The Often Overbearing, But Otherwise Ordinary Offensive Line

[RpMc]

44 minutes ago, Freakout said:

I am just surprised the team doesn't appear to like what they saw from Isidora last season.  I thought he played well when called into action.  Especially for a 5th round rookie.  I clearly remember him even putting a couple of people in the dirt.

What the team is doing doesn’t mean they don’t like Isidora.

[Cearbhall]

1 minute ago, rpmwr19 said:

What the team is doing doesn’t mean they don’t like Isidora.

It does not, but I agree with Mr @Freakout's statement that it does not appear the Vikings like what they saw from Isidora. Appearances aren't everything and it is possible, like you mention, that this appearance doesn't mean that they do not like them.

I have trouble getting over the fact that the made Isidora inactive late in the year after offensive line injuries while Sirles was playing. Sirles, IMO, is a garbage player. The team doesn't look to think much of Sirles either as they didn't even bothe rto tender him.

It is not a good sign when the rookie's snap counts are not increasing later in the year when there are injuries and a guy that the team doesn't even think is worth tendering is playing. Not sure what it really means, but it is an appearance that the team doesn't like what they saw from Isidora when he was playing earlier in the year.

I really hope that Sirles doesn't make the team next year if the team even bothers themselves to bring him back for camp. It will not be at all surprising (to me) if Isidora also does not make the team. The team is in serious need of depth on the offensive line. Ideally, Nick Easton and Rashod Hill will be part of that depth but that means the team needs to sign two other starting offensive linemen.

[RpMc]

The problem is, with the injuries, Isidora is a guard only. Despite whatever you make think of Sirles ability, he’s played guard and tackle. When you only activate seven, maybe eight lineman, it’s hard for someone like Isidora to be activated. 

[Cearbhall]

Just now, rpmwr19 said:

The problem is, with the injuries, Isidora is a guard only. Despite whatever you make think of Sirles ability, he’s played guard and tackle. When you only activate seven, maybe eight lineman, it’s hard for someone like Isidora to be activated. 

Yeah, that is true. The team did have Remmers playing guard too and he could easily slid him back to tackle. As noted, it may just be appearance, but the appearance sure wasn't positive for Isidora. The team may still like his potential but after giving him a shot earlier in the year the team appeared to really not want to put Isidora back on the field by the end of the year.

[Cearbhall]

See what I mean about appearance? Appearance isn't always reality but when Sirles is starting at LG in week 16 it isn't because they wanted a backup with versatility. The Vikings would have started Isidora and still had Sirles as the versatile (not really, he is terrible everywhere) backup.

This is not the snap count curve you want your young rookie to have when there isn't someone decent in front of him.

Sirles					Isidora
Snap Counts					Snap Counts
Off.					Off.
G#	Pos	Num	Pct		G#	Pos	Num	Pct
1	T	2	3.10%
2	T	0	0.00%
3	T	2	2.70%
4	T	0	0.00%
5	T	10	14.30%
6	LG	77	100.00%		6	G	0	0.00%
7	LG	37	56.10%		7	G	29	43.90%
					8	LG	85	100.00%
10	T	1	1.30%
11	G	0	0.00%
12	G	1	1.50%
13	LG	74	100.00%		13	G	23	31.10%
14	G	12	18.50%		14	G	9	13.80%
15	G	53	81.50%		15	G	1	1.50%
16	LG	75	100.00%		16	G	0	0.00%

Late add: Stats from Pro football reference

Edited March 16, 2018 by Cearbhall
Late add: forgot to site the source of the stats

[RpMc]

Did Isidora work on the left side though? By my recollection they were only working him on the right side this year and he was a right guard in college - perhaps he’s limited to that spot. 

Idk how much I buy into the specific side of the offensive line deal, maybe it’s player specific, but we’ve seen players struggle when asked to play opposite their normal side. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by rpmwr19

[Cearbhall]

6 minutes ago, rpmwr19 said:

Did Isidora work on the left side though? By my recollection they were only working him on the right side this year and he was a right guard in college - perhaps he’s limited to that spot. 

Idk how much I buy into the specific side of the offensive line deal, maybe it’s player specific, but we’ve seen players struggle when asked to play opposite their normal side. 

The stats I posted (apologies on the formatting) show Isidora's stats coming at LG when he took 100% of the snaps in game 8. Week 16 Sirles took 100% of the LG stats.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Cearbhall
Confusing pronouns / game 8, not week 8

[RpMc]

Ahh. That makes sense. Perhaps they did indeed not like what they saw of him on the left side. 

[Cearbhall]

2 minutes ago, rpmwr19 said:

Ahh. That makes sense. Perhaps they did indeed not like what they saw of him on the left side. 

I would stick with how Mr @Freakout phrased it. The team does not appear to like what they saw. Sure, perhaps they didn't like what they saw but I prefer how Freakout stated it.

Also, I am on board with your rebuttal that it does not mean they do not like Isidora. I tried to agree with that when I originally posted that I agree with Freakout and gave an explanation of why.

