Vikings OL and GM discussion

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings OL

Post by Mothman »

fiestavike wrote: I am worried that Stanley, Tunsil, Decker, and Conklin will all be gone by 23. The next range, Ihedi, Spriggs, will probably be gone by Rd 2 pick. They should be able to add some strong interior players as there seem to be a bunch of them, but help at T might be hard to get without reaching.

I wouldn't consider Spriggs a reach at 23 but I understand your concern. However, since the Vikes need to improve inside and outside, they should have a good OL option available to them in R1. I doubt that's where they'll go with the pick though.

There's always the chance they could move up or down too.
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings OL

Post by fiestavike »

Mothman wrote:
I wouldn't consider Spriggs a reach at 23 but I understand your concern. However, since the Vikes need to improve inside and outside, they should have a good OL option available to them in R1. I doubt that's where they'll go with the pick though.

There's always the chance they could move up or down too.
I'm not against Spriggs at 23 -- I know I picked him in a couple mock drafts -- but I think he would be at least a bit of a reach. I think there are players who project to be better at their perspective roles likely to still be on the board.

I hope if we go Tackle we either move up to get Stanley, or move down a little and try to get a little better value. I would still love to see them invest heavily in the O Line in this draft, but frankly I'm not optimistic they'll go that route.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
x 88

Re: Vikings OL

Post by chicagopurple »

God!, all this chatter about Kalil and Fusco being starters again has me very frustrated and downbeat. They are failed experiments and the team needs to move on. The coaches better be more then willing to let them get beat out of their spots based on how the pre-season goes. Sully is a complete gamble. I doubt he will hold up well with a bad back.
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 12790
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 662

Re: Vikings OL

Post by S197 »

dead_poet wrote:I'm thinking this is more likely (as it stands today but FA/draft will have a big impact):

LT: Kalil, Shepherd, Bykowski
LG: Boone, Kerin
C: Sullivan, Berger, Easton
RG: Fusco, Harris
RT: Loadholt, Smith (if signed), Clemmings
That looks about right and if you think about it, that's an 80% overhaul from last year. Sure, in some aspect or another we've seen this lineup before (other than Boone obviously) but it's an experienced line that has shown the ability to perform at times with youth at depth. They could also look at a Nick Martin or Jack Allen at C in the 3rd round to shore up (I feel as though we have sufficient competition at RG).
User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11583
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California
x 5

Re: Vikings OL

Post by jackal »

LT: Kalil, Shepherd, Bykowski
LG: Boone, Kerin
C: Sullivan, Berger, Easton
RG: Fusco, Harris
RT: Loadholt, Smith (if signed), Clemmings

Right now I think backups will need to have to play two OL spots to stay on. From what I am
hearing none of Loadholt's new contract allows the Vikings to cut him without a hit.

LT Kalil, Shepard
LG Boone, Berger
C Sullivan Cody Whitehair, Berger
RG Fusco Harris Berger
RT Loadholt (unless cut) Clemmings or Draft Pick

Depending on how much we draft I could Loadholt and Sullivan being cut before either this season or next.
That uses 10 roster spots instead of 14 maybe another late draft pick to develop.
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings OL

Post by fiestavike »

Its fun to speculate about who won't make the 53 from this group.

They currently have
1. C John Sullivan
2. C Zac Kerin
3. C Nick Easton
4. G Alex Boone
5. G Bandon Fusco
6. G Joe Berger
7. G/T Mike Harris
8. G/T Jeremiah Sirles
9. T Andre smith
10. T Matt Kalil
11. T Phil Loadholt
12. T Carter Bykowski
13. T TJ Clemmings
14. T Austin Shephard

I think Isame Faciane transitioned to G last year, but they have him listed as a DT :confused: 4 to 6 of these guys are not going to make the team. If they spend and early draft pick on another OL, 5-7 won't make the team. I'm sure practice squad eligibility might come into play here, but I'm very curious to see if any big surprises could out of this. Spielman also mentioned trading OL players for picks when the tough cuts come, and with the lack of talent across the league, that's probably a good possibility. Would they be willing to keep a Kerin or a Sirles, and Easton or a Bykowski, should they really show up ready to play this offseason? If so, there will be some dramatic moves coming. Are the guys who wind up on the bubble the Shephard and Clemmingses or the Loadholts, Bergers, and Sullivans? I'm kind of coming around to Spielman's approach to this position group, but I hope they don't stop adding players. By my count they have 15 offensive linemen, but I think between the draft and rookie FA we could see 18 or 19 guys brought in to compete in camp.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
mondry
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Vikings OL

Post by mondry »

fiestavike wrote:Its fun to speculate about who won't make the 53 from this group.

