Valhalla Villager: News, Rumors and Gossip

[Krauser]

41 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Not great, but I can't think of another offensive lineman that left the Vikings in the last 10 years and looked better than Easton looked with the Saints. John Sullivan, I suppose looked better for a short time. That none of the guys look better after leaving the team speaks to how poor the talent is that the Vikings have had on their offensive line. If it were a coaching problem guys that leave would look a lot better on their new teams. Don't take that to mean that coaching hasn't been a problem; we cannot know the level of problem coaching has been since they never had an amount of talent that should even be entry stakes in the NFL.

There haven't been that many former starters who moved on. Loadholt, Berger and Harris retired. 

Sullivan was obviously much better than Easton. He was excellent that one year with the Rams. 

Remmers was pretty good last year with the Giants. Fusco was never the same after his injury but he was OK for a year with the Niners. Kalil wasn't terrible the one year he played for the Panthers. I wouldn't put Easton over any of them.

Which leaves who? Compton, who wasn't supposed to start here. Easton, who was no better or worse in NO, a team with great OL coaching. Clemmings, I guess. Late rounders who were never any good like Isidora and Gossett. Total busts like Yankey and Beavers. 

When I complain about the OL coaching, I don't mean they failed to develop Willie Beavers, but that the 2018 OL was a shambles in zone blocking and on screens, or that the 2014-16 OL was given an overly difficult task in blocking for 7-step dropbacks without a moving pocket or misdirection. Better OL coaching in 2017 and 19 made the most of the talent they had -- that's a separate question than whether they had the right talent.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Krauser

[Cearbhall]

5 minutes ago, Krauser said:

There haven't been that many former starters who moved on. Loadholt, Berger and Harris retired. 

Sullivan was obviously much better than Easton. He was excellent that one year with the Rams. 

Remmers was pretty good last year with the Giants. Fusco was never the same after his injury but he was OK for a year with the Niners. Kalil wasn't terrible the one year he played for the Panthers. I wouldn't put Easton over any of them.

Which leaves who? Compton, who wasn't supposed to start here. Easton, who was no better or worse in NO, a team with great OL coaching. Clemmings, I guess. Late rounders who were never any good like Isidora and Gossett. Total busts like Yankey and Beavers. 

When I complain about the OL coaching, I don't mean they failed to develop Willie Beavers, but that the 2018 OL was a shambles in zone blocking and on screens, or that the 2014-16 OL was given an overly difficult task in blocking for 7-step dropbacks without a moving pocket or misdirection. Better OL coaching in 2017 and 19 made the most of the talent they had -- that's a separate question than whether they had the right talent.

Yep yep. The lack of talent is separate from whether the coaches were any good and the Vikings indeed have had offensive linemen, starters and backups, leave the team and not show improvement under other coaching.

I wasn't limiting what I was saying to starters, but offensive lineman that have left the Vikings haven't looked better with their new teams. Those are some good examples of other guys, like Nick Easton, that left and didn't look better than they looked with the Vikings. You are right that some of them looked better than Easton. Still none or them left the team and showed much improvement by getting different coaching.

[Krauser]

6 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

but offensive lineman that have left the Vikings haven't looked better with their new teams.

Except for Sullivan and Remmers?

Sullivan did benefit from a very well coached Rams offensive scheme and Remmers from moving back to RT and reuniting with Pat Shurmur in New York. 

You disagree that coaching was part of the problem in 2018, and under Norv’s scheme?

[Cearbhall]

28 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Except for Sullivan and Remmers?

Sullivan did benefit from a very well coached Rams offensive scheme and Remmers from moving back to RT and reuniting with Pat Shurmur in New York. 

You disagree that coaching was part of the problem in 2018, and under Norv’s scheme?

I thought Sullivan looked pretty good with the Vikings. He looked good with the Rams too, but I don't know that he looked better. To be fair, I only watched a handful of Rams games so I can't say for sure. I did like Sullivan when he was with the Vikings though and thought he was quite good.

