I may be the minority, but I don't completely hate the call to run the WR screen. Our run game is ineffective and our best offensive playmakers are on the outside (at least with Shai McKenzie out). I do hate the design of our WR screens.
The play design that Loeffler tends to run sends the receiver moving away from the QB when the throw is made. This means it takes longer for the ball to get into the hands of the receiver. Another thing I don't like is it usually relies on 1 WR to block 1 DB with the pass-catcher left to make the other defender miss.
If the blocker does not execute his block or if the pass is not perfectly on target, we have a negative play. Brewer has struggled at times with the long, quick throw out to the flat, and high passes or passes behind the receiver completely mess up the timing of the play.
After watching Ole Miss and Auburn successfully run a lot of screens to their receivers, I noticed that their plays look nothing like ours. The video below shows a TD on a screen pass to Treadwell. My favorite part is it uses a short pass and the receiver is moving back to the QB when he makes the catch. The execution by the two ball-handlers is far easier than in our play design. This puts the ball into the fast guys hands as quick as possible with little room for error. The play then relies only on blocking, not on a perfect throw.
I would love to see Loeffler run more (or any, really) plays like this.
video credit to Micahel Belz
Comments
Agree with everything you said. Don't hate the screen at all, but the design, execution, and the timing of some boggles my mind.
Walked out my front door this morning, and VT was lined up in the parking lot running a WR screen play...
Sat down to a family dinner...
VT lines up for WR screen play
Scot Loeffler walked into a screen door. As he fell to the ground he thought, "game plan!"
The screen door was on a submarine.
Scot Loefler walks into a bar.
VT runs a screen play.
He wanted the mozz sticks, but came up 5 yards short.
Scott Loefler walks into a sports bar to watch a game on their huge TV.
He was frustrated, couldn't see the screen.
Scot Loefler's wet dream:
What Ole Miss' LT did on that play was nasty.
Pro, use of screens. Against, screens as our only passing play.
C'Mon Fernley, that's no even close to true, especially yesterday.
Brewer had 345 yds passing and I'd bet only about 20-25 of that was on screens. 2 of our TDs were on passes that were not screens.
Our screens are part of an option play to net about the same yards as a basic running play. It's gets the ball out fast and to a receiver.
Definitely not the same type of play as we saw in the clip.
Sorry, i think you are carrying over the discussion we are having on the other thread. I absolutely don't think this is true. I agree with everything you just said.
This was just a quip for humor. Nothing more.
Leg for you cause I need more coffee or am a little obtuse today.
No worries. Actually, you and I see the state of things very similarly. I am definitely not a sky is falling kind of guy. the stuff with Beamer and Loeffler we were discussing on the other thread is just logical assumptions. I'm not calling for anyone's head, especially Beamer.
have a turkey leg with your coffee
Oh no, you have a leg with my coffee.
I don't really like them -- well, certainly not as many as were called on Saturday or against Miami. They may play to VT's strengths on paper, but in the real world they simply don't. VT simply doesn't run them well (for several reasons) and every team knows it. It's not a coincidence they're giving that play to VT...they know that it's not a threat for big yards and has a high likelihood of 3 yards or less even in a bad D matchup.
On paper, Loeffler calls a pretty good game. But I think Loeffeler is getting too caught up in the Xs & Os game and paying too much attention to the mental battle with the other team's DC -- and not factoring his player's strengths and weaknesses enough into the play calling equation.
Different from the O'Cainspring "RUN RUN PASS PUNT" approach for sure
Run Run Draw Punt.....geez you've forgotten everything so quickly.
Against BC we could have said Screen-Screen-Screen-FAKE PUNT!
The great thing about screens is that they really require so little from 8 of the players on the field. It requires a relatively short throw, one block and one miss to bust a big one. Even with one block, a decent throw, and a runner falling forward, you still can pick up 3 or 4 yards pretty easily. The absolute best thing is that so long as you don't throw it against press coverage and unless someone really screws up, the worst you'll do is a 1 yard loss or so. It's a safe, simple play that requires very little from the O-Line and can get safeties and corners cheating up to open up stuff over the top or the running game in the middle. The reason we keep seeing so much of it is that no one respects the running game or the deep ball, so they continue to leave our receivers with a numbers advantage on the outside, which is a perfect setup for the screen.
When you get into tunnel screens (receiver running back to the QB when he gets the pass), then you start involving O-Linemen who have to sell the pass then get out and block without clipping, chop blocking, holding, whiffing on a quicker linebacker or hitting anyone in the back. Plus, you have defenders taking a free charge at your QB and said short QB has to try to get the ball over/around them to his receiver. In short, a lot more can go wrong.
And yet, 80%+ of VT's WR screens go for less than 4 yards...
Of the three or 4 people it requires to work well, 3 are often freshman and not particularly good blockers at this stage of the game. And IMO for similar reasons that VT 's receivers aren't particularly good at shedding receivers, they're not particularly adapt at making the explosive move with the ball to get yardage on a WR screen.
