Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
i take Sewell over Slater, but just barely. The more i think about it, the more i want--and think the Vikings want--their franchise LT from this draft...and not a guard.
I think the Vikings would be happiest with a Sewell, then a Slater, then a Darrisaw and if all three are gone, they will trade down with AVT still on the board to the frustration of many fans...then they will go edge and take an IOL like Meinerz in the middle round and look for their LT in free agency post draft.
Of course all this changes with a trade. And of course my mind will change six times before the draft.
I agree with your thinking quite a bit. People will blow a fuse if they don't take a lineman in round 1, but how much better are you with AVT or Slater as a LG? Perception would be, they're tremendously better. But using other teams and analytics as a barometer they won't be much better.
For better or worse your interior O-lineman besides the center don't make a massive difference. In my mind I walk through a few difference scenarios. Honestly want to hear your two-cents on them.
1. They draft an OT like Darrisaw in round 1. Maybe they follow-up with a mid-round OG but lets just say they don't start week one.
Starters: Darrisaw / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (takeaway: that should play)
2. They draft AVT in round one. Follow-up with a tackle later on but similar to option 1 you don't expect them to start week 1.
Starters: O'Neill / AVT / Bradbury / Cleveland / Udoh (takeaway: its better but how much better than a mid-round guard)?
3. They draft a mid-round guard and tackle (Christensen or Brown in round 3?) but sign an OT yet in FA.
Starters: Okung? / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (you add depth and a potential OT starter in 2022. Is that worse than #2?)
In my opinion option #1 is the ideal value/skill balance with #3 ending up surpassing #2 knowing you also added depth. Where I ultimately am going with this is as much as fans want an O-lineman I think only an OT makes sense in round 1. If not a DE, trade backs, or simply taking the best player left at #14 is probably your better bet.
after watching Dozier get owned game after game last year, how can you say OGs dont make a massive difference between good and bad players? IMO an OG that can take a DT out of the equation on his own is huge as it allows the center to either help the other OG or to pick up blitzers.
Remember that the NT is going to end up over Bradbury and the 3-tech over Cleveland. So the LG is arguably the least important spot on the field in the modern NFL. My take isn't so much that Dozier isn't bad, he was. Its that even if you replace him with Quenton Nelson you're only going to see a miniscule differences. How miniscule? Well analytics would suggest it to be about 3 pts over the course of an entire season. The loss of Reiff is a much bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
This all day long. I agree with this completely and have for years. If you look at the starting guards on all four teams in the last two Super Bowls, half of them are league below average journeymen on their 3rd or 4th teams.
While it would be nice to land another Randall McDaniel or Quenton Nelson, it's not going to improve the team as much as a starting LT or the edge rusher opposite Hunter.
but you still have to upgrade that position over the likes of Dozier, and the string of previous failures to fill that position, if they cant find that guy in FA or the later rounds like successful teams seem to do, then they need to try something different, like higher round draft picks or a lot more of them.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
i take Sewell over Slater, but just barely. The more i think about it, the more i want--and think the Vikings want--their franchise LT from this draft...and not a guard.
I think the Vikings would be happiest with a Sewell, then a Slater, then a Darrisaw and if all three are gone, they will trade down with AVT still on the board to the frustration of many fans...then they will go edge and take an IOL like Meinerz in the middle round and look for their LT in free agency post draft.
Of course all this changes with a trade. And of course my mind will change six times before the draft.
I agree with your thinking quite a bit. People will blow a fuse if they don't take a lineman in round 1, but how much better are you with AVT or Slater as a LG? Perception would be, they're tremendously better. But using other teams and analytics as a barometer they won't be much better.
For better or worse your interior O-lineman besides the center don't make a massive difference. In my mind I walk through a few difference scenarios. Honestly want to hear your two-cents on them.
1. They draft an OT like Darrisaw in round 1. Maybe they follow-up with a mid-round OG but lets just say they don't start week one.
Starters: Darrisaw / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (takeaway: that should play)
2. They draft AVT in round one. Follow-up with a tackle later on but similar to option 1 you don't expect them to start week 1.
Starters: O'Neill / AVT / Bradbury / Cleveland / Udoh (takeaway: its better but how much better than a mid-round guard)?
3. They draft a mid-round guard and tackle (Christensen or Brown in round 3?) but sign an OT yet in FA.
Starters: Okung? / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (you add depth and a potential OT starter in 2022. Is that worse than #2?)
