Besides Michael Brewer's interceptions, most of the criticism hurled at Tech's offense this season has been directed at the inconsistent running game. Western Michigan, with a veteran secondary but a smallish defensive front, presented the Hokies with an opportunity to get back to basics and establish the power running game that Coach Frank Beamer made as a point of emphasis during the offseason.
Yet, for the first half, the power running game didn't materialize. While both Marshawn Williams and Shai McKenzie were able to break some big runs, the running game (which in the first half continued to feature more finesse oriented sweeps and counters) was not able to establish a consistent rhythm. Western Michigan put eight-men in the box and dared Michael Brewer to beat them over the top. Sometimes he did (as exemplified by his deep touchdown to Bucky Hodges), but on most plays the Hokie wide receivers struggled to get separation against the physical Broncos after two weeks of shredding soft zone coverages.
Why did the Hokies have so much trouble running the football? Is this ongoing problem simply an offensive line that isn't good enough? Is it the wrong mix of players? Is the play calling derailing opportunities for success? How is it that a good ACC school couldn't get consistent push in the first half against a rebuilding MAC school?
Confounding Play Calling
While I have been one of the strongest defenders of Scot Loeffler, especially in how he has structured the passing game in a way to maximize the effectiveness of his young receivers and quarterback, he is incredibly erratic when it comes to sticking with something that works. Against Duke last season, the outside zone series was well blocked and creating holes, but Loeffler abandoned it for a long stretch after early success. Against Georgia Tech, the Hokie running game was starting to generate big chunk plays, but as I noted in my film review, Loeffler abandoned the run at critical moments when the Hokies should have sealed the victory.
On Saturday, Loeffler's apparent plan of deceiving the opponent seemed to work against his offense. After the game's opening scoring drive, Loeffler's run calls were more misdirection focused than downhill. The offensive line looked tentative as they moved laterally on many of those plays, and the Bronco linebackers used their speed to repeatedly beat the offensive line to the hole. The confounding strategy, given Coach Beamer's preferences and the strengths of the opponent, baffled me. This culminated with the most ghastly looking run design I can recall seeing in some time.
I am not sure what is going on here. The Hokies run a counter play. Augie Conte pulls from the right guard position to his left, ostensibly to block the back side defensive end. Hodges pulls inside, my guess is to turn up inside as a lead blocker. Laurence Gibson, who has been maddeningly inconsistent this season, is assigned to block down on the right defensive tackle. Gibson gets off the ball tentatively and completely misses the defensive tackle. Conte, who should be kicking out the end, has to pick up the defensive tackle to prevent a big loss. This squeezes down the hole, and the right defensive end is now unblocked. Hodges tip-toes into the hole, not surprising since there are lots of white jerseys where they are not supposed to be, and McKenzie gets tackled for a loss.
This was very poorly executed, but the design and timing are even worse. The design is odd, as the guard and tight end could collide with each other, and their movement brings the defenders keying them directly to the football. The timing is worse, as a counter can only be effective if the defense is respecting the straight ahead run. At this point, the inside zone or power had not been established. Frankly, this is too cute, and too cute seems to be an ongoing theme for Loeffler in some of these games where the offense doesn't perform up to expectations.
Loeffler rotated several inside players in the first half, with Teller getting some series at left guard and David Wang at center, but none of the combinations seemed to get a major push up front. The finesse and complex play calling seems to have a negative impact to the aggression level up front. While some plays were well blocked, far too often one or two linemen were tentative at the snap and seemed to be confused as to their assignment. Far too often, the hesitant play of some of the linemen resulted in breakdowns in their blocking fundamentals.
On this play, the Hokies run an inside zone, but with right guard Augie Conte and center David Wang executing a pin and pull technique.
Here, the blocking between Conte, Wang, and Teller (at left guard) is excellent. Conte pins his man inside. Wang pulls behind him and gets push on the second level. Teller creates a huge bubble because he aggressively attacks the second level and then dives at the linebacker. The linebacker stays back, creating a hole. But, both tackles don't execute their blocks. Gibson has the assignment of scooping the back side defensive tackle, but instead he tries to cut block him. The defensive tackle sheds Gibson easily and finds himself sitting right in the hole. McLaughlin has the assignment of stretching the defensive end to the sideline. McLaughlin gets good initial movement, but this play is an inside zone, meaning after his initial stretch step, McLaughlin needs to have his head on the right shoulder of the defender. This puts McLaughlin's head and leverage to the inside, preventing the defensive end from crossing his face back into the play. Instead, McLaughlin's head his squarely in the middle of the defender's chest, and then end crosses back to the inside to help Gibson's assignment make the tackle. This just isn't good enough. Gibson should drive that defensive tackle across the hole, and McLaughlin either needs to have the proper aiming point OR have the leg drive to continue that end right into the sideline. This effort isn't good enough, and you can see signs that neither player is one hundred percent confident. These blocks are tentative, not aggressive plays.
Blocking at the Second Level
In the third quarter, Loeffler finally made the downhill running game a point of emphasis and started to feed the ball to McKenzie and Williams. This exposed the other big area of needed improvement for the Hokie front; timing on combination blocks. On zone blocking plays, the offensive line initially double team's the defensive down lineman at the point of attack. The uncovered lineman must help his teammate start to get movement, and then slide off to second level to block a linebacker or safety in the box. On tape, both Augie Conte and David Wang sometimes struggled with getting off to the linebacker on inside zone plays. Here is an example, with Conte at right guard and Wang at left guard.
Conte is the play side guard. His assignment is to initially double team the left/one-technique defensive tackle, which will allow Caleb Farris to get outside leverage. Once Farris has leverage, Conte has to slide off and intercept the left inside linebacker and drive him out of the hole. Conte is slow to come off his combination block with Farris, and the linebacker zooms right past him to make the tackle.
