Guys, I expected the offense to struggle. So much about college football is determined by match-ups. Ohio State had an awful offensive line and great athletes who were getting their first taste in pressure playmaking. The quick defensive line and movement overwhelmed their front, and the inability to hit the big play cost the Buckeyes the game.
Wake presented a similar challenge. They had great blitz design and timing, and for whatever reason (my film review will be singularly devoted to pass protection) the Hokies identification of blitzes and pickups have been horrendous all season. It was a match up nightmare that I expected would present the offense major difficulties, but that they would scrape together enough points to win in a 17-7 type manner.
I don't think even I, on my most negative of days, could have predicted what we saw today. I am not sure how to quantify it. The Hokie offense had fits and spurts like an damaged engine. Brewer again was indecisive. Our mystery man who sets the protections continued to shift protections away from the blitz, seeing Sam Rogers (GET HEALTHY TREY EDMUNDS) left to deal with two pass rushers by himself. Receivers struggled to get separation (or it looked that way on TV-those at the game feel free to correct me.) Coleman again looked pretty good, but is limited on how he can be used.
Beamer will take heat, and I don't know if he will survive. Last season, Loeffler found a few things that worked well enough to build offensive structure off of them. This season, any elements where they do well are siloed as part of the overall structure, making them easier to defend. (Inside and outside zone reads have worked sometimes the last two games, but are limited because there isn't a running threat presented on the keeper to tie up backside pursuit.) The play action seems to be built off the jet sweep structure, which has been ineffective. We have not seen any quick slants off IZR action- which was a staple between Logan and DJ Coles last year.
I am going to look more at Motley's play, but I would have made the switch. As I said on twitter, the only justification for not making the switch was that Motley's limited practice time means he only has that "Wild Turkey" package down. And, I would argue that the justification is misplaced because A) you have to win the game and it seemed pretty clear that if Motley could give you anything in play action, he would provide a major upgrade to the running game and B) as a staff, if you are not going to play one of the redshirts YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE NEXT MAN UP PREPARED WITH THE WHOLE GAMEPLAN. So, if Loeffler didn't make the switch because he didn't feel that Motley was prepared, then that is on Loeffler. If he didn't play Motley because Loeffler didn't think he gave them the best chance to win, then I don't trust his feel for the game.
Looking at the bigger picture on offense, the one thing that I wanted to see Loeffler do was change the offensive culture. Starting with the end of the Kevin Jones era (2003), the Hokie offense moved away from the power I/option concepts of Ricky Bustle and tried to "modernize" in order to excite a fan base that complained about predictability and to attract recruits who wanted to play in a high scoring system.) First, they shifted to zone concepts and more drop-back passing. Then, we had the brutal "We Went to Texas to Learn the Spread in a Weekend" effort with Logan. And, after changing the offensive staff, the offensive ethos still is to trick and deceive rather than dominate. Perhaps the scheme reflects the staff's belief that the personnel can't dominate, but that just perpetuates that mindset.
Even with their limitations and a handful of breakdowns, the defense played beyond well enough to get the win today. I join Bud Foster in their frustration, and I am also despondent because I know that good kids are going to be catching a bunch of crap this week.
I am at a crossroads here. I have been a fan a long time, and I have seen this scenario play out time and time again in other programs, and I know that burning things to the ground and rebuilding rarely have the immediate improvement and turnaround that everyone involved wants. But what the results we saw today, which from what I could tell was in no way a byproduct of a lack of EFFORT by the players, just is not acceptable.
Comments
You know things are bad when a 2-8 team is a "match-up nightmare" for you.
I laughed and cried at this simultaneously...
It was a matchup nightmare because their defensive strength was passing and we have no running left.
Coleman had 98 yards but he can't be the only thing.
Matchup nightmare....
Teams that beat Wake
UL Monroe
Utah State
Louisville
Florida State
Syracuse
Boston College
Clemson
NC State
Avg giving up 195 rushing yards a game is an opportunity to make up for the passing
At the end of the day it's a loss to the worse team in the worse division. The back to back worse team in the ACC
Wake is in the Atlantic...I would argue the Atlantic is better than the Coastal..just saying
Well there are many ways to measure - What bowl games will each conference division get in to would be interesting but has other factors involved, but does benefit the $chool the most
What division provides the most playoff contenders, only one sec team allowed for comparison purposes
Computer Rankings
Saragin
"central mean" gives the most weight to the middle team(s)
in the group and progressively less weight to teams as you go
away from the middle in either direction, up or down.
This tends to smooth out the effect of anomalous teams that are rated
much higher and lower than the middle team(s) in the group.
Central mean on scale of 100
1 SEC-WEST = 91.62
2 PAC-12(SOUTH) = 80.80
3 SEC-EAST = 79.33
4 BIG 12 = 78.98
5 ACC-COASTAL = 74.75
6 PAC-12(NORTH) = 74.64
7 BIG TEN-EAST = 74.62
8 BIG TEN-WEST = 73.83
9 ACC-ATLANTIC = 72.91
or from a overall view "simple mean" weights each team equally
no matter where they are relative to the middle.
SEC WEST =91.15
PAC 12 SOUTH =79.32
BIG12 =78.68
SEC EAST =78.57
PAC 12 NORTH =75.73
BIG 10 EAST =75.38
ACC COASTAL =75.03
BIG 10 WEST= 74.27
ACC ATLANTIC =72.91
leg for backing your shi* up
I was just going on....well nothing really..I never played football and so I know (relatively) nothing about it
well done
thanks,
Do you see the difference in points from SEC-East/Pac to ACC Atlantic and then thats an average and how bad does that make Wake Forest. That's a 10% difference and I'm not a stats guy but thats got to be a big deal
(Your leg total means you know something about Tech Football)
This "matchup nightmare" is what makes it even more maddening that they stuck with Brewer. Put Motley in there, run the zone read, which even with VT's limitations run blocking presented a mismatch against Wake's run D, and then hit them over the top via play action often enough to keep them honest.
It's not rocket science but VT continues to invent ways to look even more inept on offense (just when you didn't think it was possible). Well the good news after last week is that I really don't think there is a way to be more inept on offense. You can't score less than zero points in regulation and only managing a FG through 2 OT's is akin to finding a way to score negative points.
VT (a losing terrible program in the eyes of Ohio State's fans) was a match up nightmare for the Buckeyes, and as result, they may not make the playoff because they couldn't overcompensate. Whether you folks want to realize it or not, the margins for winning and losing are tiny. And today, Wake's blitz structure and corner play took advantage of VT's biggest weakness and turned it into a win. As Winston Zeddemore once said, "they had the tools, they had the talent."
I still cannot believe that a 2-8 team would be a matchup nightmare for anyone. They may have matchup nightmares on paper, but they are 2-8, which means at some point they don't execute the matchups which causes them to lose games.
Look at their schedule- they were competitive with everyone they played (tied 3-3 with FSU with a minute left in the half, had Clemson on the ropes, played some good teams close) because their defense forced those QBs into mistakes and caused negative plays. If you look at all those teams, they all had mobile QBs except for Cole Stoudt that could make some plays against the blitz. NC State knocked their dick in the dirt. Would anyone here not take their QB over our current situation? Their offense was dreadful, and much like the Hokies put the defense in bad spots, hence the losses.