In my opinion option #1 is the ideal value/skill balance with #3 ending up surpassing #2 knowing you also added depth. Where I ultimately am going with this is as much as fans want an O-lineman I think only an OT makes sense in round 1. If not a DE, trade backs, or simply taking the best player left at #14 is probably your better bet.
after watching Dozier get owned game after game last year, how can you say OGs dont make a massive difference between good and bad players? IMO an OG that can take a DT out of the equation on his own is huge as it allows the center to either help the other OG or to pick up blitzers.
Remember that the NT is going to end up over Bradbury and the 3-tech over Cleveland. So the LG is arguably the least important spot on the field in the modern NFL. My take isn't so much that Dozier isn't bad, he was. Its that even if you replace him with Quenton Nelson you're only going to see a miniscule differences. How miniscule? Well analytics would suggest it to be about 3 pts over the course of an entire season. The loss of Reiff is a much bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
This all day long. I agree with this completely and have for years. If you look at the starting guards on all four teams in the last two Super Bowls, half of them are league below average journeymen on their 3rd or 4th teams.
While it would be nice to land another Randall McDaniel or Quenton Nelson, it's not going to improve the team as much as a starting LT or the edge rusher opposite Hunter.
but you still have to upgrade that position over the likes of Dozier, and the string of previous failures to fill that position, if they cant find that guy in FA or the later rounds like successful teams seem to do, then they need to try something different, like higher round draft picks or a lot more of them.
Our starting guards right now are Cole and Cleveland. Cole didn't play well at center, but he was a revelation at LG, where his pass blocking grade over two games was higher than any of our linemen last year. So I feel pretty good about that. Still, you need to give him qualified competition from, say, the 3rd or 4th round. I suspect the Vikings will.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
i take Sewell over Slater, but just barely. The more i think about it, the more i want--and think the Vikings want--their franchise LT from this draft...and not a guard.
I think the Vikings would be happiest with a Sewell, then a Slater, then a Darrisaw and if all three are gone, they will trade down with AVT still on the board to the frustration of many fans...then they will go edge and take an IOL like Meinerz in the middle round and look for their LT in free agency post draft.
Of course all this changes with a trade. And of course my mind will change six times before the draft.
I agree with your thinking quite a bit. People will blow a fuse if they don't take a lineman in round 1, but how much better are you with AVT or Slater as a LG? Perception would be, they're tremendously better. But using other teams and analytics as a barometer they won't be much better.
For better or worse your interior O-lineman besides the center don't make a massive difference. In my mind I walk through a few difference scenarios. Honestly want to hear your two-cents on them.
1. They draft an OT like Darrisaw in round 1. Maybe they follow-up with a mid-round OG but lets just say they don't start week one.
Starters: Darrisaw / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (takeaway: that should play)
2. They draft AVT in round one. Follow-up with a tackle later on but similar to option 1 you don't expect them to start week 1.
Starters: O'Neill / AVT / Bradbury / Cleveland / Udoh (takeaway: its better but how much better than a mid-round guard)?
3. They draft a mid-round guard and tackle (Christensen or Brown in round 3?) but sign an OT yet in FA.
Starters: Okung? / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (you add depth and a potential OT starter in 2022. Is that worse than #2?)
In my opinion option #1 is the ideal value/skill balance with #3 ending up surpassing #2 knowing you also added depth. Where I ultimately am going with this is as much as fans want an O-lineman I think only an OT makes sense in round 1. If not a DE, trade backs, or simply taking the best player left at #14 is probably your better bet.
after watching Dozier get owned game after game last year, how can you say OGs dont make a massive difference between good and bad players? IMO an OG that can take a DT out of the equation on his own is huge as it allows the center to either help the other OG or to pick up blitzers.
Remember that the NT is going to end up over Bradbury and the 3-tech over Cleveland. So the LG is arguably the least important spot on the field in the modern NFL. My take isn't so much that Dozier isn't bad, he was. Its that even if you replace him with Quenton Nelson you're only going to see a miniscule differences. How miniscule? Well analytics would suggest it to be about 3 pts over the course of an entire season. The loss of Reiff is a much bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
This all day long. I agree with this completely and have for years. If you look at the starting guards on all four teams in the last two Super Bowls, half of them are league below average journeymen on their 3rd or 4th teams.
While it would be nice to land another Randall McDaniel or Quenton Nelson, it's not going to improve the team as much as a starting LT or the edge rusher opposite Hunter.
but you still have to upgrade that position over the likes of Dozier, and the string of previous failures to fill that position, if they cant find that guy in FA or the later rounds like successful teams seem to do, then they need to try something different, like higher round draft picks or a lot more of them.
