Vikings Message Board.Com

Joe Berger as ultimate safety net allowed Vikings to strengthen defense

http://blog.startribune.com/sports/acce ... en-defense

Sullivan hasn’t practiced alongside Yankey or had a chance to see his practice tape.

“He’s a hard worker, I know that,” Sullivan said. “But in terms of breaking down his tape, the scout team analysis when they watch film is done without your starting group. So I’m not sure because I haven’t watched anything.”

Sullivan made it clear that he would welcome Berger as the starter. A year ago, Berger made nine starts at right guard. He was the second-best lineman on the team behind Sullivan. If you need numbers to back up your eyeballs, ProFootballFocus.com has them.

“I think he’s a starting-caliber player on a lot of teams in the league at either guard spot and especially at center,” Sullivan said. “So I’d be happy to play any single game next to any single opponent next to Joe Berger. I don’t know what the plan is. That’s stuff above my pay grade. But he already proved again the second half of last season that he’s more than capable of starting.”

Jim, my post wasn’t about what they should do, it was about what they did do. I agree improvement is needed, but it was also needed at LB and CB. As I said before, the Vikings seem to have a made a judgement call.

Also, I think you have to expect that every team is going to fill position groups with late round guys, they have to. High picks and too many FA put us in Cap trouble. So in that respect this move is also friendly to the team

I thought they’d move on Scherff, but when WSH took him, all bets were off when it came to OL. I also thought they’d grab somebody in round 3, but that didn’t happen. Again, I think the Vikings have some confidence (whether warranted or not) in developing late round OL. They do have high picks invested at both tackles, so they do have some talent there.

I suspect by week 8, barring injury, we’ll know if the strategy was sound.

I've been thinking Berger would start, he's got skills and experience.

I'm not a big fan of the late round picks for O-line as a sole means....but we'll see what happens. They have had a couple guys develop and they've had several who are long gone. I think this particular draft was kind of unique and a couple of these guys have a real good chance to stick.
I'd love to look back and say that this was the year they got it turned around on the line.

mansquatch wrote:Jim, my post wasn’t about what they should do, it was about what they did do.

I understood that but once you ventured into discussion of a dropoff, I responded to that as well.

I agree improvement is needed, but it was also needed at LB and CB. As I said before, the Vikings seem to have a made a judgement call.

Clearly and I'm not saying they made the wrong call, just saying that I believe there were compelling reasons to take an offensive lineman with that pick, whether Kendricks was the best ILB in the draft or not.

Also, I think you have to expect that every team is going to fill position groups with late round guys, they have to. High picks and too many FA put us in Cap trouble. So in that respect this move is also friendly to the team

I do expect teams to fill positions with late round picks but I don't really see that as relevant to a discussion of whether they should have chosen an LB or an o-lineman in R2. In financial terms, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. The cost in dollars is essentially the same.

I thought they’d move on Scherff, but when WSH took him, all bets were off when it came to OL. I also thought they’d grab somebody in round 3, but that didn’t happen. Again, I think the Vikings have some confidence (whether warranted or not) in developing late round OL. They do have high picks invested at both tackles, so they do have some talent there.

I think they have confidence in developing late round linemen and they've had some success doing it. The problem is that development takes time and in my view, they needed to upgrade now. The way they've approached the guard position is the biggest disappointment of the offseason for me and I'm afraid it's going to bite them in the behind during the season.

I suspect by week 8, barring injury, we’ll know if the strategy was sound.

Ah, but injury is what's really going tell the tale. Berger should be an adequate starter but if he or Fusco get injured there's no experienced depth behind them and the Vikes could find themselves with an easily exploitable weakness on their line.

I feel like I'm coming off overly critical about this and that's not my intent. I disagree with Spielman's strategy in this case because I place a high priority on the OL in general and especially on protecting a young QB. However, choosing Kendricks was a very reasonable way to invest a second round pick and that could pay big dividends as well.

You are not overly critical, but I do think your critique is narrow. Consider the state of the LB Corps. By comparison which unit, the OL or the LB Corps, was more in need of talent infusion prior to the draft? I think one could argue that LB had far more need, especially ILB, than interior OL. (Or at least equal need) So in that sense the depth of the up and coming OL, however scarce, might actually be a strength since the ILB depth is Audie Cole and Mike Mauti.

mansquatch wrote:You are not overly critical, but I do think your critique is narrow. Consider the state of the LB Corps. By comparison which unit, the OL or the LB Corps, was more in need of talent infusion prior to the draft? I think one could argue that LB had far more need, especially ILB, than interior OL. (Or at least equal need) So in that sense the depth of the up and coming OL, however scarce, might actually be a strength since the ILB depth is Audie Cole and Mike Mauti.

Yeah, I wanted OL more than most (not Jim! ) but one of the things we're critical of for Zimmer's defense to get to the next level is improving their run defense and adding Kendricks is a big step in the right direction in that regard and imo just as important as improved O-line play. I'm also not entirely convinced we don't have serviceable option at LG from within between berger and yankee. While I like Cole, the difference in talent between him and Kendricks is pretty large. I don't know if Cann is that much better thank Yankee or Berger but maybe he is.

First off major kudos on the Office LB video. I love that clip. Why they stopped running those commercials is beyond me.

I want to be clear that I'm not ripping on you Jim. I just think in order to evaluate the decision it is important to value need (however that is done) at both position groups. It is also necessary to value the talent on the board when they picked. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that when they reached their pick the OG they had highest on their board was no where near the value of Kendricks, thus the decision was simple. We are not privy to such details, so it is hard to sit back and say they did the right or wrong thing.

