Vikings Message Board.Com

Good summary. Replacing him looks appealing to me.

Mothman wrote:Here's why Loadholt should be replaced:

He's due almost $8 million in this final year of his contract and yet he's missed the Vikings last 22 games. Can he be counted on going forward? Can he return and play at the level he did before missing all of that time? It's impossible to say but if a younger option with a better injury history is available in free agency (perhaps Mitchell Schwartz?) and at a similar price, the Vikings could lock up the position for the next 4+ years by signing that player instead of going with a player for 2015 that may or may not hold up and having to address the right tackle position next year (by either re-signing Loadholt at 31 or moving on to another player).

They could obviously draft a tackle too and there are plenty of good reasons to do that.

Here's why Loadholt shouldn't be replaced:

When healthy, he's a powerful run blocker, a good presence in the locker room and an above average RT. Offensive linemen can play effectively well into their 30s so it's possible Loadholt could sill be a solid starting right tackle for the Vikings for another 4-5 years.

Take your pick...

I think that's a pretty fair way to sum it up though I personally wouldn't rate him above average overall. He's an above average run blocker but below average in pass protection so I just think that more or less evens out to "average". Add in his age and injuries and we can't even be sure his upside in run blocking will be there.

It's like you said in the "why he should be replaced" bit though, -IF- we can find a similarly average RT that's younger who still has some upside for around the same 8 million (give or take a mil) to me it just makes a ton of sense to go that route and start rebuilding this line now, rather than a year from now.

The biggest reason I could see them wanting to go with Phil for one more year is if they think Clemmings will be ready to take over at RT the following year so a 1 year stop gap season for Phil holds us over until then. That would also make a lot of sense.

Mothman wrote:Here's why Loadholt should be replaced:

He's due almost $8 million in this final year of his contract and yet he's missed the Vikings last 22 games. Can he be counted on going forward? Can he return and play at the level he did before missing all of that time? It's impossible to say but if a younger option with a better injury history is available in free agency (perhaps Mitchell Schwartz?) and at a similar price, the Vikings could lock up the position for the next 4+ years by signing that player instead of going with a player for 2015 that may or may not hold up and having to address the right tackle position next year (by either re-signing Loadholt at 31 or moving on to another player).

Prior to 2014 Loadholt started 78 out of 80 games. Let's be honest here, the torn pec isn't that much of deal going forward. The Achilles is more of a concern but it's an injury he sustained August 15 and it supposedly takes 8-10 months (give or take) to recover from. There are examples of other offensive tackles recovering fully from this injury and playing just as well as before (who were older at the time they sustained the injury). He began running at the end of January. By the time camp hits he'll be at 11+ months since the injury. At 30 years old, we could count on Phil for the next 3+ years while grooming Clemmings. I wouldn't be opposed to signing Schwartz to replace Phil but I'm not sure Schwartz makes it to FA (or that we'd be lucky enough to get him and for at or less than what Phil is scheduled to make). I also don't see Rick spending big at two offensive line positions and I feel guard is the more pressing of the two.

My preference is pretty well known at this point so I'll shut up about it.

So I agree with all of the above, and I am firmly on the same side of this as Poet. No need to beat that more.

However... It seems like everyone is looking at these guys in silos. I think that is a mistake. So I again ponder the question I alluded to before. Where is the biggest opportunity for improvement?

It might be that the best guys available come FA time are Tackles. OK. Then maybe that makes sense. The same scenario could play out in terms of BPA vs. when we draft. Again, OK, but these are both unknowns at this time. So right now, does it make more sense to go Guard or Tackle? (I think C is not worth discussing since we traded for the kid from ND, and Berger is a proven back up. Only question is Sullivan's health, but we have proven depth and a project already in place.) I'm still not persuaded that the situation at Guard is somehow better than the one at Tackle. Maybe I'm just being stubborn? Personally, I think if Sulli and Loadholt had played last year all the discussion would have been about how bad the guards were or if Kalil laid an egg, a repeat of 2014.

One thing to keep in mind is defenses are going to try to find the weak link in protection. Last year it was without a doubt TJ Clemmings. But... Loadholt is coming back. So it is fair to ask if RT is still the weakest position in that situation? My sense is that it is not. So if RT is better, then is it good enough? If it isn't the worst, what is? I obviously think it is the Guards. Maybe it is LT? OK, Fusco had issues last year as well. Did that affect Kalil? Harris got good PFF grades, but was that because the best Pass Rushing talent was lined up to his right to feast on Clemmings?

I don't have answers, my goal is to just get people to think about the group as a group and consider the moving parts and how they interact. I think if you do that, then the view of where to improve this group changes a bit. At least IMO.

dead_poet wrote:Prior to 2014 Loadholt started 78 out of 80 games. Let's be honest here, the torn pec isn't that much of deal going forward. The Achilles is more of a concern but it's an injury he sustained August 15 and it supposedly takes 8-10 months (give or take) to recover from. There are examples of other offensive tackles recovering fully from this injury and playing just as well as before (who were older at the time they sustained the injury). He began running at the end of January. By the time camp hits he'll be at 11+ months since the injury. At 30 years old, we could count on Phil for the next 3+ years while grooming Clemmings. I wouldn't be opposed to signing Schwartz to replace Phil but I'm not sure Schwartz makes it to FA (or that we'd be lucky enough to get him and for at or less than what Phil is scheduled to make). I also don't see Rick spending big at two offensive line positions and I feel guard is the more pressing of the two.

