At this point in Frank Beamer's career, he's cornered both sides of the market. Sometimes, it seems as if he'll coach Virginia Tech until he dies. Other days, a retirement announcement feels like it could be around the corner.
When the 67-year-old coach spoke to media in Greensboro at Monday's ACC Kickoff event, it was another dichotomy.
Beamer spent 55 minutes with the press. In some ways, he said plenty. In other ways, he didn't say much at all.
Say this for the winningest active coach in college football, he knew where to start. It took about three seconds before he launched his first pass.
"I think we've got some really talented guys competing for our quarterback position," Beamer said. "I think not knowing who it is right now, you'd rather be on the other side of that.
"But we're gonna determine it pretty quickly in our preseason practice and get those guys some reps because that's such a critical position. They need reps, they need timing with the receivers, they need to be in that huddle leading the offense and so forth."
Beamer later said he wanted to see it fleshed out on the field, much like the competition at kicker.
He explained what needed to be done but offered little insight into where the team stands. In media sessions, coaches practice their poker faces while offering enough information to help fuel the crazed college football community.
Still, the impression Beamer offered gave some credence to predictions the Hokies are back on the rise.
"I think we're going back in the right direction to get back at that level," he said of in regards to national relevancy. "From a coach's standpoint from top to bottom — recruiting, coaching, the whole deal.
"I think I really got as good a staff as I've ever had. . . . We've got a lot of good kids. They're fun to be around, they work hard, and so, when you've got those things going, I really think. . . .we're really going in a good direction there."
After 27 years as Tech's head coach, the Hillsville, VA. native knows how to carefully evaluate his team. He focuses on the positives and where things need to improve.
His quotes aren't detail-oriented, but it's clear his coaching style is.
"I think it is in the details," he said. "You don't think how we're gonna score you think about what you're gonna do on this particular play and what your first step is.
"When you're fundamentally sound like that, the big things are gonna come. That's kinda always been our deal."
The pomp and circumstance of the media ring circus certainly fit the likes of Jimbo Fisher and Jameis Winston.
Plateaus of attitude are where Beamer makes his money. Years of experience and pressure have taught him to stay level.
He admitted Florida State's national championship has improved the conference's reputation and the ACC's media event had a different "edge" to it.
Edge or not, it's still the same Beamer. The man represents Virginia Tech as practically a second logo. Slow, steady and blue collar wins the day.
Flash and dash are saved for anyone else who wants it. Beamer wants consistency and thinks his team is back in that neighborhood.
"Generally, you understand if you're gonna get in this business you gotta be kinda even," the future hall of famer said. "You can't get too high, can't get too low. Gotta win. If you don't win, you're not gonna be happy."
The Hokies might take a step in the right direction after two consecutive down years. Or, they fall due to uncertainty at offensive line, quarterback and kicker.
None of that will be decided until the season kicks off.
Monday's biggest takeaway was what many already thought before. Beamer will be the same guy he ever was with this team and the next one.
No one's sure how many more teams he'll have left.
When asked what he tells recruits about his future, he repeated his standard line.
"I'd say as long as I've got a good quarterback, a good kicker and my health is good, I'm enjoying what I'm doing and feel like I wanna do it a few more years," he said.
One media member reminded him as of Monday, he lacked certainty on two of the requirements.
"I told you we got great possibilities," he said with a smile. "We gotta make 'em a good quarterback, good kicker."
Comments
So... he sidestepped the hot dog condiment question? 'That chili, I tell ya, it'll get after you...'
Words of Wisdom from good ol Fancy Gap Frank. Has he been taking lessons from Bill Belichick with the merry-go-round speech? Seems like he's gotten a little better at the dodge.
When I first read the title of this article (Beamer's Remains...) I thought Frank had passed and I almost freaked out
I have yet to see an answer to the hard hitting questions, for example is beamer #teamcake or #teampie?
I believe his answer was "desserts, they'll get after ya"
" Cake is good. I'm also a fan of pie. I've been known to like brownies from time to time. Cookies are also high on my list, and who doesn't like ice cream. I'm Frank Beamer; I can't say anything bad about anything."
EDIT: This is also why I kinda like Good ol' Uncle Frank.
"The bread pudding will really get after ya. (Sniff)."
Leg for remembering to include the omnipresent sniff.
At first, I thought this was you mocking a recruit...
