Rams & Chiefs Offensive Lines

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

He doesn’t need a Joe Thomas to block for him.  That’s obvious..and to the point.  

 

So your point is that a team that has drafted as poorly as the Browns have would have suddenly become a good team if they had just drafted AP?  And AP was pretty bad the previous 2 seasons.  He looked done. 

 

Oh and the Browns had Jamal Lewis in 2006 who rushed for 1,132 yards, and he ran for 1,304 (9 TD's each season) in 2007.  Didn't help them much.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Doc

[Prickly Pete]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

And yet last weekend they did.

 

Ok, I hunted down the drives from the Wildcard game...

 

 

Point out the great plays from the receivers? Show me some missed tackles and breaking aways? They are virtually all "pass caught, guy gets tackled". Mack has a handful of nice runs, but nothing really that notable. I mean, they were up by 21, you're bound to get a few nice runs.

 

I think you are wrong. 

[Doc]

Ah, so "great plays" are "missed tackles and breaking away"?  That's convenient.  Saw many big plays made by the receivers and good protection by the OL.  And the Texans have a stout DL and were at home.

[Prickly Pete]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Ah, so "great plays" are "missed tackles and breaking away"?  That's convenient.  Saw many big plays made by the receivers and good protection by the OL.  And the Texans have a stout DL and were at home.

 

Weak. 

Playmakers catch the ball, and make things happen. They even keep a stat for it, ya know. It's called Yards After Catch.

Edited January 14, 2019 by OJ Tom

[Prickly Pete]

Here is the Chiefs Colts game...

 

 

Conveniently, we can see a second game where the Colts get ZERO (NONE) big plays from their WR's. One game was a win, where they got an early lead, and could get by mostly just eeking out 1st downs. The second game, they lost...they couldn't keep up.

 

Mack is the only Colts player in either game that had anything that I would consider a dynamic play. He had ONE in the Chiefs game (at 10.18). Mack has a string of nice runs there, but it's late in the game, and the Chiefs are essentially playing Prevent to stop long passes.

 

The Wr's can catch the ball, but EVERYTIME they are tackled almost immediately...IN BOTH GAMES. They can't get enough space, or can't break tackles...they are "Just Guys".

 

Now lets look at the Chiefs...

They had 5 big plays (most by receivers) where a guy caught the ball and turned it into a big play, or a running back made a big run out past the line of scrimmage...

 

0.36

0.50

1.47

4.17

12.06

 

These are the kind of plays you need to get to be a serious contender.

Edited January 14, 2019 by OJ Tom

[GunnerBill]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Success at what.  Was Joe Thomas a success for the Browns?  Their O line was bad his whole career.  What was the point?

 

It wasn't actually. Around the turn of the decade the Browns were consistently fielding top 10 offensive lines when Thomas and Mack were in tandem. Now it is absolutely fair to say their offense and indeed their team still sucked but the line was often the best part of those teams.

[Doc]

8 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

 

Weak. 

Playmakers catch the ball, and make things happen. They even keep a stat for it, ya know. It's called Yards After Catch.

 

5 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

Here is the Chiefs Colts game...

 

 

Conveniently, we can see a second game where the Colts get ZERO (NONE) big plays from their WR's. One game was a win, where they got an early lead, and could get by mostly just eeking out 1st downs. The second game, they lost...they couldn't keep up.

 

Mack is the only Colts player in either game that had anything that I would consider a dynamic play. He had ONE in the Chiefs game (at 10.18). Mack has a string of nice runs there, but it's late in the game, and the Chiefs are essentially playing Prevent to stop long passes.

 

The Wr's can catch the ball, but EVERYTIME they are tackled almost immediately...IN BOTH GAMES. They can't get enough space, or can't break tackles...they are "Just Guys".

 

Now lets look at the Chiefs...

They had 5 big plays (most by receivers) where a guy caught the ball and turned it into a big play, or a running back made a big run out past the line of scrimmage...

 

0.36

0.50

1.47

4.17

12.06

 

These are the kind of plays you need to get to be a serious contender.

 

If you seriously want to say that Hilton and Ebron aren't playmakers, there's nothing more to discuss.  The Colts' OL played well against the Texans and didn't against the Chefs.  Furthermore, it looked to me like Luck was either fatigued, injured or rattled during the Chefs game as his passes were off-target.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

If you seriously want to say that Hilton and Ebron aren't playmakers, there's nothing more to discuss.  The Colts' OL played well against the Texans and didn't against the Chefs.  Furthermore, it looked to me like Luck was either fatigued, injured or rattled during the Chefs game as his passes were off-target.

