2018 Vikings Off-Season Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

If Compton and Easton are our starting guards, we're in trouble from the start, and in disaster territory if there are injuries.

And there will be injuries, this is football. It won't be "bad luck" when there are injuries.

I don't really have a problem with their draft strategy, but it's still a choice to draft that way, not a right or wrong way.
So if the o-line is bad, there shouldn't be any excuses. It may be becoming harder and harder to assemble a really good offensive line, but it's not impossible, as there are some teams with good o- lines.

 

I would push back on that last line a bit.  Who are the good o-lines?  

 

You might be surprised that people thought our line last year was Top 10.  Let that soak in for what qualifies as "good" these days.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I get that more OL went earlier than expected. If we gave Rick truth serum they were zeroed in on Ragnow but the Lions took him at 20. However, there were still options to choose from throughout the draft that they didn't capitalize on...

Hernandez would have been a fine selection at 30 instead of Hughes. Maybe Hughes ends up being the better player, that's fine.

Later on in the draft one of your favorite targets, Crosby from Oregon was there for the taking. He went in the 5th round. Will the DE from Ohio State be better? I hope so.

Eventually they do have to draft for need, otherwise it will continue being a need.

I was really hoping to exit the draft feeling good about finding an OL that can start day 1, and another OL or 2 for depth. Instead, we have a project OT in the 2nd round, and a guard in the 6th.

There's really no room for error or injuries given the players we have signed right now.

 

Green Bay didn't have a good draft, they had a great one.  They picked up two very good corners and an extra first round pick next year.  Regardless of what else they did...that's amazing.  

 

I would've preferred the team had traded up to get Crosby.  I don't understand why they didn't want him, but I don't have all the information they do.  But he seemed like a perfect zone fit for this team and would've given us one more option along the line.  Which speaks to your other point...our depth is not ideal.  Isidora would be first guy off the bench and I'm not all that comfortable with that.  Rashad Hill was ok as a backup last year too I suppose.

 

I really wanted to come out of this draft with a Ragnow/Price type, so I'm disappointed there as well.  In a few years I guess we'll find out if this is the 2016 draft all over again.  I do like a lot of the athletes they drafted - I expect Holmes to be groomed as a 3 technique, Acura to get the Danielle Hunter treatment, and Hughes to step in immediately as our nickel corner.  

 

Let's hope someone can muscle up O'Neill and he's a factor fast.

[Mr. Brooks]

I would push back on that last line a bit. Who are the good o-lines?

 

You might be surprised that people thought our line last year was Top 10. Let that soak in for what qualifies as "good" these days.

PFF ranked the Vikings o-line 22nd in 2017, with Berger our best o-lineman, and we lost him.

 

I disagree that there are no good offensive lines. And even if there are only one or two, that still means it is possible, even if difficult.

I don't give Spielman a pass, just because it's difficult. He's well compensated, his job isn't supposed to be easy.

 

There will be at least one offensive lineman who was drafted after our first pick who will be an immediate starter, and will be good.

Spielman will have either missed on that guy, or chose not to draft him because he had someone else ranked higher.

 

Again, I'm not ripping them. But they chose to draft the guys they drafted. Excluding 29 guys, every single other guy drafted was available to them at least once. So, I'm also not going to give them a pass if the line isn't good enough this year.

This team is clearly built to try to win a SB, now. Anything less will be a disappointment.

[TheLeviathan]

 

PFF ranked the Vikings o-line 22nd in 2017, with Berger our best o-lineman, and we lost him.

I disagree that there are no good offensive lines. And even if there are only one or two, that still means it is possible, even if difficult.
I don't give Spielman a pass, just because it's difficult. He's well compensated, his job isn't supposed to be easy.

 

It's totally fair criticism to not like the idea of our starting right side being Remmers and Compton.  I am just pointing out that this is a league-wide problem.  Take a look at the slated starting guards for the Packers or the entire starting line of the Patriots.  I don't think anyone will say Bill Belichek is an idiot and just look at that group about to protect his 68 year old, all-time great QB.