Here are my top 4 deserts! (in no particular order);
-Pie #CrustSquad
-Cake #GoIcing
-Ice Cream #Frozen
-Pudding #BananasTho
You forgot these:
-Pie #CrustSquad
-Cake #GoIcing
-Ice Cream #Frozen
-Pudding #BananasTho
I know he and our offensive coaches of the past have reiterated this mindset time and time again... But I hate it. I really absolutely loathe this mindset. Yes, ok, take every play at a time and be methodical down the field, but if your offensive playbook isn't filled with plays that can score at any given time, and you're not building your offense on a 'so how are we going to manage to score on this play' mindset, you're going to struggle offensively in this day and age. If you're not challenging yourself to score on every play, you're going to miss the opportunities to capitalize on a defensive mismatch or to jump all over an assignment mistake when they do happen, because you simply not looking for it to happen. This has always been my #1 main complaint with our offenses in the past... we just don't have a killer instinct to go for the throat, and its a mindset that has allowed the offense to stagnate to the point where we've been as mediocre as we have been as a team the last couple years.
I'm really kind of sad to hear this out of Beamer's mouth, because it means the overall issues we had with the offense under Stiney really isn't going to change that much under Loeffler, because its coming from the head coach. I was hoping to see offenses that weren't necessarily flashy, but would score on you every time you made a mistake. Now? I'm not so sure we'll ever see this under Beamer.
I agree 100% and have thought the same way. I hate to bring up the comparison to SEC schools/coaches, but you would never hear Les Miles, Spurrier, Richt, or most of the other coaches speaking the same way about the offense. I like to hear the fire and the confidence that we will straight up score every time we touch the ball. We have players that believe that, but this has to be a culture change from the top down for it to stick.
Les Miles is a terrible coach who runs an offensive system that consistently under-performs despite having elite talent. I would never reference him as a great coach whose example I wish the program should follow.
He's also really freakin weird in his interviews and postgame wraps.
He is also a coach who consistently makes bad calls and either gets bailed out by the ref's or truly bizarre luck.
I'm sorry, but we aren't Oregon, Texas A&M, or Baylor. We are going to run an ISO from an I-formation and pick up 4 yards on some plays. Could we score from that play 75 yards from the endzone? Sure, if nobody tackled our guy. But the point of that play wasn't to score. Everything has a reason. If you manage to score using only 4 downs every single possession, your defense will be getting crushed as they get worn out from being on the field for 30 minutes a game. Those mismatches you want to capitalize on are caused by causing a team to get flat-footed and starting to anticipate the wrong play. You have to set them up. They don't just happen on their own that often. Our team has always been built on defense, so you kinda set yourself up for disappointment by hoping for a radical change in team philosophy with only a new OC out there.
Agreed. Real-life football doesn't play out like it does on the PS3. Not even the absolute best teams try to score on every play.
Yea but to win you have to score more points. Nearly lost to Marshall at home with that run out the clock operation and did lose to Maryland playing ball control. If you lose to that low of competition are you even playing every game for a Conference Title
To win you need to score more points? And here I always thought to win you need to hold the opponent to fewer points...
Why does the defensive response over Frank's offensive strategy always have to be an extreme strawman argument? There is a vast middle ground alternative in there. You know, like between the Top 5 offenses in the nation and our 99th ranked one? There are not 95 copycats of the oregaon/aTm/Baylor offenses out there in front of us. Why is the automatic response always the extreme? Not to mention - Oregon, Texas A&M, & Baylor weren't running those offenses for decades. They just evolved, and became much more successful. Successful teams evolve, and don't fear change just because it is change.
If you're looking to score on every play, you're going to be looking at the top offenses in the game. The ones that break the biggest plays. Those 3 plus Florida State all had the highest average yards per play. Asking for a team that looks to score on every play is going to be going to the opposite end of the spectrum. Change isn't feared, but radical change is unnecessary.
Again with the false extremist example. You can't really think that any of the top teams don't look to score all the time? The semantics is a strawman. Yes, there are times you run a play to get into position for a FG, and other examples, but it is ridiculous to pretend there are only two extremes. As for the claim that change isn't feared? There's overwhelming evidence in many areas of the program that change is strongly avoided, to be kind.
BINGO. I'm not asking for VT to be the next Oregon out there. Hell, I'd settle for being the 30th ranked offense.
