DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

This would be incredibly obtuse, if true.

It was time. For both of them. They earned another shot, they didn't stick the landing, good luck see ya later. Onward and upward, hopefully.

This chart argues against the idea of a "well-balanced offense" being an ideal.

Probably Marshon Lattimore.

You would be punctilious in assuming that...

The idea that a "big sized back" can create something from nothing is fatally flawed.

So so good.

I think the vast vast majority of lead backs are mostly replaceable as well. Turner was fun but its not like we had a very effective running game during his peak years. We had a tremendously high volume, productive run game but not necessarily one that gave us the bang for our buck. I just want more good players. I would prefer them in the front 7 because I think we have a handful of guys that could give us a cascade effect if paired with other difference makers. We've seen how the Cowboys' D performed with the addition of two high value LBs...and how it got worse when LVE went down. I t

I'd be hesitant to connect those two things. Thats a leap I wouldnt be willing to make anymore than I'd blame the success of Deion Jones as the reason for taking a chance on Duke Riley. I dont think those things have contributed a lack of depth, but I do I think its probably cost us a couple/few difference makers over the years. The question becomes something close to "is securing a player more likely to be successful in Rd 1 worth the cost of a player with a relatively smaller chance of being successful in Rd 3." For me the answer is usually no. For TD, he leans "yes." And to be fair, he has

I'm a lot less optimistic about Hill/Ollison. Not that I think they're bad players or anything. I just think they're closer to replacement level RBs. I'd like to see us target an upgrade on Day 2. But thats in a vacuum. I dont know a lick about this year's draft prospects. It could be a trash RB year for all I know. Although I'm not sure that's a real thing given how I feel about RBs in general.

If anything, the Vikings made the game closer than it had to be by going away from the passing game during the 4th quarter. They were making money off play action all game. Stefanski/Zimmer looked like they were playing it safe with all those runs on 1st/2nd down. In reality, they were setting Cousins up to be in more 3rd and longs.....never a good thing. I hope they reconsider their approach moving forward.

He's been pretty impressive. He's definitely an asset moving forward. And if Hooper moves on, Gage will be even more important.

When I saw this yesterday, I was a little disappointed they didnt discuss the contributions on the offensive side of the ball as well. I don't think its a coincidence that the Saints' rush defense (5th in rush defense DVOA) struggled with teams running more "Shanahan" concepts....a weakness that was exploited by this staff in our win over the Saints earlier this year. The Vikings made an awful lot of profit on those concepts yesterday.

The 2nd rounder is nice but the hidden benefit of this trade is/was getting Russell Gage more opportunity in the offense.

This conversation is way too big for a football message board.