Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote:
Make no mistake about it: Clemmings was one of the main reasons that wine was so mediocre

Beo wrote: Schwartz replaces Phil at RT and Conklin replaces Kalil at LT. Osemele moves in at LG and Fusco moves back to RG and Sullivan at C and if Sully cant make it back I feel comfortable with Berger at C. I love Phil but he is 30 years old coming off 2 season ending injuries and makes over 7 mil a year so we go younger and more durable for about the same money with Schwartz. Conklin and Osemele are brutes and instantly give us a great left side of the line. Fusco was good at RG so we move him back there. Clemmings becomes the swing T and learns both positions and improves and becomes a very important backup in case of an injury to either Conklin or Schwartz. I would feel very confident with this O-Line and would be excited to see what Sparano could do with it. As far as Robison goes, I like him alot but I feel Danielle Hunter moves into the starting lineup opposite Griffen and we could not justify paying Robison (who turns 33 in April) the amount of money he makes to be a backup. Drew Ott is a Robison clone with his blue collar style and high motor and would be a much higher pick if he hadnt got injured early in the season for Iowa. I also havent given up on Crichton being a solid contributor off the bench.

84BreaksAnkles wrote:

slapnut19 wrote:i'm not going to sit here and blame clemmings for the line's problems last year. he was a 4th round pick who wasn't even expected to start. he had an up and down year, but still was on the 2nd rookie right tackle in team history to start every game. .

dead_poet wrote: This is completely irrelevant. If we're talking performance (which we are), Clemmings was our worst lineman. He deserves some of the blame no matter if he wasn't expected to start. Of course he can and probably will improve.

If you think Kalil was worse than Clemmings last year I seriously question your offensive line evaluations.

mansquatch wrote:I still think part of the answer is already on the roster. Replace Clemmings with Loadholt. RT done. C is already invested in as they traded for the kid from ND (Easton?) and Berger is a proven backup. So that leaves both Guards and LT. Is there a FA who we think can come in and be better or equal to Kalil? Maybe, but I have doubts on the incremental benefit. So that leaves the guards.

mansquatch wrote:I'm fine on looking at Guard. I think LT is high risk. There is no guarantee that what we get is better than Kalil. Also if we cut him and the "new guy" gets hurt, then who is there? Clemmings?

I wonder how much of the hate for Kalil is due to 2013 and 2014 vs. 2015? I didn't feel like Kalil was our problem last year.

dead_poet wrote:I don't understand why Clemmings gets a pass for being abysmal while Fusco doesn't for playing a position he's never played before. Don't get me wrong; Fusco was bad too but at least he has proven himself an asset on the right side. Look, I get Clemmings was put in a tough spot but that doesn't absolve him from his awful play. I still believe he was unquestionably our worst lineman. But this is exactly why I'm nervous about replacing guys WITH more rookies.

PurpleMustReign wrote: I'm not giving him a total pass... but what would you have done in his situation if you had played as bad as he did? Bench yourself? I don't think he was as bad as others seem to think, but then again, I don't know much about OL play.

dead_poet wrote: The situation isn't the point. I'm talking exclusively about individual performance and how it relates to the unit. Clemmings was awful. He constantly needed help, which limited the offense to an extent, and when he wasn't provided help he was a major liability, allowing routine pressures and sacks. I want the unit to be measurably better. If Phil was in the lineup it would have been. I want nothing to do with Clemmings until 2017 at the earliest as he continues to get stronger and refine his technique.