckinnon and Asiata filled in nicely for Peterson a couple years ago and Hillman is coming off of a super bowl winning season in which he contributed a lot. I just cant see how RB is the issue here. I am not saying the Michael wouldn't be a slight upgrade in talent but the main issue with our running game is the O-line and to a lesser extent, play calling.
My original comment was that he is going to be a much bigger upgrade for GB was based on the fact that GB is lacking in RB talent right now. He is going to have more success in GB than he would here.
And again, I'm not denying how bad our line is due to injuries. However, Matt Asiata did not fill in nicely as few years ago. He averaged 3.5 per carry which is pretty pathetic if you ask me. Yeah he scored 9 tds but I think just about every one was from the goal line. If you gave Zach Line that many carries from the goal line he would score just as much or more. Just because he had 9 touchdowns doesn't mean he filled in nicely. McKinnon played well but couldn't stay healthy.
Bottom line is, yes our line is terrible but our RBs aren't much better. Especially Asiata who's sadly getting the most carries out of anyone for whatever stupid reason. Asiata is an absolute dud and McKinnon is nothing but a 3rd down back. Michael provides a little bit of everything and isn't one dimensional like the guys we have. I would really like to see a young solid RB in there and see what happens. This could be Dallas' line and Asiata wouldn't be able to average over 4.0 YPC.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Grashopa wrote:
I am a lurker for the most part, so you haven't heard much from me, but i have read a lot from you, and typically i agree with a lot of what you write, but this time i have to disagree and i feel that you are way off. Mckinnon and Asiata filled in nicely for Peterson a couple years ago and Hillman is coming off of a super bowl winning season in which he contributed a lot. I just cant see how RB is the issue here. I am not saying the Michael wouldn't be a slight upgrade in talent but the main issue with our running game is the O-line and to a lesser extent, play calling
My original comment was that he is going to be a much bigger upgrade for GB was based on the fact that GB is lacking in RB talent right now. He is going to have more success in GB than he would here.
Well stated Grashopa. The upgrade is slight at best......if any at all. Also, he doesn't know the system! The protections! He would be a liability initially really. Our protection is bad enough already without throwing more variable in the mix. Best off waiting for AP to return, we will get an upgrade then.
Alaskan wrote:
Well stated Grashopa. The upgrade is slight at best......if any at all. Also, he doesn't know the system! The protections! He would be a liability initially really. Our protection is bad enough already without throwing more variable in the mix. Best off waiting for AP to return, we will get an upgrade then.
Well it's no different than Ronnie Hillman. Just because you sign a guy doesnt mean you have to plug him in the lineup day 1. Like I said, he's the type of back we currently don't have which is why I think he could've helped this running game. Not completely turn it around but he would definitely help it
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Smart move to at least store someone on the p-squad since we had to dump hillman. Don't think he'll ever do much though
Im starting to wonder if Hillman would have been better to keep around then McKinnon (or even Asiata). And I doubt we ever see Sankey playing. The more games I see with Mckinnnon and Asiata, the more I dont like either.
PurpleKoolaid wrote:
Im starting to wonder if Hillman would have been better to keep around then McKinnon (or even Asiata). And I doubt we ever see Sankey playing. The more games I see with Mckinnnon and Asiata, the more I dont like either.
Now people are seeing what many of the rest of us saw at the beginning of the year. The running game is not AD's fault, it is the hrorific OL that we trot out each day. If the Vikings don't spend their first three picks on an OL I will be very disappointed.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
Im not sure how salaries work, cap space, at all that, but i dont see us keeping AD. We have too many bills and not enough talent. Just thinking of AD not being a Viking is sad, but I think next year is going to be a rebuild year, with Bradford as vet until whatever rookie can play. Maybe the Eagles or Cowboys could pick that QB for us.
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Now people are seeing what many of the rest of us saw at the beginning of the year. The running game is not AD's fault, it is the hrorific OL that we trot out each day. If the Vikings don't spend their first three picks on an OL I will be very disappointed.
I honestly think that we should draft OL exclusively this year. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's just how bad we are at that position and how crippling it's been for us.