Again, go back and watch them against Clemson. Watch them against FSU. This isn't that shocking. What is shocking is that the Hokie offense could get 17 first downs and not score a point. The coach didn't sustain success by play calling to build on what was working, and his QB and the QB's protection failed in key spots. There are your drive killers.
Counter argument: They were 2-8 before coming into this game. They're not playing against ranked teams week in and week out. Stop making excuses French. Maybe VT shouldn't have covered the 14 point spread but they shouldn't have lost this game.
Also FSU has been terrible in the first half against the majority of the teams they played this season. Bringing up that they were only down by ten points at halftime against FSU isn't saying much when 8-9 teams were "competitive at halftime" with FSU.
They are 2-8 and Stop Making excuses, French. Sounds more like an emotional than logical counter argument.
He detailed prior to the game in detail, how Wake could give us fits and that's what they did.
Don't lose the forest through the trees. The offense was awful today. I don't care if they have "the perfect personnel" to stop Virginia Tech's offense- it's unfathomable that Wake Forest's defense (which hasn't held an ACC opponent to less than 20 points the entire season until today) should shut out our offense in 60 minutes of football. Again, French's argument is convincing that VT wouldn't cover the 14 point spread, it's not convincing that Wake Forest was going to be us.
I seem to recall French saying that he felt we would win 17-7 even with the matchup issue.
Yup.
And French has also detailed specific problems with our offense as well but, that does not mean that Wake's defense did not play lights out today.
Which is not covering the spread. I don't really understand the confusion on this subject. We should have beat Wake today. We didn't. Wake was a bad matchup for us going in to the game which was clear without any film review because their clear (and only) strength is their defense. Our clear weakness is our offense.
Didn't say the offense wasn't awful today and neither did French.
French is not making excuses, he's explaining why. Significant difference.
They have an excellent pass defense and we have a poor pass protection.
They have a poor run defense but we have a depleted rushing attack.
We still should have beat them but there's the reasons why we did not score a single point in regulation.
My expectations yesterday was that we were going to have to score on special teams or defense in order to get things moving. I'd didn't expect the offense to provide our first score.
They were 2-8 for a reason. They should not have beaten us.
Again, I said repeatedly that it doesn't excuse the loss. I said that it isn't surprising that the offense struggled and I wrote in the preview it would. I am shocked and dismayed that they couldn't put a single TD on the board. I am just sick and tired of people absolutely dismissing other football teams contributions to this malaise.
This has seen to be our M-O for years. So frustrating.
I don't see any scenario where Loeffler survives. If Beamer does survive, think he would truly call the shots on a new OC? Any thoughts on who? I have about as much trust in Beamer to pick an offensive coach as I do my dog to not fart in bed.
What OC worth his salt would want to come here with the situation the program is in?
really? I think a coach who is trying to make a name for himself....Look at the praise that Gus Malzhan got for taking Auburns dumpster-fire of an offense from 0-100 in one season...If a coach has enough confidence in his ability to do that they could become a legend quickly in Blacksburg if they put our offense on the map 'over night' so to speak
That makes the completely erroneous assumption Frank would allow an OC to actually use a modern offensive strategy, as opposed to Frank's favored 1980's era Claiborne show. No OC can come in unless he is willing to bow to Frank's wishes for caveman football, and also aware that Frank will be gone himself in 1-2-3 years, anyway.
What are you basing this on?
Moving away from caveman football is exactly why the program is in the mess that it is in right now. I'd call today's performance a lot of things. But I didn't see anything remotely looking like caveman football. I saw soft, fancy, spread it around football. And lots of teams play, and can defend, soft fancy spread it around football especially when it is done without good structure or conviction.
It's done without structure or conviction because Frank Beamer won't let his OC commit to a modern offense.
And the program is in the condition it's in right now because when real changes needed to be made on offense, they weren't. The whole program and half it's supporters were whistling past the graveyard while recruiting took a nosedive.
Yeah, Oregon sure has been snuffed out a lot lately. Despite what many believe, there is more to current offensive football than pass-happy offenses. Even when discussing the spread mindset. But it's always an easy response to dismiss it that way. A lot of 'soft fancy' teams have managed to score on Wake this season, FTR.
May I ask, how much film have you watched on Wake Forest this year?
Ah, so you're going there, eh? Tape measure time? Well, enjoy it, and enjoy Frank's offensive prowess while we sail to record heights under it. Cavalierly dismissing modern offensive football as 'soft' & 'fancy' does nothing but ignore our offensive problems. They're real, and the results are on the scoreboard for all to see. We can all see it, but some just don't want to admit it.
I mean, you are lecturing a guy who played collegiality and who likely has the highest football IQ on this board on what a modern offense really is...I'm not sure what kind of response you were expecting...
Forget about me. I am just some schlep who sucked at a little DIII school. Don't take my word for it. Take a minute to read Dwight Vick's twitter today. www.twitter.com/vick757
Feel free to argue with the all conference offensive linemen and former team captain. He must not understand how important it is to have this new fangled "modern offense" either.
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN.
Dwight is the man. Said a lot of interesting things today. I didn't realize his little brother used to play at Tech or that Kyle Bailey is his cousin. Or something.
Modern football still requires toughness, and that was lost because in the effort to copy the innovators on their systems. This core offensive staff, Stinespring, Hite, etc, understood Jerry Claiborne caveman football, and it fit exactly what was needed to win at Virginia Tech. I can point to countless games that the Hokies won by significant margins where they didn't put up anywhere close to the 17 first downs they put up today. Every comment you have made demonstrates that you don't understand what modern offensive football is, which is hilarious given that "modern offensive football" is merely a different rehashing of old concepts out of different formations. Oregon's offense is a zone-blocking version a triple option- no different in goal and objective than a Darryl Royal wishbone, just from a different look. Much of Urban Meyer, Chad Morris, and Gus Malzahn's offense comes from THE SINGLE WING, an offensive system that vanished from the NFL in the 40's and departed college football when JOHNNY MAJORS was still a player.
Good football is good football. There are certain fundamentals that must be in place, but there are a ton of different ways to skin a cat. Playing follow the leader isn't a ticket to success. Oregon got to where they are by being the innovator. If you can get Oregon's OC to come in and run this system, AWESOME. Sign me up. But they can't, and won't do that. So if you can't be the best at something, find something else to be the best at.
Winning Virginia Tech football has always been about dominating the line of scrimmage. I don't care if the coach is Frank Beamer, Jim Harbaugh, the ghost of Pop Warner, or Wee Willie Fucking Keeler, whoever is here next season, this must be a true mandate. If there is anything where I am furious with Frank is that he demanded that the OC replacing O'Cain run the football, and he hired someone who has done anything but.
Amen...amen....that's exactly right.
Since we won't get a reply, I will share. Wake has the tenth ranked passing defense in the country. They have two All-ACC corners, and the best blitz design concepts I have seen from a defense all season. They made the defending National Champs and Heisman winner look terrible for a half.
Why the loses? Simple- go back and look at the number of turnovers and short fields that the offense put them into. Wake's offense was bad (while Bud's group did plenty to win the game, Wake had more success than I would have expected based on the film.) That is where the points came in. They got drilled twice, once against NC State, and once against the defending national champs who didn't piss a drop against them for a half. This wasn't a bad defense.
But please, oh guru of the go go offense, share with us how the Hokies can institute the Oregon offense and run it better than the experts who created, nurtured, and have years of lessons learned on what works best within the framework. Again, it is this horseshit mentality that sent the offensive staff down to Texas thinking they could learn the spread from sarcastia noted offensive guru Mack Brown and Major Applewhite in between a weekend of barbque and golf.