I know you were using hyperbole, but I'd be interested to find out (cough cough FRENCH cough) what the percentage actually is. I know he wrote the other day that the average vs BC was over 4 yards per.
I don't know the actual numbers, but it's not really hyperbole. Perhaps the mean is over 4 yards, but that's skewed by a few that went for 10 or 12 yrds. I'll bet the median gain is less than 4 -- quite a few more of the WR screens are 4 or less than are 5 or more.
French did the research on the 1st half and so I will quote him directly.
Did you even read what I've written? I'm not talking about yards per attempt. I'm talking about the percentage of attempts that go for 4 yards or less.
If 1 WR screen goes for 20 yrds and 5 other times it goes for 1 yard - that 5 yards per attempt but it's also a play that is generally a failure and puts an already challenged offense in 2nd or 3rd and long way too often.
What percentage do you think went for 4 yards or less against BC, Pitt, and Miami combined? I'll bet that it was pushing 80%. That's makes it a poor percentage play on 1st down or 2nd/3rd and long.
It is not a coincidence that opposing teams are now giving it to VT; they're perfectly willing to give up the occasional 12 yarder...knowing that it has almost no chance of a long gain and a high likelihood of a short gain.
I guarantee that Duke will do the same until VT proves otherwise (which isn't likely).
This is a good point and one that I think people on the pro-screen argument are missing. I am pro screen but only when it is used sparingly and in the right circumstance, not as our primary passing attack. (that sentence is a bit hyperbole but used to make a point)
As French and others have pointed out screens when used correctly are great plays and deadly. But as marcb2 here is stating when an opposing defense knows you have a tendency for them and play to control them they are willing to give up a few 4 yarders and a longer play for 10 -12 here and there in return to stopping most for 1 or less yards. As he states, if I was Duke I would let VT keep running screens until they prove they can beat us with them, which up to this point from Stinespring, O'Cainspring to now has NEVER happened.
In my experience with football, screens are most effective when opposing teams don't expect you to run them very often. I could be wrong about this. I am not a football expert or coach, but that seems logical.
So what happens when the opposing team not only expects them but takes advantage of you using them by allowing you to get a few 4 yarders here and there? encouraging you to keep using them knowing full well that when you want to you can stop the screens for 1 yard or less?
I agree with you. I'm going to shoot myself in the foot here because I haven't looked at any statistics - but I really can't remember the WR screens picking up any sort of yardage, much less a first down. There's always a failed block by a small WR and the receiver can never make his man miss. There's just a lack of explosiveness and execution and mis-utilizing the talent that we have. WR screens have never been VT's thing for as far back as I can remember. We can sit here and argue about the avg yardage WR screens get - whether it's 3 or 4 yards or whatever - but when we're only picking up 4 yards on 2nd and 10 or 11 with WR screens that's continuously leaving us a 3rd and long.
Also, why can't our receivers get to the sticks on 3rd down? I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to pull my hair out seeing a completion with an immediate tackle 1 yard behind the sticks on 3rd down.
Marcb makes a great point, but put simply the offense are making too making execution errors on those plays and limiting the concept off of the screens. As far as using screens sparingly, it's a lot like run and pass plays. You can use the run to set up the pass and vice versa.
To your point CAhokie, it once again comes to execution. We are missing blocks making Brewer throw a check down or quicker than he would want to, Brewer is sometimes making incorrect reads or just missing the throw (Wrong read on Smash concept which leads to INT late in GT and bad throw towards Isaiah on Smash concept on 3rd down from our own goal line vs. Miami), and sometimes it's the route running. I remember in the Pitt game running the mesh concept multiple times on third down and the route just wasn't ran correctly in order to disrupt their man coverage and create enough separation.
4 yards on 2nd and 10 or 11 is perfectly fine. Definitely beats a run for 2 yards or a dropback pass which has typically resulted in less-than-positive outcomes (sacks, hits on Brewer, incomplete passes, short gains, etc). So why not give ourselves a more manageable 3rd down on a low-risk play which then allows us to run another low-risk play on 3rd and medium?
And the receivers not running their routes to the correct depth has been an issue all year. I'm sure that's high on A-Mo's list of things to fix at this point.
I gotta disagree. Yes, it goes without saying that 3 & 6 is better than 3 & 8, but the playbook in those scenarios really isn't that different. But 4 yards on 2nd & 10 is not a good play -- especially for this VT team. 3rd & 6 is not where this team -- or any team, really -- wants to be. Your playbook is much, much narrower than at, say, 3rd & 4.
What's scary is that Loeffler thinks the WR screen is a good play call for this team as often as -- and in the situations -- he calls it. What might be even scarier is if he is, unfortunately but quite possibly, correct...
I think the scariest part is that he is correct. Believe me, I'd love to see this offense run all over people or be able to execute the drop-back passing game without looking over to the tunnel to see if they're warming up the ambulance, but at this point, the screens are the best combination of low-risk, minimal execution (really just one guy getting a block and a decent throw), and low-to-medium reward.
Yeah. As much as I don't like seeing the WR screens as much as and when they are being used, I realized as I was writing my dissertation against them that I didn't really have any better suggestions.
I guess the one thing I'd like to see is something that melds the ill-matched pass game skill sets and run game skill sets a little better. Something like...uhhh...WR screens...uggh.
I hope Morehead is coaching up the youngsters' blocking skills...
I did and presented the data that of the 5 screens that occurred in the first half 1 went for less than 4 yards.
4-5 yards not an ineffective play. I'm not sure any of these were 3rd down plays.
I'd also like to point out that these are a triple option type play with the screen as an option.
The other options here looked to gain less yardage.
The other options here are typical run options, a dive or a run in the area of the end.
What sort of play would you like to see instead?
Yeah, data for half a game is a great indicator of what's been happening with the screens all season. If there's anything to take away from the data you've presented, it's get the ball in the hands of Bucky if we're going to run a screen, he can just fall forward for 4 yards.
I can't talk X's and O's (still learning, slowly but surely) - so to tell you the truth I don't know what play would be better in the system that we run - that's why I'm not an OC. I do know that 3 and outs that feature a WR screen frustrate the hell out of me though.
What exactly is wrong with a 4 yard gain? It's certainly better than our average gain on the ground this year
A 4 yd gain will keep you ahead of the sticks.
An option that includes a screen, in my mind is a good play at 4 -5 yds.
My issue is that they need to go to either Bucky or Deon Newsome, not to Ford, Phillips and Byrn... They are too tentative and not as good in space.
Bucky stutter steps quite a bit in space as well instead of going north-south. He's doing DB's a favor if he isn't going strictly north-south.
I would argue that Willie Byrn is our best receiver in space by far.
Yeah...imagine how good we would be if we played our games in space....Byrn would be All-Intergalactic 1st team...
Accompanying him would be Chewie, Spock, and that alien bug dude from Men in Black, Edgar.
If Willie could figure out how to implement his inner Buzz Lightyear, I think he would have no trouble transferring from the Inside-The-Five club to the Endzone-Club.
Him and Rogers I think are charter members of that club.
Unfortunately, yes, he is easily the best yards after catch receiver (while Stanford has had some good plays, IMO he tends to catch with his body or go to the ground which cut down on his ability to create after the catch).
I think you need to look at Rogers for that too.
Yep, forgot Rogers. But his stuff is almost more the element of surprise. I'm not in agreement with those who want to see him getting significantly more touches. I don't think he will be nearly as effective if he is used as a primary playmaker.
The Ole Miss play is a tunnel screen more than a quick Bubble screen. They are sending linemen and a RB out there to create that tunnel. We have destroyed opponent WRs on plays like that when a block is missed and a LB reads it. I do agree it would be nicer to get the ball out to the WR faster
I don't mind our quick screens to the outside because they usually get us yardage. I believe many of our quick screens are option plays by the QB. He reads the defense and has the choice to hand it off or throw it quickly. (I may be wrong here) It is a numbers game and if we have 2 WR against 2 or less defenders then Brewer can sling it out there. If they have help and it is 3 defenders then the run should be expected with less guys to block by the LOS.
I was going to make this point, glad someone else sees it. I don't mind the WR bubble-type screens, but I wish we ran something other than these like the tunnel screen or a slip screen. Other than Cam Phillips, our WR have not shown much in blocking. When you think about the state of the OL we have a mix of the quick agile Curt Newsome type and some of the bigger Grimes/Searels type.
We need to go ahead and pull the quicker lineman on some tunnel screens to the WR or slip screens to the RB and let them work in space. Running the tunnel types gets our RB, TE, and pulling OL onto smaller second level defenders where they can be effective rather than a WR trying to block a CB or Safety which is not as advantageous. More variety will keep defenses on their toes if our boys can figure out how to block them.
Someone was confused on the design of these screens after the Miami game and I commented and used some images to help illustrate how these plays can be effective. You can find that here: Screens Explained
Here is another link which explains how Chip Kelly uses the packaged screen-zone run option. Lefty implements a very similar attack in this regard, but a lot of missed assignments have made us not as successful. Take a look: Chip Kelly Package
Loeffler walks into a bar with a parrot on his shoulder....the bartender says, "Hey, whats your favorite play?"
.....the parrot says "Screen pass"
After looking more into the bubble screens that we run. It seems like we are just not good at executing a lot of times or Brewer makes the wrong read (assuming we are running an option play when he throws the screens pass). But the fact that we don't execute this play well all the time this late in the season is disheartening , which is why I was hoping for more of the tunnel screen looks.
This article about Oregon's offense makes it seem like, aside from poor blocking on the outside, not being able to run the ball inside when we have a number advantage is really hampering the offense. Imagine that; it all comes back to the O-line...