On the back side, Wang has to combination block with Gibson on the right defensive tackle. Wang turns the pads of the defensive tackle, and Gibson uses outstanding scoop technique to put himself inside the tackle. But, Wang is too slow to pick up the right inside linebacker who ends up helping bring down McKenzie. Again, for the zone blocking scheme to be effective, the o-linemen really need to be quick and aggressive. This is far too passive.
Fortunately for the Hokies, McKenzie and Williams were dynamic enough to generate some big runs even when blocking wasn't perfect. Here, McKenzie bounces what should be an inside zone to the outside because Conte again is slow getting off his combination block to pick up the linebacker.
Oh, but what if that was where the ball was supposed to be going? I am glad you said that. Look to the left side. Hodges, Gibson, and Wang all have their head on the inside, indicating an inside zone. Back on the right side, Conte's assignment is to get enough of a piece on the defensive tackle to allow McLaughlin to scoop him. Conte should then slide off to the second level taking whoever shoots through his gap. Instead, McLaughlin is a little slow at the snap, and Conte doesn't disengage quickly enough to get a piece of the linebacker, who blasts through and nearly hits McKenzie at his cut point. McKenzie makes a terrific adjustment to break contain and create a big play.
Aggression leads to Execution
As the 3rd quarter wound on, the change in play calling focused on attacking straight at the Bronco front seemed to energize the offensive line. One of the catalysts was Wyatt Teller at left guard, while Wang replaced Conte at left guard. Teller's aggressiveness and leg drive opened up some running lanes on inside zones where Conte had not been able to get as much movement. Let's take a look at two of the most well blocked Hokie runs all game long. First, let's watch an inside zone late in the third quarter with Teller and Wang in at left and right guard.
The Broncos have eight men in the box and they stunt the right defensive tackle to the inside. Teller drives him nearly six yards off the football, and then when he starts to lose leverage he recovers to seal the defensive tackle outside. Gibson looks like he is in fast-forward as he scoops to the linebacker and turns him out beautifully. Farris, Wang, and McLaughlin all get lateral push to the right sideline. McKenzie has a huge hole, then cuts off Teller to punish the safety with a vicious stiff arm. This is beautiful football, and you can see the aggression and quickness of the offensive line amp up as Loeffler again-and-again went back to those inside zones and powers.
The drive culminated with a beautiful goal line play off the right side. Loeffler used a formation that many Hokie fans have been screaming for, an extra offensive lineman on the goal line. Conte comes back into the game, and Wang moves over to the right tight end position at the bottom of the screen.
Wang and McLaughlin block down, with Wang going to the safety and McLaughlin pinning the defensive end inside and manages to throw his leg to cut off the linebacker trying to fill from the top of the screen. Conte pulls and kicks out the blitzing linebacker off the edge. Farris and Wang both drive the safety almost out of the end zone. Gibson not only scoops the right defensive tackle, but pancakes him in the process.
But the key block is Teller on the nose shaded off Farris's left shoulder. This would be a tough block if the defensive tackle was on Teller's inside shoulder, but he has even more space to cover with the alignment down on the nose. Teller drives his head through the left shoulder of the nose and puts himself in between the defender at the ball. This is outstanding technique.
Despite only being up by two scores, Loeffler rotated Alston Smith in as the Hokies attempted to ice the game. Smith's quickness also generated enough movement on an inside zone to get Coach Searels attention. Here, Teller, Wang, and Smith form the interior.
Teller and Wang get lateral movement to the left side. Smith doesn't get his head all the way inside, but he drives the defensive tackle all the way across the hole. Smith's movement puts himself and the defensive tackle in the path of the linebacker, which gives Marshawn Williams the opportunity to cut back and use Smith almost like a basketball pick. Williams does the rest. If Smith gets stymied in the hole, the linebacker takes away one gap and Smith plus the tackle jams up the other. Williams would have no choice but to run into Smith and get what he cans.
In the aftermath of this game, the spotlight will be on Loeffler and the offensive line group to see if they can build on their second half success. It may be too tempting to try and return to throwing the football most of the time against a North Carolina team which has been shredded in the air to the tune of 430-plus yards per game by East Carolina and Clemson. That temptation is made more enticing knowing Clemson only rushed for 2.1 yards per carry against the Tar Heels. Hower, Loeffler must resist the temptation to tinker.
The Heels use a no huddle offense that will work to keep Bud Foster's defense on the field. Injuries to Luther Maddy have weakened the Hokies defense inside, and the injury to Brandon Facyson has exposed how little cornerback depth the Hokies have right now. The Tar Heels will look to exploit those defensive backs both with big wide receiver Quinshad Davis and explosive running quarterback Marquise Williams. When big plays are not available, Loeffler needs to focus on putting Michael Brewer in third-and-manageable situations where the Heels options to blitz are limited, and by running the football Loeffler can shorten the game and protect both Brewer and the offensive line. Both teams find themselves in must-win situations, with the loser being 0-2 in the Coastal Division and unlikely to get back into the race. The game also has major recruiting implications. North Carolina is home to some top prospects that have shown interest in the Hokies over the last couple of recruiting cycles. Securing a foothold in the Tar Heels' backyard is critical for rebuilding the program as players like Mook Reynolds, Adonis Alexander and Conner O'Donnell mature and others look to Blacksburg for their football future. Long term, running the football also presents Loeffler the opportunity to deliver the style of offense that Frank Beamer wants as he ends his tenure at Virginia Tech. If the Hokies want to re-establish themselves as the bully of the ACC Coastal Division, Loeffler must trust his backs and offensive line to start winning battles rather than trying to succeed through misdirection. If not, and we see more performances like we saw in the first half against Western Michigan, I would imagine Coach Beamer may be interceding in offensive direction more often in the near future.