Can you imagine the conversation?
FRANK: Damn shame! Goddam team is lagging! We need a shot in the arm. Hear me, boys? In the goddam arm! If the fans had an election held tomorrow, that sumbitch Dabo would win in a walk!
Shane- "He's the HUNH coach with Morris by his side, Daddy."
Stinespring- "Yeah? - A lot of people like that spread no huddle. I hear Mack and Major run it. Maybe they can show us a play or two."
What Frank should have said "I'll no huddle you, you soft-headed son of a bitch. How we gonna run HUNH? We're the caveman football team! Is that the best you can come up with? HUNH! Weepin' Jesus on the cross."
Thanks to Oh Brother Where Art Thou and the Honorable Governor Pappy O'Daniel for the inspiration.
That's Funny. Maybe we will wake up on Monday and Loeffler will have turned into a bullfrog..
"horny toad"
and because I can...
best laundry scene ever.
Frank as Pappy and Shane as his son. How very appropriate. Do the Soggy Bottom Boys represent Power I? Will December be the flood? Answers, please.
YESSSSSSSS FRENCH THANK YOU! if I'm whit, first question I ask myself when starting search is "how do I get Wisconsin football in Blacksburg".
Please everyone quit pushing for trendy offensive Football
This this this. The amount of horizontal movement that we need to do to make even a few yards of vertical progress is endlessly frustrating, in part because the other pieces that make flanker screens and sweeps effective (rapidity of the play, every man blocking, timing) are lacking.
Last year I wanted my Hokies to be like Stanford in the 2013 Oregon game. Tight gaps, brutal lane clearing line play, nasty. This year's model would be Wisconsin.
I pine for the Maryland-I and bruising running offense we had in the Lee Suggs and Kevin Jones era.
Why would a coach want to do that if the last OC has been turfed out in two years? If he'll have restrictions put on his offensive style and playcalling from the getgo? Where he'll be the immediate target for fans when the defense exceeds the offense (often)?
That's an awful easy position for an OC to come in as a scapegoat. Virginia Tech has a long history of offensive failure and isn't exactly stocked with talent on the o-line. I just don't know who we could pick up who would truly be an improvement. Any candidate that comes to mind would likely be up and coming, a risky bet. If we want to start a revolving door of risky bets at OC, that's a decision that conflicts with our recruiting strategy - not to mention that it doesn't exactly have a history of success.
It would only be a one-time risky bet under Frank Beamer though.
does anybody really have any proof that Frank Beamer is forcing Scot Loeffler's hand? I have a hard time believing that SL is being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Does it matter? Beamer hired SL, Beamer promoted Stiney and then kept him employed as OC for a decade. The only constant in FB and all his failed OCs is FB himself. So SL gets fired and FB takes another crack at it? Is there any evidence to support the notion that FB could hire someone worth a damn, or would theoretical person worth a damn want to come work under a Coach in Beamers situation?
Yeah, but the only times Stinespring or Loeffler have failed is when they tried something new, you know. New is bad, evidently, and never works. Only the old stuff works. That's why no other teams have succeeded by straying from the tried & true of the distant past.
Yes. Yes it does matter.
If Frank Beamer is handcuffing his OC's by demanding that they call plays that are doomed to fail, then the only way the program will move forward is by firing him (BTW, I see zero evidence anywhere that Frank gets involved with the offense on gameday other than the most general "we need to run more" guidance).
If Frank Beamer only tells his OC what his vision is (for example, a run-first offense that controls the clock) then it's possible that the correct OC can come in and work within that framework... Especially if the OC hiring choice is taken from his hands.
The question is "Will hiring a new offensive coordinator be enough to revive the program OR is Beamer the problem?". "Is Beamer forcing Loeffler's hand" doesn't just matter... it's the most fundamental question for the future of the program.
I don't know what to think anymore. I really think the lack of a stud (mobile) QB is our biggest problem. We were good with Randall, Vick, Tyrod. I've got no confidence in Loefflers recruits being much better than what we have now. I was impressed by Motley in the spring, and the last two weeks backed that up-he should have finished the game.
The optimist in me can't excuse the fact that we've lost our best 3 backs, 2 OL, an all American nose tackle, all ACC corner, and a senior MLB for the season. That's tough to overcome. And due to recruiting misses we are not deep on either line. I thought 2015 was a playoff chance, but we've done nothing but regress all year... We've done nothing to build momentum for next year, we've done the opposite. I'm for hitting reset coaching wise. Give Bud his due....
I think at a very high level we have circumstantial evidence indicating that Frank stepped in a few times. Several times during the 2006-2009 stretch the offense would be more finesse oriented early in the season. Lots of rocket sweep motion behind zones, more passing than running etc. Then there would be a loss followed by a stretch of "caveman football" where you would see much more emphasis on man blocking, the kick out edge play that was featured until Loeffler was hired, and the patented two tight ends taking you to the ball inside zone leads. It had appeared that there had been a directional change, and every time it worked.
The offensive failing back then was the lack of structure around those bread and butter plays. You knew that if the offense lined up in I formation with twins to the boundary, they were running a variant of a quick WR screen. There wasn't a dive, sweep, or speed option. It almost always that screen. When we saw them motion the tight end and HBack from one side to the other, they were blocking down the TEs, cracking the WR, and pulling the play side guard to kick out the corner. There wasn't a dive play, a counter, or a bootleg off of that action. And, it became so easy to identify that defenses would leave the interior almost undefended and would overload the outside. I would have a field day with the video game view of the Clemson ACCCG. In that game, Clemson essentially left Brandon Thompson and one other threat tech inside, with their inside linebackers lined up over the offensive tackles. They left the inside undermanned and dared Stinespring to run inside, and he wouldn't. Everything kept going outside, where Clemson had numbers.
With Loeffler, I had not seen anything remotely similar, until the Miami game where Loeffler just ran the same play over and over, almost like he was doing it to prove a point outside of the context of winning the football game. Perhaps the same message was sent, and Loeffler rebelled? Who knows. That would be pure speculation, but it looked funny. Since then, passing game looked better against BC and Duke, when Brewer wasn't staring down the rush. Against Duke and BC, the running game looked pretty good for the personnel and system they are using, but they could not sustain drives when Brewer out them in negative situations.
For those of you now clamoring about Frank Beamer possibly having a degree of influence on "cave manning the offense" well that is his job. He is a head coach as a figurehead and executive. He makes decisions about the culture and key focus areas for the football team. That means determining the ethos of the team, and for Frank, he wants a ball control, field position game where his defense dominates and the offense cashes in on mistakes. As a head coach, his influence is 1) his hiring of coordinators and 2) he steps in time to time to direct a different approach if the ethos and results are not what he wants. That is his job. It appears that Frank did a bad job in picking an OC that aligned with his vision (and I would contend that he made a selection of someone outside of his comfort zone because of pressures from the fan base for a "more modern offense" and probably a bunch of influence from Shane). And this morning, I'd bet your ass that he is regretting that choice this morning.
Perhaps the problem is the scheme itself? We've shown over the years we just don't have the personnel to run the churn the clock pro style attack Beamer seems to cling to.
