Pat Elflein to IR

[Krauser]

Just now, Cearbhall said:

If not for the rules that allow eight linemen the team may have went out and signed Kelechi Osemele when he was available. We do not know. There are infinite possibilities of what may have happened in an alternate universe with out the current rules. Not just one, but several of those possibilities would have Samia inactive. The universe of things that may have happened go far beyond guys on the current 53 man roster.

LOL I actually wrote a line that went something like

"Is this a butterfly effect thing? The universe is so mysteriously unknowable that anything might have happened if the initial circumstances were different?"

...but I deleted it because it seemed too snarky.

I'm sorry man, I like to discuss things that are actually happening with the football team I follow, not hypothetical scenarios that might happen in alternative universes.

In the real world, Dru Samia started the season as the Vikings first choice backup IOL. Of course, all sorts of things might have changed that fact (maybe Covid doesn't change the roster rules and only 7 OL are active, or maybe Mr and Mrs Samia never meet and Dru isn't even born, Back to the Future style, who knows), but it was actually a fact. 

[Cearbhall]

1 minute ago, Krauser said:

LOL I actually wrote a line that went something like

"Is this a butterfly effect thing? The universe is so mysteriously unknowable that anything might have happened if the initial circumstances were different?"

...but I deleted it because it seemed too snarky.

I'm sorry man, I like to discuss things that are actually happening with the football team I follow, not hypothetical scenarios that might happen in alternative universes.

In the real world, Dru Samia started the season as the Vikings first choice backup IOL. Of course, all sorts of things might have changed that fact (maybe Covid doesn't change the roster rules and only 7 OL are active, or maybe Mr and Mrs Samia never meet and Dru isn't even born, Back to the Future style, who knows), but it was actually a fact. 

Here is the first guess I made for the active roster:

On 9/12/2020 at 10:47 AM, RpMc said:

OL(8): Reiff, Dozier, Bradbury, Elflein, O'Neill, Udoh, Jones, Cleveland

You seem to finally be understanding that when I said something may have happened it isn't the same as saying it would have happened. That is progress. It is real swell of you to make your example as extreme as possible in an effort to save face. The prediction I quoted there was plausible right up until Jones couldn't be activated anymore. It doesn't involve changing something that happened before the current rules were thought of, like Dru not being born. That is a measure of how gross your argument is.

I meant what I said, not what you want to make it sound like I said just so you can disagree and argue. I don't believe for a second that you don't know the difference. I have theories about why you are doing what you are doing, but it isn't worth getting into here.

Dru Samia may not have been active on the game day roster if the rules were the same this year as they were last year. That is not a controversial statement at all. It is closer to be borderline ridiculous for how obvious it is. Swell of you to argue something that is borderline ridiculously obvious.

 

 

 

[Krauser]

You're quoting RpMc's roster there, FWIW. 

I appreciate that you (among others) thought it was possible or even likely before the game that Samia might not have been active for week one. It was a totally reasonable idea. They might have activated Jones so they had a backup who could play any position. 

But now, after the game, when Jones was left on the practice squad and Samia was active as the only backup IOL, I think that projection didn't hold up. The Vikings were evidently comfortable with Samia active and Jones inactive, or they would have managed the roster differently for that game. 

So in retrospect, it's obvious that Samia was the first choice backup IOL for week one. And there's no reasonable (non-alternative universe) scenario where they would have made a different decision last Sunday, regardless of whether 7 OL or 8 OL were dressed.

I'm sorry if this discussion is upsetting for you. I wasn't trying to rile you up. I like analyzing how the Vikings approach their roster, so discussions like this are interesting to me. I do think it's possible to make sense of most of their decisions (at least in their intent, if not the final result). I'm willing to explain my reasoning and defend it, but it's not meant to be a personal attack on you. 

Hopefully Samia doesn't live down to our fears and plays well tomorrow. We could use some good news at guard for a change. 

[Cearbhall]

 

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

You're quoting RpMc's roster there, FWIW. 

Actually, that was my roster. I quoted what I wrote from RpMc's reply to me. It shows up with RpMc's name on the quote. Maybe that is a shortcoming of the software, but it was probably intentional since a quote can be altered from what was actually said. Go ahead and click the link to that quote and you'll see that it was me that said it.

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

So in retrospect, it's obvious that Samia was the first choice backup IOL for week one. And there's no reasonable (non-alternative universe) scenario where they would have made a different decision last Sunday, regardless of whether 7 OL or 8 OL were dressed.

