On Losing to Boston College, Logan Thomas, and Scot Loeffler

I was rather disappointed after the Boston College loss, probably more than I should've been. The Hokies have been inconsistent all season, but up until the last two Saturdays, have been on the right side of the coin in close games. The offense isn't good enough to overcome mistakes, special teams have been all over the place, and the defense's job isn't to score points. The offense couldn't overcome four turnovers despite churning out 446 yards, most of which came through the passing game. That was Tech's most output against an ACC team since Duke in 2012 (525 yards).

Yesterday, the most scrutinized and analyzed player was once again Logan Thomas. He made some great throws, like this strike to Coles.


However, there were also inaccurate tosses and head scratchers, like the over the middle desperation toss under pressure that resulted in the pick six.

Of Tech's 446 yards, Logan accounted for 391 through the air and 38 on the ground; that's 96.2% of the Hokies offense. Since he was hired, and leading up into the season, Loeffler stated and reiterated he was committed to running the football. However, since ACC play began his play calling has shown he is more committed to Logan Thomas. In Tech's first four (non-conference) games Trey Edmunds averaged 19.5 touches, in their last 5 his carries have dropped to 9.4 per. I know injuries, game scenarios, etc... factor in, but as far as I know Trey was healthy yesterday, and Tech opted not to grind it out with him. Meanwhile over those two same spans, Logan's carries increased from 9 to 17. Edmunds has averaged 3.58 yards a carry, while Logan has gained 2.45 yards a clip which jumps to 3.9 after negative sack yards are removed.

The run-pass ratio has been balanced (328 rushes to 304 passes this season), although against the Eagles, Tech ran 29 times and threw 41. However, the rushing attack, which has favored Thomas making the decision on the inverted veer, veer, and read option hasn't been overly productive. Those extra quarterback runs result in repeated unnecessary hits, with very little yardage to show. A quarterback that can hammer through a defensive line is rare, and Logan is a weapon. However, Logan being utilized as a changeup, in space, where he is on an island running down hill one on one with smaller safeties is a much more dangerous weapon. Edmunds could be the guy to pound the line of scrimmage, and unlike any other back on the roster, he has shown the ability to break a big run on occasion. He showed off his athleticism in space running after the catch on the screen plays.

While re-watching I counted 15 plays where Logan appeared to be reading a defender, then making a decision whether to keep or hand it off. Those plays averaged out 2.67 yards; the big gainer was a 13-yard rush by Thomas (on 2nd-and-30). Drop the high and low rush at both ends the average drops to 2.15 yards. There are a myriad of reasons for why these plays aren't working, but the bottom line is they aren't working.

The following were the only two predetermined running plays I noted. Both were zone runs away from the tight end, like what Tech ran against Duke.


Trey trips cutting back on the first run, but there was a lane to bend back into. On the second run Jonathan McLaughlin and Sam Rogers each had excellent blocks to seal the left side and Edmunds gained an easy 5 yards.

Last week, French detailed the success the Hokies had with the zone against Duke. Considering all the time dedicated to them in spring and August, I don't understand why the zone plays are called so infrequently. They can't really be any less productive.

Here's an excerpt from an interview Andy Bitter conducted with Scot Loeffler before the Hokies opened up spring practice.

"In a perfect world, would I like to be 50-50? Absolutely. But if we're not 50-50, we're going to play to our strengths. If we can throw it 60 times a game, we'll throw it 60 times a game, if that's our strength. If not, we'll run the ball 60 times. We're going to play to our strengths, but we're always going to have the mentality that we're going to run it."

-- Does that include running the quarterback? Yes, to a degree. Loeffler acknowledges that is a part of the college game and can stress a defense, but he's acutely aware of the kind of physical toll it can take on a quarterback, even someone of Thomas' size.

"If you ask them to run it every time, they take a beating," he said. "And they take a beating enough if you decide not to run. They take an absolute beating and a beating and a beating. Let's suppose that we decide that we're not going to run. On Sunday, you wake up in the morning, regardless of what happened, and you can't move. And then on top of it, if you're asked to run it all the time, you wake up in the morning and you're in a coma. So we'll pick our spots."

With the way the season has unfolded, especially in ACC play, these statements made in March are now contradictory. Clearly Loeffler is playing to his strength, Logan Thomas. However, Thomas is being overused in the ground game.

There are 4 games left, and I don't expect much to change. It's November now and the Hokies are what they are. Tech will have a chance to win all 4 remaining games, the defense is that good. Thomas will make some jaw dropping and face palming throws. However, if the former outnumbers the latter the Hokies might have a late run to Charlotte in them.


Screw it, let's go beat Miami.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Screw it, we're going to our 21st bowl game in a row and UVA will finish 2-10. Anything from here on is just a plus.

I'm going to stick with the "square peg in a round hole" analogy. We've noted countless improvements in offense, yet consistent inconsistently. Is this Joe's way of quietly suggesting we get rid of the zone read type plays? I would be for that. It's not Loeffler's game. A qb that can power run is our/Scot's square peg. (This isn't meant to be a LT hate post. Simply that he doesn't fit the system Scot wants to run and Scot is playing the hand he is dealt)

I agree, hopefully Loeffler can do good with someone on our roster for next year. Or hope the new recruit Andrew Ford will be able to pick up and the offense and go. But not too many true freshmen can do that.

-Being aggressive, being tough...that's the Virginia Tech way.

At this point, with the team we have, i think we just have to hope for more good than bad. The offense and special teams are too wildly inconsistent.


So next year, who's it gonna be? No QB on the roster is Loeffler's guy. Andrew Ford (2014 recruit) is the only one coming in. We have 4 star Bucky Hodges, and possibly Leal, but we never hear how good they really are? I still think the running game still rests on the O-lines shoulders. On another note...

We have for sure fallen from grace. 10+ wins a year and now on two consecutive downslides? No, I don't care what any of the others say, Fla St, Clemson, Miami, all of those teams that underachieved in recent years are getting "better." And the only consistent thing is Bud Foster getting the Defense ready to play, with discipline and intensity. Where has the offense been? Coach Beamer needs to stop giving the keys to the coordinators and take over when things aren't going right. *cough* offense....

-Being aggressive, being tough...that's the Virginia Tech way.

You can't forgive a 6-3 start with a whole new system and below average talent? Maybe you need to reconsider your expectations.


Do you think that Beamer has ever taken the keys from Foster when the Defense wasn't performing up to standards? (Like 2010) I sure as hell don't think so. Have some confidence in the guys that were just hired

Logan 3:16

On Sunday, you wake up in the morning, regardless of what happened, and you can't move. And then on top of it, if you're asked to run it all the time, you wake up in the morning and you're in a coma.

Oddly enough this is exactly how I felt this morning. Oof.

Since he was hired, and leading up into the season, Loeffler stated and reiterated he was committed to running the football. However, since ACC play began his play calling has shown he is more committed to Logan Thomas.

THIS RIGHT HERE ALL DAY. Thank you, Joe, for putting it into words.

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

That is what is most troubling to me. Scot Loeffler was hired to run the football. Boston College (probably with less offensive talent) lined up yesterday and pushed around one of the best defenses in the country. Yet, we continue to piss and fart with influence blocks running read option when the opponent knows it is coming and has three unblocked defenders every play. At least he adjusted and generated some big plays when BC blitzed read option action, but I fear it is fools gold because BC didn't have the cover guys that a Miami can bring to the table. A good power running game cures lots of ills, but the Hokies can't get it rolling because so much energy is being devoted to the read plays. They have a purpose, but it can't be the majority of the running snaps.

Three running play snaps from under the center the entire game. One fumbled QB sneak, and two fourth quarter zone plays. That (I hope) isn't what Frank Beamer was looking for when the move to bring in Loeffler was made in January.

Five star get after it 100 percent Juice Key-Playing. MAN

French - Why are you soooo negative??? You have NOTHING positive to say, ever. The offense had 446 yards total offense. With the best Defense in the country, that should be an easy win.

The problem wasn't with scheme, talent, coaching ---- it was with TURNOVERS. VT was -4 in that category. The coach's can't influence that much. The ball needs to be protected better. End of story.

I know, ripping the coach's makes you look better. Ripping the talent makes you look better.

Real fans don't do that!!

How is that picture supporting, appreciating, honoring the Team? You could have spent that moment showing appreciation for the efforts these fine men exhibit every game.

Not every post on TKP puts these kids on a pedestal, like you seem to want to. To each their own.


Haha this was my reaction too. Thanks, joe


French has earned the right to be critical of whoever he wants. Until you prove your football IQ is Savant Syndrome level, I'd bite my tongue about criticizing his fanhood.

"Yeah, it do." - Mike Vick

Somewhere there is lost the fact these players aren't pros. They are men playing for honor. Lets honor them and their leadership and not criticize them every sentence.


We put the K in Kwality

The problem wasn't with scheme, talent, coaching ---- it was with TURNOVERS. VT was -4 in that category. The coach's can't influence that much. The ball needs to be protected better.

I agree with your comment, but no need to take a shot at Mr. French, who spends countless hours each week rewatching and analyzing tape for free, for us.

Twitter me

Dear Chuckie,

Scheme, talent and coaching produce outcomes like yards, points, and turnovers.

Your world is so upside down that your moniker is concerning us. Did you forget about that police restraining order? As your parents, we are pleading with you to stay away from any place where children congregate.


Mom and Dad

Please stop. French is giving his honest, well studied opinion on the run game and where he thinks Loeffler should stick it (in Edmunds gut, then behind a pulling guard on a power run). If you want negativity, check out one of the reactionary postgame threads. French actually studies the tape and is (along with Mason) one of the best qualified people to pass judgement. He calls it like he sees it: he doesn't have some hidden negative agenda. Take your anger out on someone else

RIP Stick It In

Come on, man.

21st century QBs Undefeated vs UVA:
MV7, MV5, LT3, Jerod Evans, Michael Brewer, Tyrod Taylor, Sean Glennon, and Grant Noel. That's right, UVA. You couldn't beat Grant Noel.

Cody Jornell??? I thought that was you. stop hating on French and go practice your field goals.

“I hope that they’re not going to have big eyes and pee down their legs so to speak,” -- Bud Foster

Any thoughts as to why SL is doing this? I know there are some great minds on this site, but I find it hard to believe SL doesn't see something that is so blatantly obvious to us. Clearly LT is Loeffler's best weapon, but his current use of him is limiting his effectiveness as well as others (Trey Edmunds). I just feel like we're missing something here, but I have no idea what.

All I can think of is that Loeffler knows if he can resurrect Thomas's draft stock and Logan ends up being a high draft pick, it makes Loeffler look better.

I don't know if that would hold up. Loeffler has improved the passing attack and LT looks better mechanically, when he's not under pressure, but You'd think that taking some of the load off his shoulders (running it, for instance) would actually make him look better because he wouldn't be put in position to make mistakes while trying to play hero-ball

If a tree falls in Scott Stadium does it make a sound?

Logan needs numbers to get drafted. Gotta throw and run to get those numbers.

Yeah and numbers that will hurt your draft stock like 10 INTS to 9 TDS.

He could be a much more effective QB if we had a much more effective ground game through anyone not named Logan Thomas. Look at how good he was with David Wilson as the RB. Look at how bad his numbers are without that running threat. At this point the best thing for Logan's draft stock would be for us to protect him by running the football.

If a tree falls in Scott Stadium does it make a sound?

Agreed. All I can think is that the small sample of under the center running plays we have seen have been effective in part due to the fact that the defense is so keyed in on stopping the read option / veer game, so perhaps Loeffler believes if we put more of the under the center stuff on film we don't have the personnel needed against defenses prepared for it. Just sort of spit-balling here, I personally believe we need to try the traditional stuff more but I am definitely no expert. But what could it hurt at this point?

Well, stinrspring is still on staff...

On a more serious note, how often was the option run at auburn, where the qb was probably more suited to running the read option and a worse passer? I know loeffler said he learned from his mistakes there, but running the qb more seems like an odd lesson

Not to bring this up, but Auburn under a different coaching staff (AND ONLY A YEAR AFTER GOING 3-9) is 8-1 and #9 in the BCS this year. Say what you want about SL, but that is a brand new OC in Auburn with much of the same talent as SL had last year at Auburn

Beating this to death...

Those Auburn players were recruited by Malzahn for a spread offense, Chizik screwed with the offense too much and asked Loeffler to install a pro-style offense, and now they're having success because Malzahn is now coaching his own guys for the system he designed. It's no wonder they're doing better, and people need to stop dumping on Loeffler for it.

And also note that LSU is the only complete team that Auburn has faced yet. Great turnaround no doubt, but let's be honest on the level of play they've faced. This is not "SEC talent/defense..." fellatio fellatio fellatio ad nausea this year...

"...sticks and stones may break my bones but I'm gonna kick you repeatedly in the balls Gardoki!"

... with Malzahn's players that Malzahn recruited before he got fired along with Chizik, I believe...

EDIT: I was beaten to the punch. Turkey leg delivered.

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

Malzahn didn't get fired, he got clear of the blast radius and hunkered down at Arkansas State as their head coach, waiting out the inevitable shit storm that was coming to Auburn because of 1) their performance and 2) NCAA blow back from $Cam Newton. It was akin to Pete Carroll or Chip Kelly waking up one day and realizing that they really did want to coach in the NFL afterall after seeing the NCAA plane touchdown at the school airport. Malzahn is no dummy.

Disagree. I think Malzahn was honestly just trying to make a career move. He won a title by running (arguably) the best offense in the nation (I am of the belief that Chizik really didn't do anything that season other than recruit good players).

Malzahn took a head coaching job (right after the national championship, before the losing season) at a mid-major school knowing if he showed good improvement over the next season or two, he would receive an offer at a BCS school. He left AU before their dreadful losing season. The AU administration realized that Gus was the main reason they won a national title (and Cam too, but Gus really designed an offensive system around his strengths).

All I'm saying is that Malzahn wasn't running from the NCAA or from a bad team. He was simply trying to advance his career. Most coordinators aren't Bud Foster.

Twitter me

Plays always seem to be there. In our loss to Alabama plays were there, wr's just dropped everything that was remotely close. Against Duke, plays were there LT just didn't go to the open guy. Plays were there against BC. Again turnovers doomed us. I'm not putting this on SL. I'm on the take that he's working with what he's got. The team is in a new system and we have a chance, a chance, to end up 11-3, more realistically 10-4. Even closer probably 9-5. Not too bad of a recovery after last years debacle especially when we could easily be 8-1 right now and in the top 15 (deserved or not). SL has 2-3 years to prove himself in my book. You can't bring a guy in who runs a different system without guys that play to those strengths and because you're not in the super bowl that very year fire him. Once guys that are recruited for his system start playing we can effectively judge him in my book. If we are winning 9-10 games a year still then he's doing pretty good. Especially if we are winning them convincingly and not by the skin of our teeth. I agree there are some head scratching moments but patience is needed. We are what we are. And this year at least we aren't hoping to pull out a nail-bitter against the hoos to go bowling. And in that game time-cop was our best player. How fortunate are we that a potential 8-9 win season isn't good enough for us? (not saying it should be, but says where we know our program can and should be) A lot of teams are happy to just make it to a bowl every now and then. Anyhow, hope it all makes sense. It's early.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Part of coaching is teaching players how to execute. I think one reason that Malzahn is such a great coach is that he knows how to simplify his scheme and teach it to players in a way that allows them to execute at a high level. I think Bud Foster is another example of coach who is great at doing this. I can give Loeffler and the WRs a pass on the Alabama game. That was the very first game and it was against the top ranked team in the country. However, we are now going into week 11, and I honestly can't tell if execution has necessarily improved much beyond the WRs. Next season will be interesting and a good indicator of Loeffler's coaching ability.

I saw a change In the offensive blocking. I saw some holes.
The WR have improved but there were still more drops than necessary.
The effective screen was new.
I think there has been progress in coaching.
The difficult part is certain details in individual skills. I'll touch on this again, Thomas working through progressions. It's new so, sometimes it's great and sometimes not. That takes game speed practice.
Overall I think the O coaching has been better and there are improvements but, like anything, sometimes we forget what was recently learned.

Bud also has the advantage of only having some new players in his system each year to work with. Teaching a new system to every single offensive player is going to take longer


I would have thought that this read option would have been great with JC, LT and Edmunds on the field. JC as the pitch / bounce outside threat, Edmunds as the straight up the middle threat, Edmunds as the FB for LT with JC as the pitch. Could even bring a WR over for pitch option.

Seems like Edmunds is the outside bounce option, but his feet are heavy. I think he has the speed but guys find a way to upset him on the way to the edge and he seems uncomfortable bouncing to the outside. Its to the point where I don't think defenses believe Edmunds as an edge threat at all. So they still have to watch for a WR coming across, but when they see Edmunds and LT in the backfield alone they can significantly narrow the amount of field they are responsible for. I think LT is possibly fast enough to get an edge on DL, but I think he risks injury as the safeties and LBs have alot of time to try and hit him low and hard as he tries to get a corner. Interesting idea, but doesn't seem worth the risk. Big Edmunds fan, but I think run option is more effective with JC in there. The edge is an empty threat without JC there. Wonder what the stats are on read option with JC and without JC (assuming we are using him as the bounce slash edge option, which we sometimes don't)

This is a real head scratcher. Run option not effective IMHO because of the way we use the personnel. All I can think of is that JC is still hurt. Those high ankle sprains are unfortunately the kind of thing that can linger.

I do have to say that I thought the screen looked much more developed than I ever thought it could this "quickly" as it seems to be a new addition to the playbook. Kudos to the coaches for getting that in there and have it look so good. Some of these OL I thought looked terrible over the first 5-6 games, might actually develop into decent linemen. Getting Edmunds into space is a good thing. JC as well. Both of these guys could reek some havoc on the screen pass.

Seems like Edmunds is the outside bounce option, but his feet are heavy.

I love the kid and will always have burned into my mind his 76 yarder against Alabama, but he also seems to trip over his own feet a lot.


Mangus has been MIA since GT I'm pretty sure. He's kinda unproven.

I agree I was pleasantly surprised to see how nice the screens to Edmunds looked.
Overuse would make it a dangerous thing but, I was excited when I saw them Saturday.
Another tool in the box.

When I see these new things I am encouraged that we are probably thinking the correct way in that it takes time to install a whole new offense.

Doesn't mean I don't want to see it go faster though. I'm not patient enough sometimes.

One thing I noticed in the F-Word Duke Conundrum was that Edmunds was getting a free release to the flat on a delay block just about every time we dropped back to pass. There were 5-7 yard screen/dump off opportunities on multiple plays versus Duke, looks like we were able to capitalize on some of that with BC. I was unfortunately only able to catch the last quarter due to a confluence of events involving a local affiliate premption of the ABC feed and Time Warner choking on an entire box of rubber dicks.

I don't understand why we abandoned the inside / outside zone game in favor of the veer stuff. In my opinion, Logan is a very good quarterback, but a very bad read option quarterback. He is not very good at reading the crashing end, and he has a very slow first few steps. He often doesn't make the right decision on the inverted veer, and when he does make the right read, he does not accelerate quickly enough to take advantage. Contrast with the Denard Robinsons of the world, who are very effective at diagnosing the defensive end, and extremely quick to escape the backfield in a hurry.

The reality is Logan made several NFL throws last Saturday, but tried, again, to do too much. Loefller clearly does not trust the rest of this offense because he's asking 96% of the offense to come from Logan. I don't really understand this, because the zone running game with Trey seems effective in the limited sample size we've seen.

Our WRs need to play better. Charley Meyer needs to catch the ball. Demetri Knowles needs to actually try to catch the ball instead of alligator arming it straight up into the air for an interception. WTF was that?

Am I crazy to have a little optimism? The Duke game was a complete anomaly, you can't lose that game with the statistical advantages we have. We were even in regards to turnovers. Considering the stats on that game, Duke probably had a 1% chance of winning....and did.

Then the BC game, which was a really bad matchup for us. French has said it for a year, if someone took a Stanford-like blueprint and hammered the ball with extra OL against the small-ish fronts that everyone has now to stop the spread, it would be tough to stop. BC came at us with the Pep Hamilton special....and it worked....as well as anything works against Bud's defense. But, still, the offense moved the ball...a lot. Almost 400 yards passing. It's not the balance we'd like and the turnovers...oh the turnovers... but turnovers can be corrected.

I'm not sure I'm ready to predict a win over Miami because they can go Pep Hamilton on us as well, but they also have Stephen Morris at QB. I expect a 4 QTR game and Logan will have a chance to win it.

I like this point. Turnovers are much easier to correct than needing to find an offensive identity. We can move the ball with Logan's arm, he just has to keep it from moving into the other team's arms

RIP Stick It In

I agree with the optimism bit. Offense is generating more yards, but doing so in an unbalanced fashion. This is a recipe for uneven play and problematic mismatches.

When teams have lock down DBs, they are going to be able to cause this VT offense alot of trouble. Miami usually has lock down DBs but has been giving up alot through the air, so hopefully our WRs will be able to cause Miami difficulty.

Even if you don't have lockdown DBs, we are probably still susceptible to schemes. Playing Knowles tight and aggressive with a big DB, locking down DJ with a cover DB, etc., etc. Byrn was a big time part of the passing game. I hope he can go next weekend. There is a ton of film on our players right now and we've got alot of guys who are only recently taking this football thing seriously. Whether that is through poor coaching or lack of personal commitment, I don't know. Its good that we're moving in the right direction, but we've got alot of guys who have serious weaknesses that good schemes might expose.


also optimism for the fact that despite the bad matchup that some saw coming, the D held them to under 300 yards total offense. They ran well but not like we got gashed and shredded. A couple big plays were the difference.

meant to reply to CDS7C above...

What I really love about this site is that positive dialogue is encouraged and rewarded through the turkey leg system. I can't stand rants on TSL and the battles between posters I have no interest in being a part of. That being said, I think you also need to appreciate what Joe is saying when it unfortunately isn't postive. I think we'll see changes to the gameplan moving forward this year and given the talent-level on our offense his leash is VERY LONG. I feel like we need to remind ourselves just how short we are on raw talent on offense. It can only go up with our recent classes and we will see better by 2015 without question.

I don't know what a hokie is, but God is one of them."
-Lee Corso

Nice point on the macro -it gets a little out of hand at times (sometimes fun, sometimes somebody goes all "Bama" on something) but all-in-all the discussions are enlightening, interesting; it's great to have this forum for Hokie fans.

Everybody hug.

"...sticks and stones may break my bones but I'm gonna kick you repeatedly in the balls Gardoki!"

I believe Loeffler's cupboard is bare. That is why he must pass and must use LT in the ground game. When it comes time to win games, theory gets pushed aside. And if there is nothing on the shelf, open up LT for the pass and hope he does not throw a pick. Unfortunately, LT is good, but not good enough for this role. And THAT is why we have too many turnovers.

I am really not trying to pile on the guy, I swear. But this is something that I have always wondered, because I could be completely off...

Was that throw to Coles really *that* good of a throw? He hit his man, it was a big play, the WR caught it...but he had to leap 3 feet into the air to catch it. Was there a reason for that? That's one of the things that It seems like only I notice which makes me wonder if it's just me - it feel at least like he's constantly throwing the ball high to his recievers, often for absolutely no reason. There was some play in the first quarter where he hit a wide open Byrn I think, and it was a fine play that might have even gone for a first down...but it could have been an even bigger play if Byrn didn't have to jump into the air to catch it, allowing the defense time to close and requiring the receiver to re-set himself before running.

Like I said, it could be just me. I was just wondering if anyone else had noticed that.

I believe it was because he was throwing over the defender in front of DJ

RIP Stick It In

I can see that, I think. But on repeated viewings I guess it really brings up the "decision making" issue as well, doesn't it? He's got three guys underneath who are all open. Byrn is open on the right hash. Whoever that is on the 20 yd marker is WIDE open and doesn't have a defender within 10 yards of him, and the RB is open in the checkdown.

Logan doesn't even look at them. He stares down Coles the whole time, and throws it to him, even though he is bracketed, which requires a low percentage throw over a defender.

Perhaps Logans turnover numbers are higher than anybody else in FBS because he keeps choosing to make high-risk decisions like this for some reason? Just a thought.

SL was not hired to run the football, he was hired to coach the team to run it. Why it isn't working well, I can't tell you. Looking at the game film just shows why any particular play either succeded or failed. Does it work in practice and fail in the games? Is it a bad game plan or philosophy? I can't answer any of that since I don't know what is in SL's head nor do I know what each player is supposed to do on any play. It is frustrating to say the least. I still feel it is better than last year. Based on recruiting classes of the last few years we are probably performing as expected. This IS the first year of this new offense. It could be better but it is what it is. We were only 5 point favorites against BC and turned it over 4 times. I would not expect us to win after that. We could have beaten Duke by just making the field goals even after turning the ball over 4 times. Everyone needs to take a deep breath, settle down, and focus on the next game. There is still a lot of football left. I hope it is good football. LT has not developed into the player we all hoped he would be. He is who he is and we should all accept that. We as fans have raised our expectations, mainly because we bought into the media hype of a couple years ago. He feels the pressure to perform and as a senior he wants to put things on his shoulders. Lets just cheer him on to be the best he can be and cheer on the rest of the team to do their best. They don't have to live up to our expectations but we should live up to theirs of being good fans and faithful followers of this team. Lastly, lets kick Miami's ass.

#Let's Go - Hokies

I like this post a lot.

If a tree falls in Scott Stadium does it make a sound?


Fortune Favors the Bold

Just my 2 cents on Logan...yes, the Duke game was bad. As far as the BC game...

I thought Logan made 3 bad plays in this game...
1 - He overthrew Calvin Kline when was wide open in the 3rd quarter (I think right after the Demtri INT)
2 - He didn't hold the ball close enough to his body on the last fumble of the game
3 - He threw a terrible pick-6, a play that's 100% inexcusable

but...that's 3 bad plays. The other 2 turnovers weren't his fault. So take those 3 bad plays and contrast that with how many good plays he made on Saturday....there were a LOT of good plays on offense.

If nothing else, look solely at the last drive of the first half.. We had 3 holding penalties on that drive costing us 30 yards. Two of those penalties were on the same series, and the offense faced 2nd-and-30. Logan came out throwing and moved us down the field to set up CJ's long field goal before half.
- how many other QBs in recent memory could have led that drive?
- how many other QBs in recent memory, including Tyrod, Randall, MV2, etc...would the coaches even trust enough to stay aggressive on a 2nd-and-3o from our own 20 yard line with 90 seconds left in the half?

The pick 6 was a terrible play, and Logan directly cost the team 7 points. But, if you hold that against him, you gotta give him credit for the 27 we did score, including those 3 before half that we probably don't get with anyone else under center.

The team fought hard, everyone including Logan and SL and CFB tried their best, but we lost. We're not Alabama or FSU...sometimes our best isn't good enough and we lose, even to teams that aren't great. That's life right now. All I know is I'm supporting whoever is under center. Hoping we beat Miami cause I hate da U.

...just my 2 cents

and this one too

If a tree falls in Scott Stadium does it make a sound?

Haha - I just saw that too. Turkey leg for you, sir, for the find.

"but...that's 3 bad plays. The other 2 turnovers weren't his fault. So take those 3 bad plays and contrast that with how many good plays he made on Saturday....there were a LOT of good plays on offense."

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?