Agreed. A HEALTHY line of Kalil, Boone, Sullivan, Fusco and Loadholt is better than average (with better-than-average depth with Berger/Harris). A problem is we never got to see that.S197 wrote:Actually, the Vikings have invested heavily in the O-line. It's one of (or the most?) expensive line in the NFL. Whether or not they invested correctly remains to be seen but they certainly have invested heavily.
The injuries have been unfortunate, Loadholt, Sully and Fusco last year. Loadholt and Harris this year with a side of Kalil. There aren't many teams that can lose 60% of their line without a significant drop off.
Vikings OL and GM discussion
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Commissioner
- Posts: 24788
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
- x 108
Re: Vikings OL
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Re: Vikings OL
S197 wrote:Actually, the Vikings have invested heavily in the O-line. It's one of (or the most?) expensive line in the NFL. Whether or not they invested correctly remains to be seen but they certainly have invested heavily.
Yes, I think it's the wisdom of their choices that's most in question.
Fusco played every game last year and they haven't lost Kalil yet. It's preseason. Supposedly, he's just dealing with some nagging camp injuries. Hopefully, it's not more than that.The injuries have been unfortunate, Loadholt, Sully and Fusco last year. Loadholt and Harris this year with a side of Kalil. There aren't many teams that can lose 60% of their line without a significant drop off.
They really should have been well-prepared to move on without Loadholt. If they were counting on him and his retirement dealt a significant blow to their plans they have nobody but themselves to blame.
Harris was likely to be a backup this year so I'm guessing the planned starting lineup on the OL is actually still intact:
Kalil, Boone, Sullivan or Berger, Fusco and Smith. Maybe that will be good enough...
Re: Vikings OL
That's right, he was playing at a new position but did play. I thought he went down at one point but I could be incorrect. Maybe he was just playing so bad I thought he was goneMothman wrote:Fusco played every game last year and they haven't lost Kalil yet. It's preseason. Supposedly, he's just dealing with some nagging camp injuries. Hopefully, it's not more than that.
This is probably the most interesting topic and one where we'll never get the full story. By a lot of accounts, Loadholt looked very good before the injury. I know there is at least 1 or 2 posters here that are in the medical field so maybe they can opine on how hard it is to come back from an Achilles injury.They really should have been well-prepared to move on without Loadholt. If they were counting on him and his retirement dealt a significant blow to their plans they have nobody but themselves to blame.
If they thought Loadholt had a moderate chance of playing then I think bringing in Smith, drafting Beavers, plus Clemmings from last year is a fair amount of contingency planning.
Yeah lets pray it's good enough. I don't know that Harris would have been a backup, it seems like they had set it up so that there would be multiple battles in training camp. Sully/berger, fusco/harris, and Smith/Loadholt. Unfortunately only a third of those turned out to be a competitionHarris was likely to be a backup this year so I'm guessing the planned starting lineup on the OL is actually still intact:
Kalil, Boone, Sullivan or Berger, Fusco and Smith. Maybe that will be good enough...
Lets also not forget the (hopeful) upgrade in coaching staff for the line they brought in, that's also an investment.
Re: Vikings OL
They paid Kalil 11 million dollars .. yeah probably not a wise move when they could have brought in a FA or actually used a high draft pickActually, the Vikings have invested heavily in the O-line. It's one of (or the most?) expensive line in the NFL. Whether or not they invested correctly remains to be seen but they certainly have invested heavily.
The injuries have been unfortunate, Loadholt, Sully and Fusco last year. Loadholt and Harris this year with a side of Kalil. There aren't many teams that can lose 60% of their line without a significant drop off.
on an OG or OT .. this year was a deep draft for OL... Nothing against Treadwell or the Clemson CB .. BPA might not be the greatest move when
half your starters are coming back from injuries and some of them have played sub par for two or more seasons...
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re: Vikings OL
S197 wrote:That's right, he was playing at a new position but did play. I thought he went down at one point but I could be incorrect. Maybe he was just playing so bad I thought he was gone
I'm just not convinced it's good contingency planning. Clemmings was absolutely awful last year. Smith has started for years but most of the reports I've read have said he was pretty bad last season (and apparently not too good in 2014 either). Beavers had a rough season last year but I liked his game in college. i think he's a project though. They did have Harris and his injury is a wrench in the works.This is probably the most interesting topic and one where we'll never get the full story. By a lot of accounts, Loadholt looked very good before the injury. I know there is at least 1 or 2 posters here that are in the medical field so maybe they can opine on how hard it is to come back from an Achilles injury.
If they thought Loadholt had a moderate chance of playing then I think bringing in Smith, drafting Beavers, plus Clemmings from last year is a fair amount of contingency planning.
To me, the issue with the OL hasn't been having enough bodies to man positions in case of injury. It's been having enough quality talent and experience from top to bottom in the first place. I have a feeling that will still be an issue.
I think competition was the idea but if I'm not mistaken, Fusco was atop the depth chart at RG.Yeah lets pray it's good enough. I don't know that Harris would have been a backup, it seems like they had set it up so that there would be multiple battles in training camp. Sully/berger, fusco/harris, and Smith/Loadholt. Unfortunately only a third of those turned out to be a competition
It's a change anyway.Lets also not forget the (hopeful) upgrade in coaching staff for the line they brought in, that's also an investment.
