Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
I see through this entire thread the O-line is the biggest point of emphasis, which is no surprise. But I think everyone needs to look at things objectively vs. emotionally. Yes the offensive line is important but there is a lot more to unpack here.
1. Lets take a look at the starting depth chart last season and how it compared to others and how the Vikings offense faired with that line compared to their peers.
LT - Riley Reiff (71.4 PFF)
LG - Dakota Dozier (44.6 PFF)
C - Garrett Bradbury (61.4 PFF)
RG - Ezra Cleveland (66.2 PFF)
RT - Brian O'Neil (78.0 PFF)
Although PFF grades are inexact and I am not separating run vs. pass the Vikings line consisted of 3 average starters, 1 above average starter, and 1 bottom 1/3 guard. Since the line is always a sum of its parts the average PFF grade for a Vikings O-lineman was 64.32. Could it be better, yes. But that is surprisingly the 13th best line in the NFL by average PFF scoring.
2. Progressing forward the Vikings have lost Riley Reiff this off-season but where do they stand with their replacements?
LT - Rashod Hill (63.0 PFF)
LG - Mason Cole (54.4 PFF)
C - Garrett Bradbury (61.4 PFF)
RG - Ezra Cleveland (66.2 PFF)
RT - Brian O'Neil (78.0 PFF)
I averaged out Rashod Hill's grade since he hasn't been a consistent starter and took Cole's overall grade vs. his splits between center/guard (where he was better). Average those out and not surprisingly with Dozier not sinking their average score the average of the PFF scores in 64.6. So yes in this vacuum I've created the Vikings line is not substantially worse than last season and there are inklings to suggest it could be improved. The issue with this look is that it doesn't address depth and or player contracts. E.G. Hill isn't a long-term replacement at LT.
Ultimately what I am trying to dispel is this image of a burning dumpster fire. The Vikings offensive line even as it stands today is not in the bottom 1/3 of the NFL which is probably shocking to some. The media and perspective that the Vikings did nothing along the line drive that opinion. Remember that a team short on cap space did not trade a pick for Mason Cole and his salary with the expectation he'd be a depth piece. Rashod Hill is also not a slouch and could start at either tackle spot and be effective. Remember he played well during the 2017 playoff run.
What all this ultimately brings me back to is the idea that they don't HAVE to go O-line in round 1. Sure being able to grab an OT makes plenty of sense if it works out but there isn't a gun being held to their head. They can improve the line and it deserves further investment but its not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
I agree with the general point of this. People always look for improvement from replacing bad players with better ones, and I'm sure we'll add a starter from this draft. But the biggest potential improvement I see will come from one more year of experience for a very very young offensive line--Cleveland, Bradbury, and O'Neill going into their 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons respectively.
I was reminded of this when I looked at the PFF grades of several of the OLs we were considering in free agency (Blythe, Fisher, Taylor, Lamp, etc). There was a huge difference between their first couple seasons and their 3rd and 4th. If we add a starter and see that kind of improvement from those three we could really have something.
For what it's worth Daniel Jeremiah released his final list of the top 150 prospects. He has Darrisaw at #39....behind tackles Mayfield, Jenkins, and Radunz.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
I see through this entire thread the O-line is the biggest point of emphasis, which is no surprise. But I think everyone needs to look at things objectively vs. emotionally. Yes the offensive line is important but there is a lot more to unpack here.
1. Lets take a look at the starting depth chart last season and how it compared to others and how the Vikings offense faired with that line compared to their peers.
LT - Riley Reiff (71.4 PFF)
LG - Dakota Dozier (44.6 PFF)
C - Garrett Bradbury (61.4 PFF)
RG - Ezra Cleveland (66.2 PFF)
RT - Brian O'Neil (78.0 PFF)
Although PFF grades are inexact and I am not separating run vs. pass the Vikings line consisted of 3 average starters, 1 above average starter, and 1 bottom 1/3 guard. Since the line is always a sum of its parts the average PFF grade for a Vikings O-lineman was 64.32. Could it be better, yes. But that is surprisingly the 13th best line in the NFL by average PFF scoring.
2. Progressing forward the Vikings have lost Riley Reiff this off-season but where do they stand with their replacements?
LT - Rashod Hill (63.0 PFF)
LG - Mason Cole (54.4 PFF)
C - Garrett Bradbury (61.4 PFF)
RG - Ezra Cleveland (66.2 PFF)
RT - Brian O'Neil (78.0 PFF)
I averaged out Rashod Hill's grade since he hasn't been a consistent starter and took Cole's overall grade vs. his splits between center/guard (where he was better). Average those out and not surprisingly with Dozier not sinking their average score the average of the PFF scores in 64.6. So yes in this vacuum I've created the Vikings line is not substantially worse than last season and there are inklings to suggest it could be improved. The issue with this look is that it doesn't address depth and or player contracts. E.G. Hill isn't a long-term replacement at LT.
