Watching this Florida State vs Notre Dame game tonight I just can't help but to note just how different the offensive game planning is between these two top 5 teams who have each played in a title game the past couple years. They are built for quick hitting passing plays where the run is there to simply keep a defense honest and to pound the ball on the goal line when the opponent wears down. And it made me think...
Are we stuck in a philosophy of a bygone football era while the others excel by going about things in a different way? Both these teams are looking to press the ball every time they get it and want points. They don't care about time of possession, they're not concerned with keeping the defense off the field, they want the score. And we're sitting there at 4-3 with an offense built to churn the clock and shorten games at the expense of explosive plays.
I dunno, I just look at the ways these top teams play right now and I can't help but think we're philosophically faulty with the way we're approaching the game in this day and age. We're stuck playing 90s football 15 years since others have moved on from it.
Comments
Hey, we're "building an offense." Didn't you know it requires 4 years to build a working offense?!
Lulz
How is this in any way offensive to anyone, unless your last name is Loeffler. I see no reason why this comment deserved 3 downvotes. The people who did this must have gone to high school with Beamer or something. Sheesh, lighten up people
IMO it's a sarcastic comment that doesn't add any insight or humor to the discussion.
It's a swipe aimed at another TKPer from a discussion on another thread. Passive aggressive BS doesn't belong. If you disagree, fine, have a respectful discussion. But we're seeing more and more people (as in the past seasons) becoming divisive during a frustrating season.
Haha well one could argue that the humor is lacking only for those who thing we actually ARE building an offense that takes time.
But I will admit, I did it to be a smartass :)
If you really want some humor, look at the box scores from the VT games this season.
lol
I don't know how all of a sudden our offense is a ground and pound offense after everyone has been complaining for weeks about how we don't run the ball enough.
Hes not talking about plays hes talking about philosophy.
The goal of our offense seems to be to drain the clock, shorten the game, and set the defense up for success. If you score points too, its a bonus.
The question is, i think, is that a valid strategy for success in 2014? A lot of people,think the answer to that question is yes.
Just not as exciting to watch when the offense is on the field.
I think the problem with this philosophy is also its strength. Games are kept close. Teams that play this style of football are seldom "out of games"; unfortunately, neither is the other team.
The high-tempo offenses are very popular right now, but there are plenty of teams that have had success with ball control offenses.
It's not about which strategy you choose, it's about how well you execute it. You can be successful with either one, but you have to be good enough to execute well and to impose your will on the opposing D, even when they know what to expect. That's the part that we're missing.
Not disagreeing but the only ball control offenses I see that are really successful are teams like Alabama who can recruit elite talent three deep at every position. There are also teams like Wisconsin that can recruit elite offensive linemen. If you want to run that kind of offense I think you have to have players who can win 1-on-1 match-ups 90% of the time. VT hasn't had that for a while. Hopefully that is changing.
Not necessarily, but our offensive recruiting is about 4 years behind.
I'm assuming you mean the 2010-13 classes because the 2014 class was pretty dang good compared to those four classes.
This here.
Every time I hear a comment made, be it commentators or fellow fans, about how many freshman we have contributing, while that is great for the future, it's a damning indictment of the lack of talent brought in over the previous 3-4 years on that side of the ball.
VT, FSU, and ND run prostyle offenses, with line-checks, 1-1 matchup exploitation, rub routes, etc. They all run very similar philosophies. So no. This thread is way-off base. Philosophy is not an issue.
The difference between good offenses of FSU and ND and the bad offense of VT is the QB, OL, and play-calling. If you were to switch the OL and QB of FSU with VT's, you would probably see a very successful VT offense. The only limitation would be Loeffler not outsmarting himself too much.
You forgot the one main difference between FSU, ND, and VT. Unfortunately it is recruiting both FSU and ND pull in much higher ranked recruits than VT does.
I have to wonder if one of the high tempo more gimmicky offenses would work better with the players we have. The offense seems to be more comfortable with it anyway.
I can't agree with you more about recruiting. That's definitely where it all starts. Until we can successfully bring in and COACH high level o-linemen, we will stay in mediocrity on offense. (unless we get another Mike Vick). I hate the thought of us resorting to a gimmick offense. in order to survive.
While I do agree that our OL could be doing much better...there are teams that score alot of points, both through the air and on the ground....with lower talent level at OL. (star ratings)
Do we think ECU has higher rated OL recruits than the we do?
The main problem with go up tempo right now is all the injuries, we are too thin at several positions, and going up tempo would force us to go deeper into the depth chart than might be wise... but if it gets the offense moving in the absence of a running game it might be our only option
Its turning into an investment year anyways with our current offense and banged up defense. Brewer seems most comfortable at the up-tempo pace and our strengths are at WR, TE. The O-line seems to be better at pass protection than run blocking anyways. If we give more players experience on the offense, given our current status, is it a bad thing? I say we go up-tempo air-raid offense and see what happens since our running game currently sucks.
This is true. However, I think this style of offense with good O-line play and great QB play will be successful. It starts with the O-line to make space and finishes with a QB that makes plays. VT is definitely lacking on consistency on both fronts right now, and obviously recruiting is the biggest issue here.