 

Hilton didn't look right to me on Saturday. I think trying to pinpoint what went wrong for the Colts on Saturday is a bit of a forlorn exercise. They were just bad across the board. Their offense never seemed to click at all. The playmakers were struggling to separate, the line was struggling to hold its blocks and Luck was struggling to make quick decisions.

[Captain_Quint]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Hilton didn't look right to me on Saturday. I think trying to pinpoint what went wrong for the Colts on Saturday is a bit of a forlorn exercise. They were just bad across the board. Their offense never seemed to click at all. The playmakers were struggling to separate, the line was struggling to hold its blocks and Luck was struggling to make quick decisions.

I think the Chiefs defense really stepped it up yesterday too. Not surprisingly, so did the Pats. After poor seasons, they both shined yesterday. 

 

It'll be interesting if either or both can sustain that next week. 

 

And you're right about Hilton. The announcer mentioned that he was injured but I didnt catch what was wrong with him. 

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

He doesn’t need a Joe Thomas to block for him.  That’s obvious..and to the point.  

Your logic is difficult to comprehend. The Browns organization has been renowned for its historical dysfunction. Bad ownership, front office and coaching. It makes a first round draft selection of a LT who turns out to be all-pro for most of his career. You then criticize that selection and consider it a mistake because that singular  pick didn't alter the course of its ignominious history. That makes little sense. This was a franchise that made bad qb decisions and for the most part exhibited ineptitude on a grand scale. So in your unique line of reasoning you conclude that the player who turned out to be exceptional was a bad pick. That makes no sense. 

[MrEpsYtown]

38 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Hilton didn't look right to me on Saturday. I think trying to pinpoint what went wrong for the Colts on Saturday is a bit of a forlorn exercise. They were just bad across the board. Their offense never seemed to click at all. The playmakers were struggling to separate, the line was struggling to hold its blocks and Luck was struggling to make quick decisions.

 

Agreed. I think Hilton really struggled with the conditions. I know it's an even playing field and all, but he is a quick out of his breaks kind of guy, and I think the field conditions really hurt him. He's also had  an ankle injury all year. But yeah across the board they were bead. Even Quentin Nelson was missing blocks. Glowinski looked terrible. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, MrEpsYtown said:

 

Agreed. I think Hilton really struggled with the conditions. I know it's an even playing field and all, but he is a quick out of his breaks kind of guy, and I think the field conditions really hurt him. He's also had  an ankle injury all year. But yeah across the board they were bead. Even Quentin Nelson was missing blocks. Glowinski looked terrible. 

 

I'm not really a Glowinski guy. I think he is the kind of guy you can hide in a good offensive line, which the Colts have been for much of the year. There is a reason he was cut from a Seahawks team with a desperate offensive line need - he just isn't that good. Most good offensive lines have one or two of those guys on there somewhere. Very rare that you have offensive lines with dominant players at all five spots.... the Steelers have been pretty close the last couple of years and the Cowboys had it for a year or two there as well.... but you don't need five all-pros. I think Glowinski is a major candidate to get overpaid this offseason. I hope the Bills give him a wide pass.

[colin]

all players and coaches have the potential to make each other better on a good unit, as has been said in this thread.  play makers and a good qb make the d back off, running game means the LBs will bite on play action and stuff the box, etc.

 

the things that stood out to me this weekend:

 

Rest:  the bye teams all won, and were all fresh.  They all basically lined up and smashed the other team on O, controlling the game and running the ball.  if NO was at philly who was fresh i think they run the ball on them (being home helps too obv) and win.

 

Oline as a unit: having a top single OL (like the colts, or the browns when thomas was there) is great, but the rams, KC, and especially NE play great OL as a unit.  they all move around and get on their blocks so effectively.  NE makes me sick, but they really are just a better team than most.  They have lil WRs and RBs running behind a convoy of maulers all the time.  that wears out the D and sets up broken tackles and turns 3 yard plays into 7 yard plays, which is basically all NE does.

 

we need some play makers, but i think foster and JA are so dynamic that we don't need them as much as we need a solid well coached tackle to tackle Oline, which would be the first we've had in a long long time.