Comments
Good analysis,agree Lofler is trying to be too Cute with his play calling. At some point you have got to recognize the strengths of this o line(if they have any)and put them in a position to succeed. He seems slow to recognize this 5 games in.
Halftime conversation:
Frank: "Hey there, Scot....you got a second?"
Scot: "Sure, Coach. What's on your mind?"
Frank: "Run the damn ball."
Scot: "yessir."
Seriously though, I thought I read or heard somewhere that Beamer did have a word with SL at half about pounding the rock. Any truth to this?
I know the announcers in the second half were saying something to this effect. "I guess Beamer told Scott to run the ball more."
"yessir"
Salutes like a bloody limey...
Its not that complicated. You have Marshawn Williams, Trey Edmunds, Joel Caleb, JC , youve got to pound the ball . When one RB is tired, bring another one in and run the ball some more. A good running game makes it easier to throw the ball in long yardage situations.
One weakness of the air raid types with 50 passes a game is the turnover percentage, another is the QB arm at the end of the game.
It's nice to have this in your back pocket if you find yourself behind in points and the end of the game looming on the horizon but, it relies on the stamina of the QB. The rock gets heavy after tossing it for a while and the QB must fire it, not lob it out. I can only imagine what the QBs arm must feel like after a half of tossing the ball 25 times and getting tackled, hit and sprinting.
We talk about our defensive depth and needing to keep those guys fresh at the end of the game.
The advantage of an effective running game is that with 2 or 3 talented RB, FB and running WRs is that you can have your playmakers share the blood sugar loss without taxing the QB arm which may be needed later.
If the RB1 makes a few long runs and needs a breather, there's nothing wrong with letting Rogers or Bucky take the load for a play and 3 yds, instead of needing to sub in a new package, or trying a bubble screen.
YesYesYesYesYes! Instead of running
Williams - McKenzie - Williams - McKenzie - Coleman
I would like to see them run
Williams - Williams - Williams - Williams - Hodges - Williams - Williams - Williams - Williams.
I think the the whole idea of a rotation is nonsense, and giving McKenzie's carries to Trey Edmunds isn't going to make it any better.
Meh, I seem to remember a couple fantastic tandems which caused havoc for defenses. Suggs/Jones, when they were both on the field, you didn't know who it was going to, and both could hurt you in different ways.
Even NFL teams don't use a single back exclusively as much as they used to.
If it works, keep doing it. If it isn't working, try the alternative.
It put a smile on my face to see I formation runs again and again and they knew it was coming and just couldn't stop it. Marshawn and Trey are those kinds of running backs. I wanna see us line up against UNC and do the same thing.
Cam Phillips had another great crackback/pancake block in the 2nd half too. Laid the defender out with his shoulder and then looked for more.
The TEs blocked excellently in the 2nd half, I thought. There were some key blocks by Cline that I was hoping to see analyzed.
Did Malleck play in the 2nd half?
Very little. I saw mostly Bucky and Cline.
Both were outstanding setting the edge.
I dig this... I really do. But my question is, does this offensive line have what it takes to play straight up against ACC competition? To me, the 4th quarter OLine play looked like a mediocre high school wrestler beating up a 10 yr old. What happens when he goes back on the mat against good high school competition?
I want WANG & Teller to play more together, that combination seems to do very well. Wang is a great vet that can help teller with the blitz pickup/communication stuff. Teller has such a quick first step and looks to hit someone and then move on.
I would also agree that maybe we need to keep it simple and run power a lot more, especially since Juice will slide into that main back. There have been maybe 5-8 running plays that if we get 1 more block juice/shai go the distance. Would love to be in on the team meetings to see the gameplan this week. I'm already giddy.
So in summary we had Wang all over our front line? Left guard, Center, Right Guard and lined up as TE?
Omnipresent Wang
If you take a look at the 2 second mark of the WMU5 clip, our offensive line glitches and they become specters which allow the defense to pass through them easily.
I think Searels needs to address that this week as this ghost technique should only be used to quickly shed blocks to get to the next level.
yeah acc network's coverage was extremely elementary. I hope to god we never have a game covered by them again.
EDIT- wow what an absolute bummer.. acc network blowssss
you mean....like this week?
Game against UNC is covered by the ACC Network
The good news is that the game is at UNC, so they won't have to use that long of an extension cord to get to Chapel Hill from Greensboro.
The even better news is that the football team will have time to run it since they won't be in class.
It became so inconsistent that I actually watched the majority of the game on ESPN3. Not HD quality, but differently better than Raycom/ACC Network.
No offense, but I keep thinking you are long-time TKP'er Egbert because you are using Fry as your avatar.
Maybe you could try the alternate universe Fry?
Where did you get the pic of me in a suit?
I don't remember ever wearing a suit.
That isn't you, I don't think. It's the Fry from the Farnsworth Parabox.
But I think you did wear a jacket and tie to your date with Leela at Cavern on the Green. You remember, after you cycled through time twice and 'solved' a time travel paradox that didn't exist. You pretty much barely got to dinner on time by killing two guys and a robot that hadn't done anything to you.
I am very good at solving problems that never really existed.
I should have been a consultant.
How often can you use "synergy" in a sentence? THAT's the real test.
I can do that thing with my hands where the fingers from opposite hands are cupped together too.
Best. Conversation. Ever.
Also, I believe Fry got a bunch of his skills from this guy:
Don't you worry about Fry's skills, let me worry about blank
After all he was the mentor, and Fry was the protege
Happy?