In '05-'08, VT had 5 OL drafted, including 1st rounder Duane Brown. In '09 to present, 3 OL drafted and likely won't have another O-lineman drafted until 2017 or 2018 (maybe Gibson this year, maybe...). Likewise, VT hasn't recruited a 4-star QB (expected to be QB and stuck to the position) since Tyrod.
So yea, VT will continue to struggle with this offense until those two positions are improved.
We need to more thoroughly examine this talent issue. Whereas VT dies not have FSU talent, it is not insufficient talent to succeed. Iowa state, Colorado state and Indiana have top 30 FEI offenses and I bet they wished they had our talent.
A good coordinator tailors his system to his talent. And it doesn't take 3+ years to figure that out and, yes, you can succeed with talented freshmen playing key roles.
This is a valid point. Does VT's O-line have the talent necessary to succeed? When hiring Grimes and Searels, maybe VT should have not looked for the "famous" O-line coaches that are accustomed to the 4-star and 5-star recruits, but for the O-line coaches that do more with less.
interesting point..but I'll maintain that having any coach with any sort of good track record with O-linemen is better than having a coach like Newsome..who did less with less..
This is my thinking regarding this topic. On this site we specifically say that the o-line play is subpar due to a lack of talent. We don't out recruit consistently the FSU, ND, Bamas of the college football world. To run these NFL type offenses it would seem to me that it starts with the o-line talent. If you can bring in those super talented lineman you have a good shot at having a successful NFL style offense.
From what I understand about the origin of the spread attacks, is that it was developed because the offensive line of the original team was not as talented as the other teams they played. By spreading out the opposing team the talent difference was negated and the offense were able to operate at a high level.
Perhaps this is becoming an issue for VT. We are trying to run an NFL system requiring the talent level of say 5/4 star individuals with 3 star recruits. This is just a thought I had. I am by no means qualified to understand all the complexities involved with either system but the fact remains. We for a long time now, dating back to a number of those 10 win seasons, have not sniffed having an upper echelon offense. Maybe a change in philosophy to a style that would better fit with our capacity to bring in the talent could result in the elusive trophy we seek.
While I agree with most of this. I cannot say that the stars, with regard to O-linemen matter much. 3 or better usually represents someone who should be expected to compete and contribute. When looking at NFL lineman I don't see as strong of a correlation between stars and Success as one would "skill" positions. I also think the stars are geared more toward EARLY College contribution. I don't see it as cieling or potential. I feel as though bigger guys-much like tall center types in b-ball- develope footwork and technical footwork much later than more athletic agile skill guys. I do however think that size and persistent coaching factor more into developing great lines.
I remember thinking that Grimes was not as big of a factor as many thought. I think that the Zone blocking scheme, when mastered, is a great system but requires a more lean nimble lineman that must prove adept at being agile and great with read and reacting. (simultaneously) THAT I believe, requires more time to come to fruition. I was happier to see Searels because he is searching more of a straightforward blocker in the run game. Now this doesn't mean that he isn't looking for agile big uglies, but I feel he's looking for guys to head up-field more and pull and stunt a little bit less. All modern lineman must pull at times, so that was an exaggerated claim in the differences in their recruiting philosophies. But I feel in our geographic and conference is to have bigger bodies grinding forward and imposing their will over 4 quarters.
Look at the guys that searels is recruiting. I feel as though their size and some quality time in our S&C program we shall see less O-lineman in the backfield. Also, more importantly Searels seems to demand a certain perfection in technique. I have seen snippets on Hokiesports and elsewhere where I see him persistently- maybe even too much- harping on perfect tech and leverage. to the point where if i were a player i would question if it really mattered that much in how demanding he was. but that is discipline and when it becomes second nature you execute tenfold as it is second nature. Its like the military or any other team atmosphere. The unit that executes seamlessly and efficiently on one accord is the most effective. IMO we will look at this line in the future and really feel relieved about our Hokies. We gotta get through this trial-and-error phase for now. There will be an "ah" moment for one or two of these guys and it will click and set a foundation for a young team.
Give me a mean gigantic human who is just itching to send a DL in front of him into the North and South EZ. That by definition is an talented, NFL guy. Its in our DNA here, but needs to be taken of the shelf, dusted off and put to use.
While recruiting certainly helps, I can also show you the average recruiting classes of Miss ST and K State to counter that argument. I think the "star" rating just sells magazines/recruting web site subscriptions IMO. It's about finding players who fit what you're trying to execute and then coaching them up and bringing the right game plan.
For example, Miss St ranked lower than us in recruiting from 2012-2014 and became the only team in the poll era to go from unranked to #1 in 5 weeks.
SEC schedule and 1 big win will build confidence.. also having an established sec sized o-line and play schemes help.
This... specifically the o-line. A good o-line makes an average qb look good, a good rb look great, and an unknown receiver a game changer. I honestly don't think the offense philosophy is outdated, we just need better athletes in the trenches.
We have a top 5 offense.....in penalties per game.
You think our penalties are bad?
Check out the boxscore from the WVU upset of Baylor.
I think Baylor lost more yards in penalties than our offense gained through three quarters.
Agree. I'm no expert but the fsu offense feels very much like ours. Difference is Winston can fire off to his first read more often because they have a great stable of receivers.
This is also why spread quick hit offenses are the rage.
If you lack talent up front you need to utilize the quick passing game by spreading the defensive front out. Zone blocking is fairly straightforward and gives the qb enough time to accurately make one or two reads.
The problem with techs offense is talent up front. But SL needs to by now realize that his offense is not what he should be calling.
We have talented bigger receivers and decent tight end mismatches.
I think FB just wants to stay true to the offenses of old and believes that spread offenses can't control the clock. The routes and even running plays are too slow to develop, and the pre snap motion has a lot to do with it. Too much thinking and not enough running the play.
The "trickery" in the presnap formations is working both ways right now. You can see the o line is not grasping the reads and when they change with motion.
If you have a spread qb, and you have no lineman, and you have decently big but not speedy receivers, and you have no running game, and you have tight end mismatches, and you have a Burn across the middle.
Its time to commit to the spread. The running game can only work if they truly fear the pass.
If Wisconsin and Stanford can be successful running that type of offense, why can't VT?
Because we cant recruit, develop, and coach an OL capabke of running that style of offense?
That's why I was so bummed when Pep Hamilton turned down the OC position...he would have been a perfect fit for VT.
If you were choosing between a lateral move to another college OC position, probably with less money, or an NFL job, which would you take? I don't blame Pep at all.
Didn't hurt that he got to coach Luck either
We're only on year two post-Newsome, and had a setback when Grimes was a one and done. Don't give up hope that the OL is irreparable just yet.
Well it doesn't appear we are trying to hard to change it up. We recruited the 124th and 146th best O lineman this year. Yes thy are good hard playing guys and play much better than me. But the defense at OSU, ECU, Tennessee, or the Coastal Division are who we should be recruiting for
The coaching staff is trying hard to recruit OL. Ridiculous to say they aren't, even if they are struggling in doing so.
Keep in mind all the guys that Stanford sent to the NFL off of their ridiculous OLines were 2- and 3-star guys. Offensive line is darn near impossible to project with any certainty, so if the staff is getting guys they like and who they think will develop into quality linemen, I could care less about the recruiting rankings.
So it's not talent, it's coaching.
My layman's answer would be it's a little of both. I also cant help but think that three coaches in three years hasn't helped matters.
I wish I could up vote this comment like 1000 times.
We need to give OC Loeffler more time because he is starting out with a new O-line coach all over again. Until we can get a better o-line that can both pass protect and run block at a consistently high level, our offense is going to be more like the Pitt game. We need to adapt the strategy to the personnel on hand and change to a more pass oriented spread offense.
I think his point was that stars don't always equal talent, just because someone rated a couple of recruits the 120th and 140th best in the nation doesn't mean it is a fact, and they might be better suited to our style of offense than a much higher recruit... coaches should be recruiting skill, not stars.. although sometimes you get both
As opposed to recruiting a really promising tight end we would wind up converting to OL? That's progress.
This strategy worked really well for VT in the early to mid 2000s. Duane Brown prime example. Completely failed in the latter part of the decade and early 2010s.
Through a quarter and a half against ASU, Stanford had 12 rushing yards and finished with 76. And that's trying to rebuild after they had good offensive lines the past few years. Compare that to trying to rebuild a bad line, and you should have your answer.
yes, today Alabama returned to bama ball and destroyed aTm 59-0
On a side note, how ridiculous does it look right now that aTm was ranked 6 a few weeks ago?
Not much when you see where the losses came from and that they were in every game excepts the last one.
What's ridiculous is how, going into week 6, Texas A&M was the only team that could become bowl eligible. All of the other undefeated teams at that point had already had a bye.
We're now going into week 9, still waiting for aTm to achieve eligibility.
On a ridiculous note how is it that Bama playing the 70th best defense scored 59 points playing Bama Offense. But we scored only 24 on Ga Tech the 83rd best defense Or that UNC has the worst defense in Division 1 and we only scored 34 points.
That was probably the Ghost of Jonny Football keeping them that high in the rankings
This is such a nuanced question. My stab at it is this: our offensive scheme is not obsolete, but the way we try to run it might well be. So it depends on what you mean by philosophy.
To me, the one thing that has been lacking, and still is, is aggression on offense. The system we use is fine, and Lefty's scheme is a hell of an upgrade over Stiney's in terms of play design and giving a QB the option to take what a defense gives them. But the one thing that hasn't changed is our risk management approach to offense.
Here's what I see happening this season, and please, correct me if I'm wrong. We started the season out with a gunslinger QB who was going to try to get positive yards every play, could do some spectacular things, but whose demeanor was going to result in a couple bad plays, and probably a couple turnovers, per game. When faced with this problem, an OC can deal with it in two ways, either by trying to beat the two bad plays per game out of your QB at the expense of the improvisational brilliance he's capable of, or you shrug your shoulders and say guess we're gonna have to score enough to make up for the mistakes. Lefty has opted soundly for the former, and we're witnessing the results. Brewer looks timid and indecisive when running the standard offense, and looks like a game winner when we go two minute.
Not saying the other option of putting the pedal down and going for the throat every drive would have been the better call. We probably don't have the OL for it and we most certainly don't have the tailbacks for it at least until Juice gets healthy. But my larger point is, it just seems like as a program we have become way too accepting of offensive drives not resulting in points, just so long as they don't result in a turnover. The offense should put points on the board on a high percentage of drives, but that requires a certain level of aggression from the OC. After the GT debacle, it just seems like Lefty is keeping Brewer handcuffed until the game demands otherwise.
