Wet blanket or realist?

[Guest]

It is easier than ever to guess (and yes all analysts have to guess to a degree) at what the line calls are because of technology. All 22 film makes it a bit easier to take a look at personnel on the field for both offense and Defense and using that and taking into account a team's tendencies and those of standard protection schemes it becomes fairly easy to start to put together a picture to grade with. However, what it might not show is that the called out protections assignments may have been wrong on the part of the person making the calls. And if that happened it is entirely possible that the linemen in fact DID execute correctly based on the assignments that were called out.  Ideally what we would like to know is in the post game grading and film sessions did the coaches point out where the protection schemes were wrong on a given play OR were there players that missed their protection assignments?

Undoubtedly technology is offering more analysis in today's media and less of us just taking a poetic offering from a journalist who  has to go off of only what they saw....... However in the end in the past the journalist may have actually been more correct because their analysis would have been roughly... The offensive line played well... Or the Offensive line played poorly. 

In the end we are all on the outside even with the tools at our disposal but it sure is fun trying to figure out how well the team is doing. Right? 

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:
I think anybody wanting to breakdown and nit pick arguably the first positive performance from a Vikings OL in many years is really scratching for something.

What's the matter,  Minnesota in danger of running out of negativity in sports reporting?

News flash to those that haven't played  the game,  or any game....  Perfection is unattainable.  I am sure we can load up tape of any game from any great OL in the history of the game and find breakdowns and failures.

Good point, we always need to remember that the opponents are doing their best to make plays as well.  That is sort of my point, 10 plays, most of them actual positive plays, that he found issues with.  That should be a much more positive article.

[Guest]

I like Arif's articles they are usually very well thought out and this one is no different.  I don't view his take as a wet blanket at all not when you analyze the whole picture.  Many people will pick and chose one or two plays and make a declaration without the full game.  

Plus we all knew this OL was/is a WIP that will make many mistakes hopefully that they learn from as the season goes on.  IMO - Easton has the highest jump to make and is not overly experienced at Guard.  He made a lot of misreads in the last preseason game and in this first real game.  The young interior is going to be under Steeler fire early and often this Sunday.

We are building towards an average OL.  Last week, and even in preseason, I have seen cleaner pockets for Same to throw in then I have seen in years.  So occasional screw ups are expected and would be a huge jump up from occasional decent blocking.

[Guest]

@StickyBun said:

...

He's making a living because of the explosion of social media and that demographic. Its a niche: everyone has a podcast, everyone can 'break down film' (tons of paid services allow this), anyone can become an 'expert'. They are everywhere on the Internet. If you like that, that's cool. To me, its just a watered down, everyman opinion that holds no more impact than anything else on the Internet. Its personal choice. 

So is there any in depth analysis that has any value in your mind, or is it all watered down junk?