But the fact of the matter is, right now we're in the bottom 10% of all offenses nationwide, and we have a coaching staff that lives and dies by the 'we're not looking to score' mindset. I dunno, I just think we're spinning our wheels in mud, not realizing what the true root of all our offensive issues are.
"we're not looking to score"
I think you're leaving some key words off the end..."on every play"... NOBODY is trying to score on every play, there is always a chess match going on, if the defense is in prevent, you take the underneath stuff (for example)... some plays are to see how the defense reacts or to set up other plays later... and I'm sure that is what was meant
I disagree with your whole argument here. Obviously the coaches are trying to get the ball to the endzone but when we are 60 or 70 yards from it, the goal isn't to run a 60 or 70 yard play. The coaches are thinking about the next play to get them closer to the endzone. If the goal was to score every play, we would be throwing bombs 3 plays then punting. That isn't how any offense works at any level.
Their mentality of "what is our first step on the next play" means how can we make this next play a success to give us a chance to score or get closer to the endzone. The HB belly or counter isn't a play that we plan to score on every time but none of you guys are disappointed with a 6 or 7 yard run play. The first step has to be right for any play to be turned into a scoring play so that is what their focus is on. If the players make the right first step and then execute, any play has a CHANCE to be a scoring play because you are getting your playmakers the ball with help around them.
The point is the coaches are worried about the details of the next step, not just score points. Right now at this point, the next step is the first step. If we miss a step then the play isn't going to be successful and we aren't going to score. I promise you every coach in the business is the same way, their focus in the big picture is to score points but you can't go into a practice and teach the offense to score. You teach them how to execute the plays and the scoring is a byproduct of that.
Not only is it always a strawman argument, but it seems like there is often a strawman du jour. Wasn't it just 2 years ago when many were wishing for a offense like WVU's after they whooped up on Clemson in the Orange Bowl and then opened up the next season 5-0 averaging about 40 points a game?
My guess is that some of the current strawmen (Baylor, Clemson, etc) won't be so much the envy in the not so distant future -- only to replaced some new "grass is greener" system.
^ THIS. Given the complexity and physicality of Bud's defense, there is no reason to try to win games in shootouts ala Bama vs. A&M, or Pitt vs. Duke, last year. Our D needs time to rest. I would rather our strategy be like Wisconsin or Stanford - control the ball, control the clock, steadily move downfield and go for the throat when inside the red zone. Take 6-8 minutes off the clock every time you hold the ball, and make sure you score. It gives the D time to rest and strategize in order to get you the ball back. Home-run plays are fun and all, but it's a risky venture to rely on them.
^^I agree and ball control offense/no turnovers + a great defense has a history of working:
BAMA
LSU
Florida
Stanford
Wisconsin
and Nebraska back in the day would wear down defenses with ball control and by the end of the 3rd quarter through the 4th would break long runs/score quickly! I believe defense wins championships and so far the spread teams have yet to win NC. Heck, Auburn could be added to the list d/t their ground game. They run a hurry up O but most of their success comes from controlling the line of scrimmage and wearing out the D. Being able to consistently run the ball will break the will of the opposing defenses or just wear them out. It's been happening to us the last few years. Our D starts off great and eventually runs out of steam. I hope this year we can score early and often but controlling the game and being balanced would work for me. Just think if our O can give our D time to rest and provide them with a lead. I don't think we will lose to many games if any!!
VIRGINIA TECH VS SEC VS PAC 12 VS B1G (Don't even look at FSU)
2013 OVERALL FBS RANKINGS
PASSING YARDS ---- - RUSHING YARDS ----- POINTS FOR ------- POINTS AGAINST
Stanford
197.9 (94th Overall) --- 207.4 (22nd Overall) ----- 32.3 (46th Overall) ------ 19.0 (10th Overall)
Wisconson
197.1 (96th Overall) ---- 283.8 (8th Overall) ----- 34.8 (28th Overall) ------16.3 (6th Overall)
Alabama
248.5 (51st Overall) ----- 205.6 (25th Overall) ------- 38.2 (18th Overall) ------ 13.9 (4th Overall)
Virginia Tech
236.2 (64th Overall) ------ 119.8 (111th Overall) ---- 22.5 (101st Overall) ----- 19.3 (11th Overall)
Virginia tech isn't scoring
We've got to up the game and score
This is a bit of an oversimplification of what's going on. We're not scoring because we're not moving the ball. I never argued that we shouldn't try to score (read what I said again), my point is that not every play needs to be designed to be a big one that ends in a TD. Look at the yardage numbers - Stanford is about 50 yards ahead of us, Wisconsin is 100, and Bama was 120. That means they move the ball better, especially on the ground. While we were great in time of possession last year (5th overall, behind Wisconsin at 4th, and ahead of Stanford at 27th and Bama at 24th), we simply couldn't "stick it in," and that's a function of having a good ground game. Check out the stats I posted the other day; the running game alone correlates very well with points scored. Running the ball is ALL about detail - good blocking on the line, good QB/RB exchange, and the RB hitting the right hole. None of that is a function of expecting to score at any moment; it's all about getting the little things right.
