The Often Overbearing, But Otherwise Ordinary Offensive Line

[VikeManDan]

1 hour ago, RpMc said:

If they're dead set on O'Neill not being the starting RT right now, bump Remmers out to tackle, put Isidora in at right guard, and Hill goes back to being a swing man.

This a change that needs to happen based on that stat from twitter posted above.

[Cearbhall]

39 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

This a change that needs to happen based on that stat from twitter posted above.

The problem is someone needs to play RG. I could be way off on Isidora, but I don't believe he even belongs on the roster as a backup let alone in the starting lineup. The only reason, I believe, he made the final 53 is because of the Vikings severe lack of talent at that position. He beat out Gossett but the right answer between the two is probably none of the above. The coaches have no confidence in Isidora. The team needs to replace him on the roster.

Perhaps Jones would be an option at RG but his play at center doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The Vikings offensive line is (still) a mess so it isn't hugely objectionable to try anything. When Tom Compton is your best guard you know things are ugly.

[VikeManDan]

46 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

The coaches have no confidence in Isidora. The team needs to replace him on the roster.

You know this how? He’s a 2nd year guy who seemed to play pretty solid in the preseason. 

[RpMc]

5 hours ago, perrynoid said:

Wouldn't they be better off doing this, and grooming O'Neill for the LT position?  His athleticism would seem to be a better fit there.

Remmers/Hill are going to need replacing before Reiff. 

[RpMc]

3 hours ago, VikeManDan said:

You know this how? He’s a 2nd year guy who seemed to play pretty solid in the preseason. 

I agree... they had the confidence in his abilities to even try him out at center and say they liked him there. If they had no confidence in him, he’d be off the roster and Gossett would be on it. 

[perrynoid]

Just now, RpMc said:

Remmers/Hill are going to need replacing before Reiff. 

My thinking on this was, O'Neill at LT, Reiff to RT, Remmers to RG or LG.

[RpMc]

Just now, perrynoid said:

My thinking on this was, O'Neill at LT, Reiff to RT, Remmers to RG or LG.

Reiff was a mess at RT and Remmers shouldn’t be on the team next year based on his pay and play. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by RpMc

[perrynoid]

It will be interesting to see the positions they target in the upcoming draft (I know, it is a long time before we are even done with this season yet).

[perrynoid]

1 minute ago, RpMc said:

Reiff was a mess at RT and Remmers shouldn’t be on the team next year based on his pay and play. 

Was Reiff really that bad at RT?  I thought that was his best position prior to joining the Vikings as a FA, but that was a while ago.

[perrynoid]

4 minutes ago, RpMc said:

Reiff was a mess at RT and Remmers shouldn’t be on the team next year based on his pay and play. 

While I agree that Remmers salary might be a good reason to get rid of him, we are woefully bereft of OL talent, and thus, might have to keep him out of necessity.

[VikeManDan]

15 minutes ago, perrynoid said:

It will be interesting to see the positions they target in the upcoming draft (I know, it is a long time before we are even done with this season yet).

Assuming LT (Reiff), C (Elflein), and RT (O'Neill) are starters next year I would target OG and Reiff replacement LT on the OL.

[Cearbhall]

4 hours ago, VikeManDan said:

You know this how? He’s a 2nd year guy who seemed to play pretty solid in the preseason. 

Fellow, how do you know that he is worth starting? How many times do I need to state that what I am writing is my opinion and not a hard fact? Every sentence? Because you pull almost the only sentence that I wrote that doesn't explicitly state that the statement is not a hard fact and question what I wrote as if I was stating something as if it was a hard fact. This is an Internet message board. Things that are written here are generally opinions. I spend more time on this particular forum calling out that what I am writing is an opinion because of the cesspool of non-productive low effort attacks on peoples opinions, like this response to my post that I am replying to, that continually happen on this forum.

Quote

The problem is someone needs to play RG. I could be way off on Isidora, but I don't believe he even belongs on the roster as a backup let alone in the starting lineup. The only reason, I believe, he made the final 53 is because of the Vikings severe lack of talent at that position. He beat out Gossett but the right answer between the two is probably none of the above. The coaches have no confidence in Isidora. The team needs to replace him on the roster.

Go ahead and amend the sentence you quoted to say "The coaches appear to have no confidence in Isidora. I believe the team should be looking to replace him on the roster"

From now on, I am going to forgo all efforts to make it clear that what I write is my opinion. It should be obvious. When I want to present something as something other than an opinion I will cite the source as I would hope everyone else does. That is generally how it works.

I do not really care if you disagree with me but it bothers me to see what I wrote twisted and distorted. Forums like this exist to allow people to state their opinions. I understand that you would like everything you disagree with proven. There often is not proof one way or the other. We all have opinions and we are here to share those. My suggestion to you is to do your own research and develop your own opinion based on the variety of evidence and opinions available. If you disagree with someone's opinion put a little more effort into the counter argument. 

I understand that you think he played well in the preseason. I disagree.  The team was grasping at straws playing him at a position he has never played before trying to figure out if they can get some value out of him. The result of his efforts at center was the team trading away a draft pick for a mediocre $3M backup player to fill in for a few games.

When the line was devastated by injuries last year the coaches went to great lengths to keep Isidora on the bench; they moved their RT to LG owing to how little confidence they had in him backing up that position.

The coaches played Isidora extensively one game last year and based on their utilization of him after that I infer they didn't have confidence in him. Add this up with all evidence since then and I am more convinced that they do not have confidence in him. When a coaching staff does not have confidence in a player on the roster the team should be looking to replace that player on the roster.