They currently have
1. C John Sullivan
2. C Zac Kerin
3. C Nick Easton
4. G Alex Boone
5. G Bandon Fusco
6. G Joe Berger
7. G/T Mike Harris
8. G/T Jeremiah Sirles
9. T Andre smith
10. T Matt Kalil
11. T Phil Loadholt
12. T Carter Bykowski
13. T TJ Clemmings
14. T Austin Shephard

I think Isame Faciane transitioned to G last year, but they have him listed as a DT :confused: 4 to 6 of these guys are not going to make the team. If they spend and early draft pick on another OL, 5-7 won't make the team. I'm sure practice squad eligibility might come into play here, but I'm very curious to see if any big surprises could out of this. Spielman also mentioned trading OL players for picks when the tough cuts come, and with the lack of talent across the league, that's probably a good possibility. Would they be willing to keep a Kerin or a Sirles, and Easton or a Bykowski, should they really show up ready to play this offseason? If so, there will be some dramatic moves coming. Are the guys who wind up on the bubble the Shephard and Clemmingses or the Loadholts, Bergers, and Sullivans? I'm kind of coming around to Spielman's approach to this position group, but I hope they don't stop adding players. By my count they have 15 offensive linemen, but I think between the draft and rookie FA we could see 18 or 19 guys brought in to compete in camp.
I love it, let Sparano take stock of um all and keep the best men for the job! Not having to force a draft pick on the O-line is also really nice. Though if none of them can play LT it'll still be worth while to pursue someone there.
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
x 111

Re: Vikings OL

Post by halfgiz »

fiestavike wrote:Its fun to speculate about who won't make the 53 from this group.

They currently have
1. C John Sullivan
2. C Zac Kerin
3. C Nick Easton
4. G Alex Boone
5. G Bandon Fusco
6. G Joe Berger
7. G/T Mike Harris
8. G/T Jeremiah Sirles
9. T Andre smith
10. T Matt Kalil
11. T Phil Loadholt
12. T Carter Bykowski


13. T TJ Clemmings
14. T Austin Shephard

I think Isame Faciane transitioned to G last year, but they have him listed as a DT :confused: 4 to 6 of these guys are not going to make the team. If they spend and early draft pick on another OL, 5-7 won't make the team. I'm sure practice squad eligibility might come into play here, but I'm very curious to see if any big surprises could out of this. Spielman also mentioned trading OL players for picks when the tough cuts come, and with the lack of talent across the league, that's probably a good possibility. Would they be willing to keep a Kerin or a Sirles, and Easton or a Bykowski, should they really show up ready to play this offseason? If so, there will be some dramatic moves coming. Are the guys who wind up on the bubble the Shephard and Clemmingses or the Loadholts, Bergers, and Sullivans? I'm kind of coming around to Spielman's approach to this position group, but I hope they don't stop adding players. By my count they have 15 offensive linemen, but I think between the draft and rookie FA we could see 18 or 19 guys brought in to compete in camp.
What's the magic number going to be 10? Is that how many they will keep?
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings OL

Post by fiestavike »

halfgiz wrote: What's the magic number going to be 10? Is that how many they will keep?
8-10, although 10 I think would be very high. I think most teams tend to go with 8-9.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
x 111

Re: Vikings OL

Post by halfgiz »

Last year at training camp Phil was looking pretty good. He had one of his better camps. I'm hoping he picks up where he left off.
One concern is I really haven't heard much on Sully except he is coming along. Will Easton be able to pick up the slack if Sully has problems?

I'm not sure what to think about all these one year deals we have. Will it help us...or will it come back to haunt us down the road?
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24788
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
x 108

Re: Vikings OL

Post by dead_poet »

halfgiz wrote:Last year at training camp Phil was looking pretty good. He had one of his better camps. I'm hoping he picks up where he left off.
Me too. I do worry a bit about his conditioning more than the injury itself but all accounts he looks good (i.e. not overweight) so that's a good thing. His work ethic has never been an issue and he's not an "old" tackle by any means so I expect this to be a good battle in camp.
One concern is I really haven't heard much on Sully except he is coming along. Will Easton be able to pick up the slack if Sully has problems?
I would imagine Berger would. Easton will likely be cut, especially if/when they hopefully draft one of the stud centers.