Oh god it was so bad. Just when you thought you would see a complete play it
would black out again. I resorted to listening to the radio broadcast.
What really ticked me off about the broadcast was that my local station changed games at 4 O'clock and I could not switch to ESPN because it was blacked out in my area due to local coverage.
Wow that is total BS! Way to go ACC network.
At least you got the game until 4:00! As I mentioned in another thread, up here in the Boston area the local station switched to some lame-ass movie in the first quarter. After that, I was blacked out. BC was the featured ACC game of the week.
Hopefully, we'll put a little win streak together that the Hokies will actually be on real network broadcasts again.
The commentators were really flummoxed by the telecast. They thought Buck Rogers, Brian DePalma, and some guy named Henry Smith were playing Saturday.
Yea, they bludgeoned some of our guys names several times. Jeesh!!
Near the end of the Stinespring at OC era one thing that I lamented was the offense trying to do too much and having a loss of execution. It seems that some of the notion of our offensive line's heads tying up their feet at times could be happening. I think French is hitting it right on the head that Loeffler is possibly outsmarting himself at times. All the lateral runs have been a bit troubling to me as well with VT featuring a couple of 220+ Lb backs.
Right now through the season I'd say we are a shotgun spread offense that features passing the ball to try to set up the run. Think that goes away from the offense that Beamer describes that he wants.
Agreed. I feel like against GT and W. Mich, we get a decent lead and look to have control of the game and also the ability for a kill shot and we start to get cute. I always have had the mentality of "if it works, keep using it until the prove they can stop it." I feel like Loeffler has this mentality "Oh that worked, I'll keep that in mind for next week...let's see if this new fancy play works"
The thing that bugs me most about this offense is what seems to be a complete lack of self-awareness. We have a QB who throws up prayers when he is under pressure (which is often with the sub par play of our line). We have solid RB's who get lots of YAC. We have big WR's and TE's that can make plays on the ball. What does this translate to? Keep the throws short and sweet. Get the QB some confidence that he has been lacking since ECU. Get a power running game going. Utilize the play action to get the receivers open down field. Involve the TE's in short, strong passes. Use screen passing to assist the running game. I've never thought this was a hard concept but apparently I am wrong. I have seen this time and time again, you have an offense struggling for identity and a nervous QB when pressure comes--adapt! Get the ball out quick, take care of the QB, make the defense hesitate. Instead I have more JC Coleman jet sweeps to look forward to.
Leoffler is the same OC he was at Auburn. He had an All-American Full Back and Tre Freaking Mason! He refused them consistently. Instead he preferred to allow his 3 different QBs to throw picks to opposing team's DBs line they were the intended receivers and watched a potential (National Title Contender) level offense put up abismyl numbers week after week. I hate to be the pessimistic fan here but he is not going to help Tech's offense. He will continue to put on his lab coat during the week and try to outsmart opposing defensive coordinators with his erratic play calling. I really hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am, sadly.
For starters, Tre was a 1,000 yard rusher there (averaging 6+ ypc), so I don't think you can say he didn't use Tre consistently. Also, considering that defense had a tendency to give up quick scores just about every week, he often found himself playing from a pretty significant deficit. Think this year's ECU game every week. He could get in 3rd and manageable all day, but there's a reason his QB from that year is now a backup safety. No rational fan can draw any significant conclusions from the numbers that were put up at Auburn. That was a dumpster fire to begin with and he wasn't remotely put in a position to succeed there. Come to think of it, he wasn't set up to succeed at VT either, but he's making the best of it.
This is the Scot Loeffler Paradox.
At Temple, with someone elses players, he was OC for one year and did great. He gets all the credit.
At Auburn, with someone else's players, he was OC for one year and was legendarily awful. He gets no blame.
At VT in his first year, with someone else's players, he was OC for one year and was actually worse than OCainspring. He gets no blame.
If he gets no blame for VT and Auburn then he gets no credit for Temple and you start to wonder why we hired him in the first place. We like lemonade. Make us some.
He's in his second year now. He's playing UNC this week. By FEI/S&P, the three worst defenses we play this year are GT, WMU and UNC. This is a big game for Scot Loeffler.
Because coaches, the ones that hired him, are smarter than us. They aren't casual fans that see what they want to see. They see ideas, schemes, plans, and paths that the person has put in place to make their decisions. Instead, the average fan looks at numbers and stats thinking it proves their point. In reality, it just shows that we know very little. The people that believed he was a good hire last year and still is this year are the ones that are looking at the foundation he has placed. They look at the plays he tries to use and tries to decipher his gameplan. When we are playing a team like Western Michigan, us fans want to see dominance. We want to see our team shut out the opposition and make them beg for mercy. On the other hand, coaches will use this as a time to work on execution. They will call a play that is likely to get stopped to push their players to execute correctly and achieve success. There is low risk in those situations. It pisses fans off, but it gives coaches a look at a game time situation for something they want to do with the team. The jury is undecided on Loeffler, but yet the casual fan has made up their mind because they want everything now rather than having to wait.
If we were 4-0 and were cruising then yeah, I would agree with you. But when the offense is sputtering and struggling to figure out who they are is it really smart to be playing around with the dust covered pages of a play book? No. Simply put this was our last chance to get the offense on track before the long stretch of ACC play and I, for one, am not left with a whole lot of confidence. Did we win? Yes. Did we rush a lot? Yes. Would we have gained 500 yards on the ground if the play calling was consistent? Yes.