[TheBeaneBandit]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I'm not really a Glowinski guy. I think he is the kind of guy you can hide in a good offensive line, which the Colts have been for much of the year. There is a reason he was cut from a Seahawks team with a desperate offensive line need - he just isn't that good. Most good offensive lines have one or two of those guys on there somewhere. Very rare that you have offensive lines with dominant players at all five spots.... the Steelers have been pretty close the last couple of years and the Cowboys had it for a year or two there as well.... but you don't need five all-pros. I think Glowinski is a major candidate to get overpaid this offseason. I hope the Bills give him a wide pass.

Me too. Go after a top guard Glowinski is a weak link of a good line who is now a free agent in a oline desparate league. I would def avoid him.

[Sweats]

The OLine isn’t the sexy pick in the draft, but it needs to be addressed early and often.

 

The Hood has made a long career out of non-sexy draft picks, but he picks for need and understands the trenches......OBD picks to put asses in the seats

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, colin said:

we don't need them as much as we need a solid well coached tackle to tackle Oline, which would be the first we've had in a long long time.

 

Think that is harsh on our 2015 and particularly 2016 lines which were very solid units. If we just got back to that level we would be in a really decent place.

[colin]

15 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Think that is harsh on our 2015 and particularly 2016 lines which were very solid units. If we just got back to that level we would be in a really decent place.

 

they were decent, but that was 3 really good players and a couple meh players, and they'd get overwhelmed from time to time.  I'm all for talent, but i want solid play by the unit all around.  THAT, we haven't had since like the 90s

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, colin said:

 

they were decent, but that was 3 really good players and a couple meh players, and they'd get overwhelmed from time to time.  I'm all for talent, but i want solid play by the unit all around.  THAT, we haven't had since like the 90s

 

That is very hard to find. I think we are much more likely to get the 2016 sort of line which was two borderline elite at their positions in Cordy and Richie, one good player in Wood, a solid guy in Miller (who had his best year) and then a weaker link who you can gameplan around in Mills.

[BuffalothruMyVeins]

19 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

hard to be a good coach with bum players

 

 

The way I remember it, he wasnt really fired because he was a bad coach, or had bad players, he was fired as part of both a housecleaning after Rex, and also because of that incident where he and his son beat up some guys for trying to steal their chairs in their back yard... something like that... didn't come across as good on their part.

He had good players during his time here, though- probably one of the best OLs in the last 20 years. Glenn was a good LT, Incognito and Wood were Pro Bowl level, Miller had his best year under him, and even Mills... uhm... well, the other 4 guys were good!

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

 

So your point is that a team that has drafted as poorly as the Browns have would have suddenly become a good team if they had just drafted AP?  And AP was pretty bad the previous 2 seasons.  He looked done. 

 

Oh and the Browns had Jamal Lewis in 2006 who rushed for 1,132 yards, and he ran for 1,304 (9 TD's each season) in 2007.  Didn't help them much.

 

Lewis was averaging over 1000 yards per (over 5 seasons) when he showed up to Cleveland.  Joe T didn't make him a 1000 yrd rusher.  And he was done in less than 3 seasons in Cleveland. 

 

And 9 years after Lewis left the league, AP is still a 1000 yards rusher....and that was running behind Tarvares Jackson, Gus Frerotte, Favre, Ponder, Cassel, and Teddy Bridgewater!  So, yeah, my point is that Cleveland's offense would have been far better off with AP than Joe Thomas--is that even a serious question?

 

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It wasn't actually. Around the turn of the decade the Browns were consistently fielding top 10 offensive lines when Thomas and Mack were in tandem. Now it is absolutely fair to say their offense and indeed their team still sucked but the line was often the best part of those teams.

 

When Thomas was a rookie, that line allowed 19 sacks.  That number would balloon to 39, 49, 53 and 66 over the next 10 seasons.

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Your logic is difficult to comprehend. The Browns organization has been renowned for its historical dysfunction. Bad ownership, front office and coaching. It makes a first round draft selection of a LT who turns out to be all-pro for most of his career. You then criticize that selection and consider it a mistake because that singular  pick didn't alter the course of its ignominious history. That makes little sense. This was a franchise that made bad qb decisions and for the most part exhibited ineptitude on a grand scale. So in your unique line of reasoning you conclude that the player who turned out to be exceptional was a bad pick. That makes no sense. 

