Usually at the end of the season the coaches will sit down with the AD and/or Frank and discuss how they've done. Kind of like with most jobs, just a job reviewal to see where their career is heading. I'm interested in how those are going to go this year. Frank will not get fired, regardless of what you think about whether or not he should it's obvious by his extension that Whit has faith in him. Bud isn't going anywhere, not that anyone is suggesting he will. Loeffler's will be interesting.
This is his first full offseason with Whit as the AD and I'm not sure how you sit down and tell Whit that you think this is heading in the right direction. What's the argument? You essentially just embarrassed yourself and your starting quarterback on national TV coupled with a lack of offense over the course of the entire season save 1 or 2 games. He has to go, there's no way around it. There are better coordinators out there, settling for Loeffler because we want to believe we didn't make a mistake by buying into him 2 years ago is bad for the future of the program.
And people who are going to say "He needs 4 years to fix our recruiting problems." Just stop it, right now. You're just being completely blinded by your VT bias. Maybe the offense isn't supposed to be perfect without "his guys" but damn, what I've seen this year is probably the worst thing I've ever seen VT put on the football field since becoming nationally relevant. Auburn took a bad offense and became great in 1 year. You're trying to tell me it's a talent problem? Well Duke, Indiana, Maryland, and VIRGINIA are averaging more points per game than us, and it's not basketball season yet.
As for last night, when you're down 24-0 in the 2nd half and your game plan is to come out and run the ball then Michael Brewer shouldn't be your starting quarterback. End of story. If you're down that big and you can't trust your quarterback even a little bit then there's no way he should be starting. How are those guys supposed to follow him as their leader every week and trust him every week if you as the coach just showed everyone on national TV that you don't trust him in that spot?
And a bonus section just because I firmly believe it. We will lose to UVA this year. They're better than us, and it's not really that close. If that doesn't piss you off then I don't know what will.
Comments
Agree, but would not absolve the head whistle of some responsibility in this mess .
As mentioned above, Frank was central in the hire, so his decision also calls for accountability. Lest we forget, at the time, there was discussion of how Frank/Weaver saved money by hiring a guy who was still on contract from Auburn. At the time, I talked about how that was a factor in Weaver's mind, if not Beamer's.
The key with Frank is always - will you bend to his mindset of a conservative, play clock killing, run based offense above & beyond everything else? Unemployed guys will do pretty much anything to get back in the game. So we have Loeffler, who claimed he was amenable to Frank's figurative hand on his shoulder during play calling.
So what do we have? Stinespring sitting at Loeffler's elbow during every game. Shane demanding more carries for his RBs early this season. An overt move back to clock killing and far far away from up tempo offense, even when it works - as proven in the Miami game.
What's the point of all this? The point is - Nobody with any will in a modern offensive strategy will get hired by Frank Beamer. The only person who he might hire is lower quality, and disengaged from contemporary offensive thought. Why? Who with any future potential would want to work for a head coach that could retire any season now, but certainly won't be around longer than four seasons? Under the rosiest of scenarios, you'd barely get to see ONE recruiting class graduate. That's the C-minus group of OC's that you'll get to pick from.
So any calls for firing Loeffler need to understand that if that DID occur, we'd almost certainly end up with a Stinespring-level OC as a replacement. Nobody with a functioning cerebellum wants that.
One of my greatest fears is that even after he retires & will be given a lifetime position in the athletic department is that we will never be free of this offensive philosophy. As a head coach I would not want an ex coach looking over my shoulder.
I believe that is just one of the many factors that assisted Jimbo Fisher in righting the ship from Bowden's twilight years. He (Bobby) left the program alone after the messy divorce from FSU and did not say anything publicly for one-two years. He said all the right things and would not comment on his replacement. When CFB retires, either gracefully or not, I hope he follows Bobby Bowden's example.
The last contract extension that Jim Weaver signed Beamer to held the following clause - whenever Frank either retires or is relieved of his duties as head coach, he has a guaranteed position as Assistant to the AD for a total of eight years at a guaranteed $250K annually.
Frank's fingerprints could be on this program for quite a while after he retires, if he chooses. Bowden had no such arrangement. When he was out, he was out. The extension that Whit signed with Frank can not alter that 'post retirement' package.
Everything is negotiable... he can relinquish that clause if he wants. As long as he doesn't have any prescribed duties or portions of the job he is responsible for and can control... does it really matter? Just another whisperer in the ear of the AD. Whit is sharp enough to hear it for what its worth.
Then again that heavily depends on the personality of the new coach and their ego. Especially if it's a younger coach. A strong-minded coach would just tune that out.
I'm not going to defend Loeffler--I've thought for a while that we have the talent to be at least be a top-50 offense, regardless of scheme. He's clearly underperformed. But I will say I don't hate his decision to come out running in the second half. It worked. I know we're all tired of hearing and talking about "ifs", but if Williams doesn't fumble the ball on the goal line, it's a 17 point game with over 25 minutes to play and we would've had some momentum. Again, I don't have a ton of confidence in Loeffler, but I can't blame him for the fumbles. As for whether or not he should keep his job, I'll defer to Whit.
Here's a good litmus test... If it wouldn't concern you to see a particular member of our coaching staff join UVA's staff, we should probably move on.
If Frank Beamer became UVAs head coach tomorrow, what would you think?
That there must be a heckuva snowball fight going on in hell?
TEASE FOR MY PREVIEW- Can't blame Loeffler for blockers getting beaten at the point of attack. Can't blame Loeffler for a wide receiver grabbing a hold on a DB for no reason on a screen. Can't blame Loeffler for a QB not seeing a wide open crossing route or missing a wide open corner route. Can't blame Loeffler for an offensive tackle not blocking his rule on a 3rd and 1.
You can blame Loeffler for not stretching the defense with Hodges while using his quick athletic receivers on screens and underneath routes. You can blame Loeffler for continuing to play Brewer if he is hurt or repeatedly ineffective. You can blame Loeffler for not sticking with something that works, or over-complicating the system which results in pre-snap penalties (which wasn't an issue versus Miami.) You can blame Loeffler for having an offense where the passing game doesn't compliment the running game and vice versa like it did last year (and it did.)
I don't know what the next step is. I do know that something isn't right, but what I saw after watching the film was that Miami was physically superior at every position, and the right team won. I don't know if Bill Walsh, Paul Brown, or Vince Lombardi could have designed a game plan that would have beaten Miami with the Hokies personnel on Thursday.
I would have just wanted a game plan that gave us more excuses to set off fireworks.
Does this say more about VT or Miami? Are our shortcomings that glaring, or is their talent that great? Or was it more an issue of match ups?
Talent is on the upswing, but there are still a bunch of gaps to fill. DL size and depth is an issue. Linebackers that can fit is still an issue. OL depth is an issue. Need a big bodied receiver. And Ford/Durkin or whoever the next guy is needs to be able to throw the slants, posts, etc.
Honestly, I'd like to see Hodges used as a full time WR. That would be one major change I would make. Any time he is inside banging away on anyone is a waste.
Agree on your Bucky suggestion...he is a matchup nightmare at TE...imagine how he would be as a WR only?
Mike Evans and Vincent Jackson are both 6'5" and 230 lbs. Bucky is similar size and talent.
You would think with Bucky, Isiah Ford, Cam Phillips, and Stanford, that we could be going more vertical and attacking down the field a little more. You are right, we don't seem to throw slants or underneath stuff either...seems like only screens and 3 yard outs.
I think Beamer needs to fire Loeffler and hire French as his OC...
You don't want me as the OC.
Your post-game write ups would be hilarious.
Can you imagine the quotes from the post-game interviews?
"Our O-line was softer than a corndog left out in the rain."
"No more questions, it's pie time."
I needed that laugh...Thanks!
"You don't want me as the OC."
You're not the OC Blacksburg wants, you're the OC Blacksburg deserves.
After Thursday night, I think I do.
I am both really looking forward to, and simultaneously dreading, your film review. I need to make sense of what I witnessed last Thursday.
Does that mean you're saying, via the transitive property, that Miami is physically superior to Ohio State at every position?
Loeffler is responsible for the offense, right? Can I blame him for it regressing throughout the season and being completely ineffective?
I assume you mean you can't blame Loeffler's play calling for those mistakes, and I certainly agree. But is Loeffler still trying to run an offense that is too complicated for the players to execute at a high level? If he simplified the game plan would it increase the likelihood that the players would execute better? If blockers are getting to the line and trying to remember which variation of which play they're supposed to run, then Loeffler is partly responsible for blockers getting beaten at the point of attack. Wouldn't better execution of a simpler game plan result in more points?
In previous games, you can make that argument. The game plan against Miami was as straight ahead-no frills as you can get. Especially in the running game.
We're playing a true freshman tailback, two true freshman wide receivers, a true freshman tight end and a redshirt freshman offensive lineman. We're also playing a transfer QB who didn't go through spring practices.
I'm not making excuses for Lefty but you really need to consider the amount of youth we have offense. UVA is a good example: they played a ton of young guys last year, went 2-8 and then are significantly better this year after a full spring practice, summer training and fall camp.
When Lefty comes back next season, we're going to be a significantly better on offense.
Ryan Malleck is a junior. Willie Byrn is a senior. Most of our offensive line is upper classmen. Michael Brewer is a junior. There are 11 players on a football field at a time. These performances we see each week are not because of our "freshman"
Ryan Malleck didn't even play football last year. Byrn is fourth in receiving yards this year. Most of our o-line are Newsome recruits...c'mon man get a little perspective. We're a young on offense running a highly complicated system...they aren't going to be perfect right away. When we signed lefty, we all knew it was going to take some time for everything to fall into place.
Wasn't Byrne also a walk-on?
If its freshman that we are using as the excuse than lets address that. Why? Why was there such a gap in recruiting?
because the staff got complacent and thought we could get guys to come here just by saying look who we are and what we've done. that drop in recruiting has shown up the last 3 seasons.
That's great and all, but we can make excuses all day long if we want. The group that contained Tyrod when he was a sophomore? had Dyrell Roberts, Jarrett Boykin, and Danny Coale-all freshmen. That group got better as the season went on. This team gets worse every week. Youth is a terrible excuse for lack of production. Not to mention, Miami played a true freshman QB who gets better every time he touches the field. It's one thing to use youth as an excuse when silly mistakes are made here and there. I get that. But when your whole unit consistently stalls and has multiple 3 and outs, there is a much larger problem than just lack of experience.
I don't think your original post deserved three down votes but I guess that type of stuff happens when you have a pissed off fanbase.
As much as people like to bemoan ESPN commentary, Andrea Adelson made a solid point in comparing our 'youth' to that of Miami's. She said Kawaa (sp?) has improved as the year has advanced, and that Miami's other young players have as well. Our young players are certainly talented, but aren't really any better than they were when the season began. Now that seems a little absolutist, but I think she has a point in general. Of our receivers, for example, Bucky & Ford are the stars. But this past game especially, they were almost non-factors. Not their fault, but the fault of the play calling & decisions by Brewer. After eight games, youth is not an acceptable excuse.
Oh I definitely agree. Just in general, I'm tired of all excuses with this football team. Whether it be injuries, youth, you name it. All I desire to see right now is progress. I figured it'd be a rebuilding year to some extent, but not this awful (captain obvious, typical message board guy comment there. No extra charge for that :). I also think the defense played as bad as the offense did last week, but that gets swept under the rug because of how inconsistent our offense is and how consistent our defense typically is. Miami got to do whatever they wanted on offense and executed their gameplan perfectly. We did nothing to stop them. If anything, Miami should feel good about their chances of winning the division going forward.
Also, a thought that came to mind earlier: can we just talk about Ohio State's defense for a second? For a team ranked in the top 15, that defense is very weak. Blows my mind our highest point total this year came against them and WMU. Took them 2OT to beat a Penn State team that's QB is barely better than Brewer. Not trying to puff ourselves up or anything, I was just thinking about that earlier. Just interesting to think about
Penn states quarterback, Christian Hackenberg, is way better then Brewer lets be honest. Hackenberg was a 5 star recruit out of FUMA we probably should have landed. Penn state only does so poorly because they have a porous offensive line and no real run game to speak of.
...so us? Basically if Hackenberg came here we'd be doing the exact same thing as Penn State.
Do you remember that 2008 season (Bokyin and Coale's freshman year)? Look at the stats:
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/virginia-tech/2008.html
That's not any better than the guys we have now.
God I can't wait for the French article to come out, then everyone can be on the same page with what the real problems are.
That 2008 year was a disaster offensively. Only an awesome defense and terrible ACC offenses gave us an ACC championship. As for Miami, the QBs job is a whole lot easier when he doesn't have to really do anything. Dude was 7/16 for 92 yards. Not exactly stellar numbers. That offensive line and Duke Johnson were incredible though. Switch out Miami's OL and the Duke for our OL and Wright, and I'm sure Brewer looks like a superstar.
Perfect??
You see, thats the problem. We are about as far from perfect as you can be.
I do concede that youth and inexperience do hold back an offense, but come on....there is no excuse for the ineptitude we have shown lately. These freshman are talented...other programs have young guys also and do much better.
Do you really want to be comparing our team to UVA?
UVA by the way seems to be tanking again...two losses in a row. They finish up with Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, and the Hokies.
They could lose all of those..or at least 3 of the 4 if they beat us.
Brad Kaaya is a true freshman. More than half of UNC's offense is freshmen/sophmore, yet even they manage to rack up points.
Youth is not an excuse. Ford, Bucky etc. are all great and are much better than their freshman tags show, but they're not being used to their potential due to pathetic playcalling.
Seriously, you have a beast of a TE in Bucky, why oh why would you screen pass it to him instead of making him do big plays?
