Is the unthinkable now a posibility

[The Breeze]

Another reason we wouldn't get anything close to what we have into AD is, he is not a complete back. He is a bad receiver and about the worst blocking RB I have ever seen.

He's our 2 down $100million back....and the face of the franchise.

The Purple Albatross, due to the fact that the people in charge believed it would be a sound idea to run the offense through his position, rather than use him as the ultimate compliment to it.

They have all the weapons minus a solid O-line and decent QB. It's all backwards IMO. Not so much by design, but just how it's shaken out since the Wilfs took over.
I admire their desire to spend, especially compared to McCheap, but I think they've been led to spending more on accessories than the foundation and it's really showing...

[dead_poet]

I admire their desire to spend, especially compared to McCheap, but I think they've been led to spending more on accessories than the foundation and it's really showing...

What foundation players should they have spent their $ on?

[mondry]

What foundation players should they have spent their $ on?

A guard and nose tackle would be nice. To me the foundation is the o-line and d-line, both aren't super hot right now, but we got that shiny Greg Jennings and John Carlson! Before that Bernard Berrian and Madieu Williams!

[Mothman]

What foundation players should they have spent their $ on?

[dead_poet]

A guard and nose tackle would be nice. To me the foundation is the o-line and d-line, both aren't super hot right now, but we got that shiny Greg Jennings and John Carlson! Before that Bernard Berrian and Madieu Williams!

The Wilfs are spending on positions of pretty substantial need. Put it this way, what if we would've gone into the season with Louiz Vasquez at guard and then signed zero receivers? People would be all bent out of shape about neglecting the receiver position. Unfortunately they spent on what they perceived was their greatest weakness. I guess my POV is receiver was a much greater need than guard, with very little depth at such a poor position in 2012. This team has a lot of holes, and we've seen there's just no way to absolutely spend/solve them in one offseason. We continue to need solid drafts, though I will say I'm hoping Patterson ends up being worth the price we paid, because some of those picks could've been used to address some of these holes. How well they would've been able to contribute, is another matter.

Once again, the Vikings will have significant questions at multiple positions this offseason: QB, LG, DT, ILB, OLB, CB and SS, and unfortunately not a whole lot of high-round picks. Hopefully drafting wisely and spending some decent $$ on one or two starting-caliber free agents will help right the ship.

[The Breeze]

What foundation players should they have spent their $ on?

It's not entirely about players IMO....it's a general philosophy about what is important to winning. The big foundation. Like what the Colts and Chiefs have pulled off.

Throwing out Luck for a moment, the Colts retooled their secondary by nabbing guys who fit a more functional philosophy. Three guys no one would consider marquee in one off season. So far they've beaten 3 of the top teams in the league and are getting better because their defense is not one dimentional and does not require a big lead to be successful. No surprise that the guy who orchestrated a lot of it has deep connections to the Ravens system.

By foundation, I mean building units that are redundantly failsafe rather than relying on one aspect of the unit to make the whole thing work. Overpaying for that aspect to the point where you are forced to skimp on the back end.....ala J Allen vs Winfield....for example.

This coaching staff claimed they would adapt thier system to the players strengths. I have not seen that at all. I see the continued square peg round hole syndrome. Players not having fun, confused...and as Jim Marshal put it, pretty much looking uncoordinated out there.
I also do not see players improving much at all beyond the natural skillse they came in with.

not a complete answer....and I'm certain I've left myself open for plenty...but I gotta run and help an old lady~

[mondry]

The Wilfs are spending on positions of pretty substantial need. Put it this way, what if we would've gone into the season with Louiz Vasquez at guard and then signed zero receivers? People would be all bent out of shape about neglecting the receiver position. Unfortunately they spent on what they perceived was their greatest weakness. I guess my POV is receiver was a much greater need than guard, with very little depth at such a poor position in 2012. This team has a lot of holes, and we've seen there's just no way to absolutely spend/solve them in one offseason. We continue to need solid drafts, though I will say I'm hoping Patterson ends up being worth the price we paid, because some of those picks could've been used to address some of these holes. How well they would've been able to contribute, is another matter.

Spielman's been here a while so I think he's had a decent amount of time to continue improving the lines. As for what people would think about not improving the WR position, who cares? I don't like dealing in hypothetical's but yes I think Vasquez replacing Charlie Johnson is a more significant move than having a WR corp that looks like Simpson, Patterson, Wright, Burton compared to Simpson, Jennings, Patterson, Wright. Signing Jennings just hurts our development at WR because now what does everyone say? "Well we run 2 WR sets and Simpson is performing really well and we paid Jennings so much he HAS to be out there." That means Patterson and Wright aren't getting the experience they need and Burton's on another team.

Mean while who are we developing at guard? No one (at the time) as far as I know so signing Louiz Vasquez makes a lot of sense to me.

Once again, the Vikings will have significant questions at multiple positions this offseason: QB, LG, DT, ILB, OLB, CB and SS, and unfortunately not a whole lot of high-round picks. Hopefully drafting wisely and spending some decent $$ on one or two starting-caliber free agents will help right the ship.