Total scoring also is not the best statistic to look at in this argument, anyway. This isn't Home Run Derby; there's a defense on the field, so how much you need to score depends on how good your defense is. VT doesn't need to score 40 points every game to win. Sure, it'd be fun, but it's not necessary and VT will be a defense-minded team as long as Beamer and Foster are on the staff. Last year, our D was top-5 in most categories, and only gave up 19.3 points per game. We lost several close games for simple reasons: (1) red zone efficiency, (2) turnovers, and (3) missed FG (as a subset of bad special teams in general). If we make 2 out of the 4 missed FG in the Duke game, we're in the ACCCG (how sad is that?). It's not about huge plays all the time, it's about details, exactly like Beamer said. The offense should always step onto the field to say "we will score here," but it doesn't have to be the mindset specifically for every snap, but it should for the overall drive. That starts with fundamentals, so I maintain that Beamer is right.
Looking a bit more at the advanced statistics, we had an offensive F/+ ranking of 85, and using S&P+ data: play efficiency: 93rd, Standards downs S&P+: 80th, Passing downs S&P+: 83rd, Rushing S&P+: 104th, Passing S&P+: 65th, drive efficiency: 93rd, Difference in Net Points ("raw average of the points an offense scores on a given drive compared to the points it would be expected to score based on starting field position"): 61st.
All of that tells me these things:
1. Our offense was actually fairly good at throwing when we weren't expected to, and fairly bad when we were in passing situations (about the same S&P+ on passing downs as standard downs, but 63rd passing ranking).
2. Our running game was just plain bad (no shockers there).
3. The offense actually did pretty well considering where we started (61st DNP - much higher than our offensive output would lead you to believe). This is probably the most convincing evidence in my mind of just how sub-par our special teams were last year. If you consistently lose the ST battle, you'll consistently face bad field position. Even though our offense was bad, they ranked pretty middle of the road when it came to scoring from bad field position.
Just more food for thought.
Also, all the advanced statistics I use, both here and in my pieces, can be found here.
Its not just that. The way we're being coached, from what we've heard over and over and over again from the coaches throughout the years is that we're not even considering the possibility of scoring on every play or even every drive, and I don't like that. Yes, I fully understand about the need to set plays up and I understand the need to keep a defense from getting overly gassed, but to have a successful offense you ALWAYS have to be thinking, in the back of your mind, what do I need to look for to be able to score on this play. Because when you're not thinking 'how do I score' in the back of your mind throughout the game, you're bound to miss the opportunities to score when they do arise, and regardless of how bad you are on offense, these opportunities arise every game. And we can go back and forth and argue about this as much as we want, but the fact of the matter is, our offense has had a SERIOUS problem with scoring points over the last few years, and you'll be hard pressed to convince me that these issues are not stemming from a mindset we have from the top down of "we're not necessarily thinking of how to score on every play".
I could be wrong, but I don't think I've EVER heard Beamer or any of our coaches say that we aren't looking to score on every possession. The reality is that you aren't going to score on every possession, but that doesn't mean we aren't trying to score. You can score on any play at any time if it is executed to absolute perfection or the other team completes botches defending it. I 100% disagree that we are not of the mindset of trying to score when we have the ball if that's what you are trying to say. So agree to disagree on the matter then.
I don't remember the exact quote, but Bryan Stinespring said flat out one year while he was OC something to the tune of "it is not our goal to score every possession." Absolutely blew my mind that a coach would actually come out and say it, and it was a mindset that absolutely ticked me off as a fan, and now the same kind of thoughts from Beamer.
If I remember correctly, it was O'Cain who said that.