As I stated before: Your O-line is still gelling and are not together. Our running backs are still being rotated instead of letting one get into a rhythm. Our WR's are not getting quick enough separation to make plays on inaccurate balls thrown from a QB under pressure. The bottom line is the smart thing to do against WMU is to throw short passes, play a screen game and pound the rock. Minimize turnovers. Control the clock. Playing the way we did will instill no confidence in the offense. There are positives that French mentioned like the O-line coming together and starting to have a good push on rushing plays. But what, in the Loeffler's reign, has he done to prove to us he is willing to transfer saturday's success to next sat.?
I have a feeling he is sitting in his office thinking: "well gosh we ran well last week, better throw it all day on Saturday so UNC won't be expecting that."
I know I am being slightly extreme but that is my frustration coming out. 4-0, go for it. 2-2, low confidence? no. no. no.
The way to build confidence is not to come out swinging for the fences though. You're more likely to fall on your face than you are to hit it out of the park. Instead, you come out and you do what you know. You have success in various aspects where you were previously struggling and move forward. I'm pretty sure the coaches could care less whether the fans have confidence in the team because they are the ones that call the shots. They are the ones that know what we are capable of and what we need to improve on because they know what to look for. They know what to expect and watch the game film to see if it happened. I get that you want success now and wanted to see a different kind of game. Most of the fans watching wanted to as well. I was not happy when at halftime, we were in essence tied with WMU but only winning on the scoreboard thanks to them giving us 8 points. But we came out and did our job. Regardless of who told Loeffler to run the ball or if anybody did at all (I know Shane told him to), the coaches as a whole saw what needed to be corrected and changed it.
You say that you have no faith he will come out and build on last week's success which I personally think is a bit silly. If you want to point to the Ohio State game and say "well why didn't we play like that against ECU" then I'll tell you that every team plays different. OSU didn't have a gigantic NT who looked like he closed down all McDonald's restaurants within 30 minutes of Blacksburg before playing the game. And yet we all seem to have absolute faith in Bud to come out the next week and repeate because he's Bud, and yet after a stellar performance against OSU, his defense fell flat against ECU. I'm not saying we shouldn't have faith in Bud, but it goes for any coach. Week in, week out, you're not playing the same team. You're only playing the same players you have. You can do the same thing every week and it won't always work. DBs on an island exploited OSU but got us burnt against ECU. These things happen so relax right now. Have reservations about our performance but I don't see a need to be angry at Loeffler at the present time.
TL;DR We will be fine.
Maybe we're both saying the same things just differently...I never said "come out swinging for the fences." And I also don't care to "see success now," I just want to see growth. And I understand this is a time of growth for the team who are finally gaining more talent in the skill positions. What I did say was that with the current glaring issues, that not just me but really anyone can see, why was the game called the way it was? As I have said a few times now, this a game to get us in a rhythm for the following weeks. Maybe we finally did with that running performance. But against ECU and GT we saw Brewer throw up picks under pressure. We saw the O-line fail on numerous occasions and as French put it, looked timid against WMU at times. If these are the variables an OC is dealing with then the cute play calling goes out the window. You have to start running the ball, throwing short quick passes. You have to start calling the things that gets an offense going and in a rhythm. Then you can add in, periodically, some of the bigger stuff.
I don't know coaching that is why I am not one. I don't know the play book or the sophisticated x's and o's. But I do know how to get a QB and a struggling offense some confidence. The second half of WMU is how you do that. I am not angry at Loeffler, FWIW...I am just doubtful of his abilities.
And GT, I don't think was necessarily poor play calling, all the time, but lack of execution by the players on the field. How many open receivers were missed, and interceptions thrown that shouldn't have been thrown to? I do think, that for a team that says they want to run the ball, there's been far too many passes.
That being said, UNC is a pretty big game that we need to win, and hopefully win well. I mean, ECU was a tighter game than it should have been for us, but if ECU puts up 70 on UNC, we should, I hope, be able to at least put up 40.
Overstatement. The players available at Temple suited the system Loeffler wanted to run. Good situation, simple as that. Maybe he got too much credit insofar as getting the Auburn job after that, but I think it is plain to see that when you have a bull of an RB and a pro-style set of players, Loeffler's system works.
Oversimplification. A team full of players recruited to run the spread was suddenly asked to be pro-style. Then their starting QB became a safety the following year because he was not a good enough QB to be running an offense in the SEC. Auburn goes back to Malzahn, and things click. Why? Players who know a spread offense can play a spread offense. That isn't Loeffler's fault. Bad hire? Yes, but that's on the Auburn administration, not because Loeffler is a bad coach. He was asked to do something that was a poor choice.
Here, you're right. He should get a pass. Our roster was a total hodge-podge. Last year was about putting the brakes on the downward slide and starting to climb back up the mountain. I'd say he did that. Results weren't great, but last year was about stopping the bleeding. This year, with a roster consisting of guys that the current staff recruited (giving Searels a pass), we will see what happens.
I agree that UNC is a big game. Let's see what the team and the staff have learned.
I question some of this.
At Temple, he was under Golden, right? And Golden went to Miami and they started putting up points in bunches.
At Florida, he was under Meyer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Meyer has his offense that he's run pretty much everywhere.
At Auburn, he was definitely trying to create his offense from a selection of players that weren't suited to his system, so no good results.
So I wonder how much of Lefty's success is because he was working in the offense as defined/designed by the coach he was under. Not saying Lefty isn't good, but I don't think he has had to take a monumental task like VT, where he's had to build an entire offensive system from the ground up (including recruiting).
Having said that, I'm still waiting patiently until the end of next season before I really try to say how good I think he is.
It's been 18 games and I'm still uncertain what Loeffler's vision actual is. I didn't watch a lot of Temple football in 2011...or any other year...but from stats you can see he ran it and ran it and ran it. He ran his QB a lot. (I think that was under Addazio?) Then he went to Auburn where they obviously had the personnel to run it a lot and he implemented a "pro-style?" Where did that come from? Not his Meyer days. His Michigan days? From what I can tell, his Temple and Auburn offenses were very different, but if anyone has any clarification, I would enjoy any info. But was his Temple and Auburn personnel so different?