[vikesfan89]

Offensive line seems like the only position that they really need to draft an starter. Any other position would be more developmental/rotational at this point

[Krauser]

Isidora had some flashes as a run blocker but he struggled overall and Sirles played ahead of him late in the year. No way they can count on him as a starter going forward, or even as a primary backup. He should have a chance to make the team as depth, if he plays well in preseason. Even then, I hope he at least has to beat out at least another late round pick to make the team. 

One of the problems with the Vikings roster last year is that the OL depth didn’t play well. Hill was decent as a pass blocker at RT early on but his play tailed off badly at the end of the year, especially in the playoffs. Sirles and Isidora weren’t good enough. Collins had a very limited role, run blocking OL6 in jumbo sets. 

 

With Berger likely gone, they effectively need to replace or upgrade at least one starter (G or RT, whichever one Remmers isn’t playing), plus at least one backup IOL.

For tackle, if Remmers stays outside, Hill or Collins are fine as swing tackle backups. In that scenario, they need to draft a starter at guard to replace Berger. If Remmers pushes inside to take Berger’s spot, they either have to hope Hill can be a starter (might work but it’s hard to have a lot of confidence in him), or they need to draft a starter at RT.  

In either case, they need a swing IOL backup who’s likely going to have to start a few games, unless they have fantastic injury luck. I like Easton, but he’s the weak link as a starter last year. Ideally he’d be upgraded at LG and could play that swing IOL backup role, like Berger used to circa 2013. I think they’ll try to sign a cheap vet who could play that role (keeping Easton as a starter), so they’re flexible at the draft, but good OL are hard to find on the open market, and cheap OL are usually cheap for a reason.

So that means they’re potentially looking to draft 2 starters on the OL this year, unless they want to keep Easton and/or Hill as starters (clearly the 2 weakest starters on the team right now). Maybe they draft a T at #30 and a G on day 2. Something like Connor Williams or Mike McGlinchey, followed by Frank Ragnow or Billy Price.

Reiff - Ragnow - Elflein - Remmers - McGlinchey 

IOL depth: Easton, Isidora, later round rookie

T depth: Hill, Collins

Edited March 17, 2018 by Krauser

[Cearbhall]

3 hours ago, Krauser said:

So that means they’re potentially looking to draft 2 starters on the OL this year, unless they want to keep Easton and/or Hill as starters (clearly the 2 weakest starters on the team right now).

Great post. I quoted the portion that goes into what it all means. I completely agree that Easton and Hill would ideally be the backup interior and exterior linemen respectively. Any scenario that counts on them as starters is flawed IMO.

Realistically, the team has already missed out on getting a solid starter in free agency and hoping to get two starters from the draft is putting way too much pressure on draft success. It is unlikely the team will be able to do anything near the ideal situation. If the team can get one solid starter out of the draft it would help a lot. Since the team was unable to upgrade Easton, they should be looking to bring in someone that can at least compete with him in camp with the loser becoming the backup.

Unless there is an abundance of luck, offensive line will again be a weakness of the team. It has been a weakness for so long now it is quite annoying. The reality is that we might see another promising season go south owing to lack of skill and depth on the offensive line. Offensive line should (again) be a major point of emphasis next offseason. The loss of 77 will never be forgotten; it is shocking that the team still has not recovered. 77 would have retired a long time ago but the team's offensive line has been lacking since that tragic day. It sure was fun to watch a team with a solid offensive line back then.

[Klomp]

Wait, when did Easton become a poor starter? I thought he played pretty well last year.

[Krauser]

OL play is bad in general around the league. Vikings weren’t that bad last year. 

Easton was the weakest link of their starting 5 but it’s not like he was terrible. If he’s their worst starter on the OL again this year, they’ll be OK. But they at least need another Easton level player as IOL depth, and an upgrade from what we can reasonably expect from Hill (assuming reports are true that Remmers will stay inside at guard) at RT. 

The other 3 starting spots are in decent shape. Elflein had his ups and downs but he seems like a good bet to be a quality starter. Reiff and Remmers aren’t amazing but they’re solid enough. 

It’d be nice if they had a Pro Bowl level OL starter somewhere, but if they end up with 5 guys roughly as good as Reiff and Remmers were last year, that’ll be good enough to contend. Not sure they’ll get there this year but drafting 2 OL in rounds 1-3 would put them on track for that level of quality by 2019. 

[Cearbhall]

4 minutes ago, Krauser said:

OL play is bad in general around the league. Vikings weren’t that bad last year. 

Easton was the weakest link of their starting 5 but it’s not like he was terrible. If he’s their worst starter on the OL again this year, they’ll be OK. But they at least need another Easton level player as IOL depth, and an upgrade from what we can reasonably expect from Hill

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Your football opinions are ones that I'll hold in high esteem.

The hard part though, do you have any suggestions on what the team should do to find another Easton level player and an upgrade from what we can reasonably expect from Hill? Should the team be hoping to get these two from the draft? Is there a free agent that is still available that can fill one of these holes?

The Jaguars signed the guy I wanted this year. A couple years ago the Raiders signed the guy that I really wanted. Rick did a great job with available options a year ago but the state of the line by that point had deteriorated to a point that there was no way that it was going to be a one year fix.

Offensive lien should always have been a very high priority this year. Now with Cousins signed it should have been even more urgent than it would have been with Case Keenum. Where I run into problems is that I do not have any suggestions for a solution this year now.