Youth isn't the problem, and we're not going to be better next year because the players aren't being utilized properly. It doesn't matter how much experience the players have if they don't get to show off their talent, and Loeffler has shown us the past two weeks that he has no idea how to use that talent on offense.
Check that. Loeffler has shown for 3 years and at 2 different programs that he doesn't know how to maximize talent. He was pulling this same crap at Auburn and then tried to blame the players. He has no idea how to win at a P5 program.
We've played 8 games. They're not true freshman anymore. They won in the horseshoe. The fact that the team is regressing is on the coaching staff. Loeffler is responsible for the offense and the offense has looked embarrassing. Period. Part of his job is developing our young talent. Who on offense looks like they've gotten better?
Youth implies that there should be maturation over time. Our offense has gotten worse. I don't think youth is part of it.
The thing is it's not the freshmen who are the problem for the most part. They get blamed but they're the playmakers while the older players are usually the ones responsible for negative plays. Supposedly this team would be better on offense this year because Logan was a bad fit and the players needed time to learn the system. Now we're pushing back the time we should expect the offense to look like something other than Loeffler flinging darts and hoping something works for another year?
Spot on. If it wasn't for the freshman this offense would look even worse.
Ugh, this ruined my day.
Our freshmen are actually doing really well
The play-calling is horrendous. You're down 24-0 and we throw the ball behind the line of scrimmage, something ain't right!!!!
this is literally the most annoying thing to watch during our games
I'm not even close to one that thinks all is sunshine and rainbows with our coaching staff, but it's crazy to act like the team should have come out and just thrown deep balls on every down. You're asking for 3 and outs, sacks, and potentially injuries if you do that. The team still had to maintain balance and what they did coming out of the 2nd half worked. We were inside Miami's 40 the first 3 drives of the second half (twice inside the red zone) with that play-calling. If the guys don't fumble, there's a decent chance we're looking at a 1 score game going into the 4th quarter.
Agree. I actually thought opening drive of the 3rd qtr was a good half time adjustment for the offense. Ran the ball down their throats to the goal line til a fumble derailed things. It was the best success we had up until that point.
Ok, but if you fire him, who do you replace him with?
Maybe Ricky Bustle is available? He knows what Beamer likes.
Statistically......a monkey pulling random plays out of paper bag would have more success
Ha ha ha...that made me laugh for real!!!
Stinespring proved this.
Yeah, if he can get out of his contract with UVA, we should hire him....
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but watch who you associate the term "monkey" with...
I wasn't associating it with anyone....My thought was UVA was picking plays out of a hat, with an actual monkey.
Please don't try and insinuate I was being racist. It was not a Mike London reference.
Mike London only handles the calling of Time Outs...he doesn't call the plays.
I know, I know. My mind just jumped to Howard Cosell's "little monkey" controversy, but it probably didn't warrant a post. Sorry vhokie, got a bit carried away
No worries.
First call: Lincoln Riley. With Carden graduating, it's time for Riley to move on anyway. We used to laugh at offenses like ECU because they passed it on 3rd and 1. We do that now and lack their explosiveness. ECU is 49th in rushing yards per game, 2 spots behind Miami. That's their Achilles heel. 49th.
I've had the same thought percolating in my head, but what kills it is CFB. If the speculation is true that CFB will only tolerate a power running based offense, then why would:
1) CFB hire an OC schooled in the Air-Raid offense
2) Why would Riley come here and get harangued by people who will demand more power running, ball control, kill the clock offense?
Seriously, why is Bryan Stinespring in the booth with the OC??? Can someone please explain this. Thank you.
Oh boy does it kill me to see Stinespring up there. I mentioned it day one of Leofler's regime last year, but didn't want to start anything too soon. I don't get this whole Stinespring henchman thing we can't move away from.
Stiney is the best OC on the staff. Argue it if you want, but he's had more success.
Respectfully disagree with you sir. Bryan Stinespring can coach TEs and is a good recruiter, but he was a fail as an OC.
I believe he was referring statistically. At this point, put Stineys numbers up against Scots.
but then put Stineys players up against Scots and you'll see it really isn't a fair comparison
I didn't say he wasn't a fail, I said he's the best OC on the staff. Total offense rankings (lazy mans stat):
64, 38, 65, 57, 99, 100, 103, 50, 41, 35, 81
Loeffler has had three triple digit years and one in the 40s with Addazio looking over his shoulder.
Stinespring has been in charge of TEs for well over a decade. We have only integrated TEs into our offense in the last two seasons, and only because of Loeffler. So, in the decade-plus that Stinespring was an OC, he never bothered to integrate TEs into his offensive scheme.
Yeah, that's a sign of a promising OC, sure...
you're kidding right? Stinespring used 5 and 6 TE sets all the time. He just called it and OL
/sarc
I see what you did there. Well played...
That's the type of mindset that Frank exhibited for over a decade, which has us in the position we're in currently.
How about Scottie Montgomery? He has to be a hot name right now, but there's no way he'd stay at Duke over moving to VT. A ton of mid-majors have shown good offenses against big time college teams (ECU for example, as I think has been discussed a lot). But I told one of my buddies last year that I love the idea of getting Scottie Montgomery.
Bill Legg of Marshall, 574.9 ypg, 47.4 ppg
Lincoln Riley of ECU, 566.9 ypg, 39.6 ppg
Tyson Helton of Western Kentucky, 547 ypg, 42.2 ppg
Jason Candle of Toledo, 503 ypg, 34 ppg
Alex Wood of Buffalo, 475.9 ypg, 33 ppg
Walt Bell of Arkansas State, 472.6 ypg, 31 ppg
Bryant Vincent of UAB, 477.9 ypg, 37.6 ppg
Buster Faulkner of Middle Tennessee State, 461.5 ypg, 36 ppg
Of these coaches Bill Legg of Marshall and Jason Candle of Toledo really stand out to me as being the most balanced coordinators.
A couple FCS coordinators I would like to look at are:
Joe Conlin of Yale, 601.2 ypg, 46 ppg
Aaron Best of E. Washington, 554.9, 45.3 ppg
Andrew Breiner (who I like the best) of Fordham, 528 ypg, 44 ppg
Don Bailey of Idaho St., 469.7 ypg, 41.7 ppg
Here's a question are all these offenses spread up tempo offenses? Because if they are then I think it's obvious that isn't what Beamer wants and would immediately reject that idea.
EDIT: Also some where below or in a post in another thread the OC that kinda peaked my interest was Bryant Vincent. Full disclosure he is in his very first year at UAB, so there is basically no historical data. But being down here in Alabama anyone that can make any team's offense successful and have them not be Alabama or Auburn is an amazing feat.
UAB is definitely a spread football team:
UAB
Toledo is Spread:
Toledo
WKY is Pro (Mostly Because a Bobby Petrino protege is their coach) on a side note I love their uniforms as a whole in this video:
WKY
Fordham is Spread:
Fordham
E. Washington is Pistol/Spread:
E. Washington
Idaho State is Pistol/Spread:
Idaho State
Bobby Petrino is the coach of Louisville
Good call meant to put protege in there.
I find it humorous how people think all our ills will be cured by simply firing our OC.
What makes you think Frank wants us to run anything but what we're seeing now? This is the same offense we were running under Stiney. The exact same one. This is the offense Frank wants. He'll just blame execution and never realize its the scheme that's holding us back. He's not allowing our coaches to put our team in the best position to win on a game to game and season to season basis. What we are seeing is what we'll have until the day Frank retires. Nothing will change with him in charge, even if there is yet another change.
I believe that Loeffler was given full reigns over the offense up until the second half of the WMU game. From that point forward, it became clear to Beamer that Loeffler's game plan is 'subpar', to put it nicely. However, the most alarming trend is that no one appears to be teaching the offense, as a whole, to execute. Instead, we continually regress over the course of the season under Loeffler, and then all the Loeffler apologists come out and inexplicably blame anyone but the OC as to why this is occurring. Just like how Bud says that the defense he puts out on the field is "his product", the same should be said for the offense and Loeffler.
I feel like Beamer has already realized that the hiring of Loeffler was a mistake, but I don't see him pushing for change in the near future. First of all, Beamer a) self-admittably hates change, and b) will not do anything to suggest that he has made a mistake (unless enough pressure is put on him to do so). He kept the grossly under-performing previous offensive staff for way too long before he finally fired/demoted them. Now, I expect Loeffler, with his hugely under-performing offense, to be retained for anywhere between 2 to 8 years too long. Meanwhile, if history repeats itself, our defense will win us some games as justification to keep Loeffler on staff. All the while, Loeffler apologists will keep on using injuries and lack of talent as excuses as why our offense is literally one of the worst in the nation, and at the same time, praise him for being a great offensive coordinator, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Yes, our old offense was bad, but the differece was that we were winning. It's harder to make a case for change when you're still in a ten game winning streak, than to make a case for change when you don't make a bowl for the first time.
I'll play along.
So beamer thought this offense that was moving the ball well and putting up yards was "sub par to put it nicely" and mandated that Loeffler change everthing up to suit the type of play he wanted resulting in what we have now, and somehow this is Loeffler's fault it isn't working?
Huh?
Loeffler was given 3 games to show an offense that could work. 3. In those three games we beat the #8 team in the country on the road but at the first sign of struggle, with a ridiculously young offense still trying to learn the ropes, you're saying Beamer completely undermined the offensive coaching of his OC forcing a change in philosophy from the offense he was brought in to run and Loeffler is to blame for this?
Are you serious?
In your scenario, acts like that are more than enough to ask for the dismissal of the head coach. If this is the offense he wants to see and want as to run and forces coaches to implement at the first sign of trouble this is not a coach you want running your program anymore.
And another thing, lay off the attempts to label people in here. The whole "Loeffler apologist" thing is a divisive way of trying to cause a split of the community in here and a way of trying to show your opinion is more valuable than someone else's because you're trying to say your opinion is somehow more rational than others. It turns the focus from the discussion at hand to the people involved and we don't need that in here. Thanks.
How are there three downvotes for this?
I will venture a guess that people do not like the tone of a reply like this. Delete a few lines and it's a perfectly reasonable reply. But saying "I'll play along" (reads as "this is dumb, but I'll reply anyway"), and interjections like "are you serious?" lead to a condescending tone that is not warranted. Does that deserve a downvote? Maybe. Certainly not enough for me to do anything, but there's been a lot of back-and-forth among people where the tone is, shall we say, less than respectful.
The last paragraph is spot-on, though, so kudos Alum for saying it. I'm sick of people being lumped into "apologist" camps. It's just as bad as arguments over "real fans" and crap like that. We're a diverse community; we (clearly) don't all agree. Some of us take very nuanced views on things that don't neatly fit into someone else's perceived ideology.
Some people downvote more willingly than others. In the end does it really matter? Sometimes people on this site are a little too sensitive to them.
Yes, it matters. Without getting on too much of a soapbox, there are expectations of behavior on the site, from both the standpoint of posting and the standpoint of voting. Voting is an indication of good contribution or inappropriateness, not agree/disagree. Content that is inappropriately downvoted and left alone may contribute to a degradation of the community as more people start treating comments like Reddit posts or YouTube videos and the status quo is to misuse the system. It's not a "dislike" button, unless the reason is "I dislike the content of this post because it is inappropriate." Voting is a self-governing system for the protection of the community. People indeed shouldn't get caught up unnecessarily in their Turkey Leg count (not like it's something on my CV), but at this point in time, since Joe changed the way the count works, the score is a sign of status within the community in terms of longevity, quality posting, or both. No longer can people offset or even drown out negative behavior by frequently posting. Your score is now your level of positive engagement in the community.
I will also sometimes point out inappropriate downvoting. I can't keep up with every instance of it, especially on threads during/after losses, where it is pretty frequent, but occasionally pointing out misuse of the system is, in the end, a net benefit to the community.
The issue is that only incorrect downvoting is keyed upon.
If you truly believe that people are not upvoting because they simply agree with something, you're kidding yourself. Need an example? When Hokieknightfx or whatever his name was would post, he would get downvoted, yes. But the people he was arguing with would be constantly upvoted. Why? Because people agreed with them. Not because what they were doing was adding any sort of quality or insightfulness to the page.
That's why there are many people, including myself, who care less and less about the whole system. Because as it stands right now, the amount of Turkey legs one has really has nothing to do with quality of posts, but rather, more to do with posting ridiculous amounts about generally accepted opinions or trends.
The trouble with your example is that a troll thread is inherently detrimental to the community, so yes, there is probably some reflexive upvoting as a way to say "please make it stop" without drawing the attention and harassment of the troll. But if you think about the exchanges in those threads, it was usually people emphasizing or asking for better behavior, not stuff like, "you're an idiot so shut up," which would in itself be downvote-worthy. Upvoting reminders of expected behavior can have meaning.
I'm not claiming that the voting system is perfect. I'm not saying people don't reflexively upvote a lot of stuff. You can probably post "I like Frank Beamer" and have +5 within 10 minutes, which is pretty much equivalent to that aunt that you're friends with on Facebook liking everything you post. But how does one define an "inappropriate" upvote? There are clear parameters for what is considered scorn-worthy content on the site. That's defined in the Guidelines. Everything else is subjective, hence why you don't see anyone going around saying, "Really? THIS gets an upvote?"
Whatever the situation, people need to know that Joe does monitor people's voting habits, and those who abuse the system are reminded of what is expected of them, and if they fail to do so, are removed from the community. I am hoping that posts like mine that encourage better behavior keep the community mindful of those expectations so the banhammer does not have to fall.
I like Frank Beamer...
I'm sorry I had to up vote this. Because I'm just naughty like that I guess
I think the wording Guitarman used was a little incorrect IMO. The rules established by Joe clearly states to "upvote a lot more than downvote" be it good content, clever response, awesome gif, or whatever if the content of the post is something you find adds to the pleasure of enjoying TKP then give it a leg. It's fairly inherent that you agree with what you upvote, so that's not really the metric on deciding to upvote. Neither is it the metric on downvoting which should be about offensive/inappropriate content and not opinion. The rules applied to the bevy of things worthy of upvoting does not need to be equal to the myriad of things you downvote. So that shouldn't mean turkey legs are less meaningful
^ Stated better than my post ended up. I shouldn't have added the part about "agree/disagree" in my original post. Too many thoughts at once getting thrown together. Thanks.
Happy to be of assistance
though I shouldn't have said "incorrect", rather that your meaning was misunderstood.
I've seen two sides to Lefty now. The Logan w/ subpar receivers offense and the Brewer with better receivers offense. I really wish we could have had one more year with Logan. There us some reason we aren't going downfield with passes and I don't know exactly why. Is Brewer too short to see the whole field or arm too weak? Or is the playcalling just tentative following a boatload of interceptions? That interview with Whit will be interesting but I think Lefty gets at least one more year.
I really wish we could have had one more year with Logan.
I was just waiting for someone to say this. Though Brewer might be a subpar QB right now, no way we would have beaten OSU with Logan under center. He'd be shaking in his boots before kickoff. He knew how to win conference games, but his decision making was frequently sloppy and erratic, last year in particular. If back-to-back 4 INT games doesn't scream erratic decision making, then what does? Seriously. I liked Logan, but let's move on. If you want to argue Tyrod, I'll listen. But I doubt this team is a whole lot better than 5-3 with Logan.
Disagree that Logan would be "shaking in his boots before kickoff."
Logan carried this offense with little support.
That was my point. We improved this year at wr, te, and rb. I have no doubt that one more year of Logan would have seen much improvement in his play.
Working under Loeffler as a QB instructor would have honed Logan much better. Also, with some RBs & WRs at his disposal, LT wouldn't have had to try to do everything himself. That would have been a huge benefit for him. Loeffler might not be the greatest OC ever, but I think we can all agree he is a good QB coach. Far better than O'Cain.
And sometimes half of the other team's defense, too.
You really believe that? Why would Frank hire a new OC just to tie his hands? Go back and watch a few Auburn games when Loeffler was there. I have and I'm telling you it's the same thing. Erratic play calling, and calling plays that make absolutely no sense in the given situation. The dude is a joke. And I don't want to hear the "he just needs to recruit more players for his system" crap. Even a decent D-1 offensive coordinator could do better than this with as much talent as he has on his offense. You adjust your system to fit your current players until you get the ones you need. That's common sense that apparently Professor Loeffler doesn't possess. But hey, he knows Tom Brady so I guess that's cool.
This is the absolute truth. As long as Frank is running the show this is the offense that we will see. Can you imagine what Urban Meyer would do with Bucky Hodges - bet it wouldn't be move him to tight end.
I only partly blame Loeffler at this point. I am a believer that the root of our problems are still with the OL play. We currently have Teller playing well and our only other player playing decent IMO is Wang. Since McLaughlin switched sides he has regressed. Never been impressed with Gibson and Conte is highly inconsistent and now nicked up.
This has resulted in a poor running attack unless we mix and it up and go hyper speed no huddle. Secondly, opposing secondaries have backed off our WRs. 1. Our OL cannot block them up for longer plays to develop. 2. Our WRs cannot get open 3. They are allowing them the screens and just coming up to make a tackle since we are struggling to break them and 4. Since the turnovers we are afraid to leverage the middle of the field. For point 4, we have seen this for years when we struggle. D's understand this trend thus leading in assisting point #2.
So what is Loeffler to do? He tried speeding it up behind Teller and it worked until we turned the ball over. Otherwise it gets back to poor OL play which I do not have an answer for either. I would try moving McLaughlin back to LT since he played well there last year. I would keep Conte at LG, Wang at Center, move Teller to RT, and play Alston Smith at RG. Even that is still iffy but at least worth a try at finding a right combo on the OL. Secondly, I would attack the seams and middle of the field with Bucky but have him lined up tight so that you force Ds to adjust and possibly get him on a LB. Lastly we should go back to using all of the field for WRs. Just my .02.
I honestly don't know how it works. Do offensive position coaches report to the offensive coordinator or directly to the head coach? If Searels is Loeffler's direct responsibility, then blaming a bad OL doesn't let Loeffler off the hook.
The only thing I have to say is that if he does get fired, Whit will find a way to hire a better coach. He would not have fired James Johnson if he didn't have some names in mind. Whit has already proven himself in that arena, so I wouldn't worry about that.
Whit doesn't do the hiring, Frank does. Technically, Whit has to sign off on any hire, but his function is to determine the salary offer, essentially. Frank chooses the person, just as Frank chose Loeffler, Grimes, Moorehead, & Searels.
I am well aware of that fact. Whit will at least reach deeper into the athletic department pockets and I guarantee that he gives more input this go-around.
scot loeffler should be on the sideline like bud foster to bring some energy to the misfiring offense. in all fairness, he hasn't had a full season yet with healthy players.
there is no way in hell UVA is better than VT. VT might lose to them like the hokies did against JMU, but there is no way UVA is suddenly better than TECH,
I think getting him down on the sideline is a good idea.
Doesn't appear as if it would hurt.
It looks as if some individual coaching could help and perhaps adjustments could be made faster. I think maybe it's part of the reason our big adjustments are made at the half, the OC is in the box, not the sideline.
Does that mean that Stinespring will still be stationed at his elbow, monitoring his every move? Because I see that as more of a distraction than Loeffler being in the booth. Stinespring was in the booth when playcalling a few years ago, and no one complained. With modern communications, Loeffler doesn't need to make eye contact to get a point across. Many OCs are in the booth. I think removing the wet blanket of Stinespring - aka Beamer's dampening influence - would have as positive of an effect as anything.
Non sequitur alert.
Agree 2000%!
2011: O'cain is made OC from QB coach and Stinespring moves to sidelines. Good year. Yea, we lost the sugar bowl, but we scored points and had good wins.
2012: Suddenly Stinespring is back in the booth and disaster strikes. Logan Thomas regresses and the play calling becomes more "Stinespringish" I'm screaming at the TV to remove Stinespring from booth, but to no avail.
2013: Stinespring is officially removed from OC position. We see slight improvement on the field. Stinespring on sidelines. I think that CFB is finally over Stinespring.
2014: Well Stinespring back in booth. Why God, why? CFB wants more control over offense. Stinespring believes he will be next OC or is in job-training mode. Don't know.
So the million dollar question is, is this really OC Loeffler offense or CFB offense. Because what I'm seeing these past two games are eerily similar to the offense under OC Stinespring.
Very interesting...
I've never looked that far into it, but that's interesting. I'm not doubting you, I just want to see some evidence that those were the years he was in fact in the booth. I've never payed close enough attention to those kinds of things to know for sure.
Correlation is not causation.
After 2011, we lost a huge amount of talent at the skill positions, so that partly explains the decline.
That said, I would like to know what Stiney's role is in the booth. I've joked about it in other threads, but without knowing more about how the game responsibilities go, it's sort of left to conjecture.
Fair enough, but is it normal for the TE coach to sit in the booth with the OC?
Also think on this, how secure would you be in your job if the guy you replaced, who is nominally your subordinate, is always at your elbow and is a favorite of your boss?
Most teams have some offensive assistant in the booth. The specifics depend on the team and what their responsibilities are. That's why I think it's premature to try to draw any real conclusions about what's going on. Cornell Brown has been in the booth on behalf of the defense for all our recent losses to teams with mobile QBs, does that mean he should be on the sideline with his unit instead of studying in-game images?
Without knowing who's responsible for what, the second question is un-answerable. We can try to make whatever comparisons we want, but for all we know Loeffler wants Stiney up there with him for whatever reason. The question that naturally follows is: who would you rather have up there? Moorehead, one of our most energetic assistants whose sideline presence is probably very good to have? Searels, who constantly is trying to coach our ineffective O-line in person? Shane? It becomes an unwinnable argument unless you know exactly who is responsible for what.
To me, this is part of a larger theme of fans and media remaining completely in the dark about Beamer and Co.'s decision making. We don't know who is calling the shots or who is accountable when things go wrong, and we get no real insight into game planning, play calling, personnel decisions, or the reasons for continued penalties and other on-field discipline issues. (I'm mainly talking about offense/special teams; Bud does a good job explaining how the defense schemes different teams and identifying what went wrong after a loss.)
I understand the program is entitled to keep certain things behind closed doors, but Beamer seems to have benefited more than most from this insulation. He's never been pressed to answer tough questions, so he has no problem falling back on coach speak and platitudes in response to a loss like Thursday. The lack of transparency is frustrating when things are good; it's infuriating when things are bad.
This is a CFB offense, don't believe anything else. Frank has the final call on the radio. It doesn't matter if Lefty, or Stiney, or Jesus, have the OC title, it all comes down to Frank.
UVA is better than us right now!
We're going to win three of the next four games. My prediction.
LOL, someone downvoted because I didn't predict we'd win all four games. You've got a strong point.
I think we win all 4. (But I didn't down vote you).
We get to see the mettle this team has. I agree that they have it in them and none of those four teams is unbeatable. A few guys step up and we gel, it can happen.
I think we circle the wagons against BC and win by two scores late. Then have two weeks to prepare for a Duke team that we matchup well with. Then beat WF and gain some confidence. UVA may be falling apart by Black Friday but it will be a war. I think we win a low scoring game in the cold.
I'd figure someone downvoted you because they saw it as unrealistic for us to win 3 out of the next 4 rather than a result of you not picking us to win all 4.
Light sarcasm does not translate in text well.
Some guys take no time flat to get an offense cranking through yardage and points. See: Malzahn, Gus
Translation: Gus Malzahn gets the most out of what he has, and then recruits what he wants later.
Some guys take a long time to get an offense going. See: Loeffler, Scott (hopefully)
Translation: Scott Loeffler gets a marginal contribution from the players he has until he recruits what he actually needs to run his offense. Tries to get players to do what he wants them to do instead of taking advantage of what they're good at.
Not sure if Loeffler's success will take until years 3 and 4, but if it doesn't happen by then, I don't think it will happen.
But what does Loefler want? I'd feel better if I had any idea what "Loefler's guys" looked like. Just with QB position, he recruited two completely different QBs, then signed on a transfer that has even less in common with either. At RB, he's mentioned his favor for the power running game, but insists on starting/running JC Coleman as often as possible in spite of his lack of any visible success in breaking tackles. He mentioned his philosophy is almost dependent on TE production, however, disregarding the fact that we've never been more talented at the position, the TE production is in steady decline. It's all the little red flags that make me doubtful about any major improvements that should somehow magically appear.
I'd say Andrew Ford might be what he wants. But just in case the tools to surround him with were not available he was able to swing a Durkin to Blacksburg.
I think that the issue may be that the staffs opinions contradict each others. Loeffler says that he wants to run the ball but has no faith in the running game. At the same time he has no confidence in Brewer at all and so tries to compensate for it with his playbook. Shane wants to run the ball so he fires at Loeffler that he wants to run and Loeffler concedes. I am not sure that right now there is cohesive system in place that everyone is in agreement with. I think that with a quarterback that he has confidence in running his full playbook Loeffler can be very very good. We have seen that. I think it's clear that once the wheels are off Loeffler struggles badly though.
I know people are hurting from the Miami loss but we need to chill. The problem is that there is not one problem and pointing to one thing or another and saying that it is the cause of all our problems is crazy. Yes Loeffler's play calling can seem strange but ask yourself if we won the game would you be upset about? Yes recruiting on the offensive side regressed for a couple of years and now we have true freshman and freshman as starters at key skill positions but isnt it exciting to see the potential of our skill position players. Yes the O-line has struggled and they have had three different coaches in three years but even with that the had great performances against tOSU and UNC. Yes Brewer is a junior transfer that couldn't win the starting job at texas tech another tech school with a struggling football team but didnt he also lead the the team to arguably the greatest victory in school history against tOSU hasnt he also kept us in alot of games when I think prior tech teams would have crumbled. My point is there is no one thing to fix there are alot of things and unfortunately the only solution to our problems is time and consistency .
EDIT: who ever down voted this post please read this
If we had beaten Miami and looked good then no, but the fact is we looked like garbage and got smoked. You can't ignore how bad the offense has looked for the last 6 games. Good coordinators make the most out of what they have, Loeffler has shown that he can't do that. Time will not fix this, it will bury us even more. Loeffler will not suddenly know how to utilize his talent with time. He blamed his players at Auburn and it turns out his players were not the problem. He should not be a power 5 OC.
I dont buy the Auburn argument. Here is why:
1. Loeffler was brought in to institute his offense which is more pro style with players recruited to run a spread speed option offense. So he was forced to use personal that best fit his system.
2. Gene Chizik. was already on the hot seat and when the season started going side ways he panicked and started making the play calls on offense. Not really fair to blame an OC when his head coach who is a defensive guy starts overriding his play calls.
3. Its not fair to point at Auburn and say that right after he left they improved over night with out pointing out that the players were recruited by Gus Malzahn when he was the OC of Auburn to run his offense. Then when he comes back as the head coach and runs his offense he already has players for his system.
For some further perspective I would point you to some excellent write ups:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2013/may/30/loeffler-triangles-and-sho...
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2013/january/14/report-scot-loeffler-v...
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2013/january/21/loeffler-grimes-and-fu...
I don't buy the "pro-style offense" argument. A pro-style offense doesn't use the shotgun almost exclusively even though they have power running backs. A pro-style offense doesn't spend a year running the read option with their quarterback being the primary ball carrier even though that quarterback is clearly not a very good runner. We don't really use the play-action like you think of when you hear pro-style offense, so I just don't buy it. I think Loeffler is stuck between wanting to run a pro-style and wanting to run a spread, but he doesn't know which one he truly wants and both have failed because of it.
Yep. Loeffler has been an OC for four years and three of them were complete dumpster fires. The other was under direct supervision of Rick Addazio.
Whether you want to call it pro-style or not, the Malzahn offense that those kids were recruited for is night and day different from what Loeffler was hired to get them to do - I'd bet everything down to the terminology was different. Those kids were recruited by Malzahn for his offense, specifically. There's plenty of legitimate speculation you can make about Loeffler, but claiming he sucks because he failed at Auburn is akin to saying the US military sucks because it couldn't turn Iraq into a functioning Western-style democracy.
Malzahn's first stint at Auburn, he was only really involved in 2 recruiting classes 2009-2010 & 2010-2011; hardly enough to completely change a programs personnel.
Not to mention the situation that Malzahn arrived into in 2009 using someone else's guys and working under Chizik. This is according to wikipedia...
Chizik, similar to Beamer had his demands as to where he wanted to place the priority of his offense. So it's really quite simple... it's either you're an effective coach or you aren't.
I don't see it that simplistically at all and two recruiting cycles is plenty for that offense, at that school, in that conference. Newton was only there for a season and look what they were able to accomplish. Malzahn's system is unique and by all accounts ridiculously simple to pick up. So applying the "good coach/bad coach" test ignores a whole lot of relevant context and illuminates nothing about what was actually going on at Auburn during Loeffler's ONE season there.
Again, plenty of legit stuff to be critical of Loeffler for, but Auburn is a red herring. And bringing it up only clouds objective criticism of what he is or is not doing at Virginia Tech.
Maybe you're right. I'm sure the context is more complex than that. It's just getting a little frustrating for me and I'm sure you as well to see our production on the field. So many times because we have such a loyal fan base I feel we suffer from the same vulnerabilities as Coach Beamer. We all get dealt a bad hand at some point, but sometimes when results are the criteria for success, it seems like we look for excuses instead of solutions.
This reminds me of Lane Kiffin who's been successful under great coaches as a coordinator but didn't find the same success as a head coach. Many times there were excuses made about the scholarship reduction, but almost immediately after he left, under the same conditions, within the same season, his "limited" players immediately turned things around.
It's possible we could move on from Loefler and still make a bad hire. It still wouldn't make that the wrong decision. Maybe it's a compatibility fit, who knows? I just don't see enough that tells me he will be successful here. He might still turn out to be successful, here or elsewhere. I'm not saying I know anything definitively, but I believe there's enough to the contrary to move on.
Maybe Loeffler is making the most of what he has. Maybe he doesn't have enough talent to beat teams that are better. What is the consensus of the majority of all college football fans? Look at the recruiting rankings and they will tell you we are not a top 25 team.
There is no way to objectively measure coaching performance because of all the variables. It comes down to opinions.
We can argue the causes all day and the bottom line for us fans is wins and losses. But there is more to athletics than just wins and losses.
I'm ready for HC Bud Foster to make his own choice for OC.
If I remember correctly, hasn't Bud said over the years that if he were a head coach he would run a spread offense like Chad Morris at Clemson? This, combined with him grabbing the bull by the horns and turning his meet and greet with Whit into a de facto job interview makes me want HC Foster even more.
I remember reading the spread thing too (though because I can't actually find a link, we'll stick to #sources). That was always curious to me considering that Foster is a defensive coordinator, so one would think clock-killing would be his friend.
I think it shows that Bud Foster wants to keep our team relevant. He is paying attention to College Football trends. I'm all for HC Foster.
My guess is that he likes that offense because it is aggressive. My other presumption is that it was just an off the cuff comment made 2-3 years ago. If Bud became a head coach, his offensive philosophy could easily be very different. He just made a single comment about offense that many people have latched onto as though it was a planned mantra of his. Folks find those nuggets and cling to them far too eagerly.
I was really pissed and felt very worried about the programs future after the Miami game - like a lot of you on here are expressing. But, in hindsight, it is not time to hit the panic button.
Most people on these boards who were making predictions about the year said it was possible for our team to get to 10 wins, but 8 or 9 was more realistic based on youth, lack of experience, newer coaches, newer offensive philosophy. that was BEFORE the year started. Since those predictions were made we have been missing a starting corner, a starting WR, 2 explosive RB's (our two best, in my opinion), our best DT, and the signal caller MLB.
In light of that I think to myself, what the hell was I expecting? Too much. Way too much.
We beat OSU and my expectations soared to the point of believing we were a contender. The reality of our depth chart changed but my expectations did not. That was my problem. This is going to be a good football team in 2015-16 (like so many of us all discussed before the season started) and I hope that we're able to keep the staff together to help see that through.
My fear is that we'll take way too long to start considering new changes to the offensive staff. Much like how Beamer waited until after the bowl game last time, he was heavily criticized as to how that limited his options.
I don't think Whit believes he's lower than Beamer. He won't fire Beamer, but he'll tell Beamer, "Hey, the 91st offense isn't acceptable. You have to do something about it." I believe Beamer will respond.
Agreed. I have a pretty good amount of confidence in Whit. #Whitness
Agreed. In Whit I trust. He's not going to fire Beamer and embarrass us. But he's either going to require offensive competency or he will develop a transition plan. Status quo isn't an option here.
The Fridge is doing more with a lot less at Rutgers. They're 79th in scoring, but they don't have nearly as much talent, and when they had to they went toe to toe with Mike Leach's offense at WSU and won.
I still think he would have been ideal. Tons of experience, philosophically aligned with Beamer, a no-frills strategy that will work when executed well at the college and pro level, and a great developer of quarterbacks.
Gotta admit I missed the boat on Fridge. What he has done at Rutgers is amazing. No question about it, he has improved the offense of that team from where it was once Flood took over as HC at Rutgers. Will wait another year to determine if he is truly a talented OC or just having an amazingly lucky year.
I've always been huge on the Fridge. I wanted him since he was fired at Maryland and to this day I believe missing out on that opportunity was the biggest mistake in the Beamer era.
Is Rutgers doing that much better than us offensively or overall?
They were up until these last couple weeks. OSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin was never going to end well for them. But I would say they're noticeably better this year than they were last year, and that's while playing better competition in the Big 10 than they faced in the AAC.
I dont remember them playing in the ACC...Also I would argue aside from MSU the B1G is not better then the ACC
I said AAC, old Big East. And Ohio State looks really good, wouldn't be surprised if they beat MSU. The Big 10 is definitely better than the AAC (probably not better than the ACC).
My bad didnt see that...Those "A's" will get after you...I think tOSU does a good job of being the neighborhood bully running up the score on lesser opponents but when they play someone with a defense they can't hang...MSU is going to crush them.
Did we actually go after Fridge? I know he and CFB are good buddies, seems like that would have been something Frank would have done if he knew Fridge was looking. Interesting.
Frank said he thought hard about bringing in Fridge but he wanted to get someone from outside of his inner circle.
I've been having problems with my Blazer lately. Drove me nuts, different computer codes all over the place. Then the spider injector gets replaces and viola everything fixed.
I feel that's some of the same here.
The Miami loss sucked. The past two years have sucked. This is what happens to everybody eventually, at least we haven't fallen as far as a lot of programs have, yet.
No D1 team can run as many freshmen out as we have and be successful consistently.
I'm not going to be a fairweather fan. I didn't choose to go to VT because of football. I didn't stay at VT because of football. I loved hanging with my friends at games and celebrating.
To me being a Hokie is about way more than football, when we are winning it's awesome. When we aren't, well it sucks a little bit.
I don't have time today to read all 70 comments so if this has been said many times, my apologies.
Leoffler's scheme works. His route combinations get guys open. His running plays have worked. The running game is better this year than last year by far. The problem has been play calling and QB play.
We have been able to line up and run right at people all season and it has worked. The problem is we haven't committed to being a power running team as Leoffler had at Temple. We came out and ran it right down Miami's throat in the 2nd half but the fumbles killed that. Against UNC, we didn't run for crazy yardage but the run game did just enough to keep the offense on the field for a LONG time in that game. Our OL, especially the interior is mashing when the play calls are in their favor.
The passing game has struggled a lot and I think it is because Brewer cannot see the middle of the field. He looks to the sidelines immediately most plays and doesn't have a strong arm for those throws. Leal came out and worked the middle half of the field much better and with a lot more success. Brewer has also missed a lot of throws down the field and the obvious horrible decisions. The games he has played well, the run game has been working better (not a coincidence). I would like to see Leal get a chance next game along with a big commitment to the running game, regardless if it is Williams, Wright, or Caleb.
I would not be surprised to see Andrew Ford as a contender for the QB spot next year if we don't see an improvement by Brewer.
The biggest issue hasn't been the playbook, it has been the play calling. People have complained about Beamer's style of offense and it isn't going to put up big points for us and their are right about the points part but that doesn't mean it isn't a good style. It is a ball control, conservative offense that won a shit ton of games in the 2000s.
Fix the play calling, establish an identity and our offense will work. If the play calling cannot be corrected, then Leoffler does need to go but it will not happen this year. If the play calling improves, Leoffler staying is not a bad thing.
It makes you wonder what influences, if any, are affecting the play calling. I'm sure the coaches devise a plan ahead of time to call certain plays in certain situations. Who makes those decisions. What factors go into those decisions? I know the coaches have goals like throw it X amount of times and run it Y times. Do they try to reach their goals regardless of what is actually working?
I've seen a lot of people question why we get away from the up tempo stuff when it seems to work. Is it a conditioning issue? We're pretty thin at O line so maybe the coaches think the up tempo wears them out?
Why don't we see more plays from under center? Is It a comfort issue?
I'm not saying I don't want a power running offense. I can't remember an offense that has won a national championship over the BCS era that didn't have a good running game. But we aren't trying to find that running game in the proper ways. If you want to be a power running team then you shouldn't be coming out in the shotgun and running our power running back. If you want to be a spread team that uses draws and sweeps to get your running game going then fine, but you have to commit to that. The game plans don't make sense, there is no identity to this offense. It's a mix of multiple offensive systems and none of them are working when run together.
Wasnt there a guy at Florida that would power run out of the gun and didnt he win two national championships?
As someone famously said:
"It's not just about the X's and O's, it's also about the Jimmy's and the Joe's."
The play calling should adapt itself to the personnel. If we have the players to run a power run offense successfully. Then great! If we have personnel that can execute a uptempo spread offense and make it work, great! My frustration lies in the perception that regardless of personnel and their lack of performance in execution, CFB will always want his power run offense to be executed.
Tebow was a great at that, but Brewer obviously isn't the guy to mimic that offense. We need to execute a true pro-style offense in my opinion. Spread offenses are cool and they look good on TV, but they don't win championships. My new favorite example is the Dallas Cowboys this year.
2013 Cowboys - Widely regarded as one of the worst defenses in NFL history. They gave up 6.1 yards per play.
2014 Cowboys - Regarded as a great turnaround on defense and a legitimate championship contender. This years defense? 6.1 yards per play, but they face 19 fewer plays per game.
Power running offenses work, I'm not saying they don't. But you have to commit to it in the proper way based on your personnel. I haven't seen that out of Loeffler. Auburn won a title by power running with Newton. Alabama won one by power running out of the I-formation. They're both strategies that have worked, but I guarantee you if you go back and watch every Auburn or Alabama game from those years they didn't go between those two strategies so frequently during a game.
I dont know if the play calling can be simply "corrected." I feel like its just common sense. If its 3rd and 8, dont run a 3 yard route (I know the QB makes the decision but why even have that option?). I've seen it done before, but when we do it 4 times in a row and even the ESPN announcers question it, something is wrong.
Why do we keep running the useless WR screens? I would guess about 85% of them for for 1 yard or less. That is just common sense, not something that can simply be corrected.
I'm sitting here on this fine Saturday in Alabama watching the Rutgers v. Nebraska game (because I have rooted for Rutgers all my life and apparently have an affinity for bad teams) and I started wondering why can't we run the Nebraska offense. I don't mean this year but our philosophy for the upcoming years. They run the ball and run it well. I appears to be a form of the spread though which many of us have been craving. I saw some of their averages and it was like 293 rushing yards / game and 229 passing yards / game. I would love to see an offense like that at Tech. I know they were an amazing team in the past but I feel like in today's landscape we should be comparable. Though that is complete speculation, I don't know how deep their pockets are.
TONY FRANKLIN - The first that comes to mind when I think about the OC is who we were considering when we hired Lefty. I know Pep was first choice, but obviously he went to the NFL so that wasnt happened. But the other name that I kept hearing was TONY FRANKLIN, last time I saw CAL-Berkley was killing it on offense this year (and I am like 99% sure this is where FRANKLIN ended up). Does anyone know what happened there??
There is no way that our offense wouldnt be better if he was here. The only good part about Left coming was getting Grimes too, but that didnt last long, I know LSU isnt amazing this year but their running game has been awesome.
I was hoping for Tony Franklin too, he would have been a great get. Sonny Dykes was smart and didn't let him get away from him when he went to Cal. He made him his top priority, while we were going through a long interviewing process with other OC candidates... like Chuck Long.
Loeffler reminds me a lot of Logan Thomas.
As a semi-educated football fan, it's incredibly frustrating to watch the offense struggle because I can see Loeffler already has the tools in place to field an above average unit. His schemes are sound, his wrinkles are creative but not off the wall, his use of formations and personnel packages are coherent... It's just that he hasn't been able to consistently put them all together.
If Loeffler wants to be a power team, his running schemes are good enough to do that. No question. If he wants to be a west coast team, his schemes are good enough for that too. No question. Hell, in between this season and last Loeffler has used almost an entire playbook worth of run-first spread concepts (a la Urban Meyer). If he would just PICK ONE he'd be fine, but Loeffler seems committed to try to be all of those things. Why?
Unless Loeffler finds a way to take his football knowledge and chalkboard acumen and translate it into a coherent offensive identity, this football team will NEVER win an ACC title... Forget an NCAA one.
Sans an O line. That unit is not yet suited for above average production. It takes time to build that unit
Yuuuup. When you're throwing the ball from your own 2 yard line and a freshman and sophomore are replacing seniors up front, you know there are some pretty significant, long-standing issues up front. Those don't go away overnight.
I wish I could up vote this ... o-line has been a problem for a looooong time. No holes. Some, like Teller, have the potential to be great, but others, like Wang, just can't seem to get it done.
I watched a little of Cal vs Ducks and what I heard was interesting. The announcers kept saying CAL is now a fun place to play and recruits want to play there. They may not be winning all their games but the atmospher has changed with an upbeat no huddle offense and if they continue to get recruits the sky is the limit. If you ask about our program it is boring, out of date, and not fun to watch! I'm old school and love power running but if its not working we need to move on and enter the new age of football. It's working for a lot of our competors. Look at The thundering herd. They may not be playing top five teams but they are puting up a lot of points and they look like they are having fun doing it. I would love to see that type of fun/excitement in Blacksburg!!
The only thing I know for sure about this season is that there isn't just one singular problem.
And that the people employed by the Virginia Tech Athletic Department know more about football and the state of the program than me.
Whit needs to hire TCUs offensive coordinator
I was just thinking the same thing. Even when they lose they score 58 points.
82 points scored. And don't tell me they are pulling in better classes than VT.
That's kinda why I hate the we have no talent argument. We're Virginia Tech. We pull good to decent classes every single year. It's not like we're scraping the bottom of the barrel for our recruits. They may not be 5* or 4* but on average I would say they are 3* kids. We shouldn't have any problem with being a better offense than at least half of those teams not in the P5. My designation is a bit arbitrary but it's not my point. My point is that we get talented kids to come to VT. At no point should lets say a teams like SDSU or UAB have a better offenses overall.
If it's a scheme thing than maybe we should switch schemes. But we have got to say at some point that we're tired of having extremely below average offenses.
Exactly. Lefty just has no idea what he's doing. I hate the "players don't fit the system" excuse. He pissed away Auburns talent by not utilizing their strengths and that's what he's doing to us
I actually just looked up UAB's stats cause I'm bored and procrastinating from studying. They've got a new OC who was a QB coach at South Alabama and is now in his first year at UAB. His offense is top 40 (prior to today's game vs Arkansas...they lost but duh it's UAB vs. Arky) in passing yards per game and rushing yards per game. IN HIS FIRST YEAR. Apparently he runs an up tempo something offense. Whatever. It's more or less the point that yes somethings take time but give me a break with the talent and timing issues. A team with a definite talent disadvantage can change in one year, while we regress.
If you want to read a little on this guy, here's a link to an article written about him.
TCU is an interesting case study. They used to be a defense first, control the ball offense. But when Baylor revolutionized the b12, TCU got left behind. Did they find a new OC?
They were us two years ago.
I think they have a new OC that started this year.. I could be wrong though
You're not wrong. This is Doug Meacham's first season. And TCU was 4-8 (2-7 in the Big12) last year.
Also, TCU has traditionally been a old school run-based offense prior to this season. Finally, they have embraced modern offensive philosophies.
Doug Meacham has an interesting bio. Three year starter at OL at Okie st, he's coached every position on offense. Currently WR coach but handled QBs at Houston.
watching Lane Kiffin on the sideline interacting with his offensive players on play calling, Scot Loeffler is a young coach , I don't see why he cant do the same. hes not doing anything great in the booth anyway.
Please don't EVER infer that anyone associated with Virginia Tech football use Lane Kiffin as an example of what TO DO.
I want to give you 1,000,000 TL's right now!!
I'll take the downvotes for this one. Kiffin, even for being a pretty shitty person, knows offense and is probably a top five OC in the country. As a head coach completely different opinion, but the man knows his offense and I wish that Loeffler was more like him on the sidelines. If he was ever there.
Watching the Clemson vs Syracuse game and several times I've had the feeling that I'm watching VT play against Pitt. Clemson as VT and Syracuse as Pitt.
One of the announcers made the comment that without Deshawn Watson, Chad Morris has had to change the offense to match Cole Stoudt's skill set as a QB.
I'm wondering if the same issue is what is plaguing VT. Brewer was amazing at OSU, but has regressed as a QB since that game. He also throws mostly in the 5 - 20 yard range with one or two long bombs a game. I don't know if it is a function of the O-line not blocking enough for him or perhaps he has just lost confidence in his O-line. All I know is that he is not throwing as well since the OSU game.
Then there is the issue of the offensive scheme. Perhaps it is not a struggle of the offense schemes vis-a-vis Beamer vs Loeffler so much as the staff has lost confidence in Brewer. It began in the ECU loss with his costly picks. Then snow-balled in the GT game. It could be that without saying a word, the message the staff is sending to the offense is thst we have lost confidence in QB Brewer. Sure he was still the QB in the Miami game, but mostly either throwing screens or handing the ball off to RBs. Perhaps Mark Leal will make a difference. Certainly the scoring drive in the Miami game at least makes one wonder which QB should start.
But Clemson started the season with Stoudt as QB. Watson didn't take over until the middle of the FSU game. He should have be preparing for Stoudt all summer.
Perhaps what I should say was that there was an expectation of how Cole Stoudt would perform on the field and then there is the actual performance that is seen during live games.
No doubt you are correct that Chad Morris had all Summer long to design plays for Cole Stoudt, but when he failed to execute, Morris had to junk plays that were not working and just select plays that Stoudt can actually perform. Watch the game fellow Hokie. It is like watching VT play this year. I believe I have under-appreciated how important the QB position is to a functioning offense.
All I'm gonna say here is that when you start flipping coaches when they're not getting results right now, you end up like Michigan. This season's a little rougher than we thought it would be, but we all knew going in that it was definitely gonna be a bumpy one. Let's give the current staff a little more time to get things right before we throw them under the bus and start our own revolving door of coaches.
Or you end up like TCU.
Lefty would make Texas Tech's defense look like their the superbowl Seattle Seahawks defense
I could not be more terrified of entering the world of what actual college football is like. We as Tech fans live in a Frank Beamer cocoon where we don't know what its like to have to hit the reset button every half decade. We may not be on the fast track to the national championship this year but I wouldn't be too excited to enter the world that Michigan, USC, Miami, and Florida, are currently existing in. And all of those schools consistently have better talent than Tech.
This is 100% of my point here. The college football world is absolutely terrifying.
There are some things bother me greatly that are not directly associated with the loss.
The comments that Shane Beamer said about the exchange with Loeffler during the Western Michigan game. That shit shouldn't happen. If it does happen, it should be kept between the coaching staff. Shane announcing it was extremely Busch league.
The second thing is Beamer's coach speak. There's no energy there. It comes off like the bewildered grandpa who is years away from Warm Hearth. It's not something that gives you confidence that he can fix this, or that he even knows what the problems are.
I also have to wonder about bringing Jerome Wright and Stanford back, and why they needed time away from the team. Then there's the slew of transfers, most notably the kickers on William and Mary that were our guys last year, add in how dismal we have been in special teams.
The problems this team has is so much deeper than some key injuries and poor play calling.
This is a team and program in transition. It's rarely pretty.
I agree with most of your sentiments about the program right now, except that I'm not certain the transition has begun yet.
We've got a 2 year old offensive coaching staff on a team that has played 22 true freshmen over the past 2 years. That's pretty much a step below a new HC in terms of transition.
Unfortunately, I think that's the real transition. But maybe I'm wrong. We'll know a lot more in February and probably have a good idea of what the next two years will look like. If VT can bring in the talent necessary (and I'm not talking about those already committed) then maybe there's a chance it works out. If not, the beginning of that transition is imminent and the coaching staff will shake-up in a hurry.
Getting perilously close to ageism here.
I notice this as a trend with several different posters in several different threads.
Frank gave the same speeches when he was just starting at VT in the 90's that he is giving now. Frank gives away nothing in interviews.
He is always proud of his guys and they gave great effort but there are some things to take away from the game and learn. There are a few things we'll need to go over in practice this week. We'll review the film and see what's there. Those other guys, they'll get after ya.
Every single post game. Expecting anything different is unrealistic and you have not been paying attention for the past 20 years.
Regarding Loeffler, you are what your numbers say you are.. here are his offensive total stats from his OC positions.. maybe not exact but certainly close enough
1) Gets to Temple they improve from #89 to #63 in 1 year, his only one.
2) Goes to Auburn and they are #115 in FBS
3) At VT his first year is like #101.. in his 2nd year, season to date #85.
This is awful stuff and I cant believe he has the street cred he has. He strikes me as a pretender wannabe who has fooled lots of folks .. Meanwhile, compare his success to that of Lincoln Riley.. I know they run different offenses but Riley has blown the doors off his upside and is on an incredible trajectory for such a young guy. He is doing that at ECU with 2 star recruits 80% of the time.
We could have had him easy if we were looking.. but yet we went w the AU package deal and look where it got us.
Big fan of Riley. No reason he can't do what he's done at ECU with way better players. We would need another quarterback because I believe Brewer's time as a starter at VT is done. He has no more confidence.
Maybe Loeffler is the problem, maybe not. It's hard for any of us to know since few are football experts or know what goes on behind closed doors.
Big picture, the tough part is the reality that we want to cheer for our school and the young student-athletes who wear our colors, regardless of the results, then at the same time think of our coaches like we do if they were professional coaches. It is the paradox that is big-money college football. Young men give it their all each week in exchange for an education, the chance to play the game they love, and a slim shot at making big money in the NFL in a few years. Old men make big money every year to coach them and the universities use this to support other non-revenue sports and build their brand.
Then, this is compounded by the fact that successful alumni donate substantial amounts of money to ensure that we can afford the best old men and the best facilities to keep up with the other colleges that are doing the same.
Its been a while since I have thought about how, for lack of a better word, muddy college football is today but sorting through my thoughts on our current woes brings me back to the fact that "the system" is an unfortunate state of affairs. Yes, it's the free-market in action, and I surely don't have a solution, but it's still unfortunate.
My response is to not donate substantial amounts of money, but to support the team in person or on TV every game, try to buy tickets from the university when they are available, and not get too caught up in whether we are spending the millions we are investing in our football personnel annually in the most optimal manner possible. Basically, to just support the kids and try not to get too tied up in the other stuff that is wholly out of my expertise and control.
The only thing I'm sure about is that if you took the pulse of the fan base on September 7th and then took it again today it would be pretty comical.
When traveling down to the Georgia Dome for the Alabama game last year, we stopped by a liquor store to get some fireball. As we walked in, we ran into a couple Auburn fans. They knew we had hired leoffler after they let him go, and all they said to me was "You are going to hate him, he is going to run your offense into the ground." then laughed at us as they walked out. I didn't want to believe him, but 1.5 years laters, he couldn't of been more accurate.
Like most in SEC country, Auburn fans have little understanding of or concern for anything beyond the "scoreboard." Loeffler certainly didn't succeed at Auburn, but I have yet to meet a single Auburn fan with a convincing explanation (or any explanation really) of why. And I know plenty of them. Loeffler might ultimately fail here too, but it won't be because he's a terrible OC.
They were saying the same things we are now...
I've heard and read lots of what they say. It's rarely objective, never enlightening, and very much "#WOOOO!!ESSEEESEE!!." So if you think they were saying the same things we're saying now then... agree to disagree. I'll point to what French just wrote as an example of the difference.
I was only talking about his play calling/selection and what they said about it. I could give a rats ass about what SEC fans say about anything most days, but what they were saying but then at that particular instance is very much similar to what we have said in many threads about him.
I've never read anything remotely complimentary of Leoffler from an Auburn fan. As far as I can tell, the criticisms of Loeffler at VT are primarily about things that could reasonably be explained by personnel (talent) and the possibility that other coaches are influencing his offense.
Hating on Loeffler just seems to me like a way to ignore the real, more fundamental problems at VT that festered and metastasized over the last decade of play in a weak ACC.
Look, Im not saying he hasn't called any good plays or the players aren't responsible for some of the inefficiencies, all I am saying is most of the play calling has been questionable at best and has made most of us Hokie fans pull our hair out. Has their been good play calls? Sure.
We brought in an OC to run an offense the OC does not want to run. We brought Loeffler in to run an pro-style offensive scheme that relies on up tempo and misdirection to cause confusion in the defense to get them on their heels to have success, and our head coach wants us to run a power running game that relies heavily on the OL executing effective assignment blocking to open up holes to establish the run to control the clock.
I can't blame Loeffler too much for what is happening right now. His way of wanting to do things was undermined earlier this season, and now he's just scheming based on what the head coach wants. Its not a surprise we're seeing the muddled mess out there that we are right now.
Look at what Leoffler ran at Temple. I was a smashmouth, 2 TE, power running game. I am not sure why he changed up what was successful for him there.
So in his only good year, he ran Addazio's offense. When he worked for Addazio.
Sorry, but beyond the Auburn comparison (I think most of you know by now exactly how I feel about that), you lost me at "couldn't of."
oh my bad, "couldn't have".... hopefully I didn't lose any other Hokie because of that
Well, since the downvotes are already here...
Your argument was already ignorant and the classic, whiny, knee-jerk "I want my candy now" attitude that's been all over the boards since around the GT game. The fact that you decided to throw grammar out the window just made you that much harder to take seriously.
Hmmm interesting.... Well just for the hell of it, I went back to read what I said and like I intended to, all I wrote was about an event that happend to me in the past since it related to loeffler, and then later said how they were correct. I don't see any ignorance in that or 'I want my candy now" attitude (honestly never heard that before). But anyways, I'm sorry you felt the way.
