KAM and KOC Dynamics

Read about it, can't recall where. If I run across it again I'll post a link

I don't think this is anything more than having a theory or a hypothesis, realizing it's wrong, and adjusting from there.

Both KAM and KOC said they thought continuity on the o-line would improve the group as a whole, and it wasn't an unreasonable assumption. The Vikes hadn't had the same five guys returning in consecutive years since before Mike Zimmer was hired, and the o-line has been mostly bad since...before Zim got hired. The tackles are elite, Garrett Bradbury and Ezra Cleveland were league average last year, and generally, offensive linemen improve in years two and three, so the thought was Ingram would improve. So it doesn't seem like there was a disconnect there between the two.

For the run game, Mattison was a good backup, and had some very good games replacing Dalvin Cook when Cook was hurt. And Cook looks done in New York after two games, so right now it doesn't look like a bad decision to move on from him and hand it over to Mattison and the other backs.

After two weeks, their hypothesis is wrong. Bradbury is already hurt and Schlottman will probably be playing for the forseeable future, so the continuity theory is already out the window, and there seems to be no discernable improvement from Ingram.

As to the Akers signing, the Vikes are last in the NFL in running the football. Personally, I think it's more on the line than the backs, but I also thought they would be using Ty Chandler more than they have. Why is that? I don't know, but for whatever reason, they realized the RB room wasn't as good as they thought, so they made a zero risk move to try to improve it.

I still think this is a good football team that's beaten themselves as much as anything. Let's see if they can right the ship this week and get back on track.