|
Vikings' offensive line has early setback with Reiff injury - FOXSports.com
|
||
|
07-31-2017, 10:33 PM
08-01-2017, 12:33 AM
I don't get the secrecy. There are no contract implications. There's no upcoming game, so no need to worry about tipping the opponent to a vulnerable body part. If it's not serious, why not just say what it is?
08-01-2017, 01:00 AM
Quote: @MaroonBells said:I was thinking the same. But I'll go a step further, let the fans know regardless of how serious it is, or not. It's weird cause if he was in really bad shape, I wouldn't think he'd be out there on the sidelines? We need an insider talking...
08-01-2017, 01:51 AM
Here's my tinfoil hunch, and I hope I'm wrong...
Reiff had a hip issue late last year and missed a couple of games because of it. There was a rumor floating around recently that he was supposed to have offseason surgery to fix it and chose not to. First day of the practice, he feels a "twinge" in that same hip. Vikings are keeping things quiet for two reasons. 1. If this proves to be a lingering pain issue that he just guts out for six months, it will be targeted by opponents. 2. Vikings are under pressure to justify the money they spent in free agency to fix an injury-ravished OL, and their #1 free agent pulls up lame the first day of camp? That's not just bad PR. It's embarrassing. Even more so if the Vikings were at all involved in the surgery decision....even more so since Matt Kalil missed last year due to, yep, hip surgery. Yeah, I really hope that I'm just connecting random, meaningless dots. Because if any of this is true, it would mean the Vikings paid Matt Kalil $11 million to have hip surgery and sit out the season. Then let a healthy Kalil walk in favor of the more "durable" Riley Reiff, whom they paid $11 million....to....I guess we'll see. Fingers crossed.
08-01-2017, 08:25 AM
Well.......SHIT!
08-01-2017, 11:55 AM
After last year's shit show of injuries, I'm hoping they are just being uber cautious with Reiff...I'll shit a rhino if this is a long term thing...
08-01-2017, 12:32 PM
Quote: @Vanguard83 said:Keep in mind this is just a wild supposition that forces together a LOT of dots. Could still be nothing.
08-02-2017, 05:10 PM
I kinda go back to what I was thinking in the Murray injury thread. There isnt a lot of time from the start of free agency to visits to signing. How do you compete in the contract race if your spending a lot of time researching a guy? How is there time to really weigh anything when 4 or 5 other teams have big money offers on the table as well?
We rushed to get these guys here when free agency started. To be the team that got the deals done, it seems like we decided to do medical evaluations after they signed. They knew something with Murray by drafting Cook. Its too coincidental. Wayy too. With where Murray is now, it wasnt "luck." They knew they needed to do something at the position. Cook became a no brainer. How long was it after signing Reiff did we sign Remmers? I wonder if there is a similar dynamic after reading about Reiff and his hip? We get him signed, he comes in and gets evaluated, and... we go after Remmers? ... i know the line was afwul last year, i know we need guys all over the line; we needed bodies. But, i kinda wonder... I cant imagine players are up front about threatening injuries in free agency. Guys who dont sign, there is no excuse not to run them through a gauntlet of tests before signing. But guys who have a line of offers out the door to begin free agency? I can at least imagine corners being cut to finish the deal. One corner being, getting a contract finalized before medical testing.
08-02-2017, 09:56 PM
In somewhat of a side comment: I am still in shock that we did not draft 1 or 2 Tackle prospects in the draft. I thought we would draft at least 2 and would have put money on it. I would have bet anyone huge money if they said we would not draft one Tackle prospect. I am Rick supporter and have been defending him for years but this was such a head scratching offseason for me...both free agency and especially the draft.
Finding decent Tackles (either R or L) is getting into the rare category. Finding a young top LT is like finding a unicorn. Supply is nil and the demand is enormous. Their are probably about 5 Top tier LT's, about 8 average and the rest are awful. I guess we really didn't like any of the tackles enough to either move up or draft in the positions we were in but I would have moved up for a guy like Dawkins (Temple) who I think is a early starter at RT and can also learn LT or be a very valuable backup swing guy if your starting LT goes down. After moving up for Cook we would have had to move up with our 3rd rounder to go get Dawkins but I would have been thrilled if we did that. We gave up a 4th for Cook and would have given up one our 5th's to go get a RT/LT. Obviously, our brass did not think Dawkins, Moton were NFL Tackles. Some posters make the case for drafting QB's as often as possible like finding a needle in the haystack which I am not opposed to. I mean I don't want us to evaluate someone as crappy and just draft because they are a QB but I do think we need to raise the "power efficient" (I don't know if that makes sense but I am still on my rant  for the QB and the Tackle positions. In other words, when all things are equal between your grades on drafting a WR (who you have a 80 grade on) or a LT/QB who you have graded at 70 you power the LT/QB up because of the supply/demand and our reach, yes reach up, and grab that LT/RT/QB prospect...you increase your odds of finding the unicorn.I am not even drinking and I know that I am going to look back at this post and even laugh at myself but I am hitting the post button..in 1, 2....
08-02-2017, 11:18 PM
I have to agree on some sort of weighting system for pre draft grades based on difficulty in finding talent at the position and importance to success.
|
||
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |
