Vikings Message Board.Com

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.

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.

S197 wrote:This is a thread about Free Agency, please move the discussion to the appropriate area. Thank you.

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.

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.

Nunin wrote:i believe the only thing you can definitively say about Michael is that he's a Packer.

halfgiz wrote:#Vikings add RB Bishop Sankey, a former second-round pick of the Titans, to their practice squad.

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

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.

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.