And while you say that hiring Loeffler was a mistake (I agree) what bothers me the most is the talent evaluation that happened during this process. How do you go from one offense that was awful under Stiney and O'Cain and make overwhelming changes to the staff, bringing in completely new guys with a fresh new thinking, and somehow end up with an offense thats more convoluted and broken than the one that continuously ranked near the bottom of all college football throughout the mid 2000s? I just don't get it. Fundamentally, from an offensive standpoint, Virginia Tech football is broken. This is something that transcends just one coaching hire, its been the case for arguably 15 years. We win based on the defenses we field. Our offenses do everything they can to lose us games, and we've finally regressed to the point where the defense can no longer save us. The defense pitched a shutout yesterday, and we still lost.
So my biggest problem is, how can you trust Beamer to make the right decisions offensively going forward when nothing we've tried throughout basically the latter half of his tenure has worked? Simply put, we're a broken football team right now that needs a complete rebuild from the bottom up in just about every phase of the game, save the defense, which is really our only bright spot. The last coaching change was supposed to start this process, and somehow we brought in apparently the only staff capable of furthering the damage. Considering the hires were completely up to Beamer, I don't see how the fault of what is going on right now doesn't fall on his shoulders.
One has to imagine that when Frank interviewed Loeffler he spelled it out clearly what he wanted and that he is involved in the game planning or the tactics they will use. How that strategy is carried out in-game is up to Loeffler. To absolve Frank would probably be incorrect. All conjecture but Loeffler's artwork looks too much like Stinespring's to be coincidence.
Yep, Frank is ultimately responsible for the hire. And he warrants that degree of heat for yesterday's performance. When the administrator of CMS unsuccessfully launches Healthcare.gov, the President takes the heat. Same deal.
Apparently other potential OC's were asking this question two years ago.
you let your dog sleep in your bed?
There are two kinds of people in this world
those who only read half a post and ask knee-jerk questions and those who read the whole post and get down to the important ones?
:p
Only after a win
#Hokies4CavemanFootball. I'd take Ricky Bustle's offense over what we saw today 1000 times and twice on Sunday.
Amen! That perfectly complements a Bud Foster Defense. Not to mention VT had some good OLines back then.
I think french went from six to midnight
Thanks for posting this. I was just thinking that Stanford's offense is the prime example of a 'modern caveman' offense.
#moderncaveman4VToc
Exactly. I would take that offense any day.
My high school mascot is the Cavemen. It's not a program I'd want to emulate.
But I agree, MOAR I-FORMATION!
I would take that, too. However with the candy-ass coaching this group has had we would get absolutely dominated by anyone with a pulse.
I can name about 4 players on this team that would fit that old school, tough, I'll-fight-you-to-the-echo-of-the-whitstle teams we used to have.
And two of them have torn ACL's.
And could still out "tough" those pansies I saw in the field today.
Pansies might be a little strong, but yes, I agree that we would struggle greatly with our current personnel trying to run a Stanford type offense.
Yes Yes Yes!!!
I was at the game in Winston-Salem. All I can say is the Hokies always surprise. I thought after the painful Logan Thomas era it could not get worse. I was wrong. I thought after the Miami blowout it could not get worse. I was wrong. I have never, in all my life (and I am not a young pup) seen such an anemic offense. Never.
First lets us talk about Brewer. Decision making. He knows, THE ENITRE HOKIE TEAM KNOWS a blitz is coming. Nobody can do a hot read and compensate? What is going on?? Three four five six sacks and no change??? Wow. Then there is decision making. Problems there. Get rid of the ball. Please do not take sack and please do not throw easy picks. (Yes the OL is the blame here too.) The mistakes just repeat and repeat and repeat.
Finally, I want to mention something about Brewer that is a problem: form. This guy has a bad habit, a REALLY BAD HABIT of throwing off his back foot. He does not step into his pass. The result is weak passes that are also off target. He does this again and again and again when he is forced to scramble. No one seems to have mentioned this issue. But it is a problem. This guy needs to stop being cute, throwing off balance, and off his back foot when he does not have to.
Now we need to look at Loeffler. My feeling is he gets one more year. But my belief he is taking this program backwards, not forwards. He seems to have no plays, no plans, no ability to handle the blitz. There are no quick slants, no hot reads. I do not understand it. I am not ready to toss Loeffler but I am now beginning to believe HE is the problem.
I hate offensive philosophies based on taking what the defense gives you. That is passive, weak-minded thinking. It requires an offense to be "multiple" in order to take advantage of whatever a defense might be "giving" in a particular game. College teams do not have the practice time to be good at a lot of offensive styles. Multiple offenses are jacks of all trades, masters of none.
I want an offense that has an identity and philosophy that makes you stop them. That is aggressive and dominant thinking. With limits on practice time, focus on executing some core concepts to perfection and build wrinkles off of them. I want an offense that is great at a few things, not mediocre to terrible at a lot of things, even if they are only great at being cavemen.
Anyone who thinks this is anything but a complete dumpster fire is delusional. This has been years in the making and the changes were too late and other than Morehead made things even worse. Frank is completely out of touch, looks like he has no control is so ridiculously optimistic that it is an insult to our intelligence.
Why any offensive recruit would want to come here is beyond me. Why any defensive recruit would come here is beyond me. Watch the de commits (Mook) start and forget Sweat, Settle
etc.
I trust Whit to make a good girl but we are minimum of 3-4 years away from digging out of this mess.
Your last sentence intrigued me, and really confused me. Not the 3-4 years part, the 'good girl' part. I think your fingers disconnected from your thoughts for a moment. Or vice versa! I'm thinking you meant hire, right?
Kennyhokie rises again
if a program down on its luck would dissuade any recruit from going there, then how does uva get anyone, much less 5*s?
I was watching the game with a group of Hokies. The consensus was that the current mess took root a few years ago with the "Jason from Arlington" call where Frank blew up with the infamous "You're out of whack!" reply to someone who questioned why he wasn't doing something about the offense. Well, this is the end result when you embrace mediocrity and are too blind with hubris to see what's wrong.
French 4 VT OC
CAVEMAN FOOTBALL
This is how you beat the teams that are bigger, stronger, faster and better funded. You hit them in the mouth and stagger them. X's and O's don't mean anything if you don't physically control the game.
Watch that hole open up at 3:13. See what fullbacks can do when they have enough lead in their pencil to hit somebody and move them.
yea, that was the mid 90s,
Defenses adapted, and offenses have to also.
Spurrier is credited with changing the way the SEC played football. Spurrier employed a pass-oriented offense "Fun 'n' Gun" in contrast to the ball-control, rush-oriented offenses that were traditionally played in the SEC. His innovative offensive schemes forced many coaches in the SEC to change their offensive and defensive play-calling.
This led to
5 Sugar Bowls
Won one national championship and played for another
Won six SEC championships
And I'd say he didn't have much to work with, Spurrier inherited a team under NCAA investigation for the second time in five years, and that had never won an officially recognized SEC football championship in 57 seasons of SEC play.
So you don't think teams that run the ball primarily out of i-formation/heavy (TE's or Extra OL) sets can win in college football anymore since "it's not the mid 90's"?
Nope, you just have to pick Texas with Vince Young and either run around the right side or throw a 60 yard go route back against your body. Duh. #ModernOffense
4th and 21 with 9 minutes left in the 2nd Q, from your own 18? FOUR VERTS BABY! GO FOR IT.
Let's be real, if it's 4th and 21, that probably means you're terrible and the quit button is going to be the next button pressed so you don't ruin your undefeated season.