Remmers, yeah a bit. He looked pretty bad with the Vikings at the end. He also was better with the Titans than I remember him being before the Vikings cut him the first time. From what I recall, Remmers was really bad with the Titans his last year but he was in a terrible situation playing out of position. Remmers was better with the Vikings his first year than his last year with the Titans. Remmers was also better with the Giants than his last year with the Vikings.

No, I do not disagree that coaching was part of the problem in 2018. The way that you ask the question makes me wonder whether you think that I would disagree with that. I thought we both agreed that coaching was a separate issue than talent level. Did I not understand that correctly? I am saying that the talent level has been deficient. I additionally went out of my way to clarify that does not mean that the coaching was not a problem in case someone was going to take it that way. These are the exact words I wrote, "Don't take that to mean that coaching hasn't been a problem". If that is not clear enough, I apologize for whatever part I may have played in that misunderstanding.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Cearbhall

[Krauser]

6 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Remmers, yeah a bit. He looked pretty bad with the Vikings at the end. He also was better with the Titans than I remember him being before the Vikings cut him the first time. From what I recall, Remmers was really bad with the Titans his last year but he was in a terrible situation playing out of position. Remmers was better with the Vikings his first year than his last year with the Titans.

Remmers played for the Panthers, not the Titans. Maybe you’re thinking of Josh Kline?

Sullivan was good for the Vikings but he looked better in 2017 in LA than he did during the Norv years.

No need to apologize, but you wrote “If it were a coaching problem guys that leave would look a lot better on their new teams“, which ignores a couple of counterexamples, and “they never had an amount of talent that should even be entry stakes in the NFL“, which isn’t true — of their OL starters who didn’t retire, most of them have remained starters with their next team.

It’s fair to say the Vikings have lacked OL talent but that doesn’t excuse Norv trying to run the 1993 Cowboys passing attack or the complete debacle of the 2018 run and screen blocking after the unexpected loss of Tony Sparano.

[Cearbhall]

24 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Remmers played for the Panthers, not the Titans. Maybe you’re thinking of Josh Kline?

Sullivan was good for the Vikings but he looked better in 2017 in LA than he did during the Norv years.

No need to apologize, but you wrote “If it were a coaching problem guys that leave would look a lot better on their new teams“, which ignores a couple of counterexamples, and “they never had an amount of talent that should even be entry stakes in the NFL“, which isn’t true — of their OL starters who didn’t retire, most of them have remained starters with their next team.

It’s fair to say the Vikings have lacked OL talent but that doesn’t excuse Norv trying to run the 1993 Cowboys passing attack or the complete debacle of the 2018 run and screen blocking after the unexpected loss of Tony Sparano.

No, I wasn't thinking of Kline. I just had the wrong team name pop into my head. I did know where Remmers actually played. Thanks for correcting that since I wrote the wrong thing.

I'll take your word for Sullivan looking better in 2017. Was the Norv years when Sullivan had the back injury? He didn't look good then but I assumed that was an injury thing.

I do believe it to be true that the Vikings have not had a talent level that should be entry stakes in the NFL. It has been very bad. I am fine with you disagreeing with that but you aren't going to convince me they have had the minimum talent threshold required for NFL coaches to be successful given the talent they were given on the line. My commentary on their talent does not, and should not, exonerate the coaches. If the coaches were any good we would have seen players leaving the Vikings and looking better other places. That hasn't been happening. But coaching is a different topic. I have been trying to talk about the players level of skill here. It is too low.

Norv Turner, more than any of the coaches, is an example of a coach that didn't have the required talent for their system. The system Turner was going to run was no mystery when the team hired him. They bought into Turners scheme when they hired him. Hiring Turner and then not giving him anything close to what he needed for his system was despicable. If you don't plan on building an offensive line that can hold up for seven step drops you should not be considering Norv Turner. That they hired Norv Turner coupled with the fact that didn't give him anything close to the required personnel is mystifying and makes those responsible for that hire look very bad IMO. There was never a chance of success for Turner's scheme because the team did not have the talent.