UNC has the worst defense in Division 1 and we only scored 34 points. But it was an overwhelming success for Beamer
VT wins on the scoreboard, and VT wins on TOP
PossessionVT 41:03 UNC 18:57
It was a comfortable win where we had full control, and our defense was able to hold unc to a season-low 17 points. I'd say that was a great success.
It was a success for Foster. Twenty one points came off turnovers.
Exactly, there's still shades of Stiney era in there, especially in the red zone. With the 2011 sugar bowl being the quintessential example of playing open up to the RZ, the turtling up and settling for a FG. That's still happening, we had two turnovers in/near the RZ last week, and they resulted in 6 total points. Did we even try to throw it to Bucky once? This is the kind of stuff that lead people to think that of Beamer isn't necessarily "micromanaging" the offense he's certainly "strongly suggesting" we operate a certain way on certain situations, perhaps that conclusion is unfair...
If I post my weekly tailgating post, will you be mentioning Beamer micromanaging that too?
Dude, put something in that glass. It doesn't need to be even half full but the doom and gloom and micromanaging thing repeatedly on every single thread is just, well, spare us, please. A mercy flush, please.
You're directly insinuating that I created this out of nothing, and that's not the case, I was referring directly to this part of the post to which I was replying:
<blockquote> But the one thing that hasn't changed is our risk management approach to offense.</blockquote>
He was directly comparing themes between the offense under Stiney and Loeffler, and we were exploring reasons for the observed. Anything else I would add beyond this would be considered condesending, off-topic, or contributing to a negative tenor of a thread, so I will refrain.
If you have anything to add to the discussion topic, I would love to hear what you have to say.
I'm not insinuating anything, but your statement that I am is a good example of what I'm trying to say. I'm saying you made your point through and solidly and you made it repeatedly over several threads and hit other people hard and with biting sarcasm and condescension if they don't agree with you. Or if they have a different point to make.
Take your foot off the gas a little and relax so others can enjoy the forum as well.
One of the reasons I'm so confident in Lefty is his redzone offense is currently tied for 28th in the nation.
Last year our redzone offense finished the season at 110. That's a great improvement, and, like Duffman pointed out, one the unfortunate staples of the Stiney era.
I'll have to check the RZ efficiency numbers maybe at work tomorrow under Stiney, because IIRC, they were never really that terrible for the exact same reasons loeffler a aren't this year - we kick (and make) a lot of field goals. Of our 28 RZ trips we have scored 25 times which is awesome, but only 15 of those scores have been TDs while 10 have been FGs. We average 1.5 TDs for every one FG we score in the RZ. If you look at most of the other teams around us from your link, the ratio of touchdowns to FGs is much higher.
Which hardens to the notion of "playing for the field goal, and a TD is a bonus" issue that appears to be and have been the case with us for a while.
We've been pretty inconsistent since 2008 (as far back as cfbstats.com goes):
So, in 2010 when we were sixth-best in the country, we were doing a lot better, at about 2.5 TD per FG. But then again, in 2013, which was abysmal, we were at about 2.9 TD per FG, so that ratio may not be totally reflective of offensive success, and I think goes a bit against any real trend of the low TD:FG ratio being "normal" for us.
2010 was also the most talent we've had on offense in ages. Man, what I would give to have those running backs around.
I miss Tyrod. His senior year was insane.
I wonder if that was Cody Journell missing that led to lower FG scoring %.
(don't have the time to research)
I would rather go down being aggressive than go down being passive.
OC Loeffler or HC Beamer? Serious question.
I like a lot of what we are seeing with our offensive philosophy:
We are utilizing TE's in the passing game, getting mismatches on LBs.
We are using 220 LB backs, to further pressure LB's
We have legitimate deep threats in the wideouts, and TE's in the seams.
We still incorporate drag routes underneath that can be highly successful.
The oft criticized jet sweep has been largely successful, but it is an important play action that is also designed to keep the D from always crashing down on the inside runs.
We still run the WR screens, yes, but we are moving the ball all over the field. We are putting pressure on defenses everywhere - at least trying to. I don't see any of that as a bad philosophy - quite the contrary.
We want to play a ball control/field position game for the most part, with good kicking and special teams that works hand in glove with our defensive philosophy (which is rabidly effective when playing with plenty of rest and a lead).
We have a plan from where I sit. We have lost some games, sure. But I don't think we have a horrible scheme. We are losing some games, but I don't see a problem with offensive philosophy at all.
Get everyone on the same page, and get rid of the offensive penalties, and I think we are going places.
I agree.
We've got a good plan but need to learn how to implement it, get some recruiting years in to get the depth and learn the playbook, through repetition, so muscle memory type stuff takes over instead of thinking through every game and every step while getting the basics inbred that prevents the mental errors.
I know there are lots of knee jerk reactions here wanting to quit on all the coaches already but, I can see what they are trying to do, just need more guys and more time.
Agree , 2020 here we come .
I expect we'll see nice improvement next year with less injuries and a lack of offensive plays stalling for pre-snap penalties.
All the playmakers will be sophomores (except Byrn) in the program and that much more dipped in the playbook.
