The Often Overbearing, But Otherwise Ordinary Offensive Line

[Cearbhall]

7 hours ago, marshpit23 said:

Definitely the weakest group on the team, but are they ‘bad’ or just ‘average’? 

Without doubt, they are bad without taking into account hope of improvement. They were a lot better last year than the year before but they are still bad bad. It is hard to expect an article like that ranking all the lines in the league to take into account the hope fans have for improvement.

I too hope they improve. I expect the Elflein and Easton will improve. RG and RT will probably be worse unless the rookie does something. It is just hard, IMO, to expect anyone to rank than as average based on the hope for improvement.

[SemperFeist]

Anyone that actually thinks Riley Reiff player worse than Matt Kalil simply wasn’t watching the games. 

[SteelKing728]

One thing to consider is that we are bringing back a majority of our starting Oline last year, except for Joe Berger who retired. Even Rashod Hill had extensive playing time due to injury, and I expect him to start over O'Neill.

It may be a new offense, but having these guys all back together for another year should help us out.

[Cearbhall]

8 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

Anyone that actually thinks Riley Reiff player worse than Matt Kalil simply wasn’t watching the games. 

No kidding. I am surprised that anyone thinks that. I would put zero weight into anything such a person said on the topic and consider putting zero weight into anything they said on any other topic as well.

Unfortunately, that still doesn't change the fact that the Vikings current offensive line is bad with hopes of working towards average if things go just right. Players need to improve and the line cohesiveness needs to gel. There are reasons for hope although based on the last almost 20 years nobody should have expectations of that hope being fulfilled. Replacing Keenum with Cousins is a lot more likely to exacerbate the problem than remediate it.

[Krauser]

The PFF article mentions Keenum was the 3rd most pressured QB in the league last year (he was 3rd on their percentage of dropbacks under pressure stat), but their own stats (pass blocking efficiency) put the Vikings OL a little above average in terms of the percentage of pass blocking snaps with pressure allowed. I don't know how they reconcile that, unless the difference is pressures allowed for other reasons (TEs, RBs blocking).

Keenum himself was charged by PFF for allowing 6 sacks, 7 hits and 12 hurries, presumably blamed for pressures on plays where he held the ball. I guess those are counted in the 3rd most dropbacks under pressure stat, but if so that's not really a stat that completely reflects OL performance. 

The narrative change around the OL is weird. If you polled Vikings fans in November or December, they would've said the OL was at least solid or average, and many would have rate them higher than that. Some of the most consistent Keenum critics (thinking here of Matthew Coller especially) were talking about the OL having gone from a weakness to a strength. I was skeptical even then and pointed out in discussions about Keenum that the OL was still pretty mediocre and he was helping them look good by making plays under pressure. 

I guess the narrative changed in part because of the playoff loss (the OL wasn't great in the Saints game either, but I don't remember anyone complaining about it in particular), and because the PFF grades became the main point of discussion. The PFF grades seem harsh especially for Reiff  -- I watch the games closely and often rewind to review OL play and don't remember Reiff being a major liability. I think Easton and Elflein also get knocked down for run blocking in power run situations, which happened a lot at the end of games (killing clock) -- the run game wasn't especially successful, but given the context it's not like it mattered much. 

I made the same point as everyone else this offseason, that the only major hole on the roster this year would at OL, with Berger retiring.  I wanted at least one new starter (next to Remmers at whichever position) and possibly 2 (upgrading Easton). I still think they would've been better this year if they'd been able to land Ragnow or a similar day one starter. They did get a couple of good prospects in O'Neill and Gossett but it doesn't seem likely that they'll contribute much this year (O'Neill might). The chances for improvement beyond that rest on improvement from the younger players who were on the team last year (should be expected from Elflein, reasonable hope from Easton, Hill and Isidora). 

Bottom line, the OL in its current state seems at least competent -- probably below average, but not a major liability. It's definitely the weakest unit on the team, and a legitimate reason for concern especially in the games where they'll face an excellent DL on the road (Green Bay, LA and Philly, etc). But I'll be surprised if it's not at least half decent, as it was widely thought to be last year, before the narrative based on the PFF grades took hold. 

[vikingsrule]

I'd think having a RB of Cook's ability will also help the OL, I doubt teams worried about Murray and McKinnon much to not tee off at the QB on most downs.

[swede700]

Quote

Vikings Offensive Line Coach Tony Sparano sat down with vikings.com's Mike Wobschall earlier this summer about his group's success a season ago, how rookie Brian O'Neill is coming along, the impression Danny Isidora has made, facing the team's stout d-line each day, the additions of Kirk Cousins and John DeFilippo, plus much more.

https://www.vikings.com/video/training-camp-preview-sparano-talks-offensive-line

[Kparty15]

I think our OL will definitely be better this year since we have so many starters returning and last year we had a lot of new starters.  Yes we lost Berger, but he was overrated the last few years.  Remmers can be just as productive as Berger at RG.  Hopefully Hill will be better this year.  

I still kind of wish we would’ve drafted Cody Whitehair over MacKenzie Alexander a few years ago though.

[RpMc]

That one does sting. I really liked Whitehair that year. 

[VikeManDan]

23 minutes ago, RpMc said:

That one does sting. I really liked Whitehair that year. 

Double whammy that he ended up a Bear.

[SemperFeist]

 

[RpMc]

Bull rushed twice by 94 (Beau Allen?), but other than that it was solid. I wouldn’t call much of what I saw dominating, but solid... and that’s on the left side where he had some more help in pass pro from the center. 

[wcblack34]

I know it would be a small sample size, but were the OL grades in the games we had Dalvin Cook?

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, wcblack34 said:

I know it would be a small sample size, but were the OL grades in the games we had Dalvin Cook?

Cumulative PFF grades, games 1-4:

• Reiff +1.6
• Easton -8.8
• Elflein -3.9
• Berger +2.8
• Remmers +0.1

 

[wcblack34]

20 hours ago, Krauser said:

Cumulative PFF grades, games 1-4:

• Reiff +1.6
• Easton -8.8
• Elflein -3.9
• Berger +2.8
• Remmers +0.1

 

So was that better than the games without Cook?  I apologize, I'm not really up to date on the grades put out by PFF. 

I guess my point is that perhaps the return of an upper echelon RB will help mask some deficiencies.