Keep in mind that if he keeps Loadholt, he's already spending big at that position in 2016.

Loadholt could come back from his injuries and be fine or missing the last 22 games could prove to be an indication that his big body is breaking down under the wear and tear of NFL life and he'll suffer more injuries/miss more time in the future. There's no way to know.

I think there's an argument for keeping him and an argument for moving on and both have their merits. You and Mondry made a good point about Clemmings too. Who knows how the Vikings perceive him and his role going forward, especially after such an ugly rookie season...

Mothman wrote:Keep in mind that if he keeps Loadholt, he's already spending big at that position in 2016.

I understand that but for me and possibly Rick there's a difference in cutting an established guy and signing an "unknown" free agent than keeping a guy that's under contract. Meaning, it would seem to be out of character for Rick to cut a well-respected veteran leader with honestly only one potentially serious injury (Winfield/Jennings situations are different due to Phil's age at 30 still being potentially in his "prime") while signing two high-priced offensive linemen free agents. Perhaps I'm wrong but I just don't think it's a "Rick move" to cut Phil and sign a new starting RT and possibly new starting left guard. Unless you think that they might cut/replace Phil only and leave the guard spot open to inside competition and/or the draft. Possible but again, I don't see it.

Loadholt could come back from his injuries and be fine or missing the last 22 games could prove to be an indication that his big body is breaking down under the wear and tear of NFL life and he'll suffer more injuries/miss more time in the future. There's no way to know.

I know you're bringing up the 22 games and that's, technically, true but Phil was hardly the only Viking who sustained a pectoral injury in the last couple of years. I honestly see that as more of a "fluke" than an indication his body is breaking down. So in actuality we're talking about the Achilles injury only as he's (to my knowledge) not had any other major injuries (lower body specifically) in his career. I'm much more concerned with Kalil's chronic knee injuries than I am Phil's one Achilles injury.

I think there's an argument for keeping him and an argument for moving on and both have their merits.

I think so, too. But for me the priority is upgrading the starting LG position. Phil or Harris (in my eyes) are already large upgrades at RT. What Rick does with the OL and watching those camp battles will probably be THE storyline to watch (aside from Teddy's completion percentage of course).

mansquatch wrote:However... It seems like everyone is looking at these guys in silos.

In silos? I've never heard that expression. Do you mean "in isolation"?

I think that is a mistake. So I again ponder the question I alluded to before. Where is the biggest opportunity for improvement?

It might be that the best guys available come FA time are Tackles. OK. Then maybe that makes sense. The same scenario could play out in terms of BPA vs. when we draft. Again, OK, but these are both unknowns at this time. So right now, does it make more sense to go Guard or Tackle? (I think C is not worth discussing since we traded for the kid from ND, and Berger is a proven back up. Only question is Sullivan's health, but we have proven depth and a project already in place.) I'm still not persuaded that the situation at Guard is somehow better than the one at Tackle. Maybe I'm just being stubborn? Personally, I think if Sulli and Loadholt had played last year all the discussion would have been about how bad the guards were or if Kalil laid an egg, a repeat of 2014.

I think the need at guard is more pressing because right now, they have one starting guard under contract (again) and that's Fusco who played poorly last year. However, I think they could, and should, add talent at both guard and tackle this offseason so I don't see the either/or question as terribly relevant. The future at both tackle positions looks uncertain. The present and future at guard looks uncertain. I say invest in both positions using free agency and the draft if that's what it takes to improve the quality and depth of the line.

One thing to keep in mind is defenses are going to try to find the weak link in protection. Last year it was without a doubt TJ Clemmings. But... Loadholt is coming back. So it is fair to ask if RT is still the weakest position in that situation? My sense is that it is not. So if RT is better, then is it good enough? If it isn't the worst, what is? I obviously think it is the Guards. Maybe it is LT? OK, Fusco had issues last year as well. Did that affect Kalil? Harris got good PFF grades, but was that because the best Pass Rushing talent was lined up to his right to feast on Clemmings?

I think they have to think beyond 2016. and not just about immediate improvement. Both tackles are in the final years of their contracts. Who is going to be starting at tackle for the Vikes in 2017? Do they extend Kalil or Loadholt? If not, do they start grooming replacements or just flat out replace one or both players now?

I don't have answers, my goal is to just get people to think about the group as a group and consider the moving parts and how they interact. I think if you do that, then the view of where to improve this group changes a bit. At least IMO.

It's a good goal but believe me, I'm thinking about the group and I'm thinking about it in both the short and long term. In the latter, I don't see a single player on the line they can look at and think, with confidence, that they can and should expect that player to be starting and playing good football for them two years from now. Kalil is probably the closest to fitting that description, which speaks volumes.