Our starting guards right now are Cole and Cleveland. Cole didn't play well at center, but he was a revelation at LG, where his pass blocking grade over two games was higher than any of our linemen last year. So I feel pretty good about that. Still, you need to give him qualified competition from, say, the 3rd or 4th round. I suspect the Vikings will.
are they? currently we have 4 starters and 5 openings. we can assume that they plan on leaving Cleveland at RG, but do we really know? we do know our OL depth sucks so even if they spent another day 1 or 2 pick on IOL or an OT the projects inside, we would still likely fall short in that department. sorry if I dont trust the current brain trust in this department, but the track record more than supports my concerns IMO.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
i take Sewell over Slater, but just barely. The more i think about it, the more i want--and think the Vikings want--their franchise LT from this draft...and not a guard.
I think the Vikings would be happiest with a Sewell, then a Slater, then a Darrisaw and if all three are gone, they will trade down with AVT still on the board to the frustration of many fans...then they will go edge and take an IOL like Meinerz in the middle round and look for their LT in free agency post draft.
Of course all this changes with a trade. And of course my mind will change six times before the draft.
I agree with your thinking quite a bit. People will blow a fuse if they don't take a lineman in round 1, but how much better are you with AVT or Slater as a LG? Perception would be, they're tremendously better. But using other teams and analytics as a barometer they won't be much better.
For better or worse your interior O-lineman besides the center don't make a massive difference. In my mind I walk through a few difference scenarios. Honestly want to hear your two-cents on them.
1. They draft an OT like Darrisaw in round 1. Maybe they follow-up with a mid-round OG but lets just say they don't start week one.
Starters: Darrisaw / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (takeaway: that should play)
2. They draft AVT in round one. Follow-up with a tackle later on but similar to option 1 you don't expect them to start week 1.
Starters: O'Neill / AVT / Bradbury / Cleveland / Udoh (takeaway: its better but how much better than a mid-round guard)?
3. They draft a mid-round guard and tackle (Christensen or Brown in round 3?) but sign an OT yet in FA.
Starters: Okung? / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (you add depth and a potential OT starter in 2022. Is that worse than #2?)
In my opinion option #1 is the ideal value/skill balance with #3 ending up surpassing #2 knowing you also added depth. Where I ultimately am going with this is as much as fans want an O-lineman I think only an OT makes sense in round 1. If not a DE, trade backs, or simply taking the best player left at #14 is probably your better bet.
after watching Dozier get owned game after game last year, how can you say OGs dont make a massive difference between good and bad players? IMO an OG that can take a DT out of the equation on his own is huge as it allows the center to either help the other OG or to pick up blitzers.
Remember that the NT is going to end up over Bradbury and the 3-tech over Cleveland. So the LG is arguably the least important spot on the field in the modern NFL. My take isn't so much that Dozier isn't bad, he was. Its that even if you replace him with Quenton Nelson you're only going to see a miniscule differences. How miniscule? Well analytics would suggest it to be about 3 pts over the course of an entire season. The loss of Reiff is a much bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
This all day long. I agree with this completely and have for years. If you look at the starting guards on all four teams in the last two Super Bowls, half of them are league below average journeymen on their 3rd or 4th teams.
While it would be nice to land another Randall McDaniel or Quenton Nelson, it's not going to improve the team as much as a starting LT or the edge rusher opposite Hunter.
but you still have to upgrade that position over the likes of Dozier, and the string of previous failures to fill that position, if they cant find that guy in FA or the later rounds like successful teams seem to do, then they need to try something different, like higher round draft picks or a lot more of them.
Our starting guards right now are Cole and Cleveland. Cole didn't play well at center, but he was a revelation at LG, where his pass blocking grade over two games was higher than any of our linemen last year. So I feel pretty good about that. Still, you need to give him qualified competition from, say, the 3rd or 4th round. I suspect the Vikings will.
are they? currently we have 4 starters and 5 openings. we can assume that they plan on leaving Cleveland at RG, but do we really know? we do know our OL depth sucks so even if they spent another day 1 or 2 pick on IOL or an OT the projects inside, we would still likely fall short in that department. sorry if I dont trust the current brain trust in this department, but the track record more than supports my concerns IMO.
I think plan their ideal plan is to keep Cleveland at RG. But if life gives you lemons (you can only draft a guard) then you make lemonade by moving Cleveland to either LT or RT with O'Neill manning the other spot. Its flexibility, nothing more than that.
To Maroon's point I don't think a team short on cap space traded for a guard on a $2M cap hit if they didn't plan to let him compete to start. If that wasn't the case then they would have upped their offer to Blythe and kept their 6th round comp pick.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
i take Sewell over Slater, but just barely. The more i think about it, the more i want--and think the Vikings want--their franchise LT from this draft...and not a guard.