RESET BUTTON!
But Spurrier also had great running teams at UF in addition to his vertical passing offense.
His UF teams ran the ball successfully making his passing concepts difficult to defend.
They averaged almost 5-7 yds/carry and amassed a lot of rushing yards each season.....remember Fred Taylor.
Eric Rhett as well
It doesn't matter what offensive system we employ or how much power I we run out if our oline continues to have major issues.
I wish we could have Wisconsin's or Stanford's oline, but right now we are starting a D3 lineman converted from the defense a few months ago. Don't get me wrong, love Hansen's effort and story, but the fact he is starting on the oline this year is pretty indicative of our issues
D3 defensive tackle, who wasn't even an all conference player at that level...
That would require a change in recruiting attitude I doubt we see til the next Head Coach
In 2012 Stanford signed 3 Top 10 Offensive tackle #2,#5 #6, none were within 6 hours of Stanford Stadium, They all had offers from similar schools and were heavily recruited . Tech's only Top 100 signee was the #96 Offensive tackle, lives 3 hours from Tech, with offers from UVA and Old Dominion. And he visited neither school
Stanford also signed the #48 guy.
Stanford had 4 of the Top 50 OT in the 2012 class sign, and not one was within 6 hours of the campus
UVA got the #64,76 and 79 top tackles
Searles is starting to make that happen.. for the 2015 class we have a commit from the #17 OT (and the #104 and #122). Equivalent to Stanford's 2012 freshmen class? no.. but much better than we've been doing @ VT the past few years.
Yeah, this. People don't realize how frickin hard it is to rebuild an OL left in tatters a LA Newsome. Searels has had some growing pains (ba dum ching) in his first season but I could see him producing some monster lines once he gets his guys and they learn his blocking scheme.
Considering the state of the program, it is unlikely that Searles will be here in 4 years. Whenever Frank leaves, it is not logical to assume that every one of his assistants stay for the new guy, nor that the new guy wants them to stay.
Every one of these assistants knows they're on a short time assignment now. It would be a huge surprise if Frank coached 4 more years at this point, so every assistant has to be aware they are coaching possibly their last, next to last, etc. season here more than likely.
Pinning hopes for a brighter future on these assistants getting 'their guys' recruited, on campus and a couple of years into the system isn't very realistic.
The remaining years of the big whistle doesn't change the fact that installing a new position coach takes time. If there were an OL coach out there who could come in and in one season repair all the damage that's been done to our OL, then he would deserve to be the highest paid position coach in college football.
What isn't very realistic is to demand immediate turnaround at a position that had been decimated, or to assume that a new head coach brings in an entirely new roster of positions coaches. Beamer himself inherited Billy Hite, and there is almost always some retention of positions coaches during a head coach turnover. Dont be surprised if many of the coaches on staff still work for Frank's successor.
I said nothing about Searels ability to shorten the time frame. To presume I did is missing the point I made entirely. I only said that it is not likely that he will have four years to do so. As for the current staff deciding to stay under Frank's successor, that is not their call to make.
The new coach will decide who he wants to interview, period. It is uncommon for new coaches to keep more than a token assistant from the previous staff. The exceptions being a hire from within, but even then there is turnover. New coach, new vision, new staff. History shows that occurs everywhere all the time.
It'll be Whit's decision how to structure the positions coaches under the new head coach when the time comes. The new head coach will have requests as to who he wants under him, but it's up to Whit as the AD to give the green light on that or go another direction.
The idea that a new coach gets all his desired candidates for positions coaches and coordinators "everywhere all the time" is a bit of hyperbole. Yes, there are example of wholesale staff replacement, and a new head coach usually (but not always) means a new OC and DC. But retention of at least some position coaches is the norm, beyond just a "token" to the old staff. It all depends on the individual circumstances and the state of the program, and quite often is determined by how many assistants the outgoing coach took with him elsewhere.
Except that it does. The formality of Whit signing assistant coaches is essentially that, a formality. New coaches are virtually never rebuffed in who they want to install. Exception being character issues, or contractual problems. Coordinators are virtually always replaced, as are most of the position coaches. Yes, there are some exceptions, but often those are for coaches who might have just begun their careers, who are given a little time to season before moving on elsewhere.
Wholesale replacement is the overwhelming norm. Looking in the ACC alone - Clawson at Wake replaced all on his staff except for one 1st year & 1 2nd year position coach. Dueron at State replaced all but one 1st year position coach. Petrino at UofL replaced everybody. Those are the typical experiences. AD hires new coach. New coach has his list of hires, the AD vetts them & agrees. Virtually everyone on staff is replaced. That is how it works. Even in the ACC. New coach, new direction for program, new vision, new staff.
Around 12:28 "Picked off by big play Torrian Gray"
Man would the fans hate seeing all those screens! Can you fathom what the message boards and Twitter would have been saying during that game with all those screens.
was going to make a comment that I didnt like that offense because of all the screen passes which I have learned from this forum never work.....
Remember that game as if it were yesterday and all the trash talk from Texas fans.
A lot of our young fans don't know the hunger and drive our guys had back then.
We were the "Boise State" of that time and were earning respect. Now we are becoming an afterthought!
Becoming? We are already there. Our national relevance this season consists solely of being the horrible team that beat Ohio State to keep them out of the playoffs (thus far) and that gif of Frank raising both arms in exuberant celebration of a regulation game ending in a 0-0 tie.
Love that the first item on the list for Texas was "Handle Cornell Brown"
and then one of the first highlight clips involved texas notably failing to 'handle cornell brown'.
Right on, brother....right on! The nail has been sledged right on the head!
lol i wanted to do this but was feeling lazy. leg.
Yes. Glad you knew what I meant!
One point I hadn't seen made yet regarding the coaching staff was the play calling and coaching philosophy in the 1st overtime. We had the ball and needed a touchdown to win. Instead of trying to win the game we "played not to lose." We ran the ball up the middle 5 times in a row, getting a first down on the way. Then on 3rd down, from about the 15 yard line, it looked like Brewer had a couple options but he chucked the ball out of bounds, like he was afraid to even try the throw. What does that tell you about a team and a coaching staff that is afraid to go for a win against a 2-8 team? I knew we deserved to lose in the next overtime.
Changes are coming all the Pro-Beamer people will hate it but lets be honest he isn't fit/able to coach anymore. Yeah he is a great guy but there comes a time when you have to look ahead and think another year under Beamer like this and VT football could very easily turn into a MAC type team. a 7-5 team with a new coach would be a 100000% improvement from this dumpster fire that we get to watch every week and go wtf.
IMO I don't think he will get fired but I bet WHit has a discussion with him and a mutual step down is what is needed/agreed upon. VT football needs a young coach with a lot of energy and one that is willing to work his ass of and make adjustments week in week out. Beamer seems to be contempt with the fact that every week the opponent's defense was top 5 level and we were only 2 plays away. LOL that statement is like saying ohh we're the first loser but hey guys its ok because we tried hard.
Enjoy the weekend Hokies because we're probably going to get demolished by UVA.
Whit would never straight up fire Beamer. He would give Beamer the option to "step down". If Frank turns that down, he'd lie and tell everyone Beamer is leaving "for health reasons".
