Vikings Message Board.Com

Tom Pelissero writes about the potential fly in the purple ointment:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... /91835740/

Left tackle Matt Kalil (hip surgery) is done for the season. The Vikings have been considering whether to put right tackle Andre Smith (triceps) on injured reserve as well. Fusco’s concussion history has to be considered when figuring out when he might be back on the field, even with extra time before the Vikings return to action Oct. 23 at Philadelphia.

“Well, we keep getting guys hurt. It’s always a concern,” Vikings coach Mike Zimmer said of the depth. “But we’ll continue to figure things out and we’ll play.”

The irony is upgrading o-line depth was perhaps the Vikings’ greatest priority in the offseason – and they accomplished that. But then tackle Phil Loadholt retired, guard Mike Harris got stuck on the reserve/non-football injury list, center John Sullivan was released after losing the center job to Joe Berger and injuries hit.

Protection hasn’t killed them (or Bradford) yet. But a stagnant run game is “driving us nuts,” Boone said. All-pro Adrian Peterson was averaging 1.6 yards a carry before he hurt a knee in Week 2. Even with some creativity and modest improvement the past two weeks, Jerick McKinnon and Matt Asiata combined for all of 91 yards on 34 carries (2.7 average) on Sunday.

Mothman wrote:The irony is upgrading o-line depth was perhaps the Vikings’ greatest priority in the offseason – and they accomplished that. But then tackle Phil Loadholt retired, guard Mike Harris got stuck on the reserve/non-football injury list, center John Sullivan was released after losing the center job to Joe Berger and injuries hit.

Protection hasn’t killed them (or Bradford) yet. But a stagnant run game is “driving us nuts,” Boone said. All-pro Adrian Peterson was averaging 1.6 yards a carry before he hurt a knee in Week 2. Even with some creativity and modest improvement the past two weeks, Jerick McKinnon and Matt Asiata combined for all of 91 yards on 34 carries (2.7 average) on Sunday.

Good article. There Vikings offensive line still concerns me. This team needs more than a stagnant running game. I think McKinnon and Asiata are both talented backs and compliment each other well. But the running game is inconsistent and the problems still rest with the offensive line, in my view.

I believe the team's passing game is improving and becoming a much better weapon, but mostly because of Bradford getting the ball out of his hands quickly and delivering remarkably accurate passes. Protection might be better but take Bradford out of the equation and the team is in deep trouble. Bottom line, the OL needs to keep Bradford healthy. Or there won't be a passing game.

Oline is the number one need this offseason, Draft and free agency should be used.

The depth issue isn't going away this season, we are too far into the depth chart. However, have to give Sparano some credit to this point. They've improved despite losing both tackles and having both guards banged up. All the while managing to do it playing two of the league's elite Defensive fronts. They haven't been great, but they haven't been as awful as they were in weeks one and two.

I'm normally not a fan of signing expensive free agents, but the Vikings are likely going to be SB contenders next year, and teams like that can afford to overpay for FAs. I really hope we are able to make a run at some OLs in FA.

mansquatch wrote:The depth issue isn't going away this season, we are too far into the depth chart. However, have to give Sparano some credit to this point. They've improved despite losing both tackles and having both guards banged up. All the while managing to do it playing two of the league's elite Defensive fronts. They haven't been great, but they haven't been as awful as they were in weeks one and two.

Exactly. Simply put any NFL team that lost as many lineman as the Vikings would have a real problem. If anything it's remarkable how the Vikings can win in spite of the losses.

S197 wrote: Exactly. Simply put any NFL team that lost as many lineman as the Vikings would have a real problem. If anything it's remarkable how the Vikings can win in spite of the losses.

The losses hurt but the line stunk before most of them and the choices the team made in the offseason exacerbated the problem. They were ill-prepared to lose their starting QB and they were ill-prepared along the offensive line. I'm sure someone will defend them but it sure looks to me like they went into the season with T. J. Clemmings as the primary backup to Matt Kalil. Anybody think that was wise?

I agree that Sparano deserves some credit just for getting what he has out of the ever-shifting lineup but the improvement people keep posting about has been minimal. They're still dead last in the league in average rushing yards per play, over half a yard behind the next lowest team. They're the only team averaging under 3 yards per carry and they're well below that mark. They're 29th in rushing yards despite being 5th in the league in rushing attempts and all of the above is a clear statistical reflection of terrible blocking. They aren't giving up a lot of sacks but they've been using game plans designed to get the ball out quickly and cover up inadequacies up front and they're still giving up sacks and BIG hits on the QB.

They're winning despite the injuries and poor play up front and hopefully they can keep it up but this is an achilles heel that could really bite them, particularly if the defense ever falters.

Mothman wrote: The losses hurt but the line stunk before most of them and the choices the team made in the offseason exacerbated the problem. They were ill-prepared to lose their starting QB and they were ill-prepared along the offensive line. I'm sure someone will defend them but it sure looks to me like they went into the season with T. J. Clemmings as the primary backup to Matt Kalil. Anybody think that was wise?