And to be clear again: that does not excuse Norv Turner. He seems to only know one thing, which even though that shouldn't have been a surprise to the Vikings, does point to him being a limited coach. I do not intend my point about the lack of talent level in the players to be commentary one way or the other about the coaching. That is another issue. I am talking about the players. They have not been good enough. Not even entry stakes level.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Cearbhall

[Krauser]

4 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

They bought into Turners scheme when they hired him. Hiring Turner and then not giving him anything close to what he needed for his system was despicable. If you don't plan on building an offensive line that can hold up for seven step drops you should not be considering Norv Turner. That they hired Norv Turner coupled with the fact that didn't give him anything close to the required personnel is mystifying and makes those responsible for that hire look very bad IMO. There was never a chance of success for Turner's scheme because the team did not have the talent.

No, it was actually Norv’s fault the line was bad. 

Kalil-Loadholt were one of the better tackle tandems in football in 2012-13. They also had Sullivan and Fusco still healthy when Norv was hired, two of the better IOL in the league the year before. They had Berger on the bench, who was above average as soon as he finally got a chance to start.

Turner was able to adapt to personnel, as he did for the first few weeks of 2016, before reverting to his old scheme in October. He then reinvented himself completely with the Panthers the last couple of years, using all sorts of spread concepts. But working with Zimmer (who I think chose Norv because of their history together, and because he wanted a “head coach of the offense” OC), he mostly tried to keep it old school, and it didn’t work.

It wasn’t just the OL that was affected. Patterson lost the chance to do the stuff that made him special as a rookie in 2013. Wallace had by far the worst year of his career in 2015, and Diggs struggled mightily toward the end of his rookie year.

Norv was a bad hire, but he failed on his own merits, not because he didn’t have enough OL talent. 

[Cearbhall]

24 minutes ago, Krauser said:

No, it was actually Norv’s fault the line was bad. 

Kalil-Loadholt were one of the better tackle tandems in football in 2012-13. They also had Sullivan and Fusco still healthy when Norv was hired, two of the better IOL in the league the year before. They had Berger on the bench, who was above average as soon as he finally got a chance to start.

Turner was able to adapt to personnel, as he did for the first few weeks of 2016, before reverting to his old scheme in October. He then reinvented himself completely with the Panthers the last couple of years, using all sorts of spread concepts. But working with Zimmer (who I think chose Norv because of their history together, and because he wanted a “head coach of the offense” OC), he mostly tried to keep it old school, and it didn’t work.

It wasn’t just the OL that was affected. Patterson lost the chance to do the stuff that made him special as a rookie in 2013. Wallace had by far the worst year of his career in 2015, and Diggs struggled mightily toward the end of his rookie year.

Norv was a bad hire, but he failed on his own merits, not because he didn’t have enough OL talent. 

We can agree that Norv was a bad hire. I am going to disagree that he had the talent required for his system. It wasn't even close. Maybe you weren't watching the Vikings back then but the offensive line failed time and time again. It was a train wreck. When the Vikings hired Norv Turner they were buying into the system Turner was going to run -- the air coryell offense. Turner did not surprise anyone with that. That offense has certain needs. The Vikings bought into the system and never came even close to providing Turner with the talent level required for the system to be successful. Almost every time Turner called one of the seven step drops, a staple of the system, the QB was getting destroyed. Turner did adjust some and called less seven step drops. Still, when he did it occasionally the offensive line could not hold up.

I do not wish to defend any of the coaches, but there is not a doubt in my mind that the Vikings did not have the right talent on offense to run the system they were trying to run. In particular, the offensive line wasn't up to the task but the team also notably lacked the type of WR that the air coryell offense requires. I agree that Patterson lost the chance to do the stuff that made him special as a rookie. He was not a fit for that system. Petterson was a lot more useful in Musgrave's Erhardt Perkins scheme. 

Bringing in a coach to run that system was disastrous primarily because of the talent level was lacking for that system. That system, probably more than any other, relies on having the right talent. EP has a lot more flexibility, which is why it is favored by many coaches. The Patriots run it very well. The need for an offensive line that can hold up to the demands of the air coryell is a significant reason why the air coryell hasn't thrived in the recent NFL. 