I think the Vikings would be happiest with a Sewell, then a Slater, then a Darrisaw and if all three are gone, they will trade down with AVT still on the board to the frustration of many fans...then they will go edge and take an IOL like Meinerz in the middle round and look for their LT in free agency post draft.
Of course all this changes with a trade. And of course my mind will change six times before the draft.
I agree with your thinking quite a bit. People will blow a fuse if they don't take a lineman in round 1, but how much better are you with AVT or Slater as a LG? Perception would be, they're tremendously better. But using other teams and analytics as a barometer they won't be much better.
For better or worse your interior O-lineman besides the center don't make a massive difference. In my mind I walk through a few difference scenarios. Honestly want to hear your two-cents on them.
1. They draft an OT like Darrisaw in round 1. Maybe they follow-up with a mid-round OG but lets just say they don't start week one.
Starters: Darrisaw / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (takeaway: that should play)
2. They draft AVT in round one. Follow-up with a tackle later on but similar to option 1 you don't expect them to start week 1.
Starters: O'Neill / AVT / Bradbury / Cleveland / Udoh (takeaway: its better but how much better than a mid-round guard)?
3. They draft a mid-round guard and tackle (Christensen or Brown in round 3?) but sign an OT yet in FA.
Starters: Okung? / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (you add depth and a potential OT starter in 2022. Is that worse than #2?)
In my opinion option #1 is the ideal value/skill balance with #3 ending up surpassing #2 knowing you also added depth. Where I ultimately am going with this is as much as fans want an O-lineman I think only an OT makes sense in round 1. If not a DE, trade backs, or simply taking the best player left at #14 is probably your better bet.
after watching Dozier get owned game after game last year, how can you say OGs dont make a massive difference between good and bad players? IMO an OG that can take a DT out of the equation on his own is huge as it allows the center to either help the other OG or to pick up blitzers.
Remember that the NT is going to end up over Bradbury and the 3-tech over Cleveland. So the LG is arguably the least important spot on the field in the modern NFL. My take isn't so much that Dozier isn't bad, he was. Its that even if you replace him with Quenton Nelson you're only going to see a miniscule differences. How miniscule? Well analytics would suggest it to be about 3 pts over the course of an entire season. The loss of Reiff is a much bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
This all day long. I agree with this completely and have for years. If you look at the starting guards on all four teams in the last two Super Bowls, half of them are league below average journeymen on their 3rd or 4th teams.
While it would be nice to land another Randall McDaniel or Quenton Nelson, it's not going to improve the team as much as a starting LT or the edge rusher opposite Hunter.
but you still have to upgrade that position over the likes of Dozier, and the string of previous failures to fill that position, if they cant find that guy in FA or the later rounds like successful teams seem to do, then they need to try something different, like higher round draft picks or a lot more of them.
Our starting guards right now are Cole and Cleveland. Cole didn't play well at center, but he was a revelation at LG, where his pass blocking grade over two games was higher than any of our linemen last year. So I feel pretty good about that. Still, you need to give him qualified competition from, say, the 3rd or 4th round. I suspect the Vikings will.
are they? currently we have 4 starters and 5 openings. we can assume that they plan on leaving Cleveland at RG, but do we really know? we do know our OL depth sucks so even if they spent another day 1 or 2 pick on IOL or an OT the projects inside, we would still likely fall short in that department. sorry if I dont trust the current brain trust in this department, but the track record more than supports my concerns IMO.
No, of course we don't know. That's the fun part. You look at Cleveland and see uncertainty, everyone else sees flexibility. It's really is a good thing that Cleveland can figure at both guard and left tackle
I don't know where you're getting five openings. The depth you mean? i'm actually pretty good with Hill, Udoh, Samia, and Hinton in backup roles. I'm even OK if Dozier is on the team as a backup. Starting experience on an offense that finished among the league's best. I'll take that. As much as it would feel good to send him packing, I realize that's a visceral move and not a cerebral one.
Still, I'd be shocked if he weren't replaced by a middle round draft pick or a free agent post draft.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
i take Sewell over Slater, but just barely. The more i think about it, the more i want--and think the Vikings want--their franchise LT from this draft...and not a guard.
I think the Vikings would be happiest with a Sewell, then a Slater, then a Darrisaw and if all three are gone, they will trade down with AVT still on the board to the frustration of many fans...then they will go edge and take an IOL like Meinerz in the middle round and look for their LT in free agency post draft.
Of course all this changes with a trade. And of course my mind will change six times before the draft.
I agree with your thinking quite a bit. People will blow a fuse if they don't take a lineman in round 1, but how much better are you with AVT or Slater as a LG? Perception would be, they're tremendously better. But using other teams and analytics as a barometer they won't be much better.
