PDA

View Full Version : Next step for Loadholt: consistency



singersp
06-26-2012, 06:16 AM
Next step for Vikings tackle Phil Loadholt: consistency

Next step for Vikings tackle Phil Loadholt: consistency - TwinCities.com (http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_20918526/next-step-vikings-tackle-phil-loadholt-consistency)

singersp
06-26-2012, 06:18 AM
I thought he showed consistency....

He was consistently bad.

singersp
06-26-2012, 06:29 AM
Leslie Frazier considers the mammoth 6-foot-8, 343-pound Loadholt "one of the top offensive tackles, right tackle in particular, when it comes to pass blocking."

I think Frasier is out of touch with reality. Loadholt has allowed 49 sacks in the past 3 years. Something about that doesn't scream "one of the top offensive tackles" in the league.

C Mac D
06-26-2012, 09:34 AM
I think Frasier is out of touch with reality. Loadholt has allowed 49 sacks in the past 3 years. Something about that doesn't scream "one of the top offensive tackles" in the league.

Frazier and co. just don't seem to get it. There are glaring holes in the roster and scheme, but Frazier and Spielman address these with mid-level talent, one year contracts and failed assistant coaches.

Hopefully the bright side to all of this is that Spielman and Frazier are fired sooner rather than later.

I like Frazier, he's just not cut-out to be a headcoach in the NFL.

Marrdro
06-26-2012, 10:53 AM
It all starts with the scheme. Coach them to run 1 or 2 blocking schemes (not four), teach your TE's and RB's how to help in those 2 blocking schemes and then quit running bunched sets so the defense doesn't have to spread out on the field.

That will help guys like Load to progress instead of regress like he did last year.

jargomcfargo
06-26-2012, 11:58 AM
I think Frasier is out of touch with reality. Loadholt has allowed 49 sacks in the past 3 years. Something about that doesn't scream "one of the top offensive tackles" in the league.
The word bust comes to mind. Frazier sometimes doesn't seem to recognize talent, or the lack there of.
Loadholdt needs to step up and bring it this year or he should be gone.
Just like Ponder, this is his year to prove whether he has what it takes, or not.

tastywaves
06-26-2012, 11:59 AM
It all starts with the scheme. Coach them to run 1 or 2 blocking schemes (not four), teach your TE's and RB's how to help in those 2 blocking schemes and then quit running bunched sets so the defense doesn't have to spread out on the field.

That will help guys like Load to progress instead of regress like he did last year.

And draft a stud LT that allows the QB to keep from running as soon as the whistle blows. Right PF?

tastywaves
06-26-2012, 12:03 PM
The word bust comes to mind. Frazier sometimes doesn't seem to recognize talent, or the lack there of.
Loadholdt needs to step up and bring it this year or he should be gone.
Just like Ponder, this is his year to prove whether he has what it takes, or not.

I think Frazier could make it as a head coach, but only if he hires strong assistant coaches that don't need a lot of hand holding. I don't think he is a real strong x's and o's kind of guy, but he could be someone that holds an organization together. Not really much of an endorsement I realize, but he wouldn't be the first figurehead coach that has seen success.

jargomcfargo
06-26-2012, 12:03 PM
It all starts with the scheme. Coach them to run 1 or 2 blocking schemes (not four), teach your TE's and RB's how to help in those 2 blocking schemes and then quit running bunched sets so the defense doesn't have to spread out on the field.

That will help guys like Load to progress instead of regress like he did last year.
Do you really think any of that will happen with Musgrave in charge?

jargomcfargo
06-26-2012, 12:11 PM
I think Frazier could make it as a head coach, but only if he hires strong assistant coaches that don't need a lot of hand holding. I don't think he is a real strong x's and o's kind of guy, but he could be someone that holds an organization together. Not really much of an endorsement I realize, but he wouldn't be the first figurehead coach that has seen success.

I agree with that. I'm not convinced the assistant coaching staff is a talent laden bunch at this point.

C Mac D
06-26-2012, 12:17 PM
Do you really think any of that will happen with Musgrave in charge?

Musgrave is just Childress 2.0

I thought that when I first saw him, but didn't think it was fair to judge a book by its cover... then I saw the team play and knew I was right. Probably why the only ring he ever won was while he was a 3rd string QB.

kevoncox
06-26-2012, 05:26 PM
Musgrave is just Childress 2.0

I thought that when I first saw him, but didn't think it was fair to judge a book by its cover... then I saw the team play and knew I was right. Probably why the only ring he ever won was while he was a 3rd string QB.

Chilly's problem was never X & O's. He just had the personality of a used, semen filled condom. No one likes those.

jargomcfargo
06-26-2012, 08:28 PM
Musgrave is just Childress 2.0

I thought that when I first saw him, but didn't think it was fair to judge a book by its cover... then I saw the team play and knew I was right. Probably why the only ring he ever won was while he was a 3rd string QB.

The coaching problem is plain to see. A successful offensive coordinator needs to be an innovator, not a follower.

Walsh was an innovator, so was Jerry Burns, and to a lesser extent, Brian Billick.
Just as Tony Dungy was an innovator on defense, the vikings need an innovator at the head coaching position or at offensive coordinator; and they appear to have niether.

Childress knew x's and o's in an antiquated system. Defensive coordinators had more than a decade of study and film to counter Childress. The Childress system required an exceptional QB to succeed.

Musgrave is trying to follow Atlanta's model which has only been marginally successful. Or maybe he is trying to copy Bellicheck a bit.
So maybe he's closer to being an innovator than Chilly, but so far, that's not saying much.

There was a lot of lip service about using players strengths against opponents weaknesses last year. If it happened I must have missed it.

If Musgrave has a creative bone in his body, he needs to use it early and often.

singersp
06-27-2012, 06:43 AM
It all starts with the scheme. Coach them to run 1 or 2 blocking schemes (not four), teach your TE's and RB's how to help in those 2 blocking schemes and then quit running bunched sets so the defense doesn't have to spread out on the field.

That will help guys like Load to progress instead of regress like he did last year.

Oh wait! NOW he's screaming change the scheme? I've been saying that for years only to be scoffed at by you. You were always adamant about & preaching not to change the scheme, but rather find players who fit the scheme.

About time you came around....

Marrdro
06-28-2012, 10:56 AM
Oh wait! NOW he's screaming change the scheme? I've been saying that for years only to be scoffed at by you. You were always adamant about & preaching not to change the scheme, but rather find players who fit the scheme.

About time you came around....
No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying limit the number of schemes you run to something that is workable. 4 of them clearly aren't.

Again, when I watched a HOF'r like Hutch running around blocking empty space, something is wrong and it surely wasn't because Hutch had a lack of talent.

As to the ZB scheme you hate some much. When will you come around to the understanding that the ZBing scheme has nothing to do with pass protection. You take that out of the equation (like they said they were going to do and didn't) and you will impact your RB's production.

Like it or not, AD (and Toby) are both backs that thrive behind a zone scheme.

Marrdro
06-28-2012, 11:01 AM
The coaching problem is plain to see. A successful offensive coordinator needs to be an innovator, not a follower.

Walsh was an innovator, so was Jerry Burns, and to a lesser extent, Brian Billick.
Just as Tony Dungy was an innovator on defense, the vikings need an innovator at the head coaching position or at offensive coordinator; and they appear to have niether.

Childress knew x's and o's in an antiquated system. Defensive coordinators had more than a decade of study and film to counter Childress. The Childress system required an exceptional QB to succeed.

Musgrave is trying to follow Atlanta's model which has only been marginally successful. Or maybe he is trying to copy Bellicheck a bit.
So maybe he's closer to being an innovator than Chilly, but so far, that's not saying much.

There was a lot of lip service about using players strengths against opponents weaknesses last year. If it happened I must have missed it.

If Musgrave has a creative bone in his body, he needs to use it early and often.
Two discussion points.....

1. I bet most on here don't know about Burnsies role in the development of the West Coast Offense. Great point my friend.

2. I disagree that Musgrove is trying to run a Atlanta offense. He is trying to mold something more akin to what the Pats ran last year IMHO.

One stretches the defense with speed on the outside that is exploited after establishing a running attack that works in the A and B gaps. The other works inside the hashes with TE's and then speed underneath after the TE's have cleared the zones.

singersp
06-29-2012, 07:58 AM
No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying limit the number of schemes you run to something that is workable. 4 of them clearly aren't.

Again, when I watched a HOF'r like Hutch running around blocking empty space, something is wrong and it surely wasn't because Hutch had a lack of talent.

As to the ZB scheme you hate some much. When will you come around to the understanding that the ZBing scheme has nothing to do with pass protection. You take that out of the equation (like they said they were going to do and didn't) and you will impact your RB's production.

Like it or not, AD (and Toby) are both backs that thrive behind a zone scheme.

They had 4 schemes only with Musgrove. Before that, the OL couldn't grasp even 1 scheme. You or someone else stated it took 5 years to learn & master the type of ZB scheme we run.

Quick question, when Childress installed the scheme in 2006, how many of those OL men are still on the roster?

How many starting linemen are still on the roster that where here in 2007?

Yes the scheme has helped our run game, but teams don't generally win SB's by just pounding the ball anymore. They need to be able to pass block also, which we've suffered at for years. It's not only player related, but coaching related as well and what we lack most of on this team is quality coaching.

We need to fix that, but Frasier seems content keeping a lot of Childress' "buddies" on the payroll.

We need a scheme and somebody who can coach/teach it that caters to pass protection first, followed by run protection.

Rushing for 12-18 TD's is nice, but passing for 40+ is even better. Especially when your defense struggles to keep opponents from scoring.

Mark_The_Viking
07-02-2012, 04:51 PM
Back to Loadholt.

The next step for him is to find out what a first step is. He is slow to react and his size and strength don't help him get over that. If he could speed up his feet and be more quickly into the tackle he would be almost unstoppable. I think this issue was listed in his pre draft downsides

Caine
07-02-2012, 10:00 PM
I thought he showed consistency....

He was consistently bad.
Agreed.

Caine

Caine
07-02-2012, 10:02 PM
The coaching problem is plain to see. A successful offensive coordinator needs to be an innovator, not a follower.

Walsh was an innovator, so was Jerry Burns, and to a lesser extent, Brian Billick.
Just as Tony Dungy was an innovator on defense, the vikings need an innovator at the head coaching position or at offensive coordinator; and they appear to have niether.

Childress knew x's and o's in an antiquated system. Defensive coordinators had more than a decade of study and film to counter Childress. The Childress system required an exceptional QB to succeed.

Musgrave is trying to follow Atlanta's model which has only been marginally successful. Or maybe he is trying to copy Bellicheck a bit.
So maybe he's closer to being an innovator than Chilly, but so far, that's not saying much.

There was a lot of lip service about using players strengths against opponents weaknesses last year. If it happened I must have missed it.

If Musgrave has a creative bone in his body, he needs to use it early and often.

Obviously you weren't watching very closely....Musgrave BRILLIANTLY matched players strengths versus our opponents.




Every week he matched Kluwe versus the opposing team.....

Caine

marshallvike
07-03-2012, 07:27 AM
Chilly's problem was never X & O's. He just had the personality of a used, semen filled condom. No one likes those.

Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. lmfao