Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Sam Bradford Traded to Vikings
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57, 58  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 31375
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't followed your guys off-season closely so pardon my ignorance, but there's no doubt in my mind o-line needs to be the #1 focus. Your pass protection and push in the run game last year were absolutely non existent. It wouldn't have mattered what running back or QB or weapons on the outside you had with how awful they were. I realize some of that was due to injury, so hopefully getting healthy helps there as well, but you guys need some real starters and some depth.
_________________

Bird Watch: Nolan Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
vikingsrule


Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 52603
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting healthy won't really make much difference. The OL players who missed time (Kalil, Smith and Long) aren't on the roster. The interior OL was for the most part, healthy last year. Can't blame injuries for their failures.

Fusco was released at RG, should be addition by subtraction, he was a poor fit for the new OL direction.

Reiff and Remmers will improve the run game and should be better in pass protection than Clemmings and Sirles last year, which isn't saying much.

RG and maybe Center are the remaining holes for 2017, long term, Reiff should be replaced at LT (he should eventually replace Remmers at RT).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
disaacs


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 28415
Location: Brownbackistan
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Getting healthy won't really make much difference. The OL players who missed time (Kalil, Smith and Long) aren't on the roster. The interior OL was for the most part, healthy last year. Can't blame injuries for their failures.


When you have 11 different sets of linemen playing in 16 games, yes, you can partially blame injuries for their failures, even those that were healthy for most of them. Successful line play has a significant portion of it being communication and knowing what the guys next to you are going to do. If you're shuffling parts in and out constantly, it's nearly impossible to ever develop any consistency in knowing what the guys next to you are doing.
_________________


Thx to Lil Uno!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8613
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Planning for Loadholt and Sullivan to be "starters/in the mix" guys early in the offseason, was a mistake. As it likely reduced their incentive to address the OL early in free agency.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
disaacs


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 28415
Location: Brownbackistan
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
Planning for Loadholt and Sullivan to be "starters/in the mix" guys early in the offseason, was a mistake. As it likely reduced their incentive to address the OL early in free agency.


It was only proved to be an error in hindsight. It was the right thing to do at the time.
_________________


Thx to Lil Uno!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8613
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

disaacs wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
Planning for Loadholt and Sullivan to be "starters/in the mix" guys early in the offseason, was a mistake. As it likely reduced their incentive to address the OL early in free agency.


It was only proved to be an error in hindsight. It was the right thing to do at the time.


I disagree, given age, injury history, size of contract and play.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wcblack34


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 7088
Location: Anywhere but Wisconsin.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does Sam Bradford play Offensive Line now?
_________________


“Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 10820
Location: Portland, OR
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
Planning for Loadholt and Sullivan to be "starters/in the mix" guys early in the offseason, was a mistake. As it likely reduced their incentive to address the OL early in free agency.


Bull. Some of us stated it before the season. They both had injuries and age working against them. It wasn't hindsight at all.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dolmonite26


Joined: 05 Jan 2014
Posts: 1856
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
disaacs wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
Planning for Loadholt and Sullivan to be "starters/in the mix" guys early in the offseason, was a mistake. As it likely reduced their incentive to address the OL early in free agency.


It was only proved to be an error in hindsight. It was the right thing to do at the time.


I disagree, given age, injury history, size of contract and play.


I agree with CM, they were banking to heavily on these guys as well as Fusco to be a factor that it cost them.

If they had made a better assessment of how well these guys could actually play, they likely would have brought in better players in FA and gone after an OL earlier in the draft.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 52603
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

disaacs wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
Getting healthy won't really make much difference. The OL players who missed time (Kalil, Smith and Long) aren't on the roster. The interior OL was for the most part, healthy last year. Can't blame injuries for their failures.


When you have 11 different sets of linemen playing in 16 games, yes, you can partially blame injuries for their failures, even those that were healthy for most of them. Successful line play has a significant portion of it being communication and knowing what the guys next to you are going to do. If you're shuffling parts in and out constantly, it's nearly impossible to ever develop any consistency in knowing what the guys next to you are doing.


Yes, we can blame that for last year's failures. It should be no coincidence that the Vikes signed OL who don't miss time and let the three tackles go who finished on IR. The interior line really didn't have much issue in terms of players missing time. Fusco and Berger were mostly healthy. Same with Boone.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heimdallr


Moderator
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 10426
Location: Himinbjörg
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I started an OL thread. Feel free to move it over there.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 8613
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolmonite26 wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
disaacs wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
Planning for Loadholt and Sullivan to be "starters/in the mix" guys early in the offseason, was a mistake. As it likely reduced their incentive to address the OL early in free agency.


It was only proved to be an error in hindsight. It was the right thing to do at the time.


I disagree, given age, injury history, size of contract and play.


I agree with CM, they were banking to heavily on these guys as well as Fusco to be a factor that it cost them.

If they had made a better assessment of how well these guys could actually play, they likely would have brought in better players in FA and gone after an OL earlier in the draft.


Indeed, they had so much $ invest on the books for the coming year between Sullivan, Loadholt, Fusco and terrible keeping Kalil, they couldnt afford to prioritze OL free agent upgrades other then Boone after all the top guys were gone.

In fact I think it was the most expensive OL on the books in the league at the time.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 5329
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wcblack34 wrote:
Does Sam Bradford play Offensive Line now?


Last year, he played QB part time, and toreador for the other times.

This year, the Vikings hope he will be a full time QB. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gopherwrestler


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 5567
Location: 'Sota
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purplexing wrote:
@gw: It seems a good RB would add the most value to the offense. But I'd agree with adding a OG or TE if a (near) blue chip prospect were available at 48, then draft a RB at 80(?).

I think Spielman and Zimmer are hoping for more than a 'game manager QB' from either SB or TB. Why are you 'aiming low' with expectations/ acceptable performance for the Vikes' starting QB?

NFL teams don't need a Tom Brady caliber QB to win a SB. But they need to aim higher than to develop a 'game manager' QB.


I didn't mean like game manager as someone who is always just a putz out there that wont turn the ball over. I was more aiming along the lines he can take the game in his own hangs, while being careful, allowed to use his dump off passes in the right situations. There is nothing wrong with a game manager, we need someone who can eat up clock, and keep the ball moving and scoring points.

When we have looked at "game managers" in Minnesota in the past it's just a guy that can't turn the ball over and let AP run the ball.
_________________

“Once you’ve wrestled, everything else in life is easy.”
-Dan Gable
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Purplexing


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 5329
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ OK, good! I'm ok with a QB who is a step above 'game manager' as regards abilities to win games by himself. What would such a guy be called? Senior Game Manager? Smile

{Someone really needs to write a dictionary of NFL QB descriptor terms and post it online. Very Happy }
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57, 58  Next
Page 56 of 58

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group