Ultimately what I am trying to dispel is this image of a burning dumpster fire. The Vikings offensive line even as it stands today is not in the bottom 1/3 of the NFL which is probably shocking to some. The media and perspective that the Vikings did nothing along the line drive that opinion. Remember that a team short on cap space did not trade a pick for Mason Cole and his salary with the expectation he'd be a depth piece. Rashod Hill is also not a slouch and could start at either tackle spot and be effective. Remember he played well during the 2017 playoff run.
What all this ultimately brings me back to is the idea that they don't HAVE to go O-line in round 1. Sure being able to grab an OT makes plenty of sense if it works out but there isn't a gun being held to their head. They can improve the line and it deserves further investment but its not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.
I agree with the general point of this. People always look for improvement from replacing bad players with better ones, and I'm sure we'll add a starter from this draft. But the biggest potential improvement I see will come from one more year of experience for a very very young offensive line--Cleveland, Bradbury, and O'Neill going into their 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons respectively.
I was reminded of this when I looked at the PFF grades of several of the OLs we were considering in free agency (Blythe, Fisher, Taylor, Lamp, etc). There was a huge difference between their first couple seasons and their 3rd and 4th. If we add a starter and see that kind of improvement from those three we could really have something.
Agreed and it was all around the general point too so happy you picked up on that. Its just silly to think the Vikings are on DEFCON-10 with their O-line. That feeling sets unrealistic expectations.
“I have nine linebackers in the first 75 picks,” an executive in personnel for an AFC team said. “I don’t know if nine linebackers have ever been taken in the top 75. I feel if I need a linebacker, I can get one at the bottom of the third round or the top of the fourth. A guy I can start as a rookie and get production out of.”
He wasn’t alone. Two other personnel evaluators also expressed confidence there will be starting linebackers available in Round 3.
“That top five is a really good, strong group,” said another AFC personnel executive. “Those next guys are all solid in their own range. It’s a better inside linebacker group than it has been most recently.”
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ TBro said:
@ minny65 said:
We need a new LT and a Guard from this draft. I don't want to move O'Neil or Cleveland and I have no idea how our brass feels about moving anyone around. It has not worked out to well in our past but nothing has in terms of OL.
MY take: Sewell with a decent gap, then Slater and not much of a gap with Darrisaw. Slater has the edge over Darrisaw getting to the second level run blocking but Darrisaw has the arm length advantage in pass protection. But Slater is no slouch in pass pro, he has great hands and positioning. Darrisaw also played all 3 years and improved each year. There are some questions about Slater being a LT or a Guard where that is not a question with Darrisaw.
My nightmare scenario for round 1 is that all 3 of these guys are gone before our pick and we settle on AVT who is a Guard. I want a LT in round 1. I think we can find a Guard in the later rounds. I have an interest in the Christensen (BYU). Played LT but doesn't have the length to play T in the NFL. A lot of his workout numbers are very similar to Ezra from last year, not Better then Ezra, but similar. I had to get that in there  Would really like one of the Big 3 at #14 and the BYU kid with one of our 4th rounders.
"I think we can find a Guard in the later rounds" Did Rick pay you to write this? Go back and look at the starting offensive lines since Hutchinson in 2011 and see how well that strategy has worked out for us. I disagree with you that we would be "settling" if we picked AVT at 14. He is consistently ranked inside the Top 15 overall prospects in this draft. Your nightmare scenario will very likely become reality on draft day as Darrisaw seems to be gaining momentum and moving up draft boards with his measurables. I'd much rather have a Pro Bowl Guard in AVT than taking my chances with the second tier tackles in this draft thinking they will be effective day 1 starters. None of them are worth the #14 pick so unless you can execute a trade down what is your contingency plan to draft a starting Left Tackle? I don't disagree that moving OLineman around has not worked out well, but when we took O'Neill, he was supposed to be our LT project that needed time to build up his body and add bulk/strength. He got to play much earlier than expected and really excelled at RT his rookie year. He has the physical traits and athleticism to be an excellent LT in the NFL. He has had time to work on his body, and is a proven commodity unlike the prospects in this draft. My bet is that he also wants the money that goes along with being a LT and will lobby to make the change on his own as he will be a free agent after this season. Two Rookie Oline starters when we don't have a second round pick is a lot to expect out of this draft which is why I'm open to moving the assets we have to other positions to fill our needs.
Bad guards matter and impact you negatively. Average guards through the top 3 at the position are all the same at the end of the day. Don't spend high draft capital on guards unless they're Quenton Nelson, Brandon Scherff, or Zach Martin.
I get that Nelson and Scherff were "generational talents" but Zach Martin was drafted 16th overall by Dallas. Taking AVT at 14 is in line with his overall prospect rankings. If he turns out as good as Zach Martin, why is it OK for Dallas to spend high draft capital on a guard and not the Vikings? If you don't like AVT as a prospect, then that is a different discussion and I can respect that. I'm just trying to understand your logic. I'm tired of the guard position never being addressed with quality draft picks by this staff. My thinking is that I would rather draft a player like AVT who has Pro Bowl potential and have him on an affordable rookie deal for 5 years than have to overpay in free agency. The reality is that we have had really bad guards and have been unable to find average guards in the later rounds in the draft which was my original point.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
For what it's worth Daniel Jeremiah released his final list of the top 150 prospects. He has Darrisaw at #39....behind tackles Mayfield, Jenkins, and Radunz.
