Vikings Sign Josh Kline

[vikestyle]

Just now, Cearbhall said:

Lets look at last year's offensive line top 20 picks.

Q. Nelson: Colts hat Matt Slausen and Mark Glowinski.

M. McGlinchey: 49ers had Joe Staley and Trenton Brown going into the draft.

K. Miller: Raiders had Donald Penn and Breno Giacomini

F. Ragnow: Lions had TJ Lang at LG as the presumptive starter there; Wiggins was the other guard and ended up starting at RG more than Lang. Glasgow was their center (position many projected for Ragnow)

And who started? The guys that were there or the guy drafted early?

[Cearbhall]

4 minutes ago, vikestyle said:

The Cardinals completely wasted $5 million (I believe that's what they ended up paying him) and practice reps on a few games from Sam Bradford. And that didn't change their draft plan at all. They still took a QB #10. The Browns traded the first pick in the third round for 3 starts from Tyrod Taylor and they took a QB #1. I don't think these are good examples to support your point.

No, that is exactly my point. NFL teams go to great pains to have starters for all of their positions before the draft. Those guys are stopgaps to fill in until a draft picks takes the job. It is important to have those guys as nobody knows which drafted players will end up working out in the league.

[vikestyle]

2 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

No, that is exactly my point. NFL teams go to great pains to have starters for all of their positions before the draft. Those guys are stopgaps to fill in until a draft picks takes the job. It is important to have those guys as nobody knows which drafted players will end up working out in the league.

And my point is I think that's a waste of resources. If we trade our third round pick for a veteran guard before the draft, and then end up drafting a guard who starts over the guy we traded for, I think we just threw away a third round pick. Even if we trade for somebody, we're probably going to take an OL in the first anyway as I don't think there are legit starting OL for sale out there right now

 If you draft a guard at #18, you have to believe that guy is good enough to start right away. No use wasting cap space or draft capital on someone thats going to sit on the bench behind them.

[Cearbhall]

1 minute ago, vikestyle said:

And who started? The guys that were there or the guy drafted early?

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. It isn't about who started. It is about teams needing starters before the draft. If a draft pick earns the starting job that is great -- it isn't counted on.  It is never a bad thing when the team ends up getting a pick that earns a starting job in his rookie year.

You see, I was responding directly to your statement that you couldn't think of a team that drafted an offensive lineman that didn't need him to start. The response clearly shows a clear pattern in the most recent past that teams do not draft them absolutely needing them to start. They have guys that have shown something as presumptive starters. Obviously, when a team drafts a guy in the first round they are hoping the guy can start, but they aren't so bold to head into the draft with a Danny Isidora level player as the presumptive starter in case they don't get their guy or the first round pick ends up going the wrong way.

[Cearbhall]

Just now, vikestyle said:

And my point is I think that's a waste of resources.

Understood. I don't think it is a waste to have guys that a team can start without counting on draft picks. Ideally, they don't have to trade for those guys.

If you look around how teams in the NFL are run, you might realize that most NFL teams see value in having starters in place without counting on draft picks. I gave recent examples to get you started that included a first overall pick where the team knew for 100% that they could get the guy they wanted.

[vikestyle]

15 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Understood. I don't think it is a waste to have guys that a team can start without counting on draft picks. Ideally, they don't have to trade for those guys.

If you look around how teams in the NFL are run, you might realize that most NFL teams see value in having starters in place without counting on draft picks. I gave recent examples to get you started that included a first overall pick where the team knew for 100% that they could get the guy they wanted.

One common thread between the Colts, 49ers, Raiders, Lions, Browns, and Cardinals is that they all had copious amounts of cap space. They could afford to pay people who were on the bench. We don't have that luxury. Teams in our cap situation have to rely on the draft for cheap starters and depth pieces.

[Cearbhall]

11 minutes ago, vikestyle said:

One common thread between the Colts, 49ers, Raiders, Lions, Browns, and Cardinals is that they all had copious amounts of cap space. They could afford to pay people who were on the bench. We don't have that luxury. Teams in our cap situation have to rely on the draft for cheap starters and depth pieces.

That is a solid point. Those teams were rich in cap space. However, other teams with less cap space try to have players with reasonable experience as presumptive starters heading into the draft too.

And we all know that the Vikings could have relied on Eric Wilson, Jaleel Johnson, or Jalyn Holmes to start instead of Danny Isidora saving cap space at those other positions.

So, with the Shamar Stephen signing at DT would you pretty much hate it if the Vikings drafted DT in the first round?