 

And one of the lines everyone likes to champion as "See!  This is why you invest first rounders in lineman!" was Dallas.  Well, when Dallas lost Smith last year they couldn't block anyone.  Adrien Clayborn nearly set the sack record.  (Don't know who that is?  Nobody does!)  And all that capital playing guard and center did nothing to save Dak from getting killed.

 

It's Spielman's job to field a good offensive line.  He improved it greatly last year.  I hope his plan this year continues that.  Just make no mistake - this is a league wide issue.  It's my belief that the dearth of quality OL is one of the reasons NFL play has looked so choppy and less aesthetically pleasing.  And as Philly and others have shown - there are a lot of ways to field a high quality unit.  I hope that the two picks this year and Isiodora last year show he can hit in those rounds.  Cousins will need it.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's totally fair criticism to not like the idea of our starting right side being Remmers and Compton. I am just pointing out that this is a league-wide problem. Take a look at the slated starting guards for the Packers or the entire starting line of the Patriots. I don't think anyone will say Bill Belichek is an idiot and just look at that group about to protect his 68 year old, all-time great QB.

 

And one of the lines everyone likes to champion as "See! This is why you invest first rounders in lineman!" was Dallas. Well, when Dallas lost Smith last year they couldn't block anyone. Adrien Clayborn nearly set the sack record. (Don't know who that is? Nobody does!) And all that capital playing guard and center did nothing to save Dak from getting killed.

 

It's Spielman's job to field a good offensive line. He improved it greatly last year. I hope his plan this year continues that. Just make no mistake - this is a league wide issue. It's my belief that the dearth of quality OL is one of the reasons NFL play has looked so choppy and less aesthetically pleasing. And as Philly and others have shown - there are a lot of ways to field a high quality unit. I hope that the two picks this year and Isiodora last year show he can hit in those rounds. Cousins will need it.

I'm not saying it's not a league wide problem. I'm just saying that it's not impossible to field a good offensive line, although perhaps more difficult now than ever. New Orleans, for one, has a really good line.

I'm also not calling Spielman an idiot. Nor I'm I suggesting, or criticizing them for not, taking them in the first round.

I couldn't care less where or how they find them, as long as the o-line doesn't prevent them from winning a Super Bowl.

I'm simply saying, there will be offensive lineman taken after round one, who will start day one and be good. Maybe one or two, maybe a half dozen. But there will be some, that is a fact.

If our o-line is good without immediate help in the draft, good. But if it's not, then no excuses. There will have been help that they passed on. Either because they aren't good enough evaluators to identify those guys, or because they chose to address other areas instead.

 

There were also good linemen available in free agency that they passed on.

 

Long story short, I just don't want to hear any excuses if the line is bad. This is his roster, he built it, he has to own the results.

[TheLeviathan]

The only excuse I'd give him is injury.  There is no line, in all of football, that can endure more than one injury to their line.  It's right up there with losing your QB.  

 

But they need to start hitting on more 3-7 round linemen they take.  So far their work there has not been good.

[Mr. Brooks]

Injuries are part of football.

The Eagles lost their franchise QB, and still won the Super Bowl.

 

I hate the injury excuse more than anything else in sports. The backups are still getting paid to play football.

 

Injuries are going to happen. Injuries on the offensive line are going to happen, it's not even a question.

[TheLeviathan]

It's a reality. What you are suggesting is like expecting your car to drive as well with a wagon wheel instead of a tire because they're both circles.

 

Injuries decrease your on field talent and some hurt far worse than others. And sometimes you simply can't replace them given restrictions you have building a roster

[Mr. Brooks]

It's a reality. What you are suggesting is like expecting your car to drive as well with a wagon wheel instead of a tire because they're both circles.

 

Injuries decrease your on field talent and some hurt far worse than others. And sometimes you simply can't replace them given restrictions you have building a roster

No. It's the equivalent to a limited service spare tire, not a wagon wheel. Your analogy suggests they'll have to grab some schmuck out of the crowd.

 

Of course they decrease your on field talent. But that doesn't mean that it's so severe that a well built, and mentally tough team can't overcome them.

Again, see the Eagles. They lost their franchise QB, and won the Super Bowl with Nick Foles at QB, by far the most important position on the field.