Less errors, more communication make the promise of next year smell like a fine crop of hops.
Certainly hope you are correct and greatly admire & am envious of your optimism .
What offensive philosophy?
It's the offense's place in our overall philosophy that is outdated. Just look at the increase in offense-first teams in the Top 25.
IMO-We need to target Bucky more and ge Deon Newsome in the game more at WR.
We have freshman WRs leading the team and a QB that doesnt have the arm to stretch the field. In that scenario we are gong to hit a wall due to capable depth and predictability. I do believe we still have the framework to be successful in the future with this team. Some of the playcalling is head scratching.
Have we thrown Newsome the ball this year? Maybe he really can't catch. That might be why he was never considered for punt returner (although I doubt he would be better than Stroman).
I point you to last year's Super Bowl. Seahawks O is built on the Power run with Lynch and the WR do enough to move the chains when needed, backed up with a stout defense. Broncos and pass heavy offense fell on their face. I think its more about executing properly rather than if it is the right "philosophy". Fricking GT wins with their 60 year old philosophy, but only if they execute it perfectly.
Because we have NFL level talent at every position on offense, with NFL talented depth???
As for the GT comparison, we are only a difference of 1 loss between the two schools but is that really something to emulate? Since PJ has been HC at GT, how many times has he won the ACC? Once. I get the point you're making, but notice that GT can't win as many games as we are all clamoring for as fans. Heck, I think PJ has only had season with 10 or more wins. Could be wrong.
According to the ACC, Paul Johnson's team has never won the conference.
But 2009, he got 10 wins (11 if you count the vacated one) and to the Orange Bowl. Only time for both.
I was interested so I looked it up on Wiki as well.
Since PJ has joined he ACC, he's won the Coastal as many times as we have, and has one fewer conference championship (technically two fewer, as you state).
What's also interesting is that even in his good years, he rarely has put up 10+ win seasons there. The converse of that is that he's never finished worse than 3rd in the divsion (we finished 4th in 2012).
I don't think so but under stiney it was. I think Lefty is doing a lot but sometime you just want to be simple and set in I-formation and smash it forward. I think we have good plays, we don't execute very well. Brewer also doesn't step up in the pocket and run for 6-7 yards when plays break down. we just need everyone to step it up.
games are won and lost in the trenches... our o-line has been bad for several years now. Building it is a lengthy process and we will continue to see growing pains for the offense until the o-line is rebuilt. It takes time. Be patient.
There is also another issue with Quick hit plays, if our QB isn't sharp, you're looking at a pick-six. I look at a few WR screens and quick-hits we had to the wide field and some of those were dangerous. With I.Forf and Phillips, I like the 10-15 yards plays to move us down the field. Under Stiney we we would throw for 3-7 yards or 20+ yards. I feels this is a little more consistent. I feel that we can do a lot more with an improved offenssive line. I hope we get better in the OL department. This has been a long running curse for us. QB recruiting needs to improve too, we're not able to get a 4 star qb while FSU is taking 2-3 guys every other year who are 4 star guys. we definitely need to improve in recruiting on offense. On Defense I see bud going after a mix of players including 3-stars, 4-stars and his schemes can allow for multiple players to fit in.
We got 2 last year. Ford and Durkin.
depending on who you ask they are rated 3-stars. 247 sports is not very accurate, I prefer ESPN or Rivals rankings. However, Since These guys are recruited directly by lefty, there is hope that both guys can be that guy that Lefty is looking for. On the other hand, Lefty has been going hard after some guys recently, we got one in the 2016 class. I miss Tyrod.
Same
Nothing says one site is more accurate than another. The thing about the evaluations is they aren't scientific at all. They are purely opinions. Regardless, a team should shoot to sign a 4-star QB every season. The only exception is when you sign a 5-star, you can afford to sign a 3 star the following year as long as you get back on track. The fact that we are fighting for top athletes at several positions are positive signs, but QB is where it starts. It's reasonable to assume our staff has recognized that which is why they put themselves in a position to have talent at the position at all times.
We need an OC who isn't hitting "Ask Madden" on every play.
Rumor has it that Loeffler is going with this offense for the Miami game...
this works better at a high school level where they don't have the kickers to KO deep and make the average starting field position the 25. With our defense and poor offense we should be going for it on 4th down more often. we clearly need 4 chances to get 10 yards to most teams 3 chance.
So one constant I'm seeing throughout this thread is that we just need our OL to get better and that will cure all our ills. So let me rephrase the question...
Is our current offensive philosophy putting us in the best chance to win every week?
Yes, I completely agree that with a better OL we are a better team. But the problem is, we haven't had a good OL in a decade or more and we don't look to be having a good one for at least a couple more years. So why are we still running an offense that requires a dominant performance within the trenches to have success? Even teams like Stanford and Wisconsin and the Seahawks struggle when their OL isn't overpowering the defense, and here we are running a similar style with a vastly inferior line expecting success. Why have we never adjusted?
The best coaches adjust to what's best for the players they have. Not every high powered offense is anchored by a great OL. There are many out there that specifically scheme to take the pressure off their OL because they know they can't rely on winning battles in the trenches. They spread the field and put pressure on the corners and safeties to make plays on 1 on 1 coverage which eventually opens up the line as the linebackers shift out to assist, which naturally opens up running lanes.
But we don't do this. We run an offense that requires our historically worst unit to dominate and I just don't see this as a recipe for success. So my question is, into our second offensive coaching staff, why are we not adjusting to do something that helps negate our weaknesses and starts to play to our strengths. Our OL is our weakness and will continue to be a weakness yet we are consistently putting the success on their shoulders and then blame execution when we inevitably fail.
Shouldn't we be trying to scheme to better put ourselves in a situation to win than that?
I don't think we have the personnel to go spread or simply do quick-outs. On the Spread, we need a combination of different types of receivers, we have two legit (who are freshmen) and a converted-QB into Tight end Bucky. Look at any spread team, see the variety of receivers and experience they have. Look at Texas Tech for example, their receivers are all doing something different including good blocking and timing is everything. Also, the more quick-outs you have, the more chances you take in getting intercepted. The defenses are sophisticated too, most have seen the spread look for while now and are mixing in Zone looks that can cause havoc for a QB. They do work for a little while but they don't have long term success. My bigger issue is the play-calling by lefty, I mean Thursday was the perfect opportunity for jet-sweeps, using Caled for Zone-read-Jet sweep option, Using bucky's size down the middle, play-action passes. I have no clue why we ran some of the plays and using JC up the middle is a disaster. Why not let JC run out of the back and catch one? I'm puzzled by the play-calling.
We have the personnel to better run the spread right now than we do to run this Pro-Style that we've been failing at for the better part of 10 years now.
Our strengths are at WR and TE, and our massive weakness is at OL. We should be using our strengths to our advantage, and getting the ball in the hands of our mismatches as early and often as we can during games. Force the defense to tackle our best players in the best positions where one broken tackle is a big play. And once the defense adjusts with LB help, then run up the gut during plays where you're only asking the OL to open up a hole with a 4 man rush.
Its time to take the pressure off our weakness. Good coaches don't stick with one scheme and try to fit a round peg into a triangular hole, they adjust to what their personnel can run and put themselves in the best chances to succeed. We don't do this, and haven't done it since the 90s.
The O'Cainspring offense was pro-style? I must have missed that.
Yes, our philosophy has been to run a Pro-Style, even to the beginning of the Stiney days. Its the style that Frank wants us to run.
Run the ball three times up the middle and then punt isn't pro-style. Route trees that consist of "get open" isn't pro-style. I'm sorry, I just don't see how we ran a pro-style offense before Loeffler came here.
http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-04-21/sports/dp-spt-virginia-tech-spring-football-0422-20120421_1_bryan-stinespring-logan-thomas-virginia-tech
I think the point is that Stinespring coached a pro-style scheme but never executed a pro-style offense. So you are both right.
Without a good O-line, the offense will continue to flounder. And if you ask me, Brewer has something more fundamental going wrong. He doesn't look like the same guy that trotted out against anOSU. Not sure what it is, but his passes don't have much zip and mainly float more than anything else. I think he's playing hurt.
As for the running game, not sure if it makes a difference or not, but it seems to me it takes our RB's a very long time to get the handoff, and then get heading up field. I remember Lee Suggs used to get the handoff and then it seemed he was back to the LOS and through the hole really quick. Even on runs to the outside, he'd get the ball and then pretty much turn on the jets. He knew where he was going before he got the ball. I think most of the RB's that VT has had be real successful somehow were able to get going faster than the D could react.
These days, they take forever to hand the ball off, then they seem to looking trying to figure out where to run, and by the time they have any idea, the defenders are closing in on them.
Regardless of philosophy, I'd like to see VT's offense execute their plays faster. Most plays seem to take a long time to develop. And I understand they are trying to use misdirection, deception, etc. and takes an extra second to set that up while running a play. But why not sometimes not worry about it and just hustle faster than the D you're facing? Maybe I'm just not football IQ'd high enough and don't understand, but the VT offense always looks like it's in slow motion to me.
I can't remember what play it was, but there was a pass play where I was thinking this exact thing about playing faster. The defender was able to tackle the receiver for a short loss, when if the ball had been thrown the receiver's way immediately, it would have been at least a first down. That split second cost the block and the defender was able to go beyond where he SHOULD have been blocked to make the play on the ball.
It was one of those things like I see Manning and his receivers do at times. Manning will read the coverage, make the signal, and then snap/pass, and boom 3/4 yards or more, easy.
didn't we do this last year with Logan? An offense built around the only serious weapon we had.
Although I sparred with Duffman on the other post, one thing he and I definitely agree on is that we should define who we are and run that. I think if you keep tailoring an offense to your weakest link then you never really have an offensive identity. You're just covering your ass. I want to see Lefty win or fail with 1 offense, not one every year.
Beamer's Offensive gameplan is 30+ years in the making. At one point, early - Mid 2000's, the Oline was not a weakness but a strength.
Remember why Cam P, and I Ford are on the field? Because guys like Knowles weren't getting the job done. You wanna go five wide? Fine, but just remember that three of those guys will be freshman (Ford, Cam, Bucky) and Willie and Knowles. Only one injury is allowed because who do you play after J Stanford? The problem is not philosophy as much as it is recruiting depth. O line and skill positions. Both are turning around, but it still takes time.
Look at Clemson. Same Chad Morris, but they could not stand the loss of Hopkins, Sammy, Tajh, Ellington, etc. It shows now, even though they have 2 losses, they needed to break in some of the new talent.
VT just has to get its freshman up to speed, and improve on the O Line. Not change the strategy that built the program. In the PITT game, the final drive saw the freshmen make plays, Brewer get into a groove, and a TD scored. If anything Loeffler needs to quit outhinking himself.
Which is the greatest problem. Playcalling. Everyone knew that PITT did not play good Pass D. What did the Hokies Do? Pass the ball downfield, negative. Setup Bucky or Malleck in the Seam? Nope. Short passes. That's what needs to change.
Loeffler and Stiney as well, both outsmarted themselves to the detriment of the team.
Their pass D wasn't good but we didn't hit deep and they played too good D to get open in the medium passes.
If he'd done that, you'd be screaming about INT.
That left short passes because that's what the D gave him.
Don't assume. Actually, I would not have complained about the INT, because a 50 yard INT is as good as a AJ punt. If we had even shown that VT was willing to take a deep shot, maybe the defense backs off... Plus, when we did push the ball downfield, Bucky had an all-American grab. One of the longest pass plays of the year.
We had receivers covered against ECU, Carden still threw the ball up to his playmakers and guess what his playmakers did? Made plays! Give our playmakers a chance.
Is one "Pump and Go" route too much to ask?
According to my wife, yes. Giggidy.
Well played.
Ah, it was the royal you, not you specifically.
No worries. I misunderstood as well.
I mean I hate to say it but could anyone sit and watch the film of brewer throwing a deep ball? He's really inconsistent and rarely connects on them. Maybe we don't use the vertical passing game because we can't connect often and shit if I can recognise that don't you think defensive coordinators are licking their chops? I hate to throw a player under the bus or a coach but I don't think the scheme is the issue I want to give loeffler a few more years before we wanna throw him out.
I don't scheme is the issue, I think lack of experienced playmakers coupled with questionable playcalling strategies and no Oline depth is the problem.
The only criticism I can make of the offensive strategy, not being any kind of expert, is that we do not throw the ball to Bucky Hodges around the goal line. The play calling seems to just use him as a decoy down there, and he's not going to get better at winning jump balls by never trying it in games. Also, Brewer is plain lousy at the deep ball,
rarelynever giving his receivers a chance to make a play.Since throwing those three picks against GT, Brewer has looked extremely tentative and has been basically ineffective. I thought he played a worse game against UNC than GT, the effects just weren't as substantial. He finally started coming back into form during the 4th quarter at Pitt. The offense will start to look better as he continues to get his swagger back, and I can't think of a better place to get back confidence than Thursday night in Lane.
I think it's execution. I don't understand how the OL can't get the blocking techniques that French highlights. I don't get how the RBs can't fall forward for even 3 yards most times. I'm not a fan of running out of the shotgun, it doesn't seem like we do well with that. I don't understand how the QB can't hit the receivers in stride - especially on wide open plays (bucky down the sideline, Ford down the sideline just in the last game). If we hit those we score both times - instead it's a diving catch and I think incompletion, respectively.
And for f's sake, can we line up in a legal formation and remember the snap count?! Have the lineman go up to the line and hold the appropriate number of fingers in front of their face to represent the snap count. It's not like the cadence is drawing offsides penalties. The only offsides against Pitt was because the DE knew the count so well he jumped too soon.
I get frustrated watching other schools with varying degrees of talent make plays that at least to my perception, we botch a lot more often than not.
I think that right now there really isn't an over arching philosophy right now. You could say that the Frank Beamer philosophy of running the ball and milking the clock isn't being followed right now as the run game hasn't been there. With the game still close in the first half VT only ran the ball 9 times.
It's a young squad and we do have a young OC that had 1 good year at Temple and then a fireable year at Auburn before a triple digit ranked offense at VT last year. I understand that there are still things that need to be built up on the offensive talent.
The offense is possibly serviceable for the rest of the teams that are left on the schedule. Fortunately the ACC coastal is the worst division in Power 5 football.
The offense has moved from triple ranked to in the mid 60's this year. That is a huge improvement in yards per game and points per game.
We need to give the man until the end of the season for at least any type of objective review.
Over the next 6 games what I want to see out of Loeffler is that he stops trying to outsmart himself and that there becomes an established offensive identity. I'm losing a lot of faith in Loeffler with execution problems occurring. He had similar criticism from his Auburn as that there was way too much going on with the offense that players had problems executing.
After last night I'm more convinced than ever that our offensive scheme is completely and utterly outdated. We are too slow to adjust to what defenses give us and we are so stubborn with trying to make what we want to make work that we wait until its too late in the game to change things to put ourselves in a position to win.
Case in point, we were down 24-0 in the second half last night, and we're trying to methodically run the ball down the field, even after our RBs had coughed up the ball a couple times. That was insanity personified. That was not the time to continue trying to establish the run, that was the time where we needed to start pressing and force the ball downfield. But we didn't do that. Even when we started to pass, every other play was a screen, which did absolutely nothing to help us out. We made a truly horrific Miami defense look world beating. There will be worse games this year, but in terms of our offense, until we inevitably get shut out against a legitimate good defense (don't look now, but that UVa game appears to be a prime opportunity for this to happen) we have just hit rock bottom.
