Vikings Message Board.Com

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.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:WE JUST LANDED ALEX BOONE PER SCHEFTER!!

Plus 1, yes!

allday1991 wrote: Plus 1, yes!

Great signing. Next best guard behind Osemele. Now let's get Nelson and Rey!

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14934 ... isco-49ers

The 6-foot-8, 300-pound Boone, who turns 29 on May 4, held out the past two offseasons but has started all but one game he played for the 49ers in the past four seasons (59 of 60). He moved from right guard to left guard last season, despite a seeming desire to move out to right tackle.

Is he going to be unhappy playing LG? Or will we have 3 RGs (assuming Harris stays) and 0 LGs

Pondering Her Percy wrote:So I guess you don't listen or look into to any current write up on Harris regarding last year.

As I've told you before, I've read quite a bit of what's been written about Harris, both recently and last year.

Is Fusco's contract appropriate? Because you basically compared to two talent wise. Harris was lowballed no matter what way you look at it. He's our best in house option right now. So why let him walk is my question? We must really be hoping Fusco can regain his old form otherwise we're in a world of hurt

I think they paid Fusco largely on the basis of one good season. Based on his performance last year, he's not living up to the contract (although he still could).

As I see it, Harris isn't really an "in-house option" at all. He's another free agent in the marketplace. You say "why let him walk"?. I say: if there are better options available, why not sign one of them (like Boone, for example).

Bill Polian gave the Vikings a C+ for the Boone signing. Anyone know the terms, or have a guess as to what they might be? I think the Polian list of grades might be on the players themselves, and not on the specific deal, since he has players graded that have unknown destinations.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:WE JUST LANDED ALEX BOONE PER SCHEFTER!!

Thank goodness. Boone is as durable as they come. Great signing.

kurtkeoki wrote:Bill Polian gave the Vikings a C+ for the Boone signing.

Impossible to say how it will play out. I think people are excited at the attempt by the office to improve are line, that's all we can ask.

Jim you are using one position group to criticize the GM when he as to fill groups successfully. If you are going to say the magic has been in short supply at OL, then you should give him credit for the outstanding job he has done finding us a S, 2 LB, CB, DT, NT, and potentially a 2nd CB.

I wouldn't be too frustrated with a GM sitting firm on a contract value for players. If you are willing to let the market dictate then you are at the whim of a GM such as the guy who got canned in MIAMI or Daniel Schnieder inflating the market for a player they covet. Once the ink dries no one cares, and you are stuck with cap hit. Having discipline isn't a bad thing. I could see shelling out a truckload of $$$ if we needed that one guy to get over the hump for SB run, but while I think we are close to that point, we are not there yet.

Mothman wrote:

As I've told you before, I've read quite a bit of what's been written about Harris, both recently and last year.
I think they paid Fusco largely on the basis of one good season. Based on his performance last year, he's not living up to the contract (although he still could).

As I see it, Harris isn't really an "in-house option" at all. He's another free agent in the marketplace. You say "why let him walk"?. I say: if there are better options available, why not sign one of them (like Boone, for example).

And Boone is a LG. Which has nothing to do with Harris

Pondering Her Percy wrote:And Boone is a LG. Which has nothing to do with Harris

Boone played RG for years so he's not just a left guard, as you implied above. He can play on either side, although the Vikes may put him on the left. There's been some talk that they may want to move Fusco back to the right side, where he was successful.

mansquatch wrote:Jim you are using one position group to criticize the GM when he as to fill groups successfully. If you are going to say the magic has been in short supply at OL, then you should give him credit for the outstanding job he has done finding us a S, 2 LB, CB, DT, NT, and potentially a 2nd CB

I made it clear I wasn't just talking about one position and I've given him credit for his successes many times.

I wouldn't be too frustrated with a GM sitting firm on a contract value for players.

I'm not. I just don't buy into the Spielman "magic".

Mothman wrote: Boone played RG for years so he's not just a left guard, as you implied above. He can play on either side, although the Vikes may put him on the left. There's been some talk that they may want to move Fusco back to the right side, where he was successful.

But you're missing my point with all of this. Let's not fool ourselves, Boone was signed to play LG. Harris at this point is more of a sure thing at RG than Fusco. And here is why..... Nobody knows if the reason Fusco was so bad this year was due to his switch to RG or he never recovered fully from the injury. That seriously scares me. Because if we throw him on the right side "in hopes" of him to return to previous form and he flops, we seriously screwed up by letting Harris walk because we were cheap and lowballed him. This past year for Harris was just as good as Fusco's one good year. Harris didn't show us anywhere close to a terrible season. Fusco just did. We are really gambling on Fusco being good again. It could truly come back to haunt us. Which is why I wish they would've just retained Harris

Boone is a good get...we needed a LT. Now when are they going to announce Nelson?

https://twitter.com/christomasson/statu ... 7737891840

With Alex Boone news, sources say Mike Harris now considering a one-year deal with the #Vikings. Could battle Brandon Fusco at right guard