 

 

It shouldn't be that  hard to understand.  They picked a player who had a nice career....but one  that had no impact whatsoever on the fortunes of the offense (see above).  They passed on a player that absolutely would have.  Simple.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[Tenhigh]

17 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

 

Just last week this board was abuzz with O-line envy for the Colts! 

The pig in the straw house is going to be envious of the the pig in the brick house AND the pig in the stick house.

[Doc]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Lewis was averaging over 1000 yards per (over 5 seasons) when he showed up to Cleveland.  Joe T didn't make him a 1000 yrd rusher.  And he was done in less than 3 seasons in Cleveland. 

 

And 9 years after Lewis left the league, AP is still a 1000 yards rusher....and that was running behind Tarvares Jackson, Gus Frerotte, Favre, Ponder, Cassel, and Teddy Bridgewater!  So, yeah, my point is that Cleveland's offense would have been far better off with AP than Joe Thomas--is that even a serious question?

 

You realize that Lewis had Jonathan Ogden and a good OL blocking for him in Baltimore, right? 

 

And what about the past 2 seasons?  How did he suddenly find the fountain of youth?  Come on, even you know the answer.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You realize that Lewis had Jonathan Ogden and a good OL blocking for him in Baltimore, right? 

 

And what about the past 2 seasons?  How did he suddenly find the fountain of youth?  Come on, even you know the answer.

 

I don't know what Lewis has been up to the past 2 seasons.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

I don't know what Lewis has been up to the past 2 seasons.

 

Nice feint.

[BillsMafia13]

18 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

What did he do for the Browns offense (say, over AP)?

 

if they instead picked the worst LT in the draft,  what would have been the difference 

Awful take and incredible reach.  What is your point here anyways, that oline doesnt matter?  Because Thomas is literally the only good player  (sans Hayden, Schwartz, Mack) that has been even marginally worth while this century.  All those other skill positions and qbs did them nothing but you're knocking arguably the greatest LT of all time? Have you ever seen a football game before?

Edited January 14, 2019 by BillsMafia13

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Nice feint.

 

Fill me in

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

It shouldn't be that  hard to understand.  They picked a player who had a nice career....but one  that had no impact whatsoever on the fortunes of the offense (see above).  They passed on a player that absolutely would have.  Simple.

Of course your position is hard to understand because it makes little sense.  The player the Browns selected turned out to be a perennial all-star. How is that a bad pick? He didn't make a tremendous difference through no fault of his own. When you play for a historically dysfunctional organization no one player is going to significantly affect the fortunes of such a grotesque organization. Even a good qb is going to be drowned out in such a swamp of organizational chaos. 

 

The fact that Thomas was able to be recognized throughout his career as one of the best OTs in the game while playing for such a iconoclastically bad franchise demonstrates how good a player he was. If the Bills could draft an offensive lineman half as good as he was most of us would be ecstatic. Although I'm sure you would still cling to your very minority position that the LT position is not an important position. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, BillsMafia13 said:

Awful take and incredible reach.  What is your point here anyways, that oline doesnt matter?  Because Thomas is literally the only good player  (sans Hayden, Schwartz, Mack) that has been even marginally worth while this century.  All those other skill positions and qbs did them nothing but you're knocking arguably the greatest LT of all time? Have you ever seen a football game before?

 

Wow!  Talk about a reach!! 

 

"Anyways", of course O-line matters.  If you have at all been paying attention, I've said that you don't blow a top 10 pick on O-line when you need to stock your team with playmakers. 

 

Yes, when you top draftee "of the century" is a LT, then you have a history of really bad drafts--including the one where you took that LT instead of the greatest and most durable RB of the century.

 

And nowhere did I "knock" Thomas (at least make up better arguments, can't you?).  I'm knocking the pick.  HOF LT....but, in the end, so what?  That's nice for Thomas.  Didn't work out as well for all of the QBs behind that line as the years went by (19 to 66 sacks, ouch).

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Of course your position is hard to understand because it makes little sense.  The player the Browns selected turned out to be a perennial all-star. How is that a bad pick? He didn't make a tremendous difference through no fault of his own. When you play for a historically dysfunctional organization no one player is going to significantly affect the fortunes of such a grotesque organization. Even a good qb is going to be drowned out in such a swamp of organizational chaos. 