The o-line is potentially a bigger long term problem than a short term problem and most of us consider it a pretty urgent short term problem!

Mothman wrote: Loadholt could come back from his injuries and be fine or missing the last 22 games could prove to be an indication that his big body is breaking down under the wear and tear of NFL life and he'll suffer more injuries/miss more time in the future.

I don't know that I'd get too hung up on the 22 games he missed. The pec injury was something 5 other players dealt with and are the main reasons the strength coach was fired. Is that a sign of Loadholt's body breaking down or just bad coaching? This season's injury is more worrisome but I don't know that I'd look at the combination of the two injuries as any kind of indication that he's becoming injury prone.

dead_poet wrote:I understand that but for me and possibly Rick there's a difference in cutting an established guy and signing an "unknown" free agent than keeping a guy that's under contract. Meaning, it would seem to be out of character for Rick to cut a well-respected veteran leader with honestly only one potentially serious injury (Winfield/Jennings situations are different due to Phil's age at 30 still being potentially in his "prime") while signing two high-priced offensive linemen free agents. Perhaps I'm wrong but I just don't think it's a "Rick move" to cut Phil and sign a new starting RT and possibly new starting left guard. Unless you think that they might cut/replace Phil only and leave the guard spot open to inside competition and/or the draft. Possible but again, I don't see it

I wasn't suggesting they would cut Loadholt and sign both a free agent tackle and a free agent guard (unless that was Harris at a pretty reasonable price). I also wasn't making a prediction or even speaking to probable outcomes so what constitutes a "Rick move" wasn't been a part of my thinking above. I was literally just speaking to the arguments for keeping or moving on from Loadholt since you and mansquatch were discussing why there was interest in replacing him.

To me, the most "Rick move" imaginable here (and the one I half expect to see) would be to stand pat with Loadholt, Sullivan, Fusco and Kalil, re-sign Harris to a contract that belies the adequate nature of his contribution and then ignore OL in free agency and wait until round 4 or beyond to address it in the draft... again.

Cliff wrote: I don't know that I'd get too hung up on the 22 games he missed. The pec injury was something 5 other players dealt with and are the main reasons the strength coach was fired. Is that a sign of Loadholt's body breaking down or just bad coaching? This season's injury is more worrisome but I don't know that I'd look at the combination of the two injuries as any kind of indication that he's becoming injury prone.

I'm not hung up on it, Cliff but it's inevitably something that will be factored into a decision about what to do at that position. Another huge factor could be what alternatives present themselves. I doubt they'd move on from Loadholt casually so if they don't feel they have a strong alternative available, they'll probably keep him.

I hope it's clear to everybody that I haven't actually taken a side in a Loadholt debate here. I simply tried to lay out the arguments for and against keeping him.

For me I just haven't been happy with Kalil or Loadholt -at the prices- we're currently paying them. They are both inconsistent so it makes it hard to know which one will need help on any given play. I also think the T position is simply more important than G, who gave up the 2 game ending strip sacks for example? The LT. who protects the blind side? The LT. etc etc.

Our Tackles will be paid like probowlers even though they aren't on a probowl level and this line is one of the most expensive in the league while I see their upside capped at around average. I understand why people would be okay with trying to get back to mediocre by continuing to go with our average guys like Kalil and Loadholt because we've been so bad for so long but I want to aim a bit higher.

@mansquatch - Like Jim I just want to see a LOT of upgrades, I don't really care where they are. If they spent loadholts money on a different RT and spent a 1st round pick at LG I'm fine with that. In fact with me it's more of a "let's upgrade EVERYTHING" kind of mentality, not a pick one or the other.

Why can't we try and renegotiate Phil's & Kalil contracts with incentives. Kalil certainly won't be worth 11.5 mil. The way he has been playing.
I think your going to see us update the OL through FA. And Zimmer continue to update the defense through the draft with maybe OL player in the 4-5 rounds.
But that is just my thoughts. They could be completely wrong.

Boy would I like to know what Tony Sparano thoughts are on the OL...

mondry wrote:For me I just haven't been happy with Kalil or Loadholt -at the prices- we're currently paying them. They are both inconsistent so it makes it hard to know which one will need help on any given play. I also think the T position is simply more important than G, who gave up the 2 game ending strip sacks for example? The LT.

Maybe I'm forgetting a game-ending strip sack but to be fair, Kalil had nothing to do with the strip sack @Denver. That came on a blitz from the other side.

Mothman wrote: Maybe I'm forgetting a game-ending strip sack but to be fair, Kalil had nothing to do with the strip sack @Denver. That came on a blitz from the other side.

We should also not boil his season down to a couple negative plays. That's not an accurate representation.

This is interesting on Twitter

Hearing serious rumblings that both Mike Wallace and Matt Kalil are going to be released...stay tuned
1:32 PM - 18 Feb 2016

https://mobile.twitter.com/Luke_Spinman ... 9621927937

http://vikingsjournal.com/articles.html ... dholt-r969

http://nfltraderumors.co/142733-2/