Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple Reign wrote:
I guess it just bugs me when people praise a player for doing something that is illegal (and I'm not talking about something like holding a receiver to prevent a td which could be considered a smart play). Just because it wasn't called a penalty doesn't make it a 'smart' play. Either Barr doesn't know the rule, or if he does, he did it anyway which makes it a bone-headed play. It worked out since it wasn't called, but it wasn't a 'smart' play on Barr's part.

Didnt know it was a rule. Its something that hardly ever happens in the NFL so I'm guessing he didnt know. I doubt he would do it if he knew it was a penalty. Either way it worked out so I guess it was a good play

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Didnt know it was a rule. Its something that hardly ever happens in the NFL so I'm guessing he didnt know. I doubt he would do it if he knew it was a penalty. Either way it worked out so I guess it was a good play

Not sure how a player could not know it's a rule. Damn near everyone who saw the end of he Seattle-Detroit game last year knows it's a rule. After a Seattle player batted the ball out of the end zone. Most likely cost Detroit the game.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Didnt know it was a rule. Its something that hardly ever happens in the NFL so I'm guessing he didnt know. I doubt he would do it if he knew it was a penalty. Either way it worked out so I guess it was a good play

It probably doesn't happen that often because players know it is against the rules so they don't do it. I'm not saying Barr knew it or not, but if he didn't that would be a coaching problem as all players should know what they are/aren't allowed to do (regardless of how often it happens). I can understand a fan not knowing the rule, but not players.

Purple Reign wrote: I guess it just bugs me when people praise a player for doing something that is illegal (and I'm not talking about something like holding a receiver to prevent a td which could be considered a smart play). Just because it wasn't called a penalty doesn't make it a 'smart' play. Either Barr doesn't know the rule, or if he does, he did it anyway which makes it a bone-headed play. It worked out since it wasn't called, but it wasn't a 'smart' play on Barr's part.

OK fine. I was just trying to be civil. And honestly I didn't know it was illegal.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: OK fine. I was just trying to be civil. And honestly I didn't know it was illegal.

I assumed that people didn't know it was against the rules, so that's why I pointed it out. Nothing personal.

Posted by Mike Wobschall

Rashod Hill, Joe Berger, Nick Easton, Brandon Fusco, Jeremiah Sirles in at OL Just how they drew it up in training camp.

halfgiz wrote:Posted by Mike Wobschall

Rashod Hill, Joe Berger, Nick Easton, Brandon Fusco, Jeremiah Sirles in at OL Just how they drew it up in training camp.

Won't be shocked if Hill, Berger and Sirles are week 1 starters next year. Maybe even Fusco

fiestavike wrote: Won't be shocked if Hill, Berger and Sirles are week 1 starters next year. Maybe even Fusco

With Clemmings as one of the primary backups!

It wouldn't shock me at all.

Mothman wrote: With Clemmings as one of the primary backups!

It wouldn't shock me at all.

Its alarming to hear Zimmer attribute offensive line struggles, in part, to injuries. Last years plan A was a bunch of already injured and injury prone players. It will be sad and fitting for them to "reload" with the same bunch of guys who are already rostered, who weren't able to play last year, and weren't very good the year before when they did play. Ya, that'll solve it...just like it did last year, or the year before that!

fiestavike wrote:
Its alarming to hear Zimmer attribute offensive line struggles, in part, to injuries. Last years plan A was a bunch of already injured and injury prone players. It will be sad and fitting for them to "reload" with the same bunch of guys who are already rostered, who weren't able to play last year, and weren't very good the year before when they did play. Ya, that'll solve it...just like it did last year, or the year before that!

And like I've said before, I highly doubt he tries to go into next year with what we have. Last year it wasn't something that kept us from winning. It wasn't a very good OL but it wasn't the sole reason we lost to Seattle. This year, it was a big reason we lost some games. It effected our entire gameplan and offensive approach. He addressed it in his end of the year presser. He knows. He's not oblivious to it like you think he is. I see no reason it won't be addressed this offseason

Pondering Her Percy wrote: And like I've said before, I highly doubt he tries to go into next year with what we have. Last year it wasn't something that kept us from winning. It wasn't a very good OL but it wasn't the sole reason we lost to Seattle.