Let me remind you that my original message in this conversation was about the players, not about the coaches. I have clarified several times that it was about the players and it should not be taken to mean the coaching was good enough. I am not trying to say that the coaching is good enough. That is a separate conversation. What I wrote is intended to be about the players and their talent level. Nick Easton did not look great with the Saints. He is another case of an offensive lineman that has left the Vikings and not really looked good other places. The team needs better players. The team needs more guys like John Sullivan that would look good playing in the NFL if he were on another team. You won't get me to say that the team needs more guys like Mike Remmers though. He is maybe just okay if you have a mobile QB like Danny Dimes, which the Vikings do not have in Kirk Cousins.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Cearbhall

[Krauser]

7 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I am going to disagree that he had the talent required for his system. It wasn't even close. Maybe you weren't watching the Vikings back then but the offensive line failed time and time again. It was a train wreck. When the Vikings hired Norv Turner they were buying into the system Turner was going to run -- the air coryell offense. Turner did not surprise anyone with that. That offense has certain needs. The Vikings bought into the system and never came even close to providing Turner with the talent level required for the system to be successful. Almost every time Turner called one of the seven step drops, a staple of the system, the QB was getting destroyed. Turner did adjust some and called less seven step drops. Still, when he did it occasionally the offensive line could not hold up.

Why so attached to Norv’s precious system? It wasn’t 1993 anymore, he needed to modernize.

The 2014 Vikings did have OL talent. It was basically the same group who were above average in both 2012 and 13. They were way better than “not even entry stakes”. They were a trainwreck under Norv, but that was mainly Norv’s fault (though the Fusco and Loadholt injuries, and Kalil’s physical decline didn’t help). 

The whole discussion is about whether bad performance is the fault of bad players or bad coaches putting good-enough players in bad positions. While there have certainly been some bad players (Clemmings, post-injury Fusco, Andre Smith, 2018 Elflein, etc), there were a couple of examples (Norv in general, 2018 post-Sparano) where the coaches seem at least as much or more to blame. 

[Cearbhall]

1 minute ago, Krauser said:

Why so attached to Norv’s precious system? It wasn’t 1993 anymore, he needed to modernize.

The 2014 Vikings did have OL talent. It was basically the same group who were above average in both 2012 and 13. They were way better than “not even entry stakes”. They were a trainwreck under Norv, but that was mainly Norv’s fault (though the Fusco and Loadholt injuries, and Kalil’s physical decline didn’t help). 

The whole discussion is about whether bad performance is the fault of bad players or bad coaches putting good-enough players in bad positions. While there have certainly been some bad players (Clemmings, post-injury Fusco, Andre Smith, 2018 Elflein, etc), there were a couple of examples (Norv in general, 2018 post-Sparano) where the coaches seem at least as much or more to blame. 

I am not attached to Norv's system at all. I don't care for his system. I don't believe it to be the best way to success in the current NFL. I am not the guy that hired Norv. Blame the guy that hired him, not me. That is who I blame.

I am not sure what you saw out of that group in 2014 that makes you believe they had the talent level to run the system the Vikings chose to run. If you want to believe they had the talent to run that system it is fine with me. I saw something very, very different.

No, the whole discussion I have been having is not about whether bad performance is the fault of bad players or bad coaches. I have carefully clarified that it is not. Repeatedly. The coaching is a separate discussion. If you want to discuss the coaching that is fine, but that is a separate conversation. I have been bending over backwards to make it clear that I am talking about the players and it is not intended to say that the coaches were good enough. You understood this not long ago and agreed saying, "Better OL coaching in 2017 and 19 made the most of the talent they had -- that's a separate question than whether they had the right talent." I responded back and agreed with your agreeing. I am not sure what happened after that to cause you to try and make the discussion about whether bad performance is the fault of bad players or bad coaches. That is not the conversation. It is not an either/or. It can be a both/and. In my opinion it is a combination, but again, that is not the conversation that I want to have right now. I want to talk about the players. They haven't been good enough for the schemes the team has been trying to run.