......... aaaaaaaaaand where's he now?
He wasn't referring to the game being on the line and not trying to score. Frank does decide to run clock at times. I wouldn't do it is much as Frank does...but he does it and his OC, no matter who it is, is going to follow those orders. And there are times when it is appropriate to play for a first down or just try to give your punter some room. So no, not every play has to try to score.
That said, I would like for us to play with a more aggressive mindset. One that employs a 30-40 ppg strategy rather than 20-30. One that gives the back or the receiver one or two guys to beat, rather than 8 or 9.
I understand the scar tissue from the Stinespring years and 100% share the frustration, but how do you read in Frank's comments that they're not trying to score on every drive? It really seems like you're adding words to the comment that are just not there. I agree that the Hokies need to play more aggressively on the offensive side of the ball, but trying to score on every play often times results in a David Wilson 15-30 yard loss in the Sugar Bowl.
We were ranked 101st in points scored per game last year.......
Alabama Scored 58% more points per game than us, and they weren't even a Top 15 team in points per game
For every point we scored last year FSU scored 2.3
Why even in the back of your mind are you always thinking how do you score? You play to win the game (where's the gif?). Get that four yards for the first down when you need it, but your linemen and your receivers had better be down field looking for somebody to hit because the goal line is that way and you always want to score if you can. Of course Beamer and his staff are teaching that, but it's the urgency, that killer attitude that seems to be missing. After Alabama ran back the first kick against our special teams last year, Beamer should have had his squad in a huddle shouting "if that shit happens again this game or even this season, I'm gonna make it so hard on you, you'll all wish you had gone to UVa instead."
To be fair, after that return, Frank had the 'Who farted?...' look working overtime.
I really don't understand why people refuse to accept that this is Frank's philosophy, not that of his OC. To encapsulate - Frank's offensive philosophy is - defensive, if you will. It always has been, it is now, it always will be. No matter the captains, the general sets the vision for the battles. Frank's not changing on that. That doesn't mean we NEVER run an attacking play, but folks thinking rationally know the offense is just there to take advantage of short field situations created by the defense and special teams(theoretically, these days). That's not changing while Frank is in charge.
That's how LSU got to the BCSCG in the 2011 season and everybody loved them for it. Well, almost.
Completely disagree. If you listen to the best coaches in ANY sport, they all talk about thinking small and focusing on every minute task. Even Chip Kelly, arguably the best offensive coach in football, talks about every player doing their individual job on every play. Once you do that, the big plays happen.
JC in the I formation up the center is not the way you make big plays happen
Marshawn though...
I get your frustration but think you may be reading in to the coach-speak too much. I'm no offensive savant, but doesn't running to set-up play-action take advantage of defensive mismatches and assignment mistakes? In order to run the ball effectively, doesn't Loefler try to take advantage of numbers advantages/mismatches. Then, once the run is established, doesn't play-action take advantage of assignment mistakes when the safeties start to cheat up to account for the run? Plus, I feel like in order to successfully take advantage of mismatches at the L.O.S. you need a QB (and 10 other guys) who know(s) the full playbook. Now that we're in year 2 of Loefler's offense, we should see more of this kind of opportunistic play calling. Loefler's talent as an O.C., if it's there, should become apparent.
I feel like the "we aren't trying to score" comments are really intended to draw a distinction between the ball control/multiple offense that Frank wants and the run-and-gun/air raid/Oregon/Clemson-style up-tempo offenses that he doesn't. I could be wrong though.
I think you're looking at it wrong. He said that you never know when you're going to score, so the details are what you need to take care of. If you get the details right, and practice to get them right, the opportunity to score is there every time.
If you look to score on every play, there's a tendency to forget about the details, and then it backfires on you and mistakes happen.
It's not the movies where the QB/Team is all "Let's see them stop this" a lot of silly stuff happens, and the team scores.
But you can still have the mindset of:
"As long as each person does their job and execute, we are good enough on the offensive side of the ball to score on every play"
And again, it's talking semantics.
You CAN score on any play as long as you pay attention to details and every person does their job correctly.
You're not AIMING to score on any play because then it gets into your head and you screw up.
I think we're thinking the same thing just speaking it differently - I got ya phoenix....
I dare anyone here to go up to Lefty and say "hey, you don't want to score?"
Bet you get the stare of death!