Well, the offense had already been run into the ground. Loeffler's just shoveling dirt on it at this point.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can watch the last two seasons and not see that what loeffler has done is worlds better than what existed before - as far as play design and scheme is concerned. How is he shoveling dirt? He's being told to run a ball control, multiple formation offense with personnel who, if they aren't freshmen, were recruited by the head coach of Emory and Henry and some guy who's currently the OC at powerhouse ETSU.
Those guys should have been a Peter-principle case-study.
What exactly should Loeffler do with a chicken-winged QB, no offensive line, freshmen receivers, and no healthy running backs? If you want to talk about the seeming lack of player fundamentals then I'm with you, but Gus Malzahn, Norm Chow, and Vince Lombardi would have a hard time breaking .500 with this group.
I agree with the first half and disagree with the 2nd half. We have talent but we are not playing to the strengths or utilizing it as well as we should. Case and point, how many fades have we thrown to our 6'7" TE who can jump out of the gym in the redzone? Now think about how many times he would be getting that play call if he was at Auburn, or ND, or FSU, or tOSU. It isn't a very hard throw. Throw it high enough that it goes over his head or he catches it...
Didn't we see fades v. OSU?
Don't get me wrong, fades sound good. But what else is Loeffler supposed to be doing given his current constraints?
Edit: Yes, we have talent, but it's inexperienced talent. And there's a big difference between inexperienced 5-star talent, and inexperienced 3 and 4 star talent.
OSU was 6 games ago, if we have to go back that far, then there is something wrong with the play calling.
comparing inexperienced "5 stars" to 3/4 "stars" is not just black and white, thats a whole different road so I don't agree with that
Yards per play:
2012: 5.0, 93rd in the country
2013: 4.7, 106th in the country
2014: 4.7, 109th in the country
Yards/game:
2012: 373.2, 81st
2013: 347.2, 102nd
2014: 361.3, 97th
Points/game:
2012: 23.7, 84th
2013: 20.7, 103rd
2014: 24.4, 91st
F/+ (not including the Miami game):
2012: -3.2%, 75th
2013: -5.9%, 85th
2014:-5.2%, 87th
I can't say how what Loeffler's doing is worlds better than what existed before because it's not any better. It's mostly worse. The freshmen receiers are the bright spot on the team. The offense was a mess even when the running backs were healthy. The line is experienced and teams with experienced linemen tend to be more effective. The chicken-winged QB is the guy he recruited and wanted to run his offense. VT didn't have to offer Brewer. Loeffler wasn't stuck with him- Loeffler wanted him. We've seen other coaches in the past step in to bad spots and run systems that are at least functional. Loeffler hasn't done that.
There's a lot of superficial/spurious analysis going on here and I'm too lazy to address everything individually. So I'll just say three things:
1) The coaches who step in to bad situations, implement new systems, and make things functional are typically head coaches, not OCs.
2) Do you really think Loeffler is qualitatively worse than (or as bad as, or even remotely as incompetent as) the guys Beamer had doing his job before?
3) In the blogosphere and places like EDSBS, Loeffler is a running joke. And the jokes are usually pretty clever and amusing. But there's not much substance to their implicit criticisms of the guy.
1) Gus Malzahn took over as Auburn's OC in 2008. The offense went from 110th in scoring to 17th. Will Muschamp had a similar impact as the DC of Texas. Brent Venables has done good work as Clemson's DC. Those are just the examples that were off the top of my head. A good coordinator can at least get some tangible improvement.
2) The numbers strongly suggest that yes, Loeffler's offense is qualitatively worse. As Bill Parcells says, you are what your record says you are. I wasn't aware that results on the field are considered spurious and superficial. They don't rank teams based on innovative formations or illegal formation penalties or pointless bubble screens, which is a shame because Loeffler would be a smashing success. Right now it looks like the Ohio State game was the one game this offense prepared for all season.
3) The criticisms are based on his failures as an OC in the past and how he's lived off of being one of the people who take credit for Tom Brady. I was willing to give him a shot and assume the problems at Auburn were because of Chizik. Now that I've seen his offense in action I don't know if it was all Chizik's fault.
The problems I always have with comparisons like these is that you're reducing a multi-variable problem down to one factor and labeling it as a cause. Now, I will stipulate that I am seriously unhappy with our offense as it stands now, so criticism of Loeffler and all is certainly warranted, but French's film review from today shows that there are a number of problems with execution that are contributing strongly to our problems. From a statistical standpoint, the three years you're comparing show little, if any, difference between 2013 and 2014.
The biggest issue, especially in college football, is that the makeup of the team can be, and often is, dramatically different from year to year. Last year's offense looks nothing like this year's, because the offensive talent is different. Of course, it can be (rightly) argued that solid coaching will bring out the best in whatever they've got, but I would argue that, as far as coordinators go, Malzahn, Morris, and Muschamp weren't good - they were great. Would we, as VT fans, like to have an OC of equivalent talent to our DC? Sure, but from what we've seen, we don't.
Year-over-year trends over longer periods of time would be needed to decide one way or another. There are so many differences between the teams of 2012, 2013, and 2014 that these narrow comparisons are extremely hard to interpret in any meaningful way.
And for all of their greatness: Malzahn landed on the same plane as Chizik in 2008 with a mandate to make wholesale changes after the Tuberville "death rattle," a roster full of SEC talent (at least two of the previous 4 classes were top 10), and the ability to pad the the lineup with as many JUCOs as necessary ($200,000 for Mr. Newton's services); Muschamp enjoyed an unlimited budget and a roster full of UT talent; Venables I'm sure has the numbers to match his paycheck (doesn't he get $1,000,000+ a year?) - he should because Clemson has been kicking VT's ass on the recruiting trail as well as on the field for the last half decade.
VT's context as a member of the ACC, with total AD revs <$70,000,000.00, during Frank Beamer's sunset sail isn't remotely comparable to any of these places.
If all else fails, I'd like to offer VT my services as Offensive Coordinator. My results in NCAA speak for themselves:
1) I consistently create offenses that compete for, and win Conference and National Championships
2) I create excellent QBs both in the pocket-passer and dual-threat molds
3) I have coached several QBs that went on to win the Heisman
4) I routinely have TEs, WRs, and RBs rack up more than 20-TDs/season
5) When the defense doesn't give me short field to work with, I still usually end the drive with a TD
6) My offense can either go fast-paced, or control the clock whenever appropriate.
I honestly don't know what to think about Loeffler. If there isn't consistency and improved production next season, I will certainly support getting a new OC. But right now I can forgive some miscues because of the state of the talent in the program prior to his arrival.
I really do understand your point of giving him another year. I just worry about another season like this with Loeffler. If next year is this bad then it would be 4 years since we've been relevant in college football. That's scary. The more we dig ourselves into a whole the longer it will take for the next person in charge to get us out.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I think people say Loeffler when, deep down, they mean to say Beamer.
Big woop....I won 17 consecutive Heisman trophies and broke every major rushing, receiving, and passing record in NCAA history.
Reading all these comments about the screens after reading Jeff's article makes me chuckle a little.
Reading really is fundamental.
I'm not sure how anyone can still be defending Loeffler.
Why not? Even with starting 5 drives inside his own 5, he still managed to make a game of it and get the lead with 3 minutes to go.
7 times we went 3 and out or had a turnover on downs in 4 plays. That's not progress, that's a freaking joke.
Yeah, starting at your own 5, 3, 1, and 5 yard lines is not a great way to get in any sort of rhythm, especially when you don't trust your OLine to pass block in the end zone. I'm fascinated to know what you would have possibly done differently.... Oh yeah, you're just another guy on the internet Sunday morning quarterbacking. Yeah, I'm sure you have the slightest clue how the game is played. Feel free to submit your resume to Whit.
Wow, that got a little insulting way too fast. Calm down bro.
And yes, I would have done a lot differently. The screens weren't working, that was obvious from the start. We should have been attacking the middle of the field with Bucky and Malleck. Should have been running Marshawn WAY more up the middle, not out of the stupid shotgun or pistol when you have a power back. The pass protection was terrible, and that's probably the reason for the WR screens, but if those aren't working then try setting up your tailback on a screen or literally anything else quick. Slants, whatever you want. Willie Byrn in space is not going to get us many yards.
Yeah, the screens definitely weren't getting 4-7 yards a pop every play. Hint: they were. Remember last time when you cried about the screens only to have Jeff come out with his review about how they were actually great playcalls? Yeah, you're just another whiny little shit on the internet who doesn't know jack about how football is actually played. Go fuck yourself.
And like I give a shit about downvotes. Feel free, Moderator.
And I'm sorry I had to. You are knowledgeable enough to make your points in an effective way without going overboard in an affront to the expected behavior here. We're all pissed, but we don't have to take it out on each other. There will be a lot of knee-jerking going on here. FWIW, I agree with your larger points but this isn't the way to make them.
I'm done being civil with little shits who don't know the first thing about the game going off about firing everybody, and the playcalling sucks and blah blah blah.
If you are tired of the ignorant masses calling for everyone to be fired, then why lower yourself to their level with this type of behavior? What does it accomplish, other than besmirching your reputation?
You ever just eat a hell-ton of Taco Bell even though you know the next 5 hours are gonna suck? Similar concept.
Yes, but I learned not to do it again. Expecting reason to out-weigh emotions on an open forum after a loss is an unrealistic expectation. In your Taco Bell scenario do you usually curse at and insult the other Taco Bell patrons?
Depends on where we are in the Taco Bell consuming process.
I don't know about you but it's normally not the taco bell I'm cursing at post consumption.
It's the ignorant little shits in the toilet isn't it
I'm just glad I was somewhat involved in the thread that lead to that comment. First out loud laugh I have had all day. Kudos.
Cool story bro, you're a little overly upset right now. They weren't getting 4-7 yards a pop, they were going for 1 or 2 yards a lot of times. Calm down, you sound like a child.
Again, kindly go fuck yourself.
C'mon man... You post great stuff. You can't let the "Burn it all to the ground and start over" posts get to you.
I'm horribly annoyed with the Fire "_____" or Bench "____" solutions. We even have posters saying we hope we don't win another game this year so we fire Beamer.
People aren't going to the games because they think that's some how going to help us in the end.
It's baffling and frustrating, but take a break and don't let it get to you.
I'm not a normal fire everyone guy, and I don't want to fire Beamer. I think that's absurd because the future with Bud would be scary since he probably wouldn't be the HC. I just really don't like Loeffler.
In all fairness you did ask nicely.
Woah. Relax this team has not had a good offense for years. Now Buds D isn't carrying the pail anymore.
The O has major problems all over the field, some can be fixed with experience, and others are coaching/player execution problems.
The play calling isn't getting it done. Period! All sides of the ball. It's all a little too cute and egocentric for a team that is obviously having trouble with the basics.
I would expect change at the end of this season. But we have to be careful what we wish for.
Many teams became good and then demanded greatness only to be sucked back to mediocrity.
We lost and I feel your pain. Right now your sitting at 14 downvotes. That must be an all-time record. Don't get razzled. Hang in there, bro!
good news is he might get to go on vacation next week! I went a couple weeks ago and it was a good break, I came back and was ready to behave!
The system works! Look at you, all rehabilitated :D
You're TKP's Charlie Sheen
I hear Belize is nice this time of year.
ohh yeahh you better BELIZE it!!!!!!!!
You don't know half as much as you'd like to believe you do. I would trust deathrow's opinions long before your's right now.
I know screens are actually a valuable and productive part of the gameplan.
And there are rumblings and such going on in the program right now, but I'm not gonna comment on that. Do I know everything about the program? Nope, not even close. Still, I think it's not a stretch that I've been closer to the program than the majority of the people who feel so strongly about where it should go, and that people who think everything is magically fixed by not calling screens and firing everybody are full of crap.
Preach it, man.
With a few details cleaned up, a little more backup.....
I wasn't referencing your knowledge of Tech's program specifically, it was a comment on your overall knowledge of football. Yes btw, I do know the value of screens in Loeffler's gameplan, but clearly when they're overused (Miami) they lose their effectiveness. I'm not one of these people calling for Beamer's head either, and I'm still giving Lefty another year before I start calling for his. However, I'm sure as hell not going to pretend that everything is just peachy, and that there just simply isn't a way that this team could be more effective on offense given a different scheme.
on the series he was referring to, with poor field position, Marshawn had 5 consecutive carries for 4 yards - how long can you continue that strategy? The very first scoring drive it was 100% passing from our 12 to the BC 12.. I can't believe they didn't pass more.. If I recall the stats correctly VT averaged less than one yard per attempt rushing in the first half, and while that includes sack yardage, Marshawn only averaged 2.5 yards per attempt for the game.... meanwhile Brewer had arguably his best game of the year, and I believe you have to go with what's working.. and today it wasn't the running game
That's fair, and the first drive was well done. I hope Marshawn was hurt because of how little he played. Don't feel like typing out another paragraph. On the running game note, I'm pretty sure there was a point in the 4th quarter when Di Nardo was our leading rusher.
Well to be fair we were on the one yard line and I don't trust our offensive line enough to block for more than 2 seconds for a pass play.... particularly in the end zone when the risk is a safety. I understand the calling
We were sending Rogers into the flat from a halfback lineup 3 times I think. For good yardage.
It looked to me, at game speed, we were using the TE's as decoys to clear out space and Rogers moving into the flat behind them in a kind of crossing pattern.
Baller had 70 yds on 4 catches yesterday.
The middle was not the way to go. I would have liked more runs, but with a top run defense, middle doesn't work so well.
An offense has to use every type of play, even if it doesn't work. The screens did their jobs, kept the defense honest and got a few yards. Probably got more yards then running up the middle.
Ironic, we used to run up the middle a ton, and everyone complained about that. Now people are complaining we don't run it up the middle enough.
