Thread: Thin, thin, thin

midgensa wrote:

I actually don't feel like we really are all that thin.

ALL teams are thin at a few positions, nature of the beast. But we have quite a bit of depth at a lot of positions ... including LB for that matter.

I think losing our MLB hurts a lot more than if Leber or Greenway went down, but I think between Brinkley, Erin, Farwell and Kenny O. we should be fine.

Agree 100%. When you can only have 45 active players on any given week, you can only have so many backups...especially when three of the 45 are your placekicker, punter, and long snapper. And in the Vikings case, they have several players that are probably on the roster more for their special teams play (Onatolu, Paymah in particular) that aren't really starting quality if someone went down for an extended period.

And you've got to develop new, young players all the time. Just so happens that our primary backup at MLB this year is a rook...and a talented one at that, just not experienced from an NFL standpoint. I think we'll be fine, although it remains to be seen if/how he gets abused on pass coverage on 1st and 2nd downs.

Same thing regarding the 53 man roster...you have tough choices to make regarding how many to keep at each spot. What do we have, 8 OL on the 53 man roster now? To keep 9, who would you cut? Jaymar or Greg Lewis? Albert Young?

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Yeah and I get the feeling having only 7 active offensive lineman thing might bite us in the ass eventually.

Keep in mind Herrera was inactive because of the concussion thing. You don't expect to lose more than two OL during a game due to injury. It was just unfortunate during that game that Herrera was already hurt, as Cooper (as a natural C) is not as versatile a backup as Artis Hicks.

I was shocked to see that we only had 7 active Olinemen last Sunday. And it worried me a TON when Load and McKinney went out. That left... NO ONE as a backup!

Honestly, today I was thinking a bit optimistic about Brinkley. I have no reason to think this way (except to get my hopes up), but how awesome would it be to find a Ray Lewis/Urlacher/etc in Brinkley? We'll find out the rest of the year.

I think we can survive without EJ but I want Winfield back.

purplepat wrote:

DiehardVikesFan wrote:

Yeah and I get the feeling having only 7 active offensive lineman thing might bite us in the ass eventually.

Keep in mind Herrera was inactive because of the concussion thing. You don't expect to lose more than two OL during a game due to injury. It was just unfortunate during that game that Herrera was already hurt, as Cooper (as a natural C) is not as versatile a backup as Artis Hicks.

I was pretty sure Cooper was only activated because Herrera wasn't and that we'd gone with 7 all year

I mentioned how thin we were on the OL before FA & all offseason long, especially with our scheme & the time it takes to learn it, but many here felt we were "set" with Hicks & Cook as the only backups & there was no need to carry anymore lineman.

What say they now?

singersp wrote:

I mentioned how thin we were on the OL before FA & all offseason long, especially with our scheme & the time it takes to learn it, but many here felt we were "set" with Hicks & Cook as the only backups & there was no need to carry anymore lineman.

What say they now?

I still say the same thing.

Quality/Depth. Hicks has played admirably the last couple of weeks. Cook spelled Hutch in running plays when his back was hurt. Cooper came in (albeit for one play/and a run at that). How many more do you want?

Numbers. Take alook around the league. Tell me how many OLmen teams carry. Bet you will find the Vikes are in/at/around the same number.

We seem to have this discussion each and every year when it comes to how many this staff carries (mostly at WR though).

a. Why a rook instead of a Vet. CAP usually has the most to do with this. Haven't heard alot of chants for ole Bryzcheapski of late. Might be cause we are up against the CAP a bit.

b. Why only 5 WR's and not 6. Cause you would have to take from another spot to carry that WR (ala OL).

c. Why waste a roster spot on a Long Snapper. You seen some of the snaps lately. These cats are critical even though they only get a few snaps a game. You can have the best kicker in the league back there but if the snap isn't right you will get a bad hold, something over the punters head etc etc etc.

d. Player development. Staffs will plug a rook in a spot for a year or two cause they know they aren't going to resign a certain vet when his contract is due. This is again, driven by the CAP and a Vet vs a Rook.


Long story short, there are a myriad of pro's and con's that staffs weigh with respect to roster composition/how many players they carry at each position that us fans don't even have a clue about.