If you want to argue about the coaches or the scheme independent of the players that is fine. But don't assume that is what I was talking about when you reply to me, especially when my plain language straight out says that it is not what I was talking about.

[Robb_K]

2 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Yep yep. The lack of talent is separate from whether the coaches were any good and the Vikings indeed have had offensive linemen, starters and backups, leave the team and not show improvement under other coaching.

I wasn't limiting what I was saying to starters, but offensive lineman that have left the Vikings haven't looked better with their new teams. Those are some good examples of other guys, like Nick Easton, that left and didn't look better than they looked with the Vikings. You are right that some of them looked better than Easton. Still none or them left the team and showed much improvement by getting different coaching.

I thought that The Vikings' OL coaches were just not good teaching coaches, and not good at developing talent.  But, maybe The Vikings were just not drafting high enough level talent, and then had several doses of bad luck when they did.

[Krauser]

7 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I am not sure what you saw out of that group in 2014 that makes you believe they had the talent level to run the system the Vikings chose to run

I didn’t say that had the talent to run the (bad) system, I said they had talent, full stop. We saw the same players in 2012-13, they weren’t bad. 

Your claim was that the Vikings have never had even “entry level stakes” quality OL for the last 10 years. That just isn’t true. Their OL was good before Norv showed up. They were pretty good in 2017. And the run and screen blocking was generally good last year. They’ve had some bad players, and they’ve had terrible luck with injuries, but some of their problems were due to the coaching, not the personnel.

And yes, I was watching the Vikings all the way back in 2014

 

[Cearbhall]

5 minutes ago, Krauser said:

I didn’t say that had the talent to run the (bad) system, I said they had talent, full stop.

It isn't really relevant whether they had talent to run a system other than the one the team chose to run. The team chose the system when they chose the offensive coordinator. He didn't trick them or anything. Do you think that the team was expecting some other system when they hired Norv Turner -- a coach with a long track record?. They didn't have enough talent to run the system they chose. Not even close. Not even entry stakes. It is very disingenuous to argue that the players they have may have been good enough for anything other than the system they actively chose to run.

They have not had entry stakes level talent for a long, long time. You might disagree, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Fine, they may have had entry level stakes in 2012 or 2013. It is fair to describe that group as "it it wasn't bad". I am relying on the games I watched and my memory, not some dubious reference chart so when I said ten years maybe it was only seven. They still didn't have good enough players. The last time I remember seeing a Vikings offensive line that I felt was legitimately good Korey Stronger was still alive.

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, Cearbhall said:

Fine, they may have had entry level stakes in 2012 or 2013. It is fair to describe that group as "it it wasn't bad".

No, they actually had a good line for a few years there, until Norv showed up. It was better than not bad. Kalil, Loadholt, Sullivan, Fusco and as it later turned out Berger were all above average at their positions.

It’s not disingenuous to point out that the reason the 2014 OL struggled was the scheme and coaching, not the talent, in a discussion about how the Vikings OL has supposedly had less than rock bottom talent for 10 years. They had NFL level talent (until the injuries piled up) coming into 2014, they just put them in a position to fail.

Quote

The last time I remember seeing a Vikings offensive line that I felt was legitimately good Korey Stronger was still alive.

They were good in 2007-08 with McKinnie, Hutchinson and Birk, and still OK in 2009 swapping in Sullivan and Loadholt. Took a step back in 2010 with McKinnie getting cut and Hutch aging out, but they were legitimately good again in 2011-13.

They’ve mostly been bad since 2014 (2017 was decent until they got banged up near the end of the year), though some of that is on coaching and injuries, not just on talent selection.

They might end up roughly average this year, if Bradbury improves and O’Neill takes another step toward being a top flight tackle. But the guards will probably be terrible. Hopefully Cleveland can improve enough behind the scenes that he can get a chance to start at LG by the middle of the year.

 

[vikesfan89]

didn't Kalil, loadholt, Sullivan and Fusco all have injury problems at one point or an i misremembering that? I know Kalil didn't miss any games