I thought they were going to go OG in the first round and I was wrong. I'm quite happy with the Waynes pick, btw.

What is fun is that by week 8 we'll get to see how the Vikings strategy plays out. Normally with draft issues we have to wait three years to see the benefit. Incidentally, I think Waynes will start rough and finish strong, which given our schedule is a positive although Detroit might pick on him a bit since we play them early on.

mansquatch wrote:You are not overly critical, but I do think your critique is narrow. Consider the state of the LB Corps. By comparison which unit, the OL or the LB Corps, was more in need of talent infusion prior to the draft? I think one could argue that LB had far more need, especially ILB, than interior OL. (Or at least equal need)

I agree, there's an argument to be made there as well but I've been talking about my personal preference here, which would have been to choose an o-lineman. I haven't said Kendricks was the wrong pick, simply that Cann would have been an equally valid choice, so I don't feel my critique is narrow. I recognize that MLB was a significant area of need as well and if the Vikes had chosen a guard in R2 and people were arguing that Kendricks would have made more sense, they'd have a valid point.

The deciding factor for me is Bridgewater. If a team finds a young QB and wants to build around him than I believe priority #1 is to do just that. It's not the only valid team-building philosophy but it's the approach I'd take. The defense can't simply be neglected but protecting that young QB and surrounding him with good weapons should be on the proverbial front burner (and I say that as a fan who loves defense).

mondry wrote:Yeah, I wanted OL more than most (not Jim! ) but one of the things we're critical of for Zimmer's defense to get to the next level is improving their run defense and adding Kendricks is a big step in the right direction in that regard and imo just as important as improved O-line play.

I hope you're right. I'm not convinced it is a big step in that direction. In fact, I'm worried it just makes them more vulnerable up the middle against power running because Kendricks is undersized and stacking and shedding blockers is not his strong suit.

mansquatch wrote:I want to be clear that I'm not ripping on you Jim.

No worries... i don't feel ripped on at all.

By the way, iIf that sounds like sarcasm, it's not!

I just think in order to evaluate the decision it is important to value need (however that is done) at both position groups. It is also necessary to value the talent on the board when they picked. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that when they reached their pick the OG they had highest on their board was no where near the value of Kendricks, thus the decision was simple. We are not privy to such details, so it is hard to sit back and say they did the right or wrong thing.

As I said above, I don't think they did the wrong thing, they just didn't do what I would have done in the same situation (and what i was obviously hoping they would do). They chose a very productive college player and I'm hoping Kendricks will live up the the hype I've seen for him and be a very good pro. It would be nice to have a playmaking MLB again. It's been a while.

I thought they were going to go OG in the first round and I was wrong. I'm quite happy with the Waynes pick, btw.

Ditto. I'm hoping he and Rhodes will end up being high-quality "bookend" corners for the Vikes for many years to come. That would also be nice for a change!

What is fun is that by week 8 we'll get to see how the Vikings strategy plays out. Normally with draft issues we have to wait three years to see the benefit. Incidentally, I think Waynes will start rough and finish strong, which given our schedule is a positive although Detroit might pick on him a bit since we play them early on.

It will be interesting to see if he can win a job right out of the gate or if they use him in sub-packages, like Frazier and his staff did with Rhodes during his first season.

Mothman wrote: I hope you're right. I'm not convinced it is a big step in that direction. In fact, I'm worried it just makes them more vulnerable up the middle against power running because Kendricks is undersized and stacking and shedding blockers is not his strong suit.

Good point, didn't think about it like that, hopefully he's like Antoine Winfield in that regard, able to slip blocks and get the runner down.

Height wise Kendricks is an inch shorter than Ray Lewis but about 23 pounds lighter (at least according to what this says) so I wonder how much muscle he'll be able to put on before the start of the season. If he can get up to Ray Lewis' weight he should be fine in the NFL.

Luke Kuechly who he's suppose to be pretty comparable to is 8 pounds heavier.

Mothman wrote: That's debatable but he's a good one.

I'm with Pete, I probably would have chosen an o-lineman (specifically, A. J. Cann) in R2 but that's not to say I dislike the Kendricks pick. I just believe in building a strong o-line and protecting the QB. They made the investment in Bridgewater and they're clearly viewing him as their present and future at QB. They need to make sure he's well protected and since they're also counting on Peterson coming back and making a big contribution, being strong up front makes even more sense . To me, a plug-and-play guard like Cann could would have been as valid a choice as Kendricks, who, let's face it, while a very productive player with a great motor, is undersized for his position (assuming the Vikes play him in the middle and not on the weak side).

I don't think there is anything debatable about Kendricks. He was #1 on every analysts board out there. He's a legitimate 3 down LB that can both cover and play the run very well. There wasn't another LB out there that could legitimately do that

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I don't think there is anything debatable about Kendricks. He was #1 on every analysts board out there. He's a legitimate 3 down LB that can both cover and play the run very well. There wasn't another LB out there that could legitimately do that

Lmfao, no Kendricks was not, under any circumstances, number 1 on every analysts board, not even remotely true.

Kendricks is undersized in some aspects. At 230# he is going to have issues shedding athletic NFL linemen. Now maybe that is something that can be fixed, we shall see.

Every player has issues with his game coming out of the draft, the question is what a guy's ceiling is and how hard he will work to achieve it.

mondry wrote:Luke Kuechly who he's suppose to be pretty comparable to is 8 pounds heavier.

Because graphs are fun.