Definitely some interesting rankings on him. Dane Brugler of The Athletic has Darrisaw at 17 and AVT at 13. Mayfield isn't even a tackle IMO. He's got AVT size arms.
Quote: @TBro said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ TBro said:
@ minny65 said:
We need a new LT and a Guard from this draft. I don't want to move O'Neil or Cleveland and I have no idea how our brass feels about moving anyone around. It has not worked out to well in our past but nothing has in terms of OL.
MY take: Sewell with a decent gap, then Slater and not much of a gap with Darrisaw. Slater has the edge over Darrisaw getting to the second level run blocking but Darrisaw has the arm length advantage in pass protection. But Slater is no slouch in pass pro, he has great hands and positioning. Darrisaw also played all 3 years and improved each year. There are some questions about Slater being a LT or a Guard where that is not a question with Darrisaw.
My nightmare scenario for round 1 is that all 3 of these guys are gone before our pick and we settle on AVT who is a Guard. I want a LT in round 1. I think we can find a Guard in the later rounds. I have an interest in the Christensen (BYU). Played LT but doesn't have the length to play T in the NFL. A lot of his workout numbers are very similar to Ezra from last year, not Better then Ezra, but similar. I had to get that in there Would really like one of the Big 3 at #14 and the BYU kid with one of our 4th rounders.
"I think we can find a Guard in the later rounds" Did Rick pay you to write this? Go back and look at the starting offensive lines since Hutchinson in 2011 and see how well that strategy has worked out for us. I disagree with you that we would be "settling" if we picked AVT at 14. He is consistently ranked inside the Top 15 overall prospects in this draft. Your nightmare scenario will very likely become reality on draft day as Darrisaw seems to be gaining momentum and moving up draft boards with his measurables. I'd much rather have a Pro Bowl Guard in AVT than taking my chances with the second tier tackles in this draft thinking they will be effective day 1 starters. None of them are worth the #14 pick so unless you can execute a trade down what is your contingency plan to draft a starting Left Tackle? I don't disagree that moving OLineman around has not worked out well, but when we took O'Neill, he was supposed to be our LT project that needed time to build up his body and add bulk/strength. He got to play much earlier than expected and really excelled at RT his rookie year. He has the physical traits and athleticism to be an excellent LT in the NFL. He has had time to work on his body, and is a proven commodity unlike the prospects in this draft. My bet is that he also wants the money that goes along with being a LT and will lobby to make the change on his own as he will be a free agent after this season. Two Rookie Oline starters when we don't have a second round pick is a lot to expect out of this draft which is why I'm open to moving the assets we have to other positions to fill our needs.
Bad guards matter and impact you negatively. Average guards through the top 3 at the position are all the same at the end of the day. Don't spend high draft capital on guards unless they're Quenton Nelson, Brandon Scherff, or Zach Martin.
I get that Nelson and Scherff were "generational talents" but Zach Martin was drafted 16th overall by Dallas. Taking AVT at 14 is in line with his overall prospect rankings. If he turns out as good as Zach Martin, why is it OK for Dallas to spend high draft capital on a guard and not the Vikings? If you don't like AVT as a prospect, then that is a different discussion and I can respect that. I'm just trying to understand your logic. I'm tired of the guard position never being addressed with quality draft picks by this staff. My thinking is that I would rather draft a player like AVT who has Pro Bowl potential and have him on an affordable rookie deal for 5 years than have to overpay in free agency. The reality is that we have had really bad guards and have been unable to find average guards in the later rounds in the draft which was my original point.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that we need better guards. Its not necessarily that I don't like AVT, he should be a good guard but I am not convinced he's a shoe in pro bowler.
I guess I don't find guards to be game changers and its a spot that doesn't need heavy investment. You need two guards that are league average and good OTs. If you have a line with two solid OTs, a solid C, and average guards you are set.
The entirety of an NFL game is around the QB and turnovers. Your typical turnover plays are created by pressure (interceptions) and sack/fumbles. Average guards prevent the former and strong OTs prevent the latter. Analytics suggest the majority of QB fumbles come from edge rushers and not pressure up the middle. So I would much rather invest heavily in OTs and pass rushers since that is more likely going to tilt a game vs. having a pro bowl guard instead of an average one.
Skyline Chili versus Gold Star Chili was once the primary debate in Cincinnati, but Penei Sewell versus Ja’Marr Chase has supplanted it.
It's Skyline.
Please reunite Chase with Joe.
|
![[Image: sAlUH3pP_bigger.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1228005469844889601/sAlUH3pP_bigger.jpg)
