A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://www.vikingsmessageboard.com/
With probably the most question marks in 2016 AND 2017. If they don't take advantage of this great center class I'm going to be very disappointed.S197 wrote: I think they'll take a player in one of those rounds but right now they have the most expensive line in the entire NFL so I don't think they're going to go nuts in the draft.
The problem is this approach provides very little stability/reliability going forward. That's why they need to add some quality talent in the draft.IIsweet wrote:The 1 year deals are imperative this year. Loadholt and Sullivan were injured. Kalil struggled. They have depth already in Clemmings, Harris, Bykowski, Smith, and Berger, not to mention Fusco was a C.
The Andre Smith 1 year deal allows us to see if Kalil can be healthy and perform. If not, release him next year.
I like this approach and hopefully can put together a solid OL for years to come.
Ya, its low risk, but it remains to be seen if it is also going to be low reward.Mothman wrote: The problem is this approach provides very little stability/reliability going forward. That's why they need to add some quality talent in the draft.
I suspect if Sullivan and Loadholt prove they are healthy, they will get a mid-season extension. I also think the same for Smith if he proves he can be trusted in this system.Mothman wrote: The problem is this approach provides very little stability/reliability going forward. That's why they need to add some quality talent in the draft.
Yeah, basically if any of these guys perform well we can throw money at them, including the 1 year deal guys. If anyone underperforms they won't be back and their salary comes off the books. Pretty solid plan.PurpleMustReign wrote:
I suspect if Sullivan and Loadholt prove they are healthy, they will get a mid-season extension. I also think the same for Smith if he proves he can be trusted in this system.
Unless none of them perform well! ha. Then we are back in the same boat in 2017.mondry wrote: Yeah, basically if any of these guys perform well we can throw money at them, including the 1 year deal guys. If anyone underperforms they won't be back and their salary comes off the books. Pretty solid plan.
B/R NFL 1000: Ranking the Top 32 Punters from 2015Jeff Locke
Rank #31/32
Punt Power
37/45
One of the weakest legs in the game, Jeff Locke lacks the ability to launch the ball deep. He continually comes up short on punts in pressure situations and is one of the worst in the league at getting height on his punts. His 41.6 yards per punt barely beat out Jacob Schum for the shortest average among starters, but Schum at least has the ability to sky his punts.
Punt Accuracy
34/45
Locke hasn’t improved since entering the league three years ago, and this past season was by far the worst of his career. Although he still needs to improve quite a bit, he has enough accuracy to force returners toward the sideline or angle the ball just enough to make it hard for them to get a running start. With Locke ranking near the bottom in pretty much every category, it is easy to see why he finished so low on this list.
Position Value
4/4
Overall
75/94
I think that was pretty much confirmed a while back to be the case. We ask him to give up distance for hang time, now if there's a punter that can get great hang time and still boot it a mile then maybe it's something to think about.Mothman wrote:Locke's not great but I don't think he's playing at a level that merits spending a draft pick on a punter this season. Almost 1/3 of his punts ended in fair catches last year. More than 1/3 were inside the 20. The Vikings allowed the second fewest punt return yards in the league and they didn't have a punt blocked or returned for a score. In other words, Locke's doing something right. It would be nice to see his net and gross average go up a bit but out-kicking his coverage wouldn't be a good thing either and I get the impression he's coached to kick in a way that minimizes return yardage rather than maximizing power or distance.
Was it confirmed? I wasn't able to find any hang time stats at all. If true, either Locke doesn't have the ability to kick for hang time and distance, or Zimmer has no confidence in his coverage team. Those fair catch and inside the 20 stats could be the result of stalled drives near midfield. Also, what's the use of minimizing return yardage when the Vikings still rank at the bottom of NET yds? I'd certainly use a 5th round pick if either Hackett or Kaser was available. Field position is so important to a team built like this one.mondry wrote: I think that was pretty much confirmed a while back to be the case. We ask him to give up distance for hang time, now if there's a punter that can get great hang time and still boot it a mile then maybe it's something to think about.
And the likely alternative talent at that pick? Definitely worth a shot.808vikingsfan wrote: Was it confirmed? I wasn't able to find any hang time stats at all. If true, either Locke doesn't have the ability to kick for hang time and distance, or Zimmer has no confidence in his coverage team. Those fair catch and inside the 20 stats could be the result of stalled drives near midfield. Also, what's the use of minimizing return yardage when the Vikings still rank at the bottom of NET yds? I'd certainly use a 5th round pick if either Hackett or Kaser was available. Field position is so important to a team built like this one.