[vikestyle]

1 minute ago, Cearbhall said:

That is a solid point. Those teams were rich in cap space. However, other teams with less cap space try to have players with reasonable experience as presumptive starters heading into the draft too.

And we all know that the Vikings could have relied on Eric Wilson, Jaleel Johnson, or Jalyn Holmes to start instead of Danny Isidora saving cap space at those other positions.

So, with the Shamar Stephen signing at DT would you pretty much hate it if the Vikings drafted DT in the first round?

I would give Danny Isadora just as good of a shot at being a good starter as the other guys you listed.

For your second question, yes I'd hate it unless it was Quinnen Williams or Ed Oliver who I think could bring our defense to a different level. I also think you can find guards later in the draft, I just think we're pretty much forced to take one in the first.

[swede700]

11 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

No, the season has not started.

No, players are not suiting up.

Yes, something might happen that changes.improves our roster. I have said that if I was Rick Spileman, I would be looking to make a trade. That is the last chance to get a reasonable starting lineup before the draft.

Going into the draft with Danny Isidora as your starting G is not something that I find acceptable. That is what I called foolish. It is not how the team ought to be managed.

And that has nothing to do with whether the season has started or whether players are suiting up. It has to do with the roster heading into the draft. Rick still has a few weeks to remedy the situation.

The Chiefs went into the draft last year with Parker Ehinger listed as their starting LG.  Cameron Erving, who was a backup OT ended up starting 13 games at LG and did a decent job after beating out Bryan Witzmann (who ended up with the Vikings for a time)  

We have no idea what is going to happen at this point or whether there is a plan in place.  For all we know, Aviante Collins could end up being the starting LG and doing a good job at it.  

[DisplacedViking]

Looking at CBS sports offensive line rankings (chosen at random) there are 29 offensive linemen ranked ahead of Dru Samia, who I have seen multiple people on here mock to Minnesota in the 1st 4 rounds. That suggests to me that the 2019 draft is very deep with offensive linemen. 

There are many effective methods to building a competitive football team. Dedicating high draft picks and expensive free agents on offensive linemen may be some people's preference. It is definitely not the ONLY way to field a competitive team. 

New England and Seattle consistently compete yet historically do not draft oline early or frequently sign high dollar linemen, especially guards. Dallas and Detroit consistently draft them early and/or sign high profile free agents and are not regularly in the playoffs. 

We all have different opinions on what we would do if given the opportunity, but history has shown that multiple methods can be effective. 

I don't think the Vikings should feel forced to select any position in the 1st round, not even oline. There are so many good linemen in this draft that it seems certain at least a couple will be available in the 2nd, 3rd, likely even the 4th round. 

If the guy you LOVE is there in the 1st, select him. But if he isn't and several you like are, but a player of a different position that you do love is there, pick him.

I want 27 all pro players on the Vikings roster, but that isn't realistic. What is realistic is building a competitive roster and working hard to keep it that way. My opinion, which very well may be flawed, is taking BPA is more effective than locking in on a position group that is seen as a weakness. I think that the Vikings for the most part (sans Williamson, ponder, and a few others) have done a good job of building a competitive and sustainable roster via selecting BPA.

There are 9 or 10 offensive linemen currently on the roster. I'm reasonably sure that the staff can find 5 starters out of that bunch. If they select 1, 2, or 3 linemen in the draft that beat out the incumbents, hallelujah! But the season isn't lost if they don't. 

I am of the opinion that Spielman has done an above average job at building the roster. He obviously does not consistently prioritize early draft picks or high end free agents on offensive linemen. That quality alone doesn't seem like an offense that should cost him his job.

I choose to be careful for what I wish, i.e. unless there is an available alternative that I am confident will produce better results, I'm not willing to get rid of a known commodity that has had some level of success.

[VikeManDan]

Regardless of how Spielman has or hasn't addressed OL I think we're sitting in a pretty good spot to START the run on OL this year. I fully expect Taylor and Dillard to be gone, Ford and J. Williams, might be available at 18, however that means that Lindstrom, Bradbury, and Risner should be there at 18.