 

I mean, in an earlier post you mention the importance of building depth. What good is building depth, if nothing less than your starters are capable of winning?

[TheLeviathan]

The Eagles were a stark exception. If the Patriots lose Brady they are no longer a SB contender.calling that fact an "excuse", IMO, is really out of touch with reality. If Brady playing doesn't matter (implied here in your argument)....ehy does Brady matter at all?

 

Good depth gives you options and a slim chance to overcome injuries. Your starters start for a reason. You pay big bucks for a reason. No matter how many "Next man up" cliches you want to cite, injuries matter. They are not an excuse to give up, but they are a valid explanation for dips in performance.

 

Ultimately those dips will hurt you, especially if they pile up. That's not an excuse, it's reality. One no GM or coach can overcome. (With exceptions that prove the rule of course)

[Mike Sixel]

They don't even have starters in the OL, maybe. I doubt they have any depth. That's scary, when you new QB isn't real mobile.

[TheLeviathan]

Hill played well as a reserve tackle. But they are a mess at guard.

 

I'm not sure there are 100 quality OL in the whole NFL.

[Mr. Brooks]

The Eagles were a stark exception. If the Patriots lose Brady they are no longer a SB contender.calling that fact an "excuse", IMO, is really out of touch with reality. If Brady playing doesn't matter (implied here in your argument)....ehy does Brady matter at all?

 

Good depth gives you options and a slim chance to overcome injuries. Your starters start for a reason. You pay big bucks for a reason. No matter how many "Next man up" cliches you want to cite, injuries matter. They are not an excuse to give up, but they are a valid explanation for dips in performance.

 

Ultimately those dips will hurt you, especially if they pile up. That's not an excuse, it's reality. One no GM or coach can overcome. (With exceptions that prove the rule of course)

I'm not implying it doesn't matter.

I'm arguing a good GM and a headstrong team can overcome them. They won't always, but they can.

Every single team in the NFL will face injuries this year, every team. But, one of them will have enough depth to overcome them.

 

I think we're at an agree to disagree point.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not implying it doesn't matter.
I'm arguing a good GM and a headstrong team can overcome them. They won't always, but they can.
Every single team in the NFL will face injuries this year, every team. But, one of them will have enough depth to overcome them.

I think we're at an agree to disagree point.

 

I just believe there are some injuries you can't overcome.  And there is a certain threshold of injuries no team can overcome.  And there is only so much you can invest in "depth" before you sacrifice quality for quantity.

 

Depending upon who the player is, you simply cannot have a Plan B good enough to keep you in it.  Or if you're someone like the 2017 Texans - when you lose 3-4 of your best defensive players, your QB, and a host of others....no matter how well prepared you are you're just not going to be able to overcome that.

 

I don't think a drop in performance for injuries is an "excuse".  There are some things outside your control.  You still have to try and prepare for them, but not all injury situations make that possible.  

[Mr. Brooks]

I just believe there are some injuries you can't overcome. And there is a certain threshold of injuries no team can overcome. And there is only so much you can invest in "depth" before you sacrifice quality for quantity.

 

Depending upon who the player is, you simply cannot have a Plan B good enough to keep you in it. Or if you're someone like the 2017 Texans - when you lose 3-4 of your best defensive players, your QB, and a host of others....no matter how well prepared you are you're just not going to be able to overcome that.

 

I don't think a drop in performance for injuries is an "excuse". There are some things outside your control. You still have to try and prepare for them, but not all injury situations make that possible.

Yes, I said not always.

Houston for example, is not at a point in their build where they have enough talent and depth to compensate for Watson being out. I mean, they probably don't even have enough to win a SB even with Watson. Not yet.

The Vikings should be at that point, IMO.

And yes, at some point, it's too much for anyone to overcome. I don't think 2 players should be that point for the Vikings though, even if those 2 players are both OL.

[Mike Sixel]

The NFL is considering a 15 yard penalty for kneeling during the national anthem.

 

We are so weak, emotionally, as a nation, that we will potentially penalize sports' teams for having opinions out of game......