Based on the available evidence, my assessment of Isidora is that he is the next player in this line: Beavers, Yankey, Thompson, Shepherd, Yankey, Baca, Bond, Kalil, Love. Those are the offensive linemen drafted since 2012 up until Pat Elflein who looks to be the first to step out of that line; he looks like a player that was worth the draft pick spent on him. There is a systemic problem in the way the Vikings evaluate, draft, and develop offensive line talent. Until their is a systemic fix it is fair to start with a default opinion that the drafted offensive linemen are not very good until they prove otherwise. Danny Isidora has done nothing to prove otherwise and in fact what we have seen is evidence that he belongs with the rest of that group.

I don't know why you or others are high on Isidora. I have not seen it. I am fine with you having an opinion that the guy would be a good guard and don't really expect you to present evidence to support that because I am fine with others holding that opinion. I even hope you are right. I love it when Vikings players prove they belong in the NFL.

[vikesfan89]

37 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Fellow, how do you know that he is worth starting? How many times do I need to state that what I am writing is my opinion and not a hard fact? Every sentence? Because you pull almost the only sentence that I wrote that doesn't explicitly state that the statement is not a hard fact and question what I wrote as if I was stating something as if it was a hard fact. This is an Internet message board. Things that are written here are generally opinions. I spend more time on this particular forum calling out that what I am writing is an opinion because of the cesspool of non-productive low effort attacks on peoples opinions, like this response to my post that I am replying to, that continually happen on this forum.

Go ahead and amend the sentence you quoted to say "The coaches appear to have no confidence in Isidora. I believe the team should be looking to replace him on the roster"

From now on, I am going to forgo all efforts to make it clear that what I write is my opinion. It should be obvious. When I want to present something as something other than an opinion I will cite the source as I would hope everyone else does. That is generally how it works.

I do not really care if you disagree with me but it bothers me to see what I wrote twisted and distorted. Forums like this exist to allow people to state their opinions. I understand that you would like everything you disagree with proven. There often is not proof one way or the other. We all have opinions and we are here to share those. My suggestion to you is to do your own research and develop your own opinion based on the variety of evidence and opinions available. If you disagree with someone's opinion put a little more effort into the counter argument. 

I understand that you think he played well in the preseason. I disagree.  The team was grasping at straws playing him at a position he has never played before trying to figure out if they can get some value out of him. The result of his efforts at center was the team trading away a draft pick for a mediocre $3M backup player to fill in for a few games.

When the line was devastated by injuries last year the coaches went to great lengths to keep Isidora on the bench; they moved their RT to LG owing to how little confidence they had in him backing up that position.

The coaches played Isidora extensively one game last year and based on their utilization of him after that I infer they didn't have confidence in him. Add this up with all evidence since then and I am more convinced that they do not have confidence in him. When a coaching staff does not have confidence in a player on the roster the team should be looking to replace that player on the roster.

Based on the available evidence, my assessment of Isidora is that he is the next player in this line: Beavers, Yankey, Thompson, Shepherd, Yankey, Baca, Bond, Kalil, Love. Those are the offensive linemen drafted since 2012 up until Pat Elflein who looks to be the first to step out of that line; he looks like a player that was worth the draft pick spent on him. There is a systemic problem in the way the Vikings evaluate, draft, and develop offensive line talent. Until their is a systemic fix it is fair to start with a default opinion that the drafted offensive linemen are not very good until they prove otherwise. Danny Isidora has done nothing to prove otherwise and in fact what we have seen is evidence that he belongs with the rest of that group.

I don't know why you or others are high on Isidora. I have not seen it. I am fine with you having an opinion that the guy would be a good guard and don't really expect you to present evidence to support that because I am fine with others holding that opinion. I even hope you are right. I love it when Vikings players prove they belong in the NFL.

You could be right on isidora but I'll pretty sure he didn't practice at center until Jones was traded for. They needed to know if he could be the backup or it Edison needed to make the team

[Cearbhall]

56 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

You could be right on isidora but I'll pretty sure he didn't practice at center until Jones was traded for. They needed to know if he could be the backup or it Edison needed to make the team

Ah yes, my mistake. I don't know if Isidora started practicing at center before or after that trade. It was about the same time. Isidora for sure hadn't taken preseason snaps at center when they traded for Jones.

Regardless, Isidora lost out the training camp competition to Tom Compton by that point. That is fairly telling with respect to what the coaches think of Isidora. Tom Compton is not good.

Saying that Isidora's failure at center led to the Vikings trading from Jones is a glaring error. Thanks for correcting it. Regardless, it still doesn't look to me like Isidora is a player the Vikings coaches have faith in at guard. Hopefully he develops into someone they would be comfortable with in a game but I do not believe they are comfortable with that at the moment. It would be great if he develops. I hope that he will. I also do not think he is going to pan out in the NFL.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Cearbhall

[vikesfan89]

27 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Ah yes, my mistake. I don't know if Isidora started practicing at center before or after that trade. It was about the same time. Isidora for sure hadn't taken preseason snaps at center when they traded for Jones.

Regardless, Isidora lost out the training camp competition to Tom Compton by that point. That is fairly telling with respect to what the coaches think of Isidora. Tom Compton is not good.

Saying that Isidora's failure at center led to the Vikings trading from Jones is a glaring error. Thanks for correcting it. Regardless, it still doesn't look to me like Isidora is a player the Vikings coaches have faith in at guard. Hopefully he develops into someone they would be comfortable with in a game but I do not believe they are comfortable with that at the moment. It would be great if he develops. I hope that he will. I also do not think he is going to pan out in the NFL.

It could be that they didn't think he was ready to play LG. As far as I know he's been focusing on RG although he should be able to play both if he's going to be a backup