As I said in a previous thread. I think they do a pretty good job when it comes to this area. We have seen several players step in over the last 3 or 4 years and provide nice reps with very little drop off.

I for one think this will be one of those cases to the point that I think we will be watching our new starting MLB'r (probably a year or two early) for years to come if EJ doens't come back 100%.

Marrdro wrote:

singersp wrote:

I mentioned how thin we were on the OL before FA & all offseason long, especially with our scheme & the time it takes to learn it, but many here felt we were "set" with Hicks & Cook as the only backups & there was no need to carry anymore lineman.

What say they now?

I still say the same thing.

Quality/Depth. Hicks has played admirably the last couple of weeks. Cook spelled Hutch in running plays when his back was hurt. Cooper came in (albeit for one play/and a run at that). How many more do you want?

Numbers. Take alook around the league. Tell me how many OLmen teams carry. Bet you will find the Vikes are in/at/around the same number.

We seem to have this discussion each and every year when it comes to how many this staff carries (mostly at WR though).

a. Why a rook instead of a Vet. CAP usually has the most to do with this. Haven't heard alot of chants for ole Bryzcheapski of late. Might be cause we are up against the CAP a bit.

b. Why only 5 WR's and not 6. Cause you would have to take from another spot to carry that WR (ala OL).

c. Why waste a roster spot on a Long Snapper. You seen some of the snaps lately. These cats are critical even though they only get a few snaps a game. You can have the best kicker in the league back there but if the snap isn't right you will get a bad hold, something over the punters head etc etc etc.

d. Player development. Staffs will plug a rook in a spot for a year or two cause they know they aren't going to resign a certain vet when his contract is due. This is again, driven by the CAP and a Vet vs a Rook.


Long story short, there are a myriad of pro's and con's that staffs weigh with respect to roster composition/how many players they carry at each position that us fans don't even have a clue about.

As I said in a previous thread. I think they do a pretty good job when it comes to this area. We have seen several players step in over the last 3 or 4 years and provide nice reps with very little drop off.

I for one think this will be one of those cases to the point that I think we will be watching our new starting MLB'r (probably a year or two early) for years to come if EJ doens't come back 100%.

We could always cut Jackson and sign another O-Lineman...

:P

Caine

Caine wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

singersp wrote:

I mentioned how thin we were on the OL before FA & all offseason long, especially with our scheme & the time it takes to learn it, but many here felt we were "set" with Hicks & Cook as the only backups & there was no need to carry anymore lineman.

What say they now?

I still say the same thing.

Quality/Depth. Hicks has played admirably the last couple of weeks. Cook spelled Hutch in running plays when his back was hurt. Cooper came in (albeit for one play/and a run at that). How many more do you want?

Numbers. Take alook around the league. Tell me how many OLmen teams carry. Bet you will find the Vikes are in/at/around the same number.

We seem to have this discussion each and every year when it comes to how many this staff carries (mostly at WR though).

a. Why a rook instead of a Vet. CAP usually has the most to do with this. Haven't heard alot of chants for ole Bryzcheapski of late. Might be cause we are up against the CAP a bit.

b. Why only 5 WR's and not 6. Cause you would have to take from another spot to carry that WR (ala OL).

c. Why waste a roster spot on a Long Snapper. You seen some of the snaps lately. These cats are critical even though they only get a few snaps a game. You can have the best kicker in the league back there but if the snap isn't right you will get a bad hold, something over the punters head etc etc etc.

d. Player development. Staffs will plug a rook in a spot for a year or two cause they know they aren't going to resign a certain vet when his contract is due. This is again, driven by the CAP and a Vet vs a Rook.


Long story short, there are a myriad of pro's and con's that staffs weigh with respect to roster composition/how many players they carry at each position that us fans don't even have a clue about.

As I said in a previous thread. I think they do a pretty good job when it comes to this area. We have seen several players step in over the last 3 or 4 years and provide nice reps with very little drop off.

I for one think this will be one of those cases to the point that I think we will be watching our new starting MLB'r (probably a year or two early) for years to come if EJ doens't come back 100%.

We could always cut Jackson and sign another O-Lineman...

:P

Caine

Ahhhh my friend. Glad to see you made the transisition to the new digs.

Been missing you and V of late.

You see Pike play last weekend?

Vikings Tweaking Roster