 

Proving, imo, that sports is really all about distracting the people, as has been said for thousands of years....

[KirbyDome89]

 

The NFL is considering a 15 yard penalty for kneeling during the national anthem.

 

We are so weak, emotionally, as a nation, that we will potentially penalize sports' teams for having opinions out of game......

 

Proving, imo, that sports is really all about distracting the people, as has been said for thousands of years....

Sports have always been about entertainment. I don't think that has ever changed. 

[Mike Sixel]

Sports have always been about entertainment. I don't think that has ever changed.

The reason governments find sports is to distract us from real events. That's been true since ancient Greece, according to the Greeks themselves. That's different than just being entertainment. Imo

[Vanimal46]

The NFL is considering a 15 yard penalty for kneeling during the national anthem.

 

We are so weak, emotionally, as a nation, that we will potentially penalize sports' teams for having opinions out of game......

 

Proving, imo, that sports is really all about distracting the people, as has been said for thousands of years....

A 15 yard penalty is the dumbest thing I've heard.

 

They didn't think of this loophole....

 

What if they decline the penalty and kneel themselves?

[Vanimal46]

Just eliminate the national anthem all together. There's no rhyme or reason for doing it in the first place other than collecting marketing dollars from military orgs that do F-16 flyovers and the canned "military parent comes home early" to surprise their kid, who, weird enough, is on the field waiting for something.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The reason governments find sports is to distract us from real events. That's been true since ancient Greece, according to the Greeks themselves. That's different than just being entertainment. Imo

Maybe we're talking past each other with the "distract us," part. I'm not a fan of tax payer dollars being soaked up by the NFL in any form, but I'm not sure if that's the distraction you're talking about. 

[TheLeviathan]

5 years/14M for Danielle Hunter.  A little more than I'd like, but the right guy to extend.

[Vanimal46]

5 years/14M for Danielle Hunter. A little more than I'd like, but the right guy to extend.

I like it. Hopefully Diggsy is next. Sounds like Barr is the odd man out and will explore FA next season.

[Mr. Brooks]

Wow, that is a crazy lot of money to bank on potential turning into sustained production.

[SF Twins Fan]

Some agents this this is a relative bargain. To me the crazy thing is he's only 23 and has already been in the league for three years.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

It seems high to me, but what do I know.....over on the vikings' forum i used to visit regularly, they love it. Of course, most dissenting voices have left the site over the years.....

[TheLeviathan]

If the team didn't resign Hunter they'd have spent more in FA or the draft trying to replace him.  14M is not an overpay.  It is a bargain for this player.

 

Plus this deal is for his age 24-29 seasons.  You really can't get any more ideal than that.  I said all along that Kendricks and Hunter were my top two priorities.  Now I hope they can swing Diggs if the deal is reasonable.

[Mr. Brooks]

If the team didn't resign Hunter they'd have spent more in FA or the draft trying to replace him. 14M is not an overpay. It is a bargain for this player.

 

Plus this deal is for his age 24-29 seasons. You really can't get any more ideal than that. I said all along that Kendricks and Hunter were my top two priorities. Now I hope they can swing Diggs if the deal is reasonable.

Just want to make sure you realize it's 14.4 million per year, and not total, right?

He's going to have to hit most of his admittedly high potential for that to be a bargain. He certainly hasn't been worth that much on his promising, but not exceptional performance so far.

[TheLeviathan]

Just want to make sure you realize it's 14.4 million per year, and not total, right?

He's going to have to hit most of his admittedly high potential for that to be a bargain. He certainly hasn't been worth that much on his promising, but not exceptional performance so far.

Let's say hunter was a patriot and a free agent this offseason. If the Vikings wanted to sign him they would probably have to go somewhere near 18 million dollars a year. To get him for 14 a year in his prime is a bargain.

 

I know the sack numbers are down but the pressure numbers were still good and this defense needs book end pass rushers. The alternative to not signing this deal is just not palatable IMO. But you're right we do need to see more from him to really make this deal what I think it can be be.

[Vanimal46]

Plus Griffen isn't going to be around much longer... Hunter could slide right into his spot if need be since that appears to be the position that gets the sexy stats.