I think at VT he tried to create something for LT. Then LT had a bad year. And clearly his VT talent wasn't great and Malleck's injury was a big deal. I get that.
But we're 18 games in and I'm still not sure what the vision is. "Taking what the defense gives you" isn't a vision to me. If it is a vision, it is very reactionary. But previously, at least at Temple, his vision seemed to be very focused.
From what we have seen at VT, he fails when he is too cute and succeeds when he is focused. It just seems like we are an editor away from success.
If you consider that last year was tailored towards Logan, we're really only 5 games in.
No, in 2011 at Temple, Steve Addazio was the head coach, in his first year after Golden had left. Temple averaged 30.6 ppg that year with Addazio and Loeffler. Not bad.
Loeffler was not OC at Florida, he was the QB coach, so it's hard to say how much of that success was his and how much of that was Tebow doing Tebow things, and how much was due to Urban/OC/sheer amount of talent.
Agree about Auburn. Agree about waiting a bit more before we judge Loeffler's abilities here. This year is still transition, but I want to see growth. 2015 should be substantially better.
Good facts, thanks
French, in that 2nd clip why are our lineman diving at the feet of the defense? Wouldn't it be more effective to stay on their feet and engage the defense rather than a quick cut block? The cut blocks also seem to fail to make contact more often than not.
I'm seeing way more cut blocking in this line this year. Could be that I just wasn't paying attention before, but we've had several plays this year (and at least one that cost us a TD from inside the 5) where our O-lineman tried a cut-block and failed miserably, turning what would have been a solid play into just another hair-puller. It just doesn't make sense out of a bunch of guys around 300 pounds.
Get your helmet on their chest and drive.
Sometimes you have to cut because you can't get an angle to scoop. But most of these scoops have been lazy belly flop blocks. As you saw later, Gibson and McLaughlin were much quicker and more aggressive in the 2nd half, and shockingly (sarcastia) scooping instead of cutting worked.
Like Joe said up above, the play designs are confusing. When you are confident in your assignment, it frees you up to be more aggressive. When you are unsure of your assignment, your brain is second guessing your movement, which ties up your feet. Those inside zones should be simple. Step through the play side gap. Put your head in the correct place. Maintain contact and keep driving.
Good stuff.
Now, could you break down how it is we are so appallingly bad at middle screens? I get the feeling it isn't any one thing.
Honestly, looking at the hot mess that our average attempt is, I get the feeling it is pretty damn near every thing.
It is tough to tell because the broadcast doesn't show what the receivers are doing downfield, but given how quickly the DBs are dropping off the WR's to come up on the screens, I would guess that the young guys are not doing a good job of selling their pass routes. Bucky has a bad habit of doing that as well when he is the pick on some form of rub route and he doesn't look back for the ball because he knows it isn't coming to him.
Do I expect us to be able to run for that many yards per game, against our remaining schedule? No. But I certainly think if the offense puts enough effort forward, we could rush for 150-200 yards/game and that would be a huge boost for the Hokies. That power-run by Shai untouched into the end zone, was a thing a beauty. There will always be a place for the fundamental I-Form.
I really never thought I'd see the fan base this upset after a 300 yard rushing performance. The fact that we did it mostly in the second half is nothing short of amazing. We haven't topped 300 yards on the ground since 2010, even while playing some cupcakes and having David Wilson in the backfield. I hope and think that the staff will come out of their self-scouting this weekend looking to build off of that second half, both in terms of playcalling and personnel decisions. Looking for a heavy dose of the inside running game in Chapel Hill.
I never thought I'd see a fan base this so upset after a 300 yd rushing yard performance . ~ WELL, this was Western Michigan!
Still, it's not like we haven't played any cupcakes since 2010.
One of their starting DTs was 233 pounds. If we didn't run for over 300 + yards against them we would have had no hope for the remainder of the year.
That is my only worry about next week. That is the one thing that UNC is doing right on defense, defending the inside run.
Then let's get back to the good old days of utter demoralization of opponents by taking what they do well and making them look terrible at it. Time to be the bully.
Better question fellow Hokie, "Do we have the personnel and the athletic ability to be the bully?"
I know Searels has the attitude to do it, and that's half of what we were missing for 7 years. As mentioned below, I think changing up the personnel would be good. Namely getting Teller in there to move guys from point A to point B against their will.
It is funny how finicky a fan base can be. Steinspring wanted to run to a fault and now we want to get back to more running. 300 yards is impressive, I think for me at least the upsetting nature of the game was watching 30-50 yard runs and then stalling out after calling 3 straight pass plays. It makes 300 feel like an under achievement. The way we were able to run that game I bet we wouldnt have had to pass much at all and could have easily hit 400 if that was the case. In the second quarter alone, Loeffler had two drives to run the clock out but he stalls the offense and stops the clock with unnecessary pass plays. That is the part I want to see changed this week. Stop being cute and funny and just play some hard nosed football. He has the playbook and ability to do so.
Here's the thing. Once David Wilson left for the League, we neither had the OL to plow down the field nor the backs to take advantage of it. And yet we saw play after play of undersized RBs trying to run isos. Now we have guys that can drag defenders upfield but we scratch our heads wondering why the coaches call so many sweeps.
I agree completely with your last two sentences that I quoted. I expect our O-line to do very good things once they're told to block straight ahead for our 220+ lb RBs.
Would definitely be nice to do that. Think getting teller on the field as many snaps as possible is the first step to fixing our OL problems.