I might be in the minority but I'd be very happy with any of those 7 OL at 18. After round 1 here would be our possible starting lines:

Taylor-Reiff-Elf-Kline-O'Neill

Dillard-Reiff-Elf-Kline-O'Neill

Reiff-Kline/Ford-Elf-Kline/Ford-O'Neill

Williams/Reiff-Williams/Reiff-Elf-Kline-O'Neill

Reiff-Kline-Elf-Lindstrom-O'Neill (2nd preferred outcome)

Reiff-Elf-Bradbury-Kline-O'Neill (This is probably my preferred outcome)

Reiff-Kline-Elf-Risner-O'Neill

3 OL went top 15 last year (Nelson at 5, McGlinchey at 9, and Miller at 15) a guard and two tackles.

Cherry picking a little bit here but from pick 16 to 40 there were 7 OL selected including selections at picks 20, 21, and 23. I'm no draft guru but Bradbury seems like a hell of a lot better center prospect than Ragnow or Price. Bradbury also gives us a shot at upgrading two spots with one shot since Elf would kick over to LG. I would be fully on board with Spielman selecting an OL at 18 and then trading back into the 1st round to grab a falling OL. Coming out of this draft with 2 of the following would be great! Ford/Lindstrom/Williams/Bradbury/Risner. I've said before but our 2nd and 3rd with another small add can get us back into the 1st. There is also the possibility that Waynes gets moved but that probably belongs in another thread.

I get why you're upset @Cearbhall and I'm glad you're sharing your thoughts and opinions, they're certainly not wrong just as mine aren't right!

 

[NoDakViking]

7 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

Regardless of how Spielman has or hasn't addressed OL I think we're sitting in a pretty good spot to START the run on OL this year. I fully expect Taylor and Dillard to be gone, Ford and J. Williams, might be available at 18, however that means that Lindstrom, Bradbury, and Risner should be there at 18.

I might be in the minority but I'd be very happy with any of those 7 OL at 18. After round 1 here would be our possible starting lines:

Taylor-Reiff-Elf-Kline-O'Neill

Dillard-Reiff-Elf-Kline-O'Neill

Reiff-Kline/Ford-Elf-Kline/Ford-O'Neill

Williams/Reiff-Williams/Reiff-Elf-Kline-O'Neill

Reiff-Kline-Elf-Lindstrom-O'Neill (2nd preferred outcome)

Reiff-Elf-Bradbury-Kline-O'Neill (This is probably my preferred outcome)

Reiff-Kline-Elf-Risner-O'Neill

3 OL went top 15 last year (Nelson at 5, McGlinchey at 9, and Miller at 15) a guard and two tackles.

Cherry picking a little bit here but from pick 16 to 40 there were 7 OL selected including selections at picks 20, 21, and 23. I'm no draft guru but Bradbury seems like a hell of a lot better center prospect than Ragnow or Price. Bradbury also gives us a shot at upgrading two spots with one shot since Elf would kick over to LG. I would be fully on board with Spielman selecting an OL at 18 and then trading back into the 1st round to grab a falling OL. Coming out of this draft with 2 of the following would be great! Ford/Lindstrom/Williams/Bradbury/Risner. I've said before but our 2nd and 3rd with another small add can get us back into the 1st. There is also the possibility that Waynes gets moved but that probably belongs in another thread.

I get why you're upset @Cearbhall and I'm glad you're sharing your thoughts and opinions, they're certainly not wrong just as mine aren't right!

 

I think getting 2 of those 5 is unlikely.   But a combo of one of them and Erik McCoy would be nice.  McCoy could compete at any interior spot assuming the 1st round pick starts.

[VikeManDan]

39 minutes ago, NoDakViking said:

I think getting 2 of those 5 is unlikely.   But a combo of one of them and Erik McCoy would be nice.  McCoy could compete at any interior spot assuming the 1st round pick starts.

I think he would be another good option. If the board allows it I'd love to pull a Colts and double-dip on the OL.

[VikeManDan]

42 minutes ago, NoDakViking said:

I think getting 2 of those 5 is unlikely.   But a combo of one of them and Erik McCoy would be nice.  McCoy could compete at any interior spot assuming the 1st round pick starts.

 

2 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

I think he would be another good option. If the board allows it I'd love to pull a Colts and double-dip on the OL.

Reiff-Elf-Bradbury-McCoy-O'Neill

[NoDakViking]

3 hours ago, VikeManDan said:

 

Reiff-Elf-Bradbury-McCoy-O'Neill

I was thinking Reiff-McCoy- Bradbury-Kline- O'Neill.   Daily Norseman had a good article about Elflein and how it appeared many times to lack effort and playing to the whistle.  Really made me consider Bradbury more strongly at 18.  If Elflein can improve and lock down a starting spot then so be it, but for now I think we should upgrade.