kurtkeoki wrote:I'm not saying the OL isn't a problem, I know it is. I'm saying there is a cost associated with improving it, and at some point, that cost is not worth it. It's one thing to realize there is a problem. It's another to offer a solution. I don't believe paying 11m/year for a guard is a good solution. The team was 11-5 last year. That's pretty good. Could we have a better O-line that we currently do? Sure. But it might mean we wouldn't have kendricks, or Smith, or Bridgewater, or Barr, or Diggs. We've used premium draft picks on other positions, and for the most part, they've paid off. A roster that has strengths in other areas can mask a weak OL.
It wasn't masked terribly well last year. Shortcomings on the line were an inhibiting factor from the first game the Vikings played against SF to their final loss against Seattle. Naturally, improvement on the OL is associated with a cost. That's true when it comes to improving any area of the team. I think the $11 million a year number for Osemele is largely intended to look great as PR for his agent and as an ego massage for him but it's the guaranteed money that's most meaningful. There's a pretty good chance he won't make $11 million a season over the next 5 years. Nevertheless, your basic point that the price of improving by signing a particular player can be too high is legitimate.
While every team drafts and signs players based on need to some extent, the best teams over the long run, such as the Packers, Ravens, Steelers, and Patriots, draft and sign the players that represent the best value, regardless of position. All of those teams have had weak position groups at one point or another, but were still successful, because the rest of the roster was strong. Resources in the NFL are finite. This isn't like baseball where the Yankees and Red Sox can just open up their wallet to fill their roster. Every team has holes. Plugging those holes in an exercise in balancing need with value, and the best teams are very good at it.
If there are two players of relatively equal skill, and one plays OL while another plays a different position, we should acquire the OL. But if OL represents much worse value, then acquire players that play other positions.
Unfortunately, it's possible to continue implementing that kind of abstract thinking for years while sinking a team's chances to win it all because glaring weaknesses remain insufficiently addressed. The balancing act of building and maintaining a successful NFL team includes but also extends beyond cap mathematics and "best player available" thinking. It's also a balancing act between understanding how to put parts together that support each other well enough to build a winning whole, about addressing areas of weakness that hold the team back from it's championship goals. What it's not about (in my opinion anyway) is “winning” the draft by getting the best value at a given draft spot (which is subjective anyway) or “winning” free agency, either by spending the most or by being that “smart” team that leaves a gaping hole on the roster while saving $1 million. It's wise to be prudent about spending (picks or cap space) but it's also smart to add talent and build a support structure around key players that enables them to thrive and enables the team as a whole to thrive.
It looks like OLs are currently being overvalued, therefore we should not engage in bidding wars for the top OL free agents. It could turn out that these inflated prices become the new normal for OLs. Time will tell. Until that happens, I say be patient.
I'm in favor of a smart approach to improving the OL. Doing that doesn’t necessitate reckless spending. However, while I think some patience is in order as free agency and the draft unfold (we need to give the Vikings time to make whatever moves they intend to make) I also think the time for patience in regard to improving the OL is past. It's become urgent. It's at Defcon 2, if not Defcon 1.
As I pointed out above, the near-future of both tackle positions is completely unclear. One guard position is completely open. The other is manned by a player who had a lousy season in 2015. There are literally short and long term questions at each position on the line and since games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage, that's not an area the Vikes can just mask with good defense or an area they can neglect. They probably need to invest both free agent money and draft picks into the position and they need to add multiple, talented players, not just one. It's crucial if they intend to win a Super Bowl in the near future.