There was no sole reason they lost to Seattle but it had an impact on the game.

This year, it was a big reason we lost some games.

It was a big reason they lost some games in 2014 and 2015 too.

It effected our entire gameplan and offensive approach. He addressed it in his end of the year presser. He knows. He's not oblivious to it like you think he is. I see no reason it won't be addressed this offseason

He knew last year too and look at the "solutions" they settled on and how poorly they worked out. Zimmer thought they had addressed the problem and yet they blew it big time. Consequently, the question isn't if they will address the OL this offseason, it's how they will address it and if they will finally do a good job of it.

Mothman wrote:He knew last year too and look at the "solutions" they settled on and how poorly they worked out. Zimmer thought they had addressed the problem and yet they blew it big time. Consequently, the question isn't if they will address the OL this offseason, it's how they will address it and if they will finally do a good job of it.

You got it. And I'll take it a step further and question how they will address the offense as a whole. That means from every player to schemes.

It will be telling who they keep and who they let go as well. And who they play and who they don't play, which I believe has had impact on the offense.

losperros wrote: You got it. And I'll take it a step further and question how they will address the offense as a whole. That means from every player to schemes.

It will be telling who they keep and who they let go as well. And who they play and who they don't play, which I believe has had impact on the offense.

I definitely think that has an impact and you've raised a good point: how they will address the offense as a whole is a big issue. The Vikings offense has been ranked in the bottom 13%-20% of the league for 3 straight seasons now, showing almost no improvement in it's overall effectiveness.

Mothman wrote:
There was no sole reason they lost to Seattle but it had an impact on the game.

Again, I think we all know what ended up costing us that game. If Walsh hits that field goal, this isn't even being talked about right now nor are you saying it had a big impact on a game we won.

It was a big reason they lost some games in 2014 and 2015 too.

If you say so but like I said before, if the OL was healthy, I don't believe it's something that was going to keep us from a SB. We had a legit shot to go to the NFCCG last year if it wasn't for Walsh and that line consisted of Kalil, Fusco, Berger, Harris and Clemmings. This year, if the OL was fully healthy we replace Fusco and Clemmings with Boone and Smith. Which is obvious improvement. So essentially it's a better line than last years.

He knew last year too and look at the "solutions" they settled on and how poorly they worked out. Zimmer thought they had addressed the problem and yet they blew it big time. Consequently, the question isn't if they will address the OL this offseason, it's how they will address it and if they will finally do a good job of it.

It worked out so poorly because of injuries. You add Harris, Kalil and Smith to this line, it's a totally different line and isn't causing us to modify the offense. Will it be some great OL? No. But you say "look how poorly it worked out". Well of course it did Jim!! We had 12 different OL combinations this year due to injury. You can't prevent injuries. Could it have been addressed better? I suppose. But I was with Zimmer on this one last offseason. I thought the OL would be pretty decent going into this year. Kalil, Boone, Berger, Harris and Smith isn't a bad line whatsoever. Shi* happens. However, I think they'll address it through the draft and FA this year and find some quality lineman

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Again, I think we all know what ended up costing us that game. If Walsh hits that field goal, this isn't even being talked about right now nor are you saying it had a big impact on a game we won.

Sure I would.The outcome of the FG had no impact on how the OL performed or on my assessment of their performance.

It worked out so poorly because of injuries.

It's time to take off the goggles and face the fact that it was a bad plan in the first place and it's not surprising at all that injury-prone players got injured or retired and that previously disappointing players gave disappointing performances. Continually excusing it all and writing off as mere misfortune due to injury is sheer obstinance and ignores the very obvious fact that a poor strategy for improving the line failed, in large part, because it was a poor strategy. Everything from Loadholt's potential retirement to the lack of depth and the unreliability of the team's OL "solutions" was pointed out before it all went wrong. When fans can easily identify such pitfalls in advance and the team ignores them and plods ahead into a mess, that's a problem.

However, I think they'll address it through the draft and FA this year and find some quality lineman

I hope they do.