Not so sure what we can do on the DL but they aren't getting the job done.
To be fair, the DL is also very thin and not healthy. I'm still not convinced Marshall's ankle is fully 100% and of course there's Maddy's knee. The young guys have held their own, but they're only gonna get better with more and more reps.
Agreed they should get better, but they need to do it quickly as we can't generate any pass rush with the front 4 alone. Thought Ken Ekanem had his coming out party against ECU, but haven't seen much since and the interior OL isn't having trouble controlling our DTs outside of a couple of plays.
I wonder if part of the problem with generating pass rush was that the DL was so focused on stopping the run. Halfway through the fourth quarter I noticed on the scoreboard that WMU had -4 yards rushing. That includes the sacks, of course, but still: our DL absolutely crushed the WMU running game.
Same with GT: the strategy there is always (1) stop the dive, (2) stop the pitch, (3) stop the keeper, (4) hope the DBs don't get burned deep. Maybe the DL hasn't been generating much pass rush because that hasn't been their focus.
Their DL was bad. Really really bad. If they block and run the same plays all game long as they ran in the 3rd, they rush for 500.
By "They" do you mean WMU last weekend or UNC next weekend, has a bad DL?
I think to understand the fan base reaction (at least, my reaction) you have to look at the two halves of this game as completely separate performances. If we had had a 60-minute performance like the second half I would have been thrilled. If we had had a 60-minute performance like the first half we probably would have lost.
I don't disagree at all that the second half should have been what we saw the entire game. Still, I just find it comical that 300 yards rushing is in any way a disappointment (which, again, it actually is). As for people who think Lefty was a bad hire.... well, I'm just gonna go to class now before I go off on a rant that gets out of hand very quickly.
I'm not upset that we rushed for 300 yards. I'm upset that unless Beamer forces Loeffler to run the ball again, we won't see it again. The guy for whatever reason hates running the football. He won't run to protect a lead, he won't even stick with the run when he sees it working for him. It's mind blowing to watch. It doesn't take a D1 coach to know that when running the ball is working, you keep running the damn football. And if you have a lead in the forth qtr, you run the damn football. And by run, I don't mean an occasional jet sweep or a counter, I mean power formation, smash mouth, inside runs that wear down defenses. Until I see that consistently, I'll continue to call Loeffler what I think he is, a bad hire for VT.
The only problem with your argument is that our ability to run has looked pretty poor except against W&M and in the second half against WMU. In the first half on Saturday, we had 82 rushing yards, 42 of which came on one play. The rest was pretty bad. So yes, Loeffler abandoned it because he didn't have confidence in it. Against GT the week before, 127 total rushing yards (3.8 ypc, not awful but not good). So he came into the game with little confidence in the line, or the backs, or both. Beamer probably saw something that Loeffler didn't, and that's why he's the head coach and he's got a ton more experience than Loeffler, so he certainly said something to make a change.
Of course, the WMU run defense is pretty bad, but so too is UNC's (92nd in the country, IIRC). If we come out and don't run against UNC, I'll be more inclined to hear you out. But UNC also has awful pass defense (127th), so a healthy dose of both should be in the game plan. Based on what we've seen so far this year, this week's game is a big litmus test.
Forget Auburn and everything else that can be said about Loeffler's past record because there can be an argument made for him having the wrong personnel to run his system in the past. Let's just focus on this season so far.
You say the run game has been poor. I agree, but has it been poor because he doesn't give it a chance to work? We wouldn't have known that they were capable of rushing for over 300 yards even against WMU, had Beamer not forced the issue. We've all seen the run begin to click and the team begin to move the chains on a series and then for no explainable reason, he'll start calling consecutive pass plays. I understand you want a balanced attack but if lining up and running in between the tackles is working, why would you abandon it? Especially, if you have a QB that's prone to turnovers. And I'm sorry, but even a casual football fan knows that you don't throw the ball late in a game when you have the lead. Even if you have to punt it, you grind as much clock as possible running the ball and then punt and play field position. That's how you finish ball games. How you throw away ball games like GT, is when you start snapping the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock and throwing it around the yard into double coverage. That game will come back to haunt this team later in the year I suspect. It's a game they should've won, and were in position to win.
I've never gotten into bashing coaches play calling because I've always assumed they saw something during the week that we as fans don't get to see, or they are just smarter than us (why they are there and we aren't) but some of the calls he makes in critical situations are not explainable. And then we hear, "we were a couple plays away from winning" yea and OSU was a couple plays away from winning that game. And ECU was a couple plays away from blowing us out. I understand we aren't going to win every game and if we get outplayed, I can accept that, but when our team is outplaying the opponent, they have control of the game, and they blow it with one or two stupid situational play calls, it's hard to watch. And you're correct, UNC will tell us a lot about what this offense is made of. If they can't or won't run the ball against UNC, and Brewer continues with his INTs, it's gonna be a long frustrating year in Blacksburg.
There have been some questionable play calls, absolutely. I think that's true of every OC in the country, with only a few of the best ones rarely (if ever) doing anything head-scratching. It's just part of the game. That is a far cry from a "bad hire." The issue I have with some of the stats is that they can easily be skewed by a couple of big plays that cover up seriously bad performance. Just a couple of things to recap:
W&M - 42 rushes, 222 yd, 5.3 yd/rush
OSU - 41 rushes, 125 yd, 3.0 yd/rush
ECU - 33 rushes, 91 yd, 2.5 yd/rush
GT - 33 rushes, 127 yd, 3.8 yd/rush
WMU - 47 rushes, 308 yd, 6.6 yd/rush
So the W&M numbers are OK, but that's against an FCS opponent (who has a decent defense), OSU was bad, ECU we couldn't rush because we were behind the 8-ball all game, GT is legitimately a bit of a head-scratcher, and WMU was good. Now the problem I have with the stats, like I said above, is big plays that overshadow other struggles. Of course, one can cherry-pick whatever outcome they like when interpreting statistics (as the adage goes, "there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics"). But let's say, for argument's sake, that we remove some of the huge plays, like Caleb's 33-yarder in garbage time, or Marshawn's 42-yarder in the first half that was more yards than all of the other rushes in that half combined and the story changes.
