OK, Barr, which side of your mouth are you talking out of today? Because I regularly get at least two from you and the gang:
1. This team lost Pierce, Hunter, Barr, had lost Griffen and Joseph in the offseason, so the front 7 was terrible, we had no pass rush, and they sent 3 CBs packing and didn't have OTCs and preseason to train them, so 2020 was obviously doomed, and it was a coaching miracle to get this depleted squad to 7-9!!
OR
2. We were on the verge of the playoffs and could have got in and contended in 2020!
So which is it? Because if we had a squad able to make a playoff run, how did our coaches screw the pooch? Or if getting to 7-9 (by beating a Lions squad that was more interested in improving their draft position) was the best possible season record given the depletion of this team, why didn't this team commit to using 2020 to test players needed for the future?
And you know perfectly well there are ways to insert young players into the lineup and experiment without "telling the locker room we are done". What message did they all get from the desperation trade of Ngakoue, anyway??
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
Amazed they actually made a smart move for a change.
I don't know how "smart" it is to take the best offensive lineman off a team with offensive line problems. But the Vikings obviously feel good about their other options there and want some money to improve the defense.
Keeping Reiff was their plan. He wasn't going to extend his deal after all the half-decent OTs got the tag. Changed the market entirely.
Right, but let's not pretend they couldn't have kept Reiff if they really wanted to. They just didn't want to enough to pay him his 2021 salary. Regardless of what other OT's were getting, if they wanted to keep him bad enough, they could have paid his well-below-market salary.
That's what I'm saying. The Vikings made a cost/benefit decision. Do we want to keep Reiff? Yes. Do we want to keep him badly enough to pay him $12M when we have holes on defense and other feasible options for LT? Clearly not enough.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
Amazed they actually made a smart move for a change.
I don't know how "smart" it is to take the best offensive lineman off a team with offensive line problems. But the Vikings obviously feel good about their other options there and want some money to improve the defense.
Keeping Reiff was their plan. He wasn't going to extend his deal after all the half-decent OTs got the tag. Changed the market entirely.
Right, but let's not pretend they couldn't have kept Reiff if they really wanted to. They just didn't want to enough to pay him his 2021 salary. Regardless of what other OT's were getting, if they wanted to keep him bad enough, they could have paid his well-below-market salary.
That's what I'm saying. The Vikings made a cost/benefit decision. Do we want to keep Reiff? Yes. Do we want to keep him badly enough to pay him $12M when we have holes on defense and other feasible options for LT? Clearly not enough.
I can buy that. But they couldn't really keep him without moving on from another piece on the roster and that piece is on the defensive side of the ball. OT is also loaded up in this draft class though the 3rd round. So maybe I should rephrase and say they wanted to keep Reiff at a moderate price point which wasn't going to be possible based on how the market shaped up.
Not my favorite plan if the goal is to win in 2021. I think our 2021 ambitions are going to hinge
on us improving our offense to top 3 and getting out defense to be good enough,
as I don’t think we’re going to return to having a top defense this year. I don’t think there is room for our offense
to regressing and still advancing beyond an early playoff exit. I just don’t have a lot of faith in our front
office to fill multiple OLine holes in one year. I think there is just too strong of a track
record of being dismissive towards quality guard play. I get very strong vibes that are similar to “anyone
can play guard, so why invest in it?” every offseason. I just don’t see any real reason, beyond just
hope, to anticipate that our OLine is going to be any better than any of the
lines we trotted out there in the last decade, and there’s real risk that we
might downgrade if Cleveland doesn’t improve.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive @ Jor-El. You do recall that we were in the playoff hunt, correct? And our D was decimated due to injuries and FA, right?
I often wonder if many of you live in an alternate reality.
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
@ Jor-El said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Week 12 we were still competing for a playoff spot.
I forgot, we were a 4-6 powerhouse that could have charged into another wildcard loss.
Better, let's tell the locker room we are done competing. Brilliant!
Didn't they kind of make that apparent when they traded away Ngokue?
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
Amazed they actually made a smart move for a change.
I don't know how "smart" it is to take the best offensive lineman off a team with offensive line problems. But the Vikings obviously feel good about their other options there and want some money to improve the defense.
Keeping Reiff was their plan. He wasn't going to extend his deal after all the half-decent OTs got the tag. Changed the market entirely.
Not surprised this was their Plan A...Losing him creates far more questions than provides answers.
I dont like the move, but can see both sides when the market shifted. Just wish it wasn't LT. This OL had enough trouble in pass pro with him there.
Maybe I'll feel better about it after seeing FA moves...Nah, probably not. I'm not convinced Cleveland can move outside and I dont want to move O'Neil over.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@ Jor-El said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Week 12 we were still competing for a playoff spot.
I forgot, we were a 4-6 powerhouse that could have charged into another wildcard loss.
Better, let's tell the locker room we are done competing. Brilliant!
Didn't they kind of make that apparent when they traded away Ngokue?
I THINK it was more they were either unlikely to sign him OR he wasn't a fit. We started winning post trade.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
Amazed they actually made a smart move for a change.
I don't know how "smart" it is to take the best offensive lineman off a team with offensive line problems. But the Vikings obviously feel good about their other options there and want some money to improve the defense.
Keeping Reiff was their plan. He wasn't going to extend his deal after all the half-decent OTs got the tag. Changed the market entirely.
Not surprised this was their Plan A...Losing him creates far more questions than provides answers.
I dont like the move, but can see both sides when the market shifted. Just wish it wasn't LT. This OL had enough trouble in pass pro with him there.
Maybe I'll feel better about it after seeing FA moves...Nah, probably not. I'm not convinced Cleveland can move outside and I dont want to move O'Neil over.
I'd agree its better to see it play out before making up your mind on whether it was good or bad. Truthfully I think Cleveland still makes a better OT than guard but obviously we don't know until we see him on the outside. At Boise he's just so natural working on the outside to the point I was more surprised how well he played at right guard. But still that still leaves you two gaping holes on the interior of the line, which already was awful. They like Kyle Hinton A LOT, someone mentioned it as a bold prediction is starts I believe, good prediction. Although you still won't count on him day 1. Good news is if you play the supply/demand of the market there are going to be some half decent guards that have trouble finding money next week.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
Amazed they actually made a smart move for a change.
I don't know how "smart" it is to take the best offensive lineman off a team with offensive line problems. But the Vikings obviously feel good about their other options there and want some money to improve the defense.
Keeping Reiff was their plan. He wasn't going to extend his deal after all the half-decent OTs got the tag. Changed the market entirely.
Not surprised this was their Plan A...Losing him creates far more questions than provides answers.
I dont like the move, but can see both sides when the market shifted. Just wish it wasn't LT. This OL had enough trouble in pass pro with him there.
Maybe I'll feel better about it after seeing FA moves...Nah, probably not. I'm not convinced Cleveland can move outside and I dont want to move O'Neil over.
I'd agree its better to see it play out before making up your mind on whether it was good or bad. Truthfully I think Cleveland still makes a better OT than guard but obviously we don't know until we see him on the outside. At Boise he's just so natural working on the outside to the point I was more surprised how well he played at right guard. But still that still leaves you two gaping holes on the interior of the line, which already was awful. They like Kyle Hinton A LOT, someone mentioned it as a bold prediction is starts I believe, good prediction. Although you still won't count on him day 1. Good news is if you play the supply/demand of the market there are going to be some half decent guards that have trouble finding money next week.
Agreed with your post. I would like to see at least 2 OL drafted, regardless of what happens in FA
|
