Thread: Vikings O-line more of a concern than Jackson?

"V" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

Yes, that is the other half of the argument.
But if I had to put my money on one or the other, I would say that the line is better then the QB.

For now... I honestly believe that both will surprise a lot of people this year, especially T-Jackson. I'll go out on a limb and say 2,600 yards and 15 TDs.

I would love to see that.
Because I honestly think we will be super bowl bound if TJack puts up even just those numbers.
TJack has the most room for improvement, so his improvement will likely be the most heralded if we are playing football in January.

Not to mention that he is the QB, a position thats gets too much credit in wins and too much blame in losses.

The fact that since there is very little wrong with the OL, TJ's improved play will deserve acclaim, as opposed to the OL who played very similarly in 2007.

Well your facts are wrong. There is very little wrong with our line when it comes to run blocking, but when it comes to pass blocking, there is plenty wrong with it or at least with the complicated scheme we run.

As the article I posted in the other thread states, even McKinnie & Hutch struggle with it, as does the majority of our right side of the line. That equates to a lot more pressure on the QB than what is necessary.

"singersp" wrote:

"V" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

Yes, that is the other half of the argument.
But if I had to put my money on one or the other, I would say that the line is better then the QB.

For now... I honestly believe that both will surprise a lot of people this year, especially T-Jackson. I'll go out on a limb and say 2,600 yards and 15 TDs.

I would love to see that.
Because I honestly think we will be super bowl bound if TJack puts up even just those numbers.
TJack has the most room for improvement, so his improvement will likely be the most heralded if we are playing football in January.

Not to mention that he is the QB, a position thats gets too much credit in wins and too much blame in losses.

The fact that since there is very little wrong with the OL, TJ's improved play will deserve acclaim, as opposed to the OL who played very similarly in 2007.

Well your facts are wrong. There is very little wrong with our line when it comes to run blocking, but when it comes to pass blocking, there is plenty wrong with it or at least with the complicated scheme we run.

As the article I posted in the other thread states, even McKinnie & Hutch struggle with it, as does the majority of our right side of the line. That equates to a lot more pressure on the QB than what is necessary.

That article is opinion, not fact.
McKinnie struggles with fast DEs, not zone blocking.
Hutch complained about his first year, but hasn't said a peep since then.
And Herrera has done better with zone blocking.

Also, it is a fallacy that we only use zone blocking.
While our running game uses it almost exclusively, I have seen both man and zone blocking used in the passing game.

"V" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

Yes, that is the other half of the argument.
But if I had to put my money on one or the other, I would say that the line is better then the QB.

For now... I honestly believe that both will surprise a lot of people this year, especially T-Jackson. I'll go out on a limb and say 2,600 yards and 15 TDs.

I would love to see that.
Because I honestly think we will be super bowl bound if TJack puts up even just those numbers.
TJack has the most room for improvement, so his improvement will likely be the most heralded if we are playing football in January.

Not to mention that he is the QB, a position thats gets too much credit in wins and too much blame in losses.

The fact that since there is very little wrong with the OL, TJ's improved play will deserve acclaim, as opposed to the OL who played very similarly in 2007.

Your facts are wrong.

There is very little wrong with the lines ability to run block, but there is plenty wrong with their ability to pass block or at least with the scheme we run.

In the other article I posted it states that McKinnie & Hutch struggle with it as does the right side of the line. That equates to confusion, missed assignments & more & quicker pressure on the QB than is necessary. Defenses are well aware of the scheme we are running, know we are still green at it & try & knowing that fact try to confuse our line & exploit it everytime we line up under center.

The O-Line was a major topic all season long in 2006 & a good portion of 2007. When will they gel? was a major discussion then.

"singersp" wrote:

"V" wrote:

Haha, both Schaub and Rosenfels played very well in Houston, despite having a marginal running game and their #1 receiver, Andre Johnson out for most of the year. 16 sacks in 11 games is much much better than 41 sacks in 16 games. Carr sucked it is the bottom line.

In Carolina, Carr played just as badly. How does bringing in Testaverde mean you have a bad OL? It means Carr was not the answer.

Did they play in Houston the same year Carr did & behind the same line?

Different year, same line.
The only difference (other than a handful of games lost to injury) was that the right tackle that started 16 games in 2007 only started the last half of the season in 2006.
Yet Carr was sacked 41 times in 2006 while Schaub and Rosenfels were brought down a total of 22 times in 2007.

You want to look at the same line and the same year, then Carr in Carolina is a great example.
Delhomme, Moore, and Testaverde each had a sack rate of about 5-5.5%, while Carr had a sack rate of 8.7% (link).

As for our team, our tackles could definitely be better.
But V is right that QB play will help make our line look a lot better this year (or not, we'll see), and David Carr in Houston and Carolina is a good example of how.
If Tarvaris can beat stacked lines blitzes consistently, then teams will back off.
Blocking will be easier and the number of sacks will go down.

And once again, the references to zone blocking and our team's 'struggles' with it last year are referring to our running game.

"Overlord" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"V" wrote:

Haha, both Schaub and Rosenfels played very well in Houston, despite having a marginal running game and their #1 receiver, Andre Johnson out for most of the year. 16 sacks in 11 games is much much better than 41 sacks in 16 games. Carr sucked it is the bottom line.

In Carolina, Carr played just as badly. How does bringing in Testaverde mean you have a bad OL? It means Carr was not the answer.

Did they play in Houston the same year Carr did & behind the same line?

Different year, same line.
The only difference (other than a handful of games lost to injury) was that the right tackle that started 16 games in 2007 only started the last half of the season in 2006.
Yet Carr was sacked 41 times in 2006 while Schaub and Rosenfels were brought down a total of 22 times in 2007.

You want to look at the same line and the same year, then Carr in Carolina is a great example.
Delhomme, Moore, and Testaverde each had a sack rate of about 5-5.5%, while Carr had a sack rate of 8.7% (link).

As for our team, our tackles could definitely be better.
But V is right that QB play will help make our line look a lot better this year (or not, we'll see), and David Carr in Houston and Carolina is a good example of how.
If Tarvaris can beat stacked lines blitzes consistently, then teams will back off.
Blocking will be easier and the number of sacks will go down.

And once again, the references to zone blocking and our team's 'struggles' with it last year are referring to our running game.

So what you are saying is that if the line was different in 2006 than it was in 2005, they had a year to play together & gel before Schaub and Rosenfels played behind them.


We had a similar thing happen here between 2006 & 2007.