For better or worse your interior O-lineman besides the center don't make a massive difference. In my mind I walk through a few difference scenarios. Honestly want to hear your two-cents on them.
1. They draft an OT like Darrisaw in round 1. Maybe they follow-up with a mid-round OG but lets just say they don't start week one.
Starters: Darrisaw / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (takeaway: that should play)
2. They draft AVT in round one. Follow-up with a tackle later on but similar to option 1 you don't expect them to start week 1.
Starters: O'Neill / AVT / Bradbury / Cleveland / Udoh (takeaway: its better but how much better than a mid-round guard)?
3. They draft a mid-round guard and tackle (Christensen or Brown in round 3?) but sign an OT yet in FA.
Starters: Okung? / Cole / Bradbury / Cleveland / O'Neill (you add depth and a potential OT starter in 2022. Is that worse than #2?)
In my opinion option #1 is the ideal value/skill balance with #3 ending up surpassing #2 knowing you also added depth. Where I ultimately am going with this is as much as fans want an O-lineman I think only an OT makes sense in round 1. If not a DE, trade backs, or simply taking the best player left at #14 is probably your better bet.
after watching Dozier get owned game after game last year, how can you say OGs dont make a massive difference between good and bad players? IMO an OG that can take a DT out of the equation on his own is huge as it allows the center to either help the other OG or to pick up blitzers.
Remember that the NT is going to end up over Bradbury and the 3-tech over Cleveland. So the LG is arguably the least important spot on the field in the modern NFL. My take isn't so much that Dozier isn't bad, he was. Its that even if you replace him with Quenton Nelson you're only going to see a miniscule differences. How miniscule? Well analytics would suggest it to be about 3 pts over the course of an entire season. The loss of Reiff is a much bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
This all day long. I agree with this completely and have for years. If you look at the starting guards on all four teams in the last two Super Bowls, half of them are league below average journeymen on their 3rd or 4th teams.
While it would be nice to land another Randall McDaniel or Quenton Nelson, it's not going to improve the team as much as a starting LT or the edge rusher opposite Hunter.
but you still have to upgrade that position over the likes of Dozier, and the string of previous failures to fill that position, if they cant find that guy in FA or the later rounds like successful teams seem to do, then they need to try something different, like higher round draft picks or a lot more of them.
Our starting guards right now are Cole and Cleveland. Cole didn't play well at center, but he was a revelation at LG, where his pass blocking grade over two games was higher than any of our linemen last year. So I feel pretty good about that. Still, you need to give him qualified competition from, say, the 3rd or 4th round. I suspect the Vikings will.
are they? currently we have 4 starters and 5 openings. we can assume that they plan on leaving Cleveland at RG, but do we really know? we do know our OL depth sucks so even if they spent another day 1 or 2 pick on IOL or an OT the projects inside, we would still likely fall short in that department. sorry if I dont trust the current brain trust in this department, but the track record more than supports my concerns IMO.
No, of course we don't know. That's the fun part. You look at Cleveland and see uncertainty, everyone else sees flexibility. It's really is a good thing that Cleveland can figure at both guard and left tackle
I don't know where you're getting five openings. The depth you mean? i'm actually pretty good with Hill, Udoh, Samia, and Hinton in backup roles. I'm even OK if Dozier is on the team as a backup. Starting experience on an offense that finished among the league's best. I'll take that. As much as it would feel good to send him packing, I realize that's a visceral move and not a cerebral one.
Still, I'd be shocked if he weren't replaced by a middle round draft pick or a free agent post draft.
Hill is a quality back up OT, but I would hope they have a better plan in place for the starting LT, at least a strong competition with Hill for the starting spot, and one that doesnt weaken another position like trying ONeill at LT and the loser goes to RT.
I keep trying to think of an NFL comp for Penei Sewell, but the guys who move like him (like Terron Armstead) are smaller. And the guys closer to his size (like Andrew Whitworth) did not move as well coming out of college.
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
I keep trying to think of an NFL comp for Penei Sewell, but the guys who move like him (like Terron Armstead) are smaller. And the guys closer to his size (like Andrew Whitworth) did not move as well coming out of college.
how does he not go to the bengals at 5, or now the Phish at 6 since both drafted their franchise QBs last year? I just dont find the optimism that some have that he will drop into our range (10-14)
|
![[Image: 7b3vtoj0nyou.png]](https://vikefans.com/vfforums/uploads/editor/an/7b3vtoj0nyou.png)
![[Image: IjZKs3rb_bigger.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1191522905261297664/IjZKs3rb_bigger.jpg)
