2019 Draft Talk

[SemperFeist]

This team will never learn. 

[Snake Plissken]

IMO this team isn't in the position to play mad scientist with the OL for 2019-20.  Ideally I would like to see Reiff hold down the LT position for one more year.  Same for O'Neil at RT.  I think most of the OL available at 18 have G/T flexibility, so are starting G candidates. 

My goal for next season would be to get players comfortable and settled along the OL, especially Elflein at C, O'Neil at T, and the rookies/FAs. 

[swede700]

6 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

This team will never learn. 

I think that discussion is just mostly smoke.  I don't think there really is any intention to move Reiff.  It would only be done as a last resort.  He's likely going to be the starter at LT this year.  If he were moved to OG, I think it would just be a 1-yr move, because they'd cut him after the year, as they aren't going to be paying a LG $13M.  

[vikingsrule]

1 hour ago, Snake Plissken said:

IMO this team isn't in the position to play mad scientist with the OL for 2019-20.  Ideally I would like to see Reiff hold down the LT position for one more year.  Same for O'Neil at RT.  I think most of the OL available at 18 have G/T flexibility, so are starting G candidates. 

My goal for next season would be to get players comfortable and settled along the OL, especially Elflein at C, O'Neil at T, and the rookies/FAs. 

The question becomes do you want a rookie to play out of position or a veteran like Reiff? I'd trust a veteran to handle that better and I'd rather not stunt the development of a rookie.

[swede700]

20 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

The question becomes do you want a rookie to play out of position or a veteran like Reiff? I'd trust a veteran to handle that better and I'd rather not stunt the development of a rookie.

A rookie isn't playing out of position since he hasn't played professionally before.  It's far more detrimental to force a player who has played one position, tackle, in the NFL for 8 years, and hasn't played guard since his redshirt freshman year in college 11 years ago.

[vikingsrule]

5 minutes ago, swede700 said:

A rookie isn't playing out of position since he hasn't played professionally before.  It's far more detrimental to force a player who has played one position, tackle, in the NFL for 8 years, and hasn't played guard since his redshirt freshman year in college 11 years ago.

No but do you want a rookie to start at G and then have to switch positions after one year? That is my point in terms of playing out of position. Or is it easier to keep a rookie in one spot knowing you're probably parting ways with Reiff sooner than later.

[Snake Plissken]

For both the sake of some consistency for the upcoming season and for development, I'd prefer Reiff at LT.  Give O'Neill another year in the NFL before a possible move to the left side.  It seems the OL candidates at 18 have experience at G and T and most project more as G and RTs.  To me that seems the most plausible way to stabilize the OL.

[swede700]

48 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

No but do you want a rookie to start at G and then have to switch positions after one year? That is my point in terms of playing out of position. Or is it easier to keep a rookie in one spot knowing you're probably parting ways with Reiff sooner than later.

Personally...I'm drafting a player to play a particular position.  If a veteran player is currently starting at that position, then that rookie competes with him at that position.  I'm not shifting either player anywhere just for the sole purpose of attempting to get "the best 5 players on the field", because in reality, shifting either player to a position that they're not playing long-term doesn't make them one the best players (which sort of lends credence to your comment on stunting development)...I mean, in comparison, you don't shift a DE to DT just because he doesn't win the starting job...and you don't shift a CB to S just because he doesn't win a starting job....why would you do that with an OL?

[vikingsrule]

6 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Personally...I'm drafting a player to play a particular position.  If a veteran player is currently starting at that position, then that rookie competes with him at that position.  I'm not shifting either player anywhere just for the sole purpose of attempting to get "the best 5 players on the field", because in reality, shifting either player to a position that they're not playing long-term doesn't make them one the best players (which sort of lends credence to your comment on stunting development)...I mean, in comparison, you don't shift a DE to DT just because he doesn't win the starting job...and you don't shift a CB to S just because he doesn't win a starting job....why would you do that with an OL?

We've seen that there is generally more flexibility in skill set to move across the OL than there is across the DL or in the secondary. I don't think that is a valid comparison.

The benefit of drafting for the best five is you're setting yourself up for long term success. Why should the long term direction of the OL be influenced by a mediocre 30 year old LT. That's essentially the argument as to why the Vikings don't consider a Tackle at 18. Not every rookie tackle will be successful moving inside, why screw up that players development. I'd rather a rookie, or long term starter, be keyed in on one spot than moving them around every year.

[swede700]

8 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

We've seen that there is generally more flexibility in skill set to move across the OL than there is across the DL or in the secondary. I don't think that is a valid comparison.

The benefit of drafting for the best five is you're setting yourself up for long term success. Why should the long term direction of the OL be influenced by a mediocre 30 year old LT. That's essentially the argument as to why the Vikings don't consider a Tackle at 18. Not every rookie tackle will be successful moving inside, why screw up that players development. I'd rather a rookie, or long term starter, be keyed in on one spot than moving them around every year.

Then you simply cut the mediocre LT or relegate him to the bench to back up both tackle spots.  I'm not moving him inside.  It just doesn't make sense to me, in most instances.  It made sense to do it with Remmers, because his body type should be more suited to play inside...he just sucked at it.  It would make zero sense (to me, anyway) to move Reiff inside.

For me, the skill-set flexibility to move around should generally be between the inside positions (G/C) or between the tackle positions...period.  While there are instances where guys can play both G/T, it's far too few and between to try to make it a practice.    

[Guest]

1 hour ago, vikingsrule said:

We've seen that there is generally more flexibility in skill set to move across the OL than there is across the DL or in the secondary.

This may have been true a long time ago.  However, as offenses have grown in complexity so has the individual positions along the offensive line.  I think the "flexibility" you might be thinking about is with those depth guys who can fill in across the line.  However, rarely do they sustain performance levels the more positions they are required to play.  I do think that there are certain core traits that you want in offensive linemen, whichever position they play:

1. Intelligence - While not playing every position, they need to know what their linemates assignments and responsibilities are.  They also have to study their opponents, just like receivers have to study cornerbacks and vice versa.

2. Coachability - Each offense asks their linemen to do things that they haven't seen are done before.  It's important for linemen to have the ability to be coached.

3. Enough physicality - Linemen have to be strong...I don't think they necessarily have to be massive.  Bulk doesn't necessarily lead to strength...in fact to much bulk can lead to injury and/or loss of athleticism.

4. Technique - Footwork, hand speed, blocking the gap, timing are all hugely important in making a lineman effective...even more so than brute strength and size.

[SemperFeist]

It makes zero sense to move a good player to a position that he’s never played, creating a complete unknown, only to replace him with another player who is a complete unknown. And simply hope for the best. 

Leave Reiff at his position of strength, where he’s still a top half of the league LT. Draft a guard, and put the unknown player next to the solid veteran who knows what he’s doing. 

[SemperFeist]

 

[RpMc]

Could probably play him at guard and see improvement on our OL. He and Morgan would make a very good tandem that wouldn’t tip run or pass based on alignment. 

 

[swede700]

I can't believe Donald Parham (the 6'8" TE from Stetson) wasn't invited to the Combine.