Sorry to be cynical but on this subject, I am.
Re: Vikings OL
Another way you can look at it is the other side of the trenches. You had Floyd as a 1st rounder, Linval as the moderate free agent, Tom Johnson as a smaller splash agent, then draftees from the 3rd (Hunter), to 4th (Robison, Griffen), to 7th (Stephen) making up the rest of the corp. So something like:
Kalil = Floyd
Boone = Linval
Smith = Johnson
Sully = Griffen
Fusco = Stephen
Loadholt = Hunter
Roughly speaking from a pure investment standpoint, that's more or less about right (give or take a round). I guess what I'm trying to get at is if the D-line were to lose, say, Linval, Griffen, and Hunter, would people be equally critical of the lack of quality? It would mean Robison, Floyd, Johnson, and Trattou is your potential starters with someone like Stephen and Crichton as your subs. That would be a significant decline.
Essentially the "investment" in our D-line, which I assume most people would say is at least above average as a group, is more or less in line with the investment in the O-line. The main difference being the D-line hasn't been hit anywhere near as hard by the injury bug as the O-line.
Kalil = Floyd
Boone = Linval
Smith = Johnson
Sully = Griffen
Fusco = Stephen
Loadholt = Hunter
Roughly speaking from a pure investment standpoint, that's more or less about right (give or take a round). I guess what I'm trying to get at is if the D-line were to lose, say, Linval, Griffen, and Hunter, would people be equally critical of the lack of quality? It would mean Robison, Floyd, Johnson, and Trattou is your potential starters with someone like Stephen and Crichton as your subs. That would be a significant decline.
Essentially the "investment" in our D-line, which I assume most people would say is at least above average as a group, is more or less in line with the investment in the O-line. The main difference being the D-line hasn't been hit anywhere near as hard by the injury bug as the O-line.
Re: Vikings OL
I think the main difference is actually the quality of the "yield" from that investment but you've made a very interesting point. As I wrote earlier, it's the wisdom of their choices that's in question (for me) more than just the amount invested but that might just be my point of view.S197 wrote:Another way you can look at it is the other side of the trenches. You had Floyd as a 1st rounder, Linval as the moderate free agent, Tom Johnson as a smaller splash agent, then draftees from the 3rd (Hunter), to 4th (Robison, Griffen), to 7th (Stephen) making up the rest of the corp. So something like:
Kalil = Floyd
Boone = Linval
Smith = Johnson
Sully = Griffen
Fusco = Stephen
Loadholt = Hunter
Roughly speaking from a pure investment standpoint, that's more or less about right (give or take a round). I guess what I'm trying to get at is if the D-line were to lose, say, Linval, Griffen, and Hunter, would people be equally critical of the lack of quality? It would mean Robison, Floyd, Johnson, and Trattou is your potential starters with someone like Stephen and Crichton as your subs. That would be a significant decline.
Essentially the "investment" in our D-line, which I assume most people would say is at least above average as a group, is more or less in line with the investment in the O-line. The main difference being the D-line hasn't been hit anywhere near as hard by the injury bug as the O-line.
- Texas Vike
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4672
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
- x 405
Re: Vikings OL
Solid post. I agree with 95% of it. The other variable that I don't see above is coaching. I feel like scheme-wise, Zimmer's D puts his DLineman in situations to succeed as a unit. I don't feel the same for the OL. In fact, some of his statements regarding last year's line, the line coach, and how O Lineman were evaluated makes it clear that Zimmer feels a lot less confident about his ability to coach on the offensive side of the ball.S197 wrote:Another way you can look at it is the other side of the trenches. You had Floyd as a 1st rounder, Linval as the moderate free agent, Tom Johnson as a smaller splash agent, then draftees from the 3rd (Hunter), to 4th (Robison, Griffen), to 7th (Stephen) making up the rest of the corp. So something like:
Kalil = Floyd
Boone = Linval
Smith = Johnson
Sully = Griffen
Fusco = Stephen
Loadholt = Hunter
Roughly speaking from a pure investment standpoint, that's more or less about right (give or take a round). I guess what I'm trying to get at is if the D-line were to lose, say, Linval, Griffen, and Hunter, would people be equally critical of the lack of quality? It would mean Robison, Floyd, Johnson, and Trattou is your potential starters with someone like Stephen and Crichton as your subs. That would be a significant decline.
Essentially the "investment" in our D-line, which I assume most people would say is at least above average as a group, is more or less in line with the investment in the O-line. The main difference being the D-line hasn't been hit anywhere near as hard by the injury bug as the O-line.
The other factor? Linval can get shot one day and come back and play like a beast the next. OTOH, the wind blows in the wrong direction and Kalil's knees turn him into a windmill.