That's not necessarily true. Do we know BC is a top run defense because they stop runs up the middle or because they can defend outside runs (stretches, sweeps, etc)? I'm guessing they've played teams that have done both. We do have evidence that Marshawn is not a great fit for outside run plays and performs better when he gets forward momentum going toward the LOS though.
Furthermore, if the screens did their job and kept the defense honest, wouldn't that mean the middle of the field opened up more for both inside runs and passes? That didn't seem to be the case at all though, as BC seemed content to continue to allow their DBs to take care of the screen plays without making significant adjustments or sending help.
Finally, I remember people complaining about WR screens under Stinespring more than any other single play call. Most of the complaining about running up the middle was when we didn't have the personnel to do it, which has been an issue with the style of RBs we've had in the last few years.
Those screens under Stinespring were not option plays.
Whole 'nuther topic there.
These are dark times. Our coaches are sputtering. Our boys on the field are sputtering. TKPers are gettin' after each other.
Looked like our defense gave up some big plays, but maybe i was watching a different game.
#FireScotLoeffler
A player fails to execute one time, it's his fault.
If he fails to execute every time, it's his coaches.
This offensive unit has WAY more talent than it's current production level shows. The coaching staff (starting with the man in charge of the unit Scott Loeffler) aren't doing their players any favors with this "system". Loeffler has been here two years and he has failed to create any SEMBLANCE of an offensive identity. He doesn't have a single concept that he can line his players up in and know that they will run flawlessly 9 times out of 10... Let alone 99 times out of 100.
Do you know what Paul Johnson would do if his team couldn't run the triple option perfectly after two years? He'd lose his shit, coaches would be fired, players would be benched, journalists would be punched... What if Rich Rod's team couldn't run the zone read? Or Urban Meyer's team couldn't run the Inverted Veer? Or David Shaw's team couldn't run a power play?
Being unpredictable is important for an offense, but it's not the most important thing. Execution is. If your an offensive coordinator and your team cant execute a play... YOU KEEP PRACTICING THAT PLAY UNTIL THEY CAN! You don't move onto the next page in your playbook and keep installing packages and keep installing personnel groupings and keep installing and keep installing.
What's Loeffler's plan to improve the offense? Just hope he can recruit the best 11 players in the country and go out athlete every defense he plays? Because without more of a focus on building a foundational play to build this offense on, the execution will always lag behinds the opposition. He needs to be focusing on getting one thing PERFECT before moving onto the next stage. If that means we lose the next 3 games because we run the same play 40 times a game and it gets stuffed everytime... THAT'S FINE. LET'S DO THAT. I'D RATHER LOSE BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE THAN FLOUNDERING IN THE PRESENT.
It starts at the top... the very top, with Frank.
These are the same issues we sae under Stiney. The team is not improving. It is not getting better. It is not progressing. And it had been this way since the 2011 season. We are on our second OC and the issues arestill the same. The only constants are Beamer (both) and Stiney (demoted). Until this is realized and admitted by not just us but Beamer himself, nothing will change and we will continue to struggle.
You can change coaches as many times as you want but as long as the strings are still being pulled by the same person, nothing will change. This is what we're seeing now. There is too much evidence to ignore anymore.
The problem with Stiney wasn't a lack of identity, it's that the very building blocks of his offense were terrible. Very questionable play designs, particularly in the passing game. Oh, and some very very poor offensive line coaching.
Loeffler's play designs are fine, it's just that he uses those building blocks to construct a game plan which is less than the sum of it's parts.
I think you may be on to something. I would slightly change your argument to read:
The problem with the offense is the head coach doesn't have an offensive philosophy and does not really know how to put together an offense. This is perfectly acceptable if he hires a competent offensive coordinator.
VT is in an EXTREMELY rare position that the head coach is neither the offensive or defensive mastermind. (Maybe Clemson with Dabo Swinney is in the same boat). The problem with that is now VT has to completely rely on hiring effective Offensive and Defensive Coordinators that have their own distinct philosophy to be the mastermind. Maybe Beamer has a hard time discerning the characteristics of a great offensive coordinator and thus made a bad hire. Maybe Beamer is just unlucky/untimely. If Beamer were to hire Chad Morris instead of Clemson in 2011, there may not be a debate. Who knows.
Maybe VT would benefit from hiring an elite offensive coach to replace Beamer (In this scenario, Chad Morris gets my vote). I don't know, that's Whit's call and I hope he uses his style and grace to figure out this messy situation.
You realize all the coaches you named are head coaches and all are offense guys.
1. Is your point that Loeffer should fire himself after 2 years or that he hasnt established an offensive identity. I would argue with the last two TD drive he has. To me a lot of the play calling before it had a steinspring frank beamerish feel lots of runs and short safe throws. It seemed to me that someone was handcuffing the offense.
2. Frank is a defense/special teams guy
Yes I am aware that Paul Johnson, Rich Rod, Urban Meyer, and David Shaw are head coaches.
My point is that Loeffler has had two years to establish an offensive identity and hasn't.
Two drives do not make up an offensive identity. The defense had the lead late in the game and was not playing a normal game plan. I would also say that last drive took ENTIRELY too much time and wasn't particularly sharp. If those two drives are our new offensive identity, well, consider me unimpressed.
He's a head coach. His responsibility is to make sure the program as a whole (not just defense/special teams) is as good as it could possibly be.
Shouldn't he be fixing the special teams which I would argue did more to lose the game then any other phase of the game?
I would counter that we have had no Identity before now except Tyrod Taylor scrambling on broken plays or Logan Thomas using a cannon of an arm and body size on 3rd and 1s. Even if you dont see it I can see SL using the short passing game and personal packages to get good match ups along with misdirection in the running game. Unfortunately I also think CFB is handcuffing the offense to force a running game.
Dude, our offensive line SUCKS and that is the root of a lot of our problems on O. I don't think you can place that blame solely on the shoulders of Scot Loeffler. If we could produce with the run game, we would be.
He's the offensive coordinator. He's been here two years. He can't just shrug his shoulders and say "Welp, our players aren't good enough. Oh well". He had a responsibility to develop that talent. He's wasted far too many carries on running backs that don't deserve it, way to many reps on offensive linemen that didn't deserve to start, way too many play calls that he only intended on using a handful of times a season...
The fact is, REGARDLESS OF TALEBT LEVEL, there are many things loeffler could have done before this point to develop the ring game. But he hasn't been consistent and the run game has suffered because of it.
"If your an offensive coordinator and your team cant execute a play... YOU KEEP PRACTICING THAT PLAY UNTIL THEY CAN! You don't move onto the next page in your playbook and keep installing packages and keep installing personnel groupings and keep installing and keep installing."
I agree with you 100%. Didn't we see them do this last year during spring and fall practices? Last year's scrimmages were basic plays being run over and over again until they got it right. What I do not understand is, did we not do that this year? I vaguely remember a quote from one of the older players (I think Willie Byrn) saying basically, last off-season was about re-learning basics. This spring and fall would be building off of those basics. But, most of our key players on offense weren't here last year or weren't starters getting all of the reps. How do they jump in to year two of the process without having the benefit of the year one basics training? They are starting off already behind the curve. Not to mention the O-line which is learning a completely different system, so they too are behind the curve.
I think this all goes back to Loeffler wanting to run a very complicated, pro-style, "multiple" offense. I just do not believe that that is appropriate for a college football team. Loeffler can stay up all night and only get 2-3 hours of sleep working on the offense, but the players cannot do that, nor do they have the practice time to really hammer home all of these complicated concepts. Pros can devote the time necessary for a complex scheme, college kids cannot. I think that this leads to Loeffler trying to compensate by only using certain players with certain "packages". Unfortunately, this has a few drawbacks:
1. When certain players only come into the game for certain packages, he is basically telling the defense what he is about to run (Newsome = jet sweep or fake off of the jet sweep).
2. Players need to get into the rhythm and flow of the game, especially running backs. How often have we seen a RB starting to get lathered up, only to be pulled for someone else who is cold, all for the sake of a different package?
3. To be great, players need real, in game reps to learn and develop. Subbing them in and out stunts there development because the reps are spread out among a bunch of players. And if they are only in certain packages they are only getting real-time reps in certain situations making them very specialized in only a few concepts.
4. Having a lot of packages at his disposal is too tempting for Loeffler to just stick with what is working and he gets "too cute" as others more versed in football than me have said on this site. He cannot keep his hand out of his bag tricks when he already has the appropriate tool in his hand. This is my biggest concern with Loeffler.
I do not claim to know if Loeffler should remain on staff or not. I do not know how to fix our teams woes. I am just stating what I think I am seeing. I just see the better teams running simpler systems, but being successful because they execute the simple concepts of their systems really well. They do that because they recruit well, but also because they use their limited time to hammer home the basics of their simpler systems until they are second nature and they can just play hard and fast. I want that, not a team full of great kids being hamstrung by an overly complicated system.
You are 100% correct in your assessment. The very foundation that he built this offense on (focusing on an unpredictable multiple offense) is flawed.
Frank wants the multiple, no? And it doesn't have to be "complicated" you can run a basic set of plays out of "multiple" formations. You just have to run them well. The fact that our players can't seem to do that, coupled with the perplexing personnel grouping rotations are legit criticisms of the offense right now. But what's behind it? I doubt it's because 'Loeffler can't help himself' or wants to get "cute."
Part of the reason they haven't gotten better running it is because they change up too much... Because loeffler can't help himself.
changing offenses up a bunch to the point where we cannot get in a rhythm in any single set? Gee, that sounds eerily similar to the offense we had in 2012. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Loeffler wasn't our OC then, right?
So either we managed to bring in the only OC on the planet that was a clone of O'Cainespring, or there is someone else pulling strings behind the scenes. Which one do you think is a more logical reason?
I do find it interesting that when we go to a hurry up no huddle, which is the kind of offense Loeffler alluded to wanting to run in the offseason, that we're getting a ton of success, but the second we start slowing things down to play like we did throughout the 90s and 2000s, we immediately stagnate.
A thousand times this
Agreed, hurry up has been effective..when we slow down, we come to a complete halt.
but but Beamer wouldn't do that/S why would we hire a OC just to have Beamer over take him... it so obvious what it happening.. We go hurry up Beamer can't over-ride/change play calls and its Brew and Lefty getting it done.
Beamer does not have any right to leave when he wants to..However He has said multiple times that he will continue to coach as long as he sees himself as added value. Well I think that added value is now what is missing and he has become complacent.
Anyone who thinks Beamer is
Changing play calls as they come I doesn't understand the mechanics of calling plays. The time constraints of a play clock wouldn't allow for one person to call a play, have Beamer hear it, change the play and send it back through the signal calling system. It's just not happening.
I'm not sure many people are saying Beamer is changing the play as it's called but Alum07 has a point. One that I agree with. The offense that has gotten killed this year is remarkably similar to the one that got everyone fired. So Beamer may not be changing the play at the time it's called but is it so hard to believe that he is dictating the game plan prior to it's start? As much as the OC leads the offense, the head coach is still his boss. If he says he wants a run first, ball control, slow offense then that's what he gets. I think anyone who has been employed understands that.
I'm not saying Loeffler is without fault. Even when the team has "opened up" he still has some baffling play calling and runs too many "cute" plays. But I wouldn't say that you can discount the notion that Beamer is having a hand in the offense out of hand, anymore than people on the other side can discount that Loeffler has no blame.
I personally believe that when the going gets tough Beamer has always returned to the horse that brought him and that has been this slower type of offense. It's a comfort zone for him that has won more times than not, because it's predicated on a defense playing their nuts off and an offense doing as much as it's needed to eek out a win. But with a defense that is young and hurt and an offense that is not geared to play Beamer's comfort style of offense we lose, and it's not close. What I liked about the BC game is that we were producing, even from deep in our territory and a lot of that had to do with up tempo downfield throwing.
Is that wrong in your view?
I see it more as the situation dictating the options more than Frank playing a marionette.
For a while we had real problems with offensive fouls and guys in new positions and we had a defense short on breather time and 2 hard nosed RBs and. Good leading fullback.
QB was tossing. INTs but making yardage.
Sometimes quick passing game was going great, other times the QB needed to wait until guys stopped wiggling to get the ball hiked. Other times taking advantage of fresh RBs and a line that seemed to be opening holes.
The whole theme of this season has been consistency and a search by the coaches on what is working this game. I would not want to be the guy trying to make something consistent happen this year. The only thing consistent has been the inconsistency of what is working.
Beamer is the head coach, he is ultimately responsible for everything the program does. If Loeffler fails, so does Beamer. And yes Beamer hired Loeffler to run a certain type of offense.
In short, Beamer has set the parameters of what his offense will look like and Loeffler has to succeed within those parameters.
So when discussing the problems of the offense, there's a difference between blaming Beamer (for wanting to run a pro style ball control offense) and Loeffler (for failing to execute within those parameters).
I blame Loeffler most because there are plenty of offenses that succeed with "Beamers style" of offense. IMO Loeffler hasn't done a good enough job getting his players to execute his game plan in part because he doesn't set them up to succeed.
Sorry, but there is some incorrect logic here. If rewritten this states: No matter what Beamer says the offense should be Loeffler is to blame if he can't succeed running that (Beamer's) offense.
I get your premise but you are essentially saying that Beamer hired an OC to just do what he's told. Whereas, if I am not mistaken, the point of the new hires was to instill new life into our offense by bringing in a staff with new system and ideas. If Beamer is pulling the strings now then he certainly was during Stinespring days and we all know where that got us. So why does the prospect of Beamer pulling the strings now not cause you worry? Or make you speculate that the root of the problem isn't the guy struggling to win within the parameters but the guy setting the parameters?