 

The fact that Thomas was able to be recognized throughout his career as one of the best OTs in the game while playing for such a iconoclastically bad franchise demonstrates how good a player he was. If the Bills could draft an offensive lineman half as good as he was most of us would be ecstatic. Although I'm sure you would still cling to your very minority position that the LT position is not an important position. 

 

 

An all star at a position that, ultimately didn't matter.  In other words, had they went with any other LT, the results would have been the same.

 

Again (and again), my "position" is not that LT "is not important".  It's one piece of an ensemble that collectively protects the QB (and run blocks)....or it does not. 

 

I'm not sure how else to explain it to you and others--especially since you keep mischaracterizing what I have actually said (over and over...).

Edited January 14, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[BillsMafia13]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Wow!  Talk about a reach!! 

 

Of course O-line matters.  If you have at all been paying attention, I've said that you don't blow a top 10 pick on O-line when you need to stock your team with playmakers. 

 

Yes, when you top draftee "of the century" is a LT, then you have a history of really bad drafts--including the one where you took that LT instead of the greatest and most durable RB of the century.

 

And nowhere did I "knock" Thomas (at least make up better arguments, can't you?).  I'm knocking the pick.  HOF LT....but, in the end, so what?  That's nice for Thomas.  Didn't work out as well for all of the QBs behind that line as the years went by (19 to 66 sacks, ouch).

No I was genuinely asking what your point was, not taking a shot at you.  You basically are saying JT added no value to the team, even though he was the only good player on an awful team for decades. This is even more impressive considering the browns were trash for 20 years, and all those other skill position impact players accounted for 0 impact in any way. At least Thomas moved the needle and gave the fans something to cheer for.  Im so flabbergasted by this because, even though you say you're not knocking JT, you choose HIM as an example why not to draft OL high.  Like his "lack of impact" was the reason the browns were terrible.  Awful take and awful reasoning, credibility just plummeted to 0

   If you're hypothetical point is that AP would have been more valuable you're hitting negative credibility.  Fantasy hindsight to support a terrible take 

Edited January 14, 2019 by BillsMafia13

[formerlyofCtown]

19 hours ago, hemma said:

Look through the list of FAs on Spotrac and Beane could probably fix the OL just from FAs, but he’d need to be willing to spend and brace for whining about ‘overspending’.  

I’d be ok with overspend.  Just get the OL mess behind us and move forward, quickly.

Our problem with FAs is going to be Indy.  They are already good and have a ton of cap space.  Where would you want to go.

Edited January 14, 2019 by formerlyofCtown

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, BillsMafia13 said:

No I was genuinely asking what your point was, not taking a shot at you.  You basically are saying JT added no value to the team, even though he was the only good player on an awful team for decades. This is even more impressive considering the browns were trash for 20 years, and all those other skill position impact players accounted for 0 impact in any way. At least Thomas moved the needle and gave the fans something to cheer for.  Im so flabbergasted by this because, even though you say you're not knocking JT, you choose HIM as an example why not to draft OL high.  Like his "lack of impact" was the reason the browns were terrible.  Awful take and awful reasoning, credibility just plummeted to 0

 

 

Ok there you go!  They could cheer for that LT.  You could hear them in the stands I bet:  "go Joe!  Cover that blind side and force the D to sack the QB from the other side!".

 

And I've given other examples of this in the past (Dolphins picked Jake Long over Matt Ryan!).

 

The last sentence I bolded: no, I'm not saying that either (you're struggling with this I can see!).  The reason the Browns were terrible is that they drafted poorly.  No LT can have the impact that a guy like AP can have.  Or Matt Ryan.  It's just that simple. 

 

So, before you make up another opinion of mine to argue against, I'll say this:  Joe Thomas was the greatest LT of all time and will forever remain so, as far as anyone can actually tell.

[JohnC]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

An all star at a position that, ultimately didn't matter.  In other words, had they went with any other LT, the results would have been the same.

 

Again (and again), my "position" is not that LT "is not important".  It's one piece of an ensemble that collectively protects the QB (and run blocks)....or it does not. 

 

I'm not sure how else to explain it to you and others--especially since you keep mischaracterizing what I have actually said (over and over...).

I'm not mischaracterizing your position. I know exactly what it is. It is your position that I strenuously disagree with. If you want to characterize the LT position as part of being an ensemble I'm not going to argue with that although there are blockers who are good enough to go one on one against the best rushers without aid from other blockers. That makes a big difference. And Thomas was that type of player. The fallacy of your position is that all positions are part of an ensemble in that if the other parts don't fulfill their roles they are diminished as players. This is football, a team sport,  and not boxing. 