Whit won't fire Frank after this season, nor should he. At some point, though, he will indeed tell Frank the time is nigh to retire. That could come in this offseason, and Whit tells Frank to take one final year to soak up everything, then step down after the 2015 year. I think Whit gives Frank until after the 2016 Season to retire, but I have no doubt that if Frank resists as stubbornly as Frank resists so many other things, Whit will call his bluff. He certainly respects Frank, and treats him with respect publicly. That doesn't mean he won't call Frank's bluff if Frank tries to pull a JoePa/Bobby Bowden deal. That's a couple of years away, though.
As my buddy said today, "UVa is going to beat the brakes off of us next week." The possibility of having the Wahoos take back the Commonwealth Cup, end our bowl streak, and send themselves bowling in one fell swoop has to be eating away at Frank...and to have it happen in our house?! The Wahoos seems to be a bit more consistent at the moment, and I don't think our offense is going to fare very well against that defense. I'll certainly be pulling for the Hokies, but we don't have any offensive answers at the moment.
Hey French, I know you (and by that I also mean we) are fired up right now, but what do you think is the real solution here? It seems like we've passed the shitty JoePa, Bobby Bowden event horizon.
Is this a decision for Frank or for Whit or for the fans? What's your opinion?
#OverReactionSaturday
If I am Babcock, right now I am surrounding myself with people I trust and regard as football experts. I am identifying the negative impact this season is having on revenue and branding, and comparing it to what looks to be an upswing in recruiting and young talent and do a SWOT analysis. None of us, me included, KNOWS specifically why this team isn't producing W's, and anything we say, again including me, is speculation. Nothing more. He should do detailed interviews including specifics on strategic vision and goals, and then challenge where said strategic vision doesn't align with this season's on the field product. He has to ask hard questions and get an idea if Frank
1) Has a plan
2) Is it viable and does it have an opportunity for success
3) will he have buy in from his staff and players.
If the answer is no to any one of the three, then I think Beamer has to go, as tastefully as possible. But, to retain continuity, you have to offer Foster the head job (keep in mind this recruiting class is almost exclusively defense) and allow him to identify the offensive staff. He gets a five year contract, with Gray getting the DC role. As much as I think caveman football is the way to go, Bud has competed against every good offense known in the country and knows which coaching staffs know how to get players, teach and execute their system (which is the part that has been lacking since Ricky Bustle left) and compliment the defense.
If Whit burns it down, I think there is maybe a 1 in 10 chance Whit makes a hire that creates a platform for long term success that takes the Hokies back to being a regional power. There are way way way too many pratfalls, especially being the guy to replace the guy, that will crush anyone who is less than the perfect hire.
On the subject of keeping recruits, would it help to create a position for CFB to keep him with the program, while making the changes you noted above?
If we have to, make him director of football operations and then have Whit hire whoever he wants for head coach and let that guy oversee the rounding out of the staff as he sees fit.
At this point I'm sad to say but Beamer is better off for us as purely being a figurehead who meets recruits and donors during campus visits. It's in our best interests to move on.
I think I read that in Frank's contract he automatically becomes Advisor to the Athletic Director or some such upon retirement. So that's pretty much built in at this point.
A few years ago, when Weaver re-signed Frank to his contract, he inserted a clause that whenever Frank retires, he will be named as an assistant to the AD for 8 years at $250K per year. His responsibilities will be fundraising and promotion of VT athletics. That was done about 4-5 years ago, IIRC.
Having a former head coach with heavy influence on the new head coach would be disastrous for the long term growth of any program. How productive do you think it would be for Charlie Strong to have Mack Brown as a 'special advisor' at Texas? Or Jimbo Fisher to have Bobby Bowden as a 'special advisor' at F$U?
Once Frank retires he will have a position in VT athletics to be as active as he desires in doing what Whit requires of him. That is appropriate.
I may be in the minority, but the thought of Bud and Torrian running things gave me a chubby. I won't offer my opinion on Beamer leaving this year, mostly because my opinion matters exactly zero and Whit's gonna do what Whit's gonna do. But I think if Bud is given the reigns, I trust him to make the right decision on his offensive staff. Or at least a not terrible one.
And if y'all are interested since he is such a favored topic of discussion, Rickey Bustle is just down the road running the offense for North Carolina A&T. Currently 67 in I-AA in total offense which is actually leaps and bounds ahead of where we are...
I agree, and I think Whit's #1 job needs to be securing Bud's stay at Tech. Regardless of history, loyalty, love for Tech/Blacksburg, Bud has ambition, and if the right school's arrows all line up for them to take a chance on him as head coach, I feel he will say thanks for recognizing my worth with the bonus, but I must bid you a tearful goodbye to pursue my dream.....and he deserves our fondest and most sincere thanks and well-wishes. Whit must learn where Foster's mind is, and put an offer in place to retain him -- a defensive genius may only come our way once a lifetime. In my opinion, he's earned his shot at head coach, and Whit may be just enough of a rebel to take a chance on the proven-yet-maybe-not-quite-the-charming-poster-boy. I'm sure Frank would bless the choice. Considering the head coach pool we probably have to draw from, it's probably our least risk route anyway. If Whit wants a flashier offense to increase fanbase, Foster has already expressed his preference for the up-tempo spread, and if Bud's friendship with the young and successful Lincoln Riley can draw him away from ECU, that sounds like huge potential for great success to me! Fortunately, what I've read of Whit's history, and the decisions he's made so far for VT, inspire nothing but confidence that his actions will be good ones. Our recruits have improved, and there is a lot of talent on the team. If they can keep the morale up and get past the injuries, next year could be much better, even with new coaching changes.
I actually wonder if any other coaches or coordinators find other jobs on their own if there are no signs of change by January. Grimes saw it on the wall
Did Grimes see the writing on the wall or $$$? If I recall he received a substantial raise for leaving
And to get back to his family and ailing sister.
IIRC they found out she was seriously I'll after coming here.
I think his salary also more than doubled. Went from 150ish to 400k, no?
Okay, this was confusing. With all the talk of Bustle and the 1995 Sugar Bowl, I was thinking "J.B. Grimes saw the writing on the wall?"
I totally forgot about Jeff.
I just don't know what the hell is going on.
We are regressing on offense. That much is clear. But I don't know why. We went from effective downfield movement and steady third down conversion to...whatever the hell today was.
I'll say this: I don't care what kind of offense we run, as long as we run it well and have the right man coordinating it. I'll be as happy with the wing T as the air raid, as long as we don't look like Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind when we run it.
I know french wants us to go back to power I. I don't know if that is viable in this day and age. With advances in strength and conditioning programs nationwide, running power is harder now than it's ever been. You can't rely on Gentrifying your recruits when every program worth its salt has a Mike Gentry on staff now. Running power almost demands blue chip recruits these days.
Also, the criticism that our offensive scheme is antiquated... Just stop. It just simply isn't antiquated. What it is, is a muddled mess. We need to decide what the hell we are on offense, because for the last decade we've had no goddam clue.
The more I go along, the more I think what's needed is the Elmasian of the offense. Because it's painfully obvious that we have had a dearth of innovation, vision and cohesiveness of scheme on offense.
IIRC, Elmassian was coaching at Ferrum this season, then took an unexpected leave of absence for the remainder of the year. Ferrum.
To clarify the point, Foster is ten times the DC that Elmasian was/is. But what Elmasian did was make us look at defense differently. Elmasian begat the lunch pail, and we need someone with that sort of different take on how we approach offense to get us out of the doldrums. So far post-Bustle, we haven't had that. We're just trying to be "newfangled" without a clue what the hell we're really doing.