I know there are a lot of different types of coaches but from what I can tell as a fan the best OC's come with a philosophy and system that cannot be subverted. Chad Morris is prime example. And what i see this season are two offenses. the one that played uptempo ball with the intent to throw downfield as much as we run. And the conservative, comfort zone offense we have seen for years. It is hard, or impossible, for me to believe that the OC that was using no huddle elected to ditch it all to play the other way, even more so after seeing it fail and losing badly.
I blame Loeffler for bad play calling no matter which offense is out there. I blame him for sometimes losing sight that we need to run north south. But I can't blame him for the offense that has been losing so badly (BC is not included in that) and having production that terrible, because I can't possibly see how that is what he wishes to run. Especially when there are games (evidence) that when we play the other way we do produce.
According to your first sentence then your assumption must be that Frank is the only thing that prevent Loeffler from doing as he wants to do.
I disagree with that and here are a couple of my more important reasons why:
1) I think youth and time in this offense type is a hindrance. I do not think these guys are capable of running a no huddle for 4 quarters or even a half. They do not have all of those plays strung together yet or even the substitution schemes in place. Leads into point #2.
2) I don't think he has all the personnel to run the offense he wants, through recruiting (this is his first class of recruits) and injuries. Leads into point #3.
3) I think at times the requirements of the defense could prevent him from running the offense he wants to run 100% of the time.
I do not think that Frank is the thing that keeps him from running a no huddle fast paced offense for 75-95% of the game ( assuming this as a goal). We see more of it this year than last and I think we'll see more of it next year than this one.
No I don't think that. Mostly just devil's advocate on the logic there.
I do think there are other things stopping us. Though I haven't really bought into the youth thing. I know the coaches have been saying that but what I see is our young players consistently making the plays, and our older players consistently struggling. And I think that the havoc wreaked on recruiting in years before is the biggest root of the issue, most specifically on OL.
But I do think that the offense that could not get a first down at all in the previous games before BC was Beamer dictating what was going to be run. And I think the offense that started the season, beat OSU and was within 3 of BC is the one closest to what Loeffler wants to run.
we are all making assumptions because none of us know the real story, so I am just falling back on the logic that I see. And I don't believe it is logical for the same OC that ran a completely different offense in the games we won to go a full 180 and run the type of offense that lost the other games so badly. Especially when said offense is eerily similar to what we saw in the last 2 years of O'Cainspring.
Lowffler has never been a no huddle guy. Not at Florida as a QB coach, not at temple, not at auburn, not last year either. Like seemingly EVERYTHING loeffler does, he just dabbles in it on occasion.
He isn't committed to it... Just like how he's not committed to any offensive principle.
You said it best yourself, the best offenses are based on a system. Loeffler has no system. Tempo isn't a system, it's window dressing. Every no huddle team tha does well has some base offensive principles that they run over and over and over until they run it better than the defense can defend it. Then they run that play (and simple variations of it) 50 times a game using no huddle to increase the benefit of a well executed concept.
Using no huddle isn't a concept anymore than the shotgun formation is.
Beamer is to blame for the offense. But this is a thread about Loeffler and his flaws as oc LEAST OF WHICH is play calling. He has no base offensive concept to build his offense around, and that's why execution suffers.
Pro style offenses can work if the OC is dedicated to something other than "being multiple"
You're arguing a point I am not making. I don't disagree with what you are saying in this comment about no identity. In fact, I have said pretty much the same many times on other threads. You are correct, this thread is about Loeffler and his flaws as an OC but that doesn't mean some of those flaws are not being caused by, or exasperated by, Beamer and his insistence to run a style of offense to which our personnel are not suited for and our OC is philosophically at odds with. Which is the point that Alum07 is making and that I am supporting.
And despite not having a clear philosophy or identity to his "system" at least we are producing and winning when we play the style that is uptempo. If anything is losing, and losing in such poor fashion, not an indictment on that (Beamer's) offense when we are winning or at least competitive running the non-identity Loeffler offense?
Where did this idea that Loeffler is opposed to a pro style offense come from? I don't get it. Why is it suddenly common knowledge that if it weren't for Beamer, Loeffler would be going HUNH all the time? Loeffler has NEVER been about that life, not at any school he's coached at. He has wanted to incorporate SOME uptempo into the game plan but he himself has said that Tech isn't going to be no huddle all the time.
And even if Loeffler did want to go no huddle exclusively (which there is zero evidence for) that still has nothing to do with my fundamental criticism of him because no huddle isn't an offensive scheme. I don't know how else to state this. This is the largest part of the discussion that people are getting confused on.
Let's put it this way... If Paul Johnson went hurry up no huddle tomorrow, he wouldn't all of a sudden be a "no huddle" coach. He'd still be a triple option coach. Why? Because the triple option is the actual play being run. The HUNH is the play calling mechanism a team uses to get the play from the coordinators mind to the players mind.
The play itself (whether that's triple option, zone read, four verticals, inside zone...) is what the players have to execute and thus what becomes the identity of the offense.
Both Beamer and Loeffler deserve blame for the poor offensive production. Loeffler's specific fault is failing to establish a concept (or "play") to build his offense on.
You are still arguing a point I am not making. I never said Loeffler had an identity We are in agreement about your criticism of Loeffler and his "system" or lack there of. So I think no need to debate that.
what myself and Alum07 are talking about is different point that I think you don't want to discuss, so no worries.
How did I not address this? Allow me to reiterate all the points I've made to disagree with the argument that Loeffler doesn't want to run a Beamer offense.
- Loeffler has always been a pro-style guy every where he has coached.
- Loeffler has never been a "HUNH" guy
- HUNH isn't an offensive system anyways, so even if he was a HUNH guy that's beside the point
- Plenty of "Beamer offenses" work in college, it just depends on execution
- Loeffler is capable of succeeding under Beamer's guidelines, if he were focus on limiting the playbook and focusing on execution.
I don't know how else to address the argument that Beamer's preferred style of offense is more at fault instead of Loeffler's failure to create a better gameplan.
the point you are missing is about Beamer dictating an offense that is not working, not about if Loeffler's "system" has an identity or not. I'll answer point by point first though:
-Never said Loeffler wasn't a pro-style coach
- Never said he was or was not a "HUNH" guy
- Agree, beside the point
- Yes plenty do, but right now VT is failing at this type of offense.
- This is the debatable point to me. There is no evidence to say that Loeffler or any OC can succeed under Beamer's guidelines. There is however evidence that we can succeed if we don't play the type of offense we normally see with Beamer.
The question boils down to: Do we run the offense that lost Pitt and Miami, or the one that beat OSU, UNC and almost won BC? I'm choosing the latter. These may both be pro-style offenses but really that's not the point. The point is on how we execute that pro-style offense. In one case we are slinging it downfield with a more aggressive tempo, and the other seems very conservative and more Beamer's bread and butter. So again I ask the following 2 questions:
1) If we have one style of "pro-style" offense that is working and one that does not, should we not use the one that works?
2) If the one that does not work is eerily similar to what we saw in the years leading up to Loeffler's hire, and what we see in games that we have won (or almost won) is something we have never seen before, isn't it at least empirically logical to speculate that it is in fact Beamer dictating a losing gameplan?
Maybe to speculate but, that's about it.
I'm not real sure what you guys want.
Can you articulate that for me?
not sure how better to articulate it actually. let's just start with this:
do you agree that the offense played different "styles" in Pitt/Miami vs OSU/BC? (I use the term "style" loosely because I don't want the pro-style debate started again when there is no debate on that)
No.
Every game plan is dictated by the defense....especially Loeffler's "take what the defense gives us" offense. There was no difference in those games. People hold up OSU as some magically called game. We executed much better that night. We had a few good traditional runs (Marshawn TD) and hit some one-off stuff (Rogers scramble) and executed on Newsome's end around. But the big thing was that we protected Brewer slightly better than we are now and he made enough throws on 3rd down. (like Bucky's TD)
That's it. It's not Alum07's mythical "Shane ruined the season at WMU halftime" theory. We had a game where we hit a bunch of third downs and still only had 324 yards and won. The rest of the year is the same, but with normal 3rd down production. The offense has stunk all year. And last year.
OSU wasn't a magically called game and neither was BC. It flat out was called differently than Pitt and Miami. It fundamentally was different, and not just from a game plan point of view. As is being pointed out to me above if your an OC you run your system. That's why Paul johnson runs triple option against every opponent. Morris his attack against every opponent. They tweak it to fit the opposing team but they don't shelve it completely to do a completely different plan of attack. And this is precisely what has happened this year.
And disagree with your next to last sentence. Our offense hasn't stunk all year, and that's the point. It has only stunk when it has resembled the offense we all know and hate prior to Loeffler being hired.
I'm not even talking about Shane so not sure why you're bringing him up.
That's because the players actually practice the "two Minute offense" every week, but the normal offense changes based on who were playing. The one constant is the two minute drill.
This just further proves my point that this team would be better off slimming down the playbook and focusing on doin. SOMETHING well rather than trying to do everything Loeffler has installed.
And I'm pretty sure at this point Loeffler has installed every offensive tactic ever designed
I am beginning to fear that Loeffler's offensive philosophy can best be described as "Jack of all Trades, Master of None".
Agree for the first part, disagree for the second - just seems way too simplistic and irrational to me.
Did you guys see this Hokie 5284 guy tweeting all this dirty laundry over the weekend? SL and SS apparently dnnt come to the locker room at half. Bud and SL got into it last week. Frank has lost the locker room, etc. (this guy also seem to really hate TKP).
Ugly stuff.
On another thread we decided he's unreliable and definitely could be a troll.
Best just to ignore all of it.
Gotcha. My experience is that this type of stuff has a lot of truth to it but is overblown and exaggerated to make a point.
Nah, looks like somebody looking for followers.
Yeah, I don't sense that. There is some smoke there.
I don't even see any tinder, let alone sense smoke.
Tinder?? I think you may be looking in the wrong place :)
He's looking at the clouds in his eye and telling me it's smoke so there must be a fire.
I'm telling him there's nothing to burn therefore no fire.
I was trying to make light of what I thought was a typo, I thought you meant to type cinder, but instead typed tinder... now I'm just confused, lol
This is what happens when someone from an older generation who missed the boat on dating apps/websites meet someone from my generation who skipped boy scouts.
poor you. There were a lot of good parts in scouts.
Tinder
VS
Tinder
Really hard to tell at this point what we have in Lefty. I know for sure that people were certainly happy as can be with the OSU game. If you look at what we had with the previous group, he's light years ahead. In the end (and I hate to say this) it's the execution of the line that's killing this offense at the moment. French highlights numerous instances where the group has a mental or physical breakdown, and I imagine there are a plethora of other plays per game than don't get mentioned with his write-ups.
It all comes back to recruiting, it's the lifeblood of all great programs. I've read some great things about holding the coaches accountable, and yes, it's their jobs to fix the mistakes the line CONTINUOUSLY makes. However (as my old boss used to say), you can only polish a turd so much. There's a talent gap that has developed, and it's one that we used to be on the opposite side of. We used to beat teams simply because we had the better athletes. We were bigger, stronger, faster, and we no longer have that edge. I'd love to see what Loeffler could do if his players could not only execute plays more consistently, but also have that talent advantage.
The thing is that the coaches know all this. I think there's a reason Loeffler doesn't throw deep that often. He knows it's not a strength of Brewer, and he knows the offensive line won't hold up to allow the play to develop. Same thing with Foster's group. There's a reason he has to bring pressure with the blitz and put the secondary on an island. He's no fool, we can't get adequate pressure with our front 4 only and he knows it. He can't just let QBs sit in the pocket and pick us apart. I would love to see a dominant DL that can abuse the QB without pressure and let the secondary attack the football...but we just don't have that. To get back to the kind of football we want this team to play, they have to start bringing in the talent once again on both sides of the ball.
(Captain Obvious signing off....)
Things may be rough right now, but DW is still having fun
Now that we're this far into the season, I think it's a good time to reflect on what we have on the field at the moment, with the offense being a focal point.
I'll start by saying that I'm disappointed in our offensive performance this year overall. I had a lot of hope after the OSU victory, that quickly evaporated, but the only truly putrid offensive performance over an entire game was against Miami. Our rushing offense doesn't exist and our QB has had some interception-heavy games. We haven't gotten what I'm sure we were all hoping for out of year 2 under Loeffler.
However.
We are in year 2 of a rebuilding process that should take four years. We have youth all over the offense, some of which has been very impressive (Bucky, Ford, Rogers), some that has been good-but-not-great (Cam, McLaughlin) and some that is hopeful but experiencing the learning curve (Teller, Conte). Shai and Cline are both out with injury. I just named 9 players who are sophomores or freshmen of various shirt colors on offense and we have a quarterback that showed up three months ago.
Given the state of rebuilding, I'm disappointed but not altogether surprised. I thought we'd be able to handle at least two of the GT/BC/ECU/Miami group, and, had we done so, I think I'd be pretty happy with where we are on the season. Only the Miami game wasn't close. Progress IS being made, even if we seem to regress at times. Guys are gaining experience. Recruiting seems to be holding steady, maybe even improving a bit (although I hate to talk about recruits until they sign the dotted line).
The state of the offensive side of the ball doesn't seem to be great each week when I watch. I could use fewer screen passes. I'd like to be able to run better. I'd like a bit more consistency from Brewer. If this is the year we bottom out and we can see a positive trajectory through the remainder of the season, then I'll back off the Loeffler criticisms until next year. The end of next year is when I think we should seriously consider whether Loeffler is the coordinator of the future or not.
Hopefully we'll have a few more RS-freshmen ready to play next year, and maybe even some true freshmen ready to contribute. The youth we have now will be better seasoned and those that will stay through their senior years will still have 2016 to go (talking about our current sophs and under).
So now I see what we have. And this is how I'll judge us moving forward for the next season and a half.