 

The core of my disagreement here is that I believe the LT position is an important position. You think much less so. There are others who think it is a waste of time to highly draft CBs. I also believe that it is an important position.  We simply have a fundamental disagreement on this issue that won't be reconciled. What I can tell you is that if the Bills were fortunate enough to draft a LT almost as good as Thomas I would be ecstatic while you would probably be morose. 

[Mr. WEO]

16 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not mischaracterizing your position. I know exactly what it is. It is your position that I strenuously disagree with. If you want to characterize the LT position as part of being an ensemble I'm not going to argue with that although there are blockers who are good enough to go one on one against the best rushers without aid from other blockers. That makes a big difference. And Thomas was that type of player. The fallacy of your position is that all positions are part of an ensemble in that if the other parts don't fulfill their roles they are diminished as players. This is football, a team sport,  and not boxing. 

 

The core of my disagreement here is that I believe the LT position is an important position. You think much less so. There are others who think it is a waste of time to highly draft CBs. I also believe that it is an important position.  We simply have a fundamental disagreement on this issue that won't be reconciled. What I can tell you is that if the Bills were fortunate enough to draft a LT almost as good as Thomas I would be ecstatic while you would probably be morose. 

 

 

Would you this Spring draft an LT almost as good as Thomas over a RB almost as good as AP?  I need an honest answer.

 

If you say Thomas then you believe that the best LT ever is more valuable and has a greater impact on an offense than perhaps the greatest RB has on that same offense.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Would you draft an LT as good as Thomas over a RB almost as good as AP?  I need an honest answer.

For the Bills with the current decrepit state of our OL? Of course I would take a premier LT with the ability to get a good back with another pick. Whether you are talking about AP in his prime or decline having a good line allows his talents to be exhibited. 

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

For the Bills with the current decrepit state of our OL? Of course I would take a premier LT with the ability to get a good back with another pick. Whether you are talking about AP in his prime or decline having a good line allows his talents to be exhibited. 

 

 

I'm talking about drafting players. Not about players in "decline". 

 

Which player would have a greater impact on a struggling Offense, drafting the best LT ever or the best RB perhaps ever?

 

For most of his time in Mniiy, AP WAS the offense.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

AP has been in the league for 11 seasons.  He's made the post-season 4 times (all others were non-winning seasons), all with the Vikings, and they lost in the first game 3 times.  Never mind that he's a child beater, eh WEO? 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I'm talking about drafting players. Not about players in "decline". 

 

Which player would have a greater impact on a struggling Offense, drafting the best LT ever or the best RB perhaps ever?

I suggest you more carefully reread what I wrote. I said considering how bad our current OL is I would take the elite LT over the elite running back prospect. Whether the back is at his prime or not his talents won't be actualized playing behind such a mediocre line that we had last year. In addition,  if you want your qb to thrive and survive you need to have a quality line.  

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I suggest you more carefully reread what I wrote. I said considering how bad our current OL is I would take the elite LT over the elite running back prospect. Whether the back is at his prime or not his talents won't be actualized playing behind such a mediocre line that we had last year. In addition,  if you want your qb to thrive and survive you need to have a quality line.  

 

 

AP didn't have the best line in the NFL in Minn.  He made that team relevant the whole time he was there.  Check the roster of QBs he ran past every week, every year. 

 

A guy like AP, unlike other backs on the roster, doesn't need "elite LTs" to rack up the yards.  He's far more unique in what he brings at RB than the best LTs compared to others at their position.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

AP didn't have the best line in the NFL in Minn.  He made that team relevant the whole time he was there.  Check the roster of QBs he ran past every week, every year. 

 

A guy like AP, unlike other backs on the roster, doesn't need "elite LTs" to rack up the yards.  He's far more unique in what he brings at RB than the best LTs compared to others at their position.

Our most valuable asset is our young qb. The state of our line is untenable. We can get a good RB with another pick. The priority for this offseason is to dramatically upgrade the line. 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, JohnC said:

Our most valuable asset is our young qb. The state of our line is untenable. We can get a good RB with another pick. The priority for this offseason is to dramatically upgrade the line. 

 

 

 

I haven't seen anyone post otherwise.