I'll bet you he considers every drive we don't score as a loss. Guy doesn't sleep. Is as detail oriented as they come. He actually has a plan (which our prior offensive staffs never seemed to).
Let is play out a bit. He's had one year with O'cainstinesome's left overs. Can't wait to see what his offense looks like with his system in place.
I think things on the game plan are changing but
I still wonder how many Called plays Vetos Beamer has. And if he has to use them all, how close to firing you does he make you feel
- These guys probably know first hand very well
I agree that we should be more aggressive, but wadr, that isn't what he is referring to. He is talking about teaching fundamentals, which is critical to success. There are no good teams that suck at fundamentals.
I agree as well. How many times did we bitch that our teams weren't detail oriented (comparing to Saban, etc). Now we're saying he's not focused on the big picture.
I agree with you that the offense has been anemic, but I do not understand your frustration based on this comment. You quoted it... first thing, CFB was speaking particularly about DETAILS, not about the overall offense, or even the playbook, or even a particular play.
CFB was talking about executing the small things on EACH play.
I have learned so much about football on this site, and the experts constantly discuss the details of players first step.
I think you let your offensive frustration project on to a comment that had nothing to do with the larger offensive philosophy but with the play by play details.
this reminds me of the part in the movie "American Pie" where the lacross coach says....."I don't want you thinking about scoring every second. You don't score, until you score."
I suck at the whole gif thing or else I would have come up with something for it.
Also, plays may not be designed to score on every play and the coaches are probably looking two and three plays ahead because you can't think that you are going to score on every play, but I bet you the players are thinking about it. Unless maybe it's 3rd/4th and 1 but other than that I'm pretty sure everytime that ball is snapped whomever is moving the football is thinking about scoring. Then again when time is running low and you're trying to move the ball down the field quickly getting out of bounds is better than trying to dodge every player on the field to score at that moment. But overall everytime a RB or reciever touches the ball they are thinking about scoring. Pretty sure about that.
Just want to make an observation here, only because I'm getting fairly annoyed with how the system being abused by a select few right now.
Do not downleg opinions. Period, don't do it. If you disagree with someone's opinion, be open - say something - contribute to the conversation. Downlegging an opinion and hiding in anonymity is cowardly. Downlegging is to be used against trolls, spam, and personal attacks.
And if you need a further reason why I am saying this, its in our own Community Guidelines.
Now, personally, I have nearly 6k legs, so I really don't give a rats ass about the random downleg here or there (or even someone who has some kind of vendetta to downleg anyone who says anything negative of Beamer, as we're seeing in this thread) but I've been kind of annoyed recently to see new posters, ones with less than 100 or less than 1000 legs getting the downleg treatment for simply sharing an opinion, and even with me trying to give a leg every time this treatment is seen, its getting old. This is a community that embraces discussion, it embraces the fact that not everyone is going to agree, and we take pride in the fact that this kind of disagreement lends itself to intelligent, thoughtful, well spoken debate. I don't want anyone to come in here and get some kind of attitude that its them against the world because they're getting downlegged every time they share an opinion (some on here definitely do get downlegged often for opinions) or, even worse, abandon the site altogether because they don't feel like they're a part of the 'in crowd'. There's already a Hokie site out there that has a culture of non-inclusiveness where differing opinions are not just ridiculed, but sometimes outright censored from the website. The absolute last thing I want out of TheKeyPlay.com is for it to devolve into the mess that TechSideline has become.
/end rant.
/off soapbox
This is going on a lot lately. I disagree with your original argument, but I appreciate the level of detail you've gone into to explain it. Whoever follows you around on this site downvoting half the stuff you say needs to get a life. There's nothing disrespectful here, folks. So I'm going to take some of my magical upvoting powers and negate some of the trolling.
Dear guy who downlegged this:
The point. You missed it.
My estimate is that whoever did it just takes more immature joy in downvoting anyone who disagrees with them than in having a meaningful discussion.
To that person, I say...
I love it when the Umps know they are on T.V.
It's better when they know they aren't and still pretend.
Maybe it's an ironic downvote.
Whoever downvoted this post, please log off and return to The Sabre.
I believe you are getting WAAAAY too upset over a stupid downleg. So a guy downlegged you once on each of your posts and it goes against community guidelines, it doesn't mean the end of the world. Honestly I find these "reminders" of how to "properly use TKP" to be equally as annoying as the downlegging. Do you really think this all-righteous post is going to change that person?