Re: Vikings OL
... and yet even though Kalil might be the most oft-criticized lineman on the team, he's also been one of the best. I think LG and RT have been much bigger problems in recent years.Texas Vike wrote:Solid post. I agree with 95% of it. The other variable that I don't see above is coaching. I feel like scheme-wise, Zimmer's D puts his DLineman in situations to succeed as a unit. I don't feel the same for the OL. In fact, some of his statements regarding last year's line, the line coach, and how O Lineman were evaluated makes it clear that Zimmer feels a lot less confident about his ability to coach on the offensive side of the ball.
The other factor? Linval can get shot one day and come back and play like a beast the next. OTOH, the wind blows in the wrong direction and Kalil's knees turn him into a windmill.
- Texas Vike
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4672
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
- x 405
Re: Vikings OL
Mothman wrote: ... and yet even thought Kalil might be the most oft-criticized lineman on the team, he's also been one of the best. I think LG and RT have been much bigger problems in recent years.
Most definitely, Andre Smith has me concerned. I was really hoping Load could recover.
I am hoping Beaver can be groomed ( ) this season. I hadn't realized it, but Mayock at one point had him as a top five OL selection, ultimately projecting him as a 2nd round guy, saying he needed a year in an NFL weight room and to learn some technique. Hopefully Sparano can season the Beaver.
-
- Commissioner
- Posts: 24788
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
- x 108
Re: Vikings OL
I disagree he has been one of the best linemen. Maybe his rookie year but he was easily out-performed by others, especially in years leading up to last (where we saw marginal improvement, though still not nearly to the performance of his first year). Injury clearly bears some of the blame for that (though not all). There was a couple seasons in there where he was the worst (or second-worst) of the five.Mothman wrote: ... and yet even thought Kalil might be the most oft-criticized lineman on the team, he's also been one of the best. I think LG and RT have been much bigger problems in recent years.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Re: Vikings OL
dead_poet wrote: I disagree he has been one of the best linemen. Maybe his rookie year but he was easily out-performed by others, especially in years leading up to last (where we saw marginal improvement, though still not nearly to the performance of his first year). Injury clearly bears some of the blame for that (though not all). There was a couple seasons in there where he was the worst (or second-worst) of the five.
I guess to some extent it's in the eye of the beholder. I think he plays the most difficult position on the line and I believe the rest of the line has largely been overrated so perhaps that helps explain our difference of opinion. I tend to think Kalil gets viewed more harshly because he was a high draft pick. He did have an awful stretch of games to start the 2014 season but other than that, I think he's been good-to-average. There's just nobody that's been on the line since he was drafted in 2012 who I'd rate better than that and unlike the majority of the line, Kalil has been out there for every game.
Re: Vikings OL
I'll bet you are...Texas Vike wrote:Most definitely, Andre Smith has me concerned. I was really hoping Load could recover.
I am hoping Beaver can be groomed ( ) this season.
I hadn't realized it, but Mayock at one point had him as a top five OL selection, ultimately projecting him as a 2nd round guy, saying he needed a year in an NFL weight room and to learn some technique. Hopefully Sparano can season the Beaver.
Beavers reportedly had a rough senior season (I only saw him play once last year) and I agree that he probably needs more functional strength but with increased strength and good coaching, he's a project that could pan out.
-
- Commissioner
- Posts: 24788
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
- Location: Des Moines, Iowa
- x 108
Re: Vikings OL
I'm starting to see how you view the line if you think Kalil has been one of the best linemen. I'd argue Sully, Berger, one year of Fusco and possibly even Loadholt have been better at their positions. Huh.Mothman wrote:
I guess to some extent it's in the eye of the beholder. I think he plays the most difficult position on the line and I believe the rest of the line has largely been overrated so perhaps that helps explain our difference of opinion. I tend to think Kalil gets viewed more harshly because he was a high draft pick. He did have an awful stretch of games to start the 2014 season but other than that, I think he's been good-to-average. There's just nobody that's been on the line since he was drafted in 2012 who I'd rate better than that and unlike the majority of the line, Kalil has been out there for every game.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
Re: Vikings OL
dead_poet wrote:I'm starting to see how you view the line if you think Kalil has been one of the best linemen.
Yes, I think they've stunk in pass protection for years. They haven't been very consistent when run blocking the last few seasons either.
Just to be clear: I understand that I'm damning with faint praise when I say Kalil has been one of their best lineman but I think the evidence supports that statement.
That's two centers and one year of Fusco but he's been with the team longer than Kalil so in his case, that's 1 season out of 4 (since Kalil joined the Vikes in 2012). I certainly don't think he was better last year.I'd argue Sully, Berger, one year of Fusco and possibly even Loadholt have been better at their positions. Huh.
I didn't say Kalil was the best lineman on the team, I said he was one of the best and In a sense, you've reinforced my point. We've got a center, a backup center, a guard for one year out of 4 (which suggests he wasn't better for the other 3) and possibly Loadholt, who hasn't even played in the last 20-something games. I think Berger was a little better than Kalil last year but I wouldn't say he was better most seasons so that basically puts Kalil among the top 3 OL on the team in any given season. I'd say he was second only to Berger in 2015.
Anyway, my point is they have bigger problems along the line than Kalil and that's been true for the majority of the last 4 seasons yet he's probably the lineman who receives the most criticism.