And the worst part in all of this... For all the things that we were supposedly going to change when Loeffler took over, and how we were going to be this team that would confuse defenses and lean on the TEs to move the ball down the field, as this season has progressed, we've seen the offense regress back to where it was under Stiney. Predictable playcalling that continues to run itself into a wall hoping things will change as a game progresses. Most plays are run to or behind the LOS and our chances downfield rely on the WR making something happen instead of running a good route. At this point, I don't know if I can blame Loeffler for that. Something about our offense fundamentally changed when there was that heated discussion at halftime of the WMU game, and we just haven't really been able to move the ball since. I don't know if the OC playcalling got undermined by everyone else, but before that time, we were able to move the ball down the field through the air, and since that game, we haven't even really tried to do that anymore.
That was when Frank clamped down on Loeffler, whether directly or through intermediaries - aka his son or Stinespring. I sat there and watched us in the overwhelming bulk of the second half, doing our decades old tradition of running the play clock down well under ten seconds before snapping the ball. We were down by 24 or more points the entire time. There's a cognitive dissonance there that causes Beamer to not realize he is hurting his own offensive efforts by relying on that outdated mindset. It's unfortunate, but it will not change, period.
I kind of agree with that. It definitely seems as if Beamer has put the clamps down on the playcalling and has essentially taken the gameplanning out of Loeffler's hands.
Before the WMU game, we had an offense that, while Brewer was turning the ball over with errant throws, we were effectively moving the ball down the field. We had very good passing plays drawn up that were specifically designed to get guys open, and it was working. We were struggling to get points, and to consistently execute plays, but there was promise and hope and you could see the kind of offense that we could have peek through at times.
Now? We're the same old Virginia Tech that got Stiney demoted. Most of the plays are runs, and when we do pass, a vast majority are WR screens. We deliberately slow the game down to eat clock. We try to establish the run over the entire game, even after it becomes very clear that doing so is a waste of time and energy. This is not the Scott Loeffler offense we saw over the first couple games this year, certainly not the one we saw against Ohio State.
Something happened in that Western Michigan game, and we haven't seen the opened up playbook since. That saddens me, because it was starting to work. Now? We're a befuddled mess running an identity-less offense, the likes of which we ran over the past 5 years prior to the new coaches being hired. I am not willing to blame Loeffler for this mess, because I really don't think he's the one calling the shots anymore.
I disagree about the point re: establishing the run when we were down 24-0.
Three consecutive drives, all during the third quarter, were ended by fumbles. Two of those drives ended in the red zone, the other lasted only one play, which gained a first down before the fumble. Those three drives made up 125 of our 260 total yards.
Table from ESPN
I know I'm playing the woulda/coulda/shoulda game here, but let's play a little. Our red zone efficiency is 88th in the country at 80%. 4 out of 5 times we get into the red zone, we score.
I'm going to assume both times we got into the red zone, we would have scored, but let's say one was going to be a field goal and one was going to be a td. On the drive where we only got to the 32 before fumbling, I'm going to say that drive would have ended with a made field goal, so I'm estimating a total of 13 points would have come from those drives, but as many as 21 could have come from those drives.
Assuming all the other drives were the same (which is impossible, but what the hell), and that we didn't allow Miami to score in the third quarter, this means we would have gotten the ball back in the fourth with about 11 minutes remaining down to Miami between 3 and 11 points. Down by 3 in the fourth with the ball isn't a terrible place to be. Down by 11 isn't great, but it isn't out of reach.
TL;DR: Running the ball in the third was fine, and if we hadn't fumbled the game could have been in reach in the fourth quarter.
That assumes a whole lot of best case scenarios all coming true for us, while worst case scenarios all came through for the opponent. Much like the 'We were only X number of plays away from winning', it doesn't function that well, except on fan tinged paper. I just find those contrived scenarios distasteful. Especially after watching the entire game and seeing it reinforced throughout the game that we were never even close to being in the game.
No one is saying 'we were only x number of plays away'. I find these scenarios speak precisely to the point that I am making here, and in other threads. The criticism of the playcalling in the third quarter, when we recommitted to the run, wasn't a bad decision, and in my opinion was a good decision, maybe even the right decision.
I didn't make all the best case scenarios come true for us, I suggested a TD and two field goals. The worst case scenario for Miami would have been worse, I suggested they have the same results they actually produced (zero points in the 3rd quarter).
This wasn't a post trying to prove that we would have won if it weren't for fumbles. It was a post geared toward dispelling the opinion that running the ball in the third quarter wasn't a bad decision, which many have tried to claim it was.
I think the fact we were running an uptempo offense was as much of a factor in the (anticipated) success of those drives, as was the fact we ran more rushing plays. The announcers even commented on the change of tempo catching Miami off guard. The plays were vertical, when we had been going horizontal with both our rushing & passing plays. That is another factor. I don't think it was just that they were rushing plays.
I agree, the running plays might have felt out of place down 24 points, but we were moving the ball well while running. The hurry up the line and run the same play again and again had Miami our of position of defense from the speed of the offense. The fumbles just put us in a worse place as time ran out, but our second half run offense was working.
These guys think our offense is revolutionary
The forward pass had to evolve through the sideways pass!