And we'll continue to have significant questions until we shore up the o-line and d-line. As I've said a bunch in the defensive threads, if we can't get pressure with the front 4 and we can't stop the run with the front 7, nothing else really matters. You have to win in the trenches in the NFL, on offense it doesn't matter how many shiny toys you have outside if you can't keep the QB up right.

For us it's pretty simple I think. We have Adrian Peterson, average QB, average WR's. Getting better run blocking helps peterson, better pass blocking buys more time for the passing game and we'll have a young QB back there one way or the other. One of Ponder's biggest problems is we couldn't get consistent pass blocking so he went all skittish, losing all regard for the pocket and his mechanics. I'm not saying Ponder would have developed into our franchise guy with better o-line play, just any QB no matter WHO they are will do better with better protection. Even career back up Cassel looked good against the Steelers when they simply couldn't get pressure on us because the Steelers simply lack that ability but it's a glimpse into what I'm talking about.

[mondry]

It's not entirely about players IMO....it's a general philosophy about what is important to winning. The big foundation. Like what the Colts and Chiefs have pulled off.

Throwing out Luck for a moment, the Colts retooled their secondary by nabbing guys who fit a more functional philosophy. Three guys no one would consider marquee in one off season. So far they've beaten 3 of the top teams in the league and are getting better because their defense is not one dimentional and does not require a big lead to be successful. No surprise that the guy who orchestrated a lot of it has deep connections to the Ravens system.

By foundation, I mean building units that are redundantly failsafe rather than relying on one aspect of the unit to make the whole thing work. Overpaying for that aspect to the point where you are forced to skimp on the back end.....ala J Allen vs Winfield....for example.

This coaching staff claimed they would adapt thier system to the players strengths. I have not seen that at all. I see the continued square peg round hole syndrome. Players not having fun, confused...and as Jim Marshal put it, pretty much looking uncoordinated out there.
I also do not see players improving much at all beyond the natural skillse they came in with.

not a complete answer....and I'm certain I've left myself open for plenty...but I gotta run and help an old lady~

Well said, I was planning on making a thread going over this very topic and the Colts secondary is the example I've been looking at. I think they've assembled that secondary in a way that if i was an NFL GM I'd be taking notice, it's pretty incredible. That's really the difference, sure they've gotten Luck and that helps, but we were both in the top 3 worst teams a little while back and now they're looking like a long time super bowl contender and we look to be 3-13 so it's more than just the quarter back. We're getting worse at just about every area while they're executing their plan perfectly.

[dead_poet]

Spielman's been here a while so I think he's had a decent amount of time to continue improving the lines.

I kinda think he has. Kalil is an improvement over McKinnie, it took a couple of years but Sullivan is about as solid as Birk (prior to his offseason surgery), Fusco seems to be turning a corner and Loadholt is generally a monster in the run game.

As for what people would think about not improving the WR position, who cares? I don't like dealing in hypothetical's but yes I think Vasquez replacing Charlie Johnson is a more significant move than having a WR corp that looks like Simpson, Patterson, Wright, Burton compared to Simpson, Jennings, Patterson, Wright. Signing Jennings just hurts our development at WR because now what does everyone say? "Well we run 2 WR sets and Simpson is performing really well and we paid Jennings so much he HAS to be out there." That means Patterson and Wright aren't getting the experience they need and Burton's on another team.

Who cares? Did you watch our receivers last season? There was no way to predict Simpson would've improved at all, rendering Jennings unnecessary. There was no way to predict we could've even had a chance to draft Patterson. We simply needed better receivers to try and not only stretch the field, but give our QB (who was improving) a chance to loosen things up for AD and really get the offense moving.

Mean while who are we developing at guard? No one (at the time) as far as I know so signing Louiz Vasquez makes a lot of sense to me.

I would've liked Vasquez too (and posted as such), but from where things stood at the time, our receivers were considerably worse than our guards. But your question about who are we developing is valid. A bunch of mid-late rounders (Baca, Bond).

And we'll continue to have significant questions until we shore up the o-line and d-line. As I've said a bunch in the defensive threads, if we can't get pressure with the front 4 and we can't stop the run with the front 7, nothing else really matters. You have to win in the trenches in the NFL, on offense it doesn't matter how many shiny toys you have outside if you can't keep the QB up right.

On paper, the Vikings (this season) SHOULD be set at DE. I'm a big fan of winning in the trenches too. For my money, gut pressure is more significant/disruptive than edge pressure. Hopefully Floyd improves going forward. And, again, on paper, we should have a decent offensive line. We have a liability at LG for sure, but how many NFL offensive lines have all studs/above average offensive linemen? Hopefully next season we get an upgrade on CJ. This is still one to build on in my mind (particularly if Sullivan and Kalil can re-find their form).

For us it's pretty simple I think. We have Adrian Peterson, average QB, average WR's. Getting better run blocking helps peterson, better pass blocking buys more time for the passing game and we'll have a young QB back there one way or the other. One of Ponder's biggest problems is we couldn't get consistent pass blocking so he went all skittish, losing all regard for the pocket and his mechanics. I'm not saying Ponder would have developed into our franchise guy with better o-line play, just any QB no matter WHO they are will do better with better protection. Even career back up Cassel looked good against the Steelers when they simply couldn't get pressure on us because the Steelers simply lack that ability but it's a glimpse into what I'm talking about.