Why would it be limited to decisions they made on Sunday? There is no such constraint on what I said. Where did that constraint come from? Just something that is convenient so you can try and convince yourself that you are right in arguing against my innocuous statement? The rule wasn't enacted on Sunday. If the rule wasn't what it was they may have wanted to have a more versatile linemen as one of the active seven. That is a very reasonable possibility. They would have made that decision before Sunday. There are many reasonable scenarios where they would have went with someone other than Samia. Activating Jones on Saturday is just one of the reasonable scenarios that could have played out if the rules didn't give them an extra game day player and a second extra game day player if 8 of the players are offensive linemen. Do you think that versatility wouldn't be more valued if they could only have 46 active? 

2 hours ago, Krauser said:

but it's not meant to be a personal attack on you. 

Meant or not, when you make up things to discredit what someone writes it is an attack on what they wrote. I never said that Samia would have been inactive. I never said anything about their decisions being limited to Sunday. You make that up to discredit what I wrote. I wrote "Maybe he would have. Maybe he wouldn't have. We don't know.". How can I write it more noncontroversial than that? The vacuity of that statement is in itself hard to beat. It must be hard to argue with something that is as insipid as that so...make something up, I guess? Just so you can try to discredit? That't not an intended attack? Really? What reason is there to disagree with something like that other than to attack?

2 hours ago, Krauser said:

Hopefully Samia doesn't live down to our fears and plays well tomorrow. We could use some good news at guard for a change. 

Amen to that. There is nothing that I would love more than to see Samia step up and prove that he belongs on the field.

[Heimdallr]

Backup OL are backup OL, nobody can speak definitively other than the offensive coaches for the Vikings...

lots of good discussion here.

[Cearbhall]

 

On 9/18/2020 at 1:15 PM, Krauser said:

 

On 9/18/2020 at 12:41 PM, Cearbhall said:

I get it you love to argue and will argue with me no matter how noncontroversial something is that I say.

I don’t appreciate your personal comments about me. 

I apologize for that personal comment saying that you love to argue. I am sorry. I could have worded that better. I do not know what you like and dislike. Presuming I do is a personal comment. What I meant to say is something more like this:

When you argue something that wasn't said in order to rebut a statement it makes me feel like you love to argue.

Again, I apologize.

[Krauser]

I appreciate the apology. Let’s leave it at that. 

[vikesfan89]

So what's the first impression on Samia? It didn't seem like he was doing good when I looked for him

[SemperFeist]

20 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

So what's the first impression on Samia? It didn't seem like he was doing good when I looked for him

He had some bad reps, but I thought his overall game was ok. We’ve seen worse debuts, I thought. And he certainly wasn’t worse than the guy he replaced. I’m looking forward to seeing if/how he progresses. 

[vikesfan89]

10 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

He had some bad reps, but I thought his overall game was ok. We’ve seen worse debuts, I thought. And he certainly wasn’t worse than the guy he replaced. I’m looking forward to seeing if/how he progresses. 

It's nice having some upside there.  Hopefully he continues to progress

[swede700]

14 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

It's nice having some upside there.  Hopefully he continues to progress

If the Vikings lose again this week and drop to 0-3, I'll be okay with putting Cleveland in at LG and Samia at RG for the remainder of the year.

[SemperFeist]

35 minutes ago, swede700 said:

If the Vikings lose again this week and drop to 0-3, I'll be okay with putting Cleveland in at LG and Samia at RG for the remainder of the year.

Unless Cleveland is struggling with learning the playbook. I’d put him out there now. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by SemperFeist

[erickendricks4pf]

3 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

Unless Cleveland is struggling with learning the playbook. I’d put him out there now. 

I think I disagree with this. They drafted him to be the longterm guy at tackle, and clearly don't think he is of adequate quality at any o-line position right now, or he would not be inactive. I would be wary of playing him out of position before he is even ready to play the one he was drafted for, and risk hurting his development too much.

[SemperFeist]

Just now, erickendricks4pf said:

I think I disagree with this. They drafted him to be the longterm guy at tackle, and clearly don't think he is of adequate quality at any o-line position right now, or he would not be inactive. I would be wary of playing him out of position before he is even ready to play the one he was drafted for, and risk hurting his development too much.

At what point have the Vikings ever given the hint that they see Cleveland as a tackle?

[erickendricks4pf]

2 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

At what point have the Vikings ever given the hint that they see Cleveland as a tackle?

here Spielman is quoted saying he is the successor to Rieff at tackle:

to me it seemed like they drafted him as a tackle, tried him out as a guard in camp due to how bad our guard situation is and did not like him there. I find it hard to believe he would be much better than dozier/samia, hardly enough to try to pigeonhole him out of position before he is ready to play.