I wasn't even debating that - I was only commenting on Elmassian's current status. He had good concepts, but I understand he was toxic as a coach, and always destined to be constantly moving on.
He's coached at some extremely high profile places in his career, and now he is at Ferrum. I was shocked when I learned that.
Walt Harris' last job was OC at California University of PA
Well, he always did seem like a beach kind of guy, so I guess that is a good place for him.
Yeah after you commented I went back and realized I just kind of threw Elmasian's name out there in my last paragraph without qualifying that we are MUCH better off with Foster. And tbh I could see the same thing happening with Morehead, IF someone were to just give us a vision he could pick up and run with.
Yeah. Ferrum. Damn.
I kind of hate to admit this but I can live with my life. Elmassian sent me my first "we'd like to wish you luck in your future endeavors" letter. God bless him as I became a Hokie grad.
I agree. If Bud takes over as HC, we're going to a spread, he's said that multiple times.
This honestly the first year I've ever been realistically afraid of Foster leaving...
Thank heavens for Comcast's shitty DVR system
I'd recorded this and and gone dark until i had a time to watch it. After watching all but the last 58 seconds the DVR kept resetting to the start of this abomination, saving me from having to actually watch the two overtimes
I don't know whether to raise hell with comcast about the DVR or thank them.
In other news odds that someone tries to send a moving van to Loffelers house?
Did you see Beamer ask Foster whether or not to accept the holding penalty in the second half? I doubt Beamer is calling the shots on offense.
That raised so many questions....
Why isnt he making that call,
I really hate the way Wake, Pitt, Miami, BC, ECU (UVA?) are bad match ups for us. Remember we were match up problems for other teams.
I think the thing that was most disconcerting to me, and if you DVR'd the game, you can go back and check this out for yourself, but check out CFB's reaction after Weaver makes that kick to seal the game. Just look at it. The weird exuberance at all the prior missed kicks, and even the 0-0 End of Regulation score (immortalized in an image that will no doubt haunt us for years), is no longer even there. While that emotion at least was some weird, lack-of-self-awareness type of reaction, at least it was some type of emotion. After that made kick, he just stands there for a few seconds, mouth agape, with absolutely no reaction whatsoever as everybody walks off the field.
I don't know what exactly I'm trying to say here, and I'm probably just rambling, but, for me at least, that just seemed to be the most telling moment of the game for me, right there at the end. And, I guess in a way, it's probably the most telling moment for the state of this program and where the minds of this staff are currently at.
Sorry, I just needed to rant. Thanks, love you guys and gals.
I've watched that a dozen times.
First of all the over the top celebration of mediocrity just pissed me off today. It's one thing to accept that Frank Beamer as a coach is about winning above all other metrics of gauging success. But to literally not give a shit about godawful play against the last place team in the conference is just infuriating.
And then the ending, where Frank just stands there frozen like Weaver was some sort of Medusa. Was it shock? Suppressed rage? Delirium tremens? Who knows, but it was a microcosm of VT football subsequent to the 2006 coaching changes on offense. At least so far as the football team is concerned, we should amend our motto from Ut Prosim to Dafuq?
Brilliantly summarized.
How many points do you think we give up to uva next week?
In regulation? Zero.
As much as I like tech I hope your joking cuz uva looked very good on offense tonight. Well good for uva that is
Yeah, I'm joking. I think it will be a close, low-scoring game that will be won by whoever makes the fewest mistakes on offense. Unfortunately, we've been making a significant number of mistakes recently.
I don't think the turnovers that we made today had a huge impact on our offenses ability. Yes it may have kept us off the board today but it was only like 3 or 7 points maybe. We made multiple small mistakes on seemingly ever offensive snap and that can not be fixed in a week. Our offense is just plain bad.
Literally the only thing we had to do to win the game in regulation was to put one point on the board, so if the turnovers "only cost us 3 or 7", they still cost us the game. Winning ugly is better than losing pretty.
I agree 600% that the turnovers made the difference in this game but I mean wud it really make you feel any better about next week or the season if we beat wake 3 to 0. I was cheering for us to do just that until the very end today but something has to change because beating wake 3 to 0 is not even close to where the we want to be.
Yes, I would feel much better right now because it would help teach our young players how to win close games, which we have shown little ability to do thus far.
I have to agree with that but you have to see where I am coming from. We need some sort of change it might not be cleaning house but some change needs to take place because we have not gotten any better as the season has progressed.
Yes we do, and whether it be a coaching change or actually finding an identity on offense, something needs to happen. But I'm taking a 3-0 win over a 41-40 loss every day of the week.
One difference between the two though is if we could put up 40 points we would be able to beat uva. With only having the ability to put up 3 points its a little tougher to win most games
As Frank would say - 'We were only 2 or 3 plays away from winning that game...' so inherently, we have no issues up for criticism at all. Other than, you know, we didn't score at all in regulation and never scored a TD against what was presumed to be the worst team in the ACC. Until we played them.
Bill Roth is going to have to really spend some extra time culling through the emails & texts for this upcoming TTL. Lots of mentions of somebody's sister's friend seeing Frank in the Kroger parking lot, and lots of reminders we're still clinging to the bowl streak coming in this next show.
Except that's not what says or means and you know it.
I think criticism is good but putting up straw men is not constructive.
How many points do you think our offense will give up?
Quite possibly more than our defense.
I dunno. I decided to schedule a colonoscopy Friday night. It will likely be be more enjoyable than watching the UVA game.
Wake sucks against runs up the gut and has a top 10 passing defense.
So what do we do? Sweeps and a pass heavy offense.
I have seen enough. Loeffler needs to go, and Frank needs to go with him. The players did all they could today and the coaches failed them. No excuses those coaches need to go. Motley gets benched for a fumble while trying to gain extra yards and Brewer throws one of the worst interceptions I've ever seen and he's still running out there? Screw these coaches, they failed us today and they so deserve to be canned. I'm done with this crap.
I can't disagree with the play calling issue. When they went with quick hitters inside and the back side contain honored Brewer, Coleman had some huge runs.
I want to get the whole story on Motley. There has to be a reason that a change wasn't made. I just can't figure out what it was.
No excuses. Motley provided a rare spark in an otherwise mundane game and was benched because of a fumble when trying to do too much. Which normally I could see, but then our starter throws one of the most bone headed interceptions of all time and nothing happens. Nothing. Next series he's back out there and I just don't get it.
Motley did not deserve that treatment today. He's earned a significant role in this offense at this point and the coaches are ignoring it. I'm furious at that treatment because he legitimately deserves better. It's not like he was in during mop up time, he was moving the ball at will against them and he got benched for trying to do too much in a game where our starter wasn't doing enough. I just don't get it.
That decision making alone from our coaches to me is reason enough to fire them all. They didn't put us in a position to win and the only ones who didn't see it were the coaches themselves.
Legs on legs on legs
Tough to argue with this. Yeah, this pretty much sums up the whole season IMO
If I could, I'd give you an entire year's supply of turkey legs. I'm not sure what the thought process is with the QB selection of Motley/Brewer, but under Brewer the offense was completely stagnant. Whereas with Motley, we actually moved the ball and presented Wake with another dimension that they weren't ready for. It had so much success that it was deemed unnecessary to continue utilizing. I hope they didn't ditch it because of his fumble on an effort play. Our regular starters are consistently coughing up the football as well....
