Jump to content
SemperFeist

The Often Overbearing, But Otherwise Ordinary Offensive Line

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

Bunk. Indy had two rookies start and play well. 

Wasn't 1a generational talent? I'm not saying that's the only reason that they are struggling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrplChilPill said:

Bunk. Indy had two rookies start and play well. 

The rookies may have played well, but the o-line as a whole, did not.  Indy's pass blocking was the worst in the league last year and their run-blocking was middle of the pack.

Edited by swede700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the gel thing at all. Good players and good coaching should be better than they have been. It's clearly some of both, but it isn't about gelling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

I don't buy the gel thing at all. Good players and good coaching should be better than they have been. It's clearly some of both, but it isn't about gelling. 

It is when you haven't had any consistency in scheme.  The Colts, despite having different coaches, have run virtually the same offensive line scheme for probably 20 years, which is basically a power running scheme with some zone mixed in...the Vikings have gone from zone under Childress (with guys that couldn't run zone, which I know you harped on at the time) to power and now back to zone.   

Edited by swede700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, swede700 said:

It is when you haven't had any consistency in scheme.  The Colts, despite having different coaches, have run virtually the same offensive line scheme for probably 20 years, which is basically a power running scheme with some zone mixed in...the Vikings have gone from zone under Childress (with guys that couldn't run zone, which I know you harped on at the time) to power and now back to zone.   

How long do we have to wait? Because if they believe it won't happen this year, never should have signed Rudolph.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PrplChilPill said:

How long do we have to wait? Because if they believe it won't happen this year, never should have signed Rudolph.....

I personally don't believe they should have extended Rudolph...just let him play out the final year, but they have an out on him after this year anyway...just like they do with Everson, Linval, Rhodes, and Reiff...all their contracts take dramatic drops in dead money after the year.  We likely won't see anywhere near the same team next year if this fails.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blaming the OL has been the excuse for years when adddessing the QB position. Maybe the QBs we’ve had are just bad. OL was terrible run blocking but it seems they’re good now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, vikingsrule said:

Maybe the QBs we’ve had are just bad

Maybe they are. I have thought of most of them as average. They are not doing anything to help the offensive line look better. A good QB would make the line look better. The best one we've had recently at compensating for the offensive line is Case Keenum.

We all had hopes of Teddy becoming good, but he was never able to make that jump. I think he would have given more time without injury but we'll never know if he would have or not. I see he is still struggling to connect on deep passes holding the ball too long, and bailing out of the pocket backwards in New Orleans so maybe it never would have happened. He continues to be accurate on the short to mid range passes. He looked pretty much like the QB he was before injury IMO. That is amazing already, but it would have been a lot better if he looked like he learned something in his down time.

There was already very little hope of Sam Bradford being better than mediocre by the time he got to the Vikings. I liked him a lot as mediocre QBs are hard to come by but I always hated that the Vikings gave up a first round pick (and more) to acquire a mediocre QB. Bradford got rid of the ball quicker than Teddy. In that respect he helped the offensive line. However, he wasn't able to navigate the pocket. Teddy had better escapability to compensate for holding it a bit longer. In the end, injuries aside, Bradford was better than Bridgewater ever has been. By the time he got to the Vikings he just didn't have the upside potential of Bridgewater, which I considered a step down since I would rather have a QB that I feel has the potential to be more than average.

Then there is Kirk Cousins. While he is no Case Keenum with respect to making the offensive line look better than it actually is, there was still a bit of hope that he would be able to grow and improve. Sadly, he has not been growing. He is still the same QB that he was with Washington. Put pressure on him and he'll turn it over. The design of the offense last year compensated for that decently. In the end, he still is no good at sensing pressure and dealing with it. He does not appear to be good at reading the defense before the snap and making adjustments. But still, he is a decent NFL QB. He just isn't good enough to make his offensive line look better than it actually is.

So, no, I can't buy into the Vikings QBs being bad. Keenum was the only one that was able to regularly buy time by sidestepping or ducking incoming defensive linemen. He was the best at helping the offensive line look better in pass protection. But he has other limitations as a QB that ultimately held him back.

It is not easy to find these average QBs. It is really, really hard to find the truly good QBs that can compensate for the offensive line. The team should keep trying but in the meantime I suggest they invest heavily on the offensive line so the average QBs can be successful. The investment in the offensive line will also help the running game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the lack of running game due to Bradbury not being able to hold up?

and did O'Neill finally give up a sack last week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteelKing728 said:

Was the lack of running game due to Bradbury not being able to hold up?

and did O'Neill finally give up a sack last week?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  O'Neill is really turning into a good RT.  I really don't ever want to move him over to the left side as he is the best right side tackle the team's had since...I don't know when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said:

Wow.  O'Neill is really turning into a good RT.  I really don't ever want to move him over to the left side as he is the best right side tackle the team's had since...I don't know when.

Phil Loadholt? Korey Stringer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, swede700 said:

Phil Loadholt? Korey Stringer?

I think he's a match for Loadholt.  He certainly has much better feet than big Phil.  Yeah, Stringer was about to become the best in the game when he died.  O'Neill doesn't have his power...at least not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

I think he's a match for Loadholt.  He certainly has much better feet than big Phil.  Yeah, Stringer was about to become the best in the game when he died.  O'Neill doesn't have his power...at least not yet.

O’Neill will never have Stringer’s power. He was huge.

O’Neill is more comparable to Todd Steussie. But Steussie played LT, like O’Neill probably should be when Reiff is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×