Speaking of Sully, I asked the Profootballdoc about it and he doesn't doubt Sully should be recovered sufficiently by camp.
I'm not sure what to think about all these one year deals we have. Will it help us...or will it come back to haunt us down the road?
It depends on how guys play. It's a risk, but it's good to have options.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: Vikings OL

Post by Texas Vike »

From Souhan's piece on building at least an AVERAGE OL:
Here’s the thing about offensive line play: Average works.

The Carolina Panthers took advantage of a strong offensive line to make it to the Super Bowl last season. They ranked second on Pro Football Focus’ ranking of all 32 offensive lines.

The Dallas Cowboys ranked first. The Saints, Falcons, Browns and Raiders came in right behind Carolina. But only four of the top 19 teams in the rankings won a playoff game. The Broncos, who won the Super Bowl, were tied for 20th.

At offensive line, it’s more important to be competent than exceptional. The Vikings’ offseason moves give them a chance to be competent.
More at link: http://www.startribune.com/vikings-lear ... 372508681/
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
x 395

Re: Vikings OL

Post by fiestavike »

Texas Vike wrote:From Souhan's piece on building at least an AVERAGE OL:
More at link:http://www.startribune.com/vikings-lear ... 372508681/
Thanks. Unfortunately I think this is the path we are on
There is no reason to believe the Vikings offensive line will be great or even very good in 2016, but not being a disaster is a worthwhile and attainable goal.
Its a start at least. It will say a lot about 2017 when we see which players are kept on the roster, and how many of them already have their best years behind them.
"You like that!"
-- Cap'n Spazz Cousins
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: Vikings OL

Post by Mothman »

Texas Vike wrote:From Souhan's piece on building at least an AVERAGE OL:
More at link: http://www.startribune.com/vikings-lear ... 372508681/

I understand his point but is it just me or does the phrase, "At offensive line, it’s more important to be competent than exceptional." sound a little silly? That seemed like an odd statement when I read it earlier this morning and it still looks strange to me. It's more important to be competent than incompetent, but It doesn't seem more important than being exceptional. Striving for the latter doesn't exactly preclude competence either so I'm not sure Souhan thought that one through.

I'm sure I'm over-thinking it. Anyway, I hope the Vikes aim higher than "average".

I noticed Souhan worked this in regarding Bridgewater:
He faced an intense pass rush up the middle and spent too many plays sprinting toward the sideline and throwing the ball away. That he completed 65.3 percent of his passes speaks to his accuracy when throwing passes with purpose.
"With purpose" is a euphemism for "short". :evil:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. The spin doctoring gets to me.
User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 405

Re: Vikings OL

Post by Texas Vike »

Mothman wrote:
I understand his point but is it just me or does the phrase, "At offensive line, it’s more important to be competent than exceptional." sound a little silly? That seemed like an odd statement when I read it earlier this morning and it still looks strange to me. It's more important to be competent than incompetent, but It doesn't seem more important than being exceptional. Striving for the latter doesn't exactly preclude competence either so I'm not sure Souhan thought that one through.

I'm sure I'm over-thinking it. Anyway, I hope the Vikes aim higher than "average".
No, you're right. That is a very poorly worded sentence. I get his meaning (I think), which would be something like this: "the real goal for building an OL, based on last season's rankings of OL play and how those teams performed, is to at least aim for competent play". Additionally, he points out that teams like Dallas that have made it their goal to build EXCEPTIONAL OLs haven't really found it to be a blueprint for building a dominant team that goes deep in the playoffs. I don't always like Souhan, but I thought this was a pretty interesting read, that problematic sentence notwithstanding.
Mothman wrote: I noticed Souhan worked this in regarding Bridgewater:
"With purpose" is a euphemism for "short". :evil:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. The spin doctoring gets to me.
I guess you could read it that way! :lol: I didn't. I thought it was a pretty well-made point. I guess that puts me in the camp that is supporting Teddy? Or at least I'm withholding judgment until he has a better OL. I think he has the required disposition for success, which is really important. HIs mechanics give me pause, but he wouldn't be the first QB with questionable technique to be successful.
Post Reply