I'll jump in here and say that I doubt this is about one post or even this one thread. I'll use Alum07 as an example - a lot of his posts get downvotes for no real reason. It happens on a lot of threads and it's stupid. Someone (or some group) doesn't know what the expected behavior is. Alum07 gets targeted a lot because he's vocal. For the most part, that's fine. But for whatever reason, it has drawn attention.
He probably doesn't care much (and has said so), but it raises a larger point about how we, the community, moderate ourselves. If it just becomes tacitly accepted to downvote something we disagree with and move on, the community degrades. We encourage discussion and debate; that needs to remain true to keep TKP the great place it is.
I'm thinking (I could be off) but it might stem from the fact that he (on more than one occasion) reiterates the quantity of gobbler legs he's got. Maybe it stems from the fact that he can (to others) come off as a moderator in his response to downlegs. Who knows? But it is correct that we don't want this place to turn into another (forgive me) accursed TSL.
I'm standing by my statement. Downlegs are NOT to be used if you disagree with an opinion. This is not my policy, this is written, documented policy of the website to which you are a member and posting right now. And you're right, I have stated my displeasure of the increasing volume of opinions being downlegged multiple times in the past, because it keeps growing with the influx of new posters, and it a clear blatant violation of the Community Guidelines that can and will get you banned. It has happened before, and it will happen again, and if you don't want to heed the warnings, then its on you if and when you get banned. If you don't like this policy, take it up with joe, who created it.
In the meantime I will try and even out those down votes when I see them.
The only thing acceptable to downvote is multiple use of vulgar language/attacking posts. Any Opinion.(other than UVA's) is legit and its not needed for a downvote. I like to look at that downvote and go ohh yeah well 3,331 other legs look great! Can I get to 3333
What if the member appears to have Tourette's based upon vulgar/profane language in every or even every other post?
Btw, I should point out I did not downleg him.
#LOLTECHSIDELINE
This has been talked to death, but I'll just throw my two cents in here.
You ever see Stanford play offense?
I like the way Coach Beamer is talking about figuring out QB #1 quickly. I really hope they don't go into the season unsettled. The Glennon/Tyrod thing drove me crazy.
If you don't have one QB, you have no QB's.
I think it's pretty clear that Brewer is the QB unless he really flubs the job. Beamer & staff aren't announcing it yet because of the circumstances surrounding his transfer. It doesn't send the best message to tell the team 'Hey, we found this guy that lost his starting job at TTech & wants to transfer here because we don't have any viable QBs on our roster. He's going to start from Day One...' Thus, Brewer will have to 'earn' his job, although Frank is already cutting the timetable down for public expectations. It will be Brewer, unless he gets injured or arrested, and neither seems likely. That gives Loeffler two seasons to develop one of his recruits...
I wouldn't say he lost the job based on athletic/on field ability. He had a back injury and the next guy stepped up and played very well. Well enough that he won the job, I am ecstatic that this happened because #VanillaVick landed in our ice cream cone!
Correct. He would likely be the starting QB at TT right now if he was not injured.
comment moved
I don't think it's a matter of not trying to score. Our offensive line has been so bad for the past few years we haven't been able to run the ball. The style of play Beamer wants to play isn't going to change. When we have good O-lines and can run we will be a much better offense.
It's and old quote, and I know I won't have it worded correctly, but something along the lines of.. "make sure every possession ends with the kicking unit on the field" and I think if VT can cut down on the turnovers then they'll be ok... "whether they are trying to score on every play or not" seems to be the scapegoat for our frustration at the offense, I don't think that's really the problem
You're over-generalizing. Nick Saban basically says the exact same thing: that it's a process and that he focuses his players on executing their assignments on every play and that's all they need to worry about .. Period .. Not what everyone else is doing on the play, not gaining yards, not scoring .. Simply executing their individual assignment .. It's the right mentality to have .. And Alabama's formula is practically the same as ours. The difference is that they (arguably) are coached better and (inarguably) have far superior talent and depth at practically all positions.
Anybody that had played football knows that what makes this game so special is that 11 players have to perform in unison correctly to achieve. The little details are all that matter! Because that is what adds up to yield big positive results! I don't get where some of this is coming from on Frank's comments. I do agree that any time you have the ball execution should end in a score or imparting knowledge on a match up that can be used to score later.