I agree that Sparano deserves some credit just for getting what he has out of the ever-shifting lineup but the improvement people keep posting about has been minimal. They're still dead last in the league in average rushing yards per play, over half a yard behind the next lowest team. They're the only team averaging under 3 yards per carry and they're well below that mark. They're 29th in rushing yards despite being 5th in the league in rushing attempts and all of the above is a clear statistical reflection of terrible blocking. They aren't giving up a lot of sacks but they've been using game plans designed to get the ball out quickly and cover up inadequacies up front and they're still giving up sacks and BIG hits on the QB.

They're winning despite the injuries and poor play up front and hopefully they can keep it up but this is an achilles heel that could really bite them, particularly if the defense ever falters.

I'm curious what you and other naysayers would have done differently wrt the offensive line. A few years ago we had a pretty good line. Then Loadholt got hurt, and Kalil started getting nagging injuries. Then Sullivan got hurt. Kalil continued to get injured. Last year, we expected to have an average or better line, before the injuries. This year, we did spend a lot of resources on the line. Unfortunately, Kalil and Smith got hurt, and Sullivan never recovered. We didn't sign any big-time FA, and we don't have much cap space. I'm not really sure what we could have done differently on the Oline. Traded up in the first?

It's a shame that there aren't more player for player trades in the NFL. It would be sweet if we could trade a defensive piece for a LT. I mean, if someone offered us a good starting LT for, say, Rhodes or Barr, we would at least have to think about it right, based on having some depth on D?

kurtkeoki wrote:It's a shame that there aren't more player for player trades in the NFL. It would be sweet if we could trade a defensive piece for a LT. I mean, if someone offered us a good starting LT for, say, Rhodes or Barr, we would at least have to think about it right, based on having some depth on D?

No one is giving up a good starting LT for Barr... Rhodes is trending that way...

kurtkeoki wrote:I'm curious what you and other naysayers would have done differently wrt the offensive line.

I wish you wouldn't refer to me as a naysayer simply for criticizing an aspect of the team that obviously deserves some criticism.

I've posted many times about what I think they should have done but it boils down to this: they should have given the line more attention.

A few years ago we had a pretty good line. Then Loadholt got hurt, and Kalil started getting nagging injuries. Then Sullivan got hurt. Kalil continued to get injured. Last year, we expected to have an average or better line, before the injuries. This year, we did spend a lot of resources on the line. Unfortunately, Kalil and Smith got hurt, and Sullivan never recovered. We didn't sign any big-time FA, and we don't have much cap space. I'm not really sure what we could have done differently on the Oline. Traded up in the first?

They could have recognized that Loadholt and Sullivan were players they couldn't count on to contribute (as many of us did). It's not like the signs were hard to read. They could/should have drafted some better OL prospects this year and over the past several years, recognizing, for example, that Kalil has struggled with injuries and inconsistent play since his his second season and they had no adequate backup for him. That wouldn't have required trading up, but that too was an option. They needed to look at Clemmings play last season and understand that although he might be a player they'd still like to spend more time developing, he wasn't even close to ready to start in 2015 and thus shouldn't be counted on as a primary backup this season. He was and is a liability at this point in his career.

I could go on but I've said it all before. They've had indications that the line needed attention for many years and they've had opportunities to address it more effectively. They simply haven't done it successfully.

kurtkeoki wrote: I'm curious what you and other naysayers would have done differently wrt the offensive line. A few years ago we had a pretty good line. Then Loadholt got hurt, and Kalil started getting nagging injuries. Then Sullivan got hurt. Kalil continued to get injured. Last year, we expected to have an average or better line, before the injuries. This year, we did spend a lot of resources on the line. Unfortunately, Kalil and Smith got hurt, and Sullivan never recovered. We didn't sign any big-time FA, and we don't have much cap space. I'm not really sure what we could have done differently on the Oline. Traded up in the first?

Part of the problem is on Spielman, since he's been unwilling to allocate high assets to fixing the line, so we end up with a lot of day 3 picks, trades for backups, and lower tier FAs. Example Andre Smith
2 years in a row injuries hasn't helped. I also wonder if there are scouting issues, because they haven't been able to field a good OL for at least 5-years. A prefect example of that is the Beavers pick this year...who's responsible for that?

halfgiz wrote: Part of the problem is on Spielman, since he's been unwilling to allocate high assets to fixing the line, so we end up with a lot of day 3 picks, trades for backups, and lower tier FAs. Example Andre Smith
2 years in a row injuries hasn't helped. I also wonder if there are scouting issues, because they haven't been able to field a good OL for at least 5-years. A prefect example of that is the Beavers pick this year...who's responsible for that?

The Beav, Clemmings, Yankey... couple of fliers on 7th round prospects... We just throw poo at the wall and nothing seems to stick.

Dude really just say to trade Barr? rofl

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