W&M w/o Shai's TD - 41 rushes, 183 yd, 4.5 yd/rush (decent, but not awesome against an FCS team)
OSU w/o Deon's only successful jet sweep - 40 rushes, 101 yd, 2.5 yd/rush (UGH)
ECU w/o Marshawn's only long run - 32 rushes, 70 yd, 2.2 yd/rush (double UGH)
GT - honestly, no comment, I agree we should have run more, and there were no really huge plays aside from Marshawn's 17-yarder
WMU - w/o Caleb's run - 46 rushes, 275 yd, 6.0 yd/rush (not bad, but against a really bad defense). Take out the three longest plays (totaling 110 yd), and it's pretty bad - 43 rushes, 198 yd, 4.6 yd/rush. I know, now it looks like I'm really just pulling numbers out of thin air at this point, but aside from a few big plays, and until the end of the game, my gut feeling was that the run game wasn't doing too well. 4.6 against WMU is not very good.
All that said, Loeffler has shown he can stick with something, albeit in limited cases. Remember UNC last year? Same play, 6 times in a row, straight-ahead run and the drive ends in a TD. That was awesome. He said after the game he wanted to have the offense prove to themselves they could bully the defense and make UNC stop us, which they didn't. Would I like to see more of that? Heck yes. Does the fact that we don't do that every game make Loeffler a "bad hire" or a bad coach? No. He just needs to tinker a bit less. No need to be too clever by half.
Do the rush totals include sacks? If so, might should take those out also... give more realistic stats on the run game, my 2 cents
Good point. I'll look into that a bit more when I have time. The long runs skewing the numbers upward were what have always caught my attention. The sacks definitely matter, too, and will bring the averages up a bit if taken out.
This is a quick and dirty breakdown:
W&M: 0 Sacks, 42 Rush for 222 yards, 5.3 yds/rush
OSU: 2 Sacks for -24 yds, Adj. 39 Rush for 149 yards, 3.8 yds/rush
ECU: 3 Sacks for -24 yds, Adj. 30 Rush for 115 Yards, 3.83 yds/rush
GT: 1 Sack for -8 yds, Adj. 33 Rush for 135 Yards, 4.09 yds/rush
WMU: 1 Sack for -4 yds, Adj. 46 Rush for 312 yards, 6.78 yds/rush
EDIT: If I remember correctly, Shane said he wanted to average 4.2 yards per carry this year. Through 5 games, we are averaging 4.9. Granted, our stats are padded thanks to W&M and WMU so take that with a big grain of salt. I expect to see us settle in around 4 yards per carry through the remainder of the season
4.9. This is good mojo. Let's hope this plays out the remainder of the season....and maybe increases.
I agree. Maybe I need to pump my brakes a little calling him a "bad hire" but I offer no excuses for some of his erratic play calling that I feel cost the Hokies their first ACC win of the year. Maybe living 30 minutes from Auburn and hearing constantly about how bad he was as their OC (he is HATED down here) is clouding my judgement some. I hope the run game can get going and if it can't, I hope they can at least cut down on the TOs in the passing game. Go Hokies!
We are all agreeing that there were some bad play calls but I think the run game will be a bigger part of our plan going forward. I want to see the offense Leoffler ran at Temple here at VT and I think we will see more of that.
I'd rather be a "Here is what we're going to do. Now try and stop us" team than a "Bet ya didn't see that one coming" team.
but that's exactly what we were under stiney right? it really wasn't hard to guess what was coming. folks didn't seem too pleased with that at the time.
I think the big issue there was that we all knew what was coming and we all knew we didn't have the O-line to do it. (Insert scowl at Newsome here) I have zero problem running the ball down someone's throat if our O-line can be physical and coordinated enough to make a gap. Classic Stanford and Wisconsin.
I love hard nosed running as much as the next hokie. Loeffler just has to pull the trigger on the running game a little bit quicker. I I like how we can work the outs and the intermediate middle in the passing game. Bottom line, the coaching staff has to get confident in the off tackle running game. I am still optimistic in our young o.
Do you have more insight on this as a former offensive lineman? It seems like it would be more fun to attack the inside with power rather than attacking the edge of the defense.
I never played lineman, but in my playing days nothing got the team more excited than the coach telling us that we were going to go out there and run the ball down the other team's throat. "Here we come, try and stop us." Now obviously this isn't high school ball so the offense has to be able to do more, but setting out to dominate the other team by running the ball is equally as thrilling for the offense and demoralizing for the defense.
Who would be on your starting offensive line, French?
How would you feel about LT- McLaughlin, LG- Teller, C- Wang, RG- Smith, RT- Conte
A few interesting bits of information:
Shane commandeering the running game? The plot thickens...
I pity the poor bastard that tries to tackle Sam Rogers while he's toting the rock.
Nice to see Loeffler with some candor:
Admitting your mistakes is the first step to fixing them.
Yes, I was very encouraged to see this as well. I will be watching Saturday for two things:
1. Do they come out with the same sort of game plan as the second half against WMU?
2. If that game plan results in a couple of three-and-outs, do they panic and go back to the first half game plan, or do they stick with it, make adjustments, and impose their will on UNC?