Better offensive line play is absolutely key. I just think this unit is (grimaces) underperforming as a unit. They've shown they can string together some positive days (against Pitt and second half vs. Chicago). But, like most of the team, they lack consistency as individuals and, especially, as a unit.

[mondry]

I kinda think he has. Kalil is an improvement over McKinnie, it took a couple of years but Sullivan is about as solid as Birk (prior to his offseason surgery), Fusco seems to be turning a corner and Loadholt is generally a monster in the run game.

Yeah for sure, but like most things you're only as strong as your weakest link and right now in pass blocking we kind of have two. Charlie Johnson and Loadholt. If we improve on CJ we can give more help to loadholt, that'll be huge.

Who cares? Did you watch our receivers last season? There was no way to predict Simpson would've improved at all, rendering Jennings unnecessary. There was no way to predict we could've even had a chance to draft Patterson. We simply needed better receivers to try and not only stretch the field, but give our QB (who was improving) a chance to loosen things up for AD and really get the offense moving.

I just meant who cares in what the public or the people think. If I'm GM LG was by far our weakest link on offense for a two tight end power run game scheme. That means 2 WR's, we had Jarius Wright earning more play time last year so for me that's one. Then I need one other guy to step up between Simpson, Burton, Webb, and any possible draft pick (we have TWO first round picks so we'd pretty much have a shot at either Patterson, Hopkins, Allen, woods, etc) so I find it hard to believe we wouldn't leave that first round without a WR. In fact they wanted to do it so bad we traded our entire draft to make a 3rd first round pick so that play would have always been there regardless of free agency.

I would've liked Vasquez too (and posted as such), but from where things stood at the time, our receivers were considerably worse than our guards. But your question about who are we developing is valid. A bunch of mid-late rounders (Baca, Bond).

Yeah, all I meant is that I think we had a larger potential for some WR to surprise us than we did at LG. In that sense, that's why I think LG was the bigger FA need. We knew going into the draft we would VERY likely target a WR, again so much so that we traded most of our draft to do so. We didn't have anything at LG and weren't likely to draft one.

We have a liability at LG for sure, but how many NFL offensive lines have all studs/above average offensive linemen?

Oh I don't know, just the GOOD ones.

Better offensive line play is absolutely key. I just think this unit is (grimaces) underperforming as a unit. They've shown they can string together some positive days (against Pitt and second half vs. Chicago). But, like most of the team, they lack consistency as individuals and, especially, as a unit.

It's possible, I also wonder if it isn't a little something with the coaching, Kalil seemed BETTER before he spent more time here lol!

[dead_poet]

I just meant who cares in what the public or the people think. If I'm GM LG was by far our weakest link on offense for a two tight end power run game scheme.

Perhaps. But AD nearly set the NFL rushing record the year before with that line, while our passing game was abysmal, thanks to shoddy QB and especially WR play (and talent). Seems prudent to want to upgrade a weakness than take a relative strength and try and strengthen it further at the expense of a weakness.

That means 2 WR's, we had Jarius Wright earning more play time last year so for me that's one. Then I need one other guy to step up between Simpson, Burton, Webb, and any possible draft pick (we have TWO first round picks so we'd pretty much have a shot at either Patterson, Hopkins, Allen, woods, etc) so I find it hard to believe we wouldn't leave that first round without a WR.

Even so, it's been posted here several times the initial success rate of WRs in their first year (it's not good). So no matter who we drafted, it's difficult to say here how they would've fared in their first season. I'm not saying I agree, but you see why the Vikings opted for a vet with a proven track record rather than needing to rely on a bunch of scrubs (as they played last season) or a rookie WR when you're looking to upgrade a passing game immediately with young, inconsistent QB.

Yeah, all I meant is that I think we had a larger potential for some WR to surprise us than we did at LG. In that sense, that's why I think LG was the bigger FA need.

It certainly is now! Looking back, though, not knowing what we do about Simpson or the possibility of Jennings, that's really hard for me to agree with.

Oh I don't know, just the GOOD ones.

Oh! Right! Those! I forgot.

But lest we forget how oftentimes a good QB can mask the difficulties of an offensive line. Whereas a questionable QB (or below average), tends to highlight the struggles, inconsistency, weaknesses.

It's possible, I also wonder if it isn't a little something with the coaching, Kalil seemed BETTER before he spent more time here lol!

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that.

Minnesota Vikings: Coaching Talent Out Of Players Since 1961!

[mondry]

But lest we forget how oftentimes a good QB can mask the difficulties of an offensive line. Whereas a questionable QB (or below average), tends to highlight the struggles, inconsistency, weaknesses.

Yeah, but I think it's pretty safe to say we've had below average QB play and maybe average o-line pass blocking. In other words they probably aren't doing EACH OTHER any favors heh.

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that.

Minnesota Vikings: Coaching Talent Out Of Players Since 1961!

Shrug, Robinson went from developing young guy with a lot of upside to the worst corner in the league