I'm not trying to pin this on Brewer. If he's protected, he generally does a pretty good job. Today wasn't one of those days, and the different element Motley brings to the table just might have been enough to get a field goal to win the game. I know how absurd that sounds (and I can't even believe I'm typing it), but three points was enough today!
I'm not sure he was benched just because of a fumble.
Bad as it was, we had a decent drive going to that point.
What's to say that same movement wasn't going to occur the next series.
Hindsight is 20/20.
I still think the lack of practice time that the beat writers documented (as result of the class scheduling) probably was a bigger factor in Loeffler's (misguided in my opinion) decision.
But who is to blame for the scheduling SNAFU to begin with? Leaving the Spring game Motley was our starting QB, to have Fall classes scheduled during practice seems to be a major oversight
I can't speak for Virginia Tech. Perhaps someone else can. But I never had a coach or an academic adviser ever try to influence a player not to schedule a particular class that interfered with practice. Ultimately, you are in school to get a degree, and if a class that is needed for your degree is only meeting during a practice time, you as the player had to decide if football or your degree was more important. If that was the case, I can't fault Motley for making the choice to take the class. It is his life. Granted, I was at a different level of college football, but that was my experience.
I can't speak for VT as a whole, but I will relate my experience. I volunteered to help with freshman orientation every year from 2007-2012 within our department. I helped students navigate Hokie SPA, get enrolled in the classes they needed, and provided some advice to them on useful or interesting electives. The faculty in our department told them what they needed (if they hadn't been batch-enrolled in everything already) and I served a very simple purpose.
We had an athlete coming in to orientation one year (non-football, but for privacy reasons I will not say which sport) and he had a required class (for the major) that met at one time only. It conflicted with one of his practices. After several phone calls between his coach, the Athletic Department, and our Department Head, the answer was: if you want to be in this major, you have to be in this class without exception. He signed up for the class, but I believe he switched majors to avoid conflicting with practice. The academic side, in my only experience, was unyielding.
I appreciate all the replies.. this is someone that I've just never heard about happening before
Being a scrub freshmen team player at a DIII school I had the same experience. Class before pratice, period.
I can provide more information with this situation. I was a D1 athlete and every team is assigned an academic adviser and football got 3 for the team. Athlete's are able to schedule our classes 2 months before regular students so we know when/what classes we need to take and make sure we get in them early.
Our adviser would say this is what I think you should take because A- it fits your academic schedule B it fits athletic schedule and C it will keep you in athletic academic good standing. I would think that the academic adviser would try to help get that student into another class time/take it another semester. Sometimes the class is only offered 1 time a year so that can be difficult and athlete's have to meet a separate academic standing % that normal student don't. SO for example after your 2nd year you have to be like 30% or 40% of the way through your major core classes. They do this so the athletes continue to keep an eye on academics and not just sports.
In the end we all have to remember Motley was 3rd string coming off an injury in the spring so maybe he decided that hey missing 1 day a week for 1 class isn't that big of deal. Well now its a different story and we had to make some adjustments.
This isn't hindsight. I was openly questioning why Brewer was in the game during the game itself. He was awful yesterday, and did far more than enough to warrant an outright benching. That INT was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen a VT QB make, and its just one of a litany of bad decisions he's made this season (the pick 6 against GT still burns me to this day). He's earned his place on the bench.
The INT was terrible. I was lucky enough to have my wife watching with me for the 4th quarter of this one (rare and humorous treat) and her immediate response was "Whoa! What just happened? Why did he do that?". I just said, "I don't know dear" and left it at that. Like everyone else, I have been seeing him do this type of thing all year and I still didn't have the first clue of how to explain something so awful. I just sat there with my head between my legs thinking that we just gave the game to Wake, then thought about having to go to work on Monday morning, then thought about how I would feel the rest of the day having to try to make sense of this mess. Still working on the last part.
Hindsight is definitely 20/20. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Brewer working from the pocket wasn't, well, working. I love the saying about insanity and expecting different results. This has got to be the perfect opportunity for a case study...
Maybe Motley would have continued gashing them, maybe he wouldn't...for some reason the coaches decided to go back to something that clearly wasn't working, and that's the most perplexing call of all. The few things that were working on Saturday got discarded when it mattered most.
I wasn't able to see the game until we hit overtime. My brain still can't accept that we lost to the worst offense in college football or Wake Forest. Neither makes sense. Going to sleep now maybe I will wake and it was a horrible dream.
I still don't think the Miami game ever sunk in for me. Of all the losses this season, that's the one I've blocked out the best. The Pitt, ECU, GT, and BC games were all too heartbreaking to forget, but I doubt any of us will be forgetting about this L any time soon.
Just remember, NC State put up 35 on Wake... In the second quarter
That's how far we've fallen
Evidently, Wake's vaunted defense wasn't a good matchup for State in that game.
Excellent, albeit painful, write up.
If I had to pick just one point:
"there isn't a running threat presented on the keeper to tie up backside pursuit"
For the love of God...why would ANYONE keep going to the well with some kind of QB option, when THE ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THE QB IS NEVER GOING TO BE THE OPTION???? Just spare us the agony of watching and just take a knee with a 3 yard loss.
I grudgingly began to accept that VT MUST have a running QB to be successful a few weeks ago. I say "grudgingly" because:
1. I am stubbornly clinging to the idea that if other teams can have a pocket QB, why the hell can't we?
2. I shut my ears to the "if it weren't for Vick, VT would be nothing" talk.
Watching that game yesterday was like finally getting that sick friend to see a doctor.
Today, I am in shock that the prognosis is terminal.
And here we are, about ready to watch London, of all people, preside over the eulogy.
It is the reverse of last year where we knew Logan was never going to give up the ball on the option.
After sleeping on it for a night, the thing that bothers me the most about the state of the program is not that we are this bad but how we got to this point. Our offense is absolute shit right now, there's no other way to put it. It took us entirety too long to realize there were issues and then at the end of the day when we did make the coaching change we somehow managed to replace a bad staff with one that is arguably worse. Yes, Moorehead is a blessing for us, but other than him, I'm just not seeing the improvement you expect to see at the end of year 2. In fact this offense just regressed to the point where we got shut out in regulation by an absolutely awful football team with a bowl game on the line when we not once even got into scoring range.
Who do you blame for that? Clearly, Loeffler is a terrible coach and was a mistake to hire. Searels hasn't shown anything in regards to being the OL wizard we expected. Shane... I'm really curious to what he does, cause even as a recruiter he isn't the best on staff right now. I mean I guess the blame gets laid on them.
But the thing that bugs me the most is how the offense hasn't improved upon the offense we had prior to the hires. We're running the same basic scheme and we look just as bad now as we did then. How does that happen? Either Beamer is the absolute worst talent evaluator in the game, which considering the only good hire he made came off the recommendation of Pep Hamilton I can completely see this being the case, or Beamer had so much control over the team that it doesn't matter who we have coaching offense, we're going to continue down this same path of awfulness. Either way, this situation has to fall on Frank's shoulders in some regard.
What worries me is that, if Frank stays I purely don't trust him to make a good coaching hire should we replace Loeffler. Between the years of allowing Stiney to lead the offense to 100 rankings and the devolution now, I have lost faith in him as a true talent evaluator. And if you can't trust your head coach to round out his own staff, is it really fair to the program to keep him around anymore?
So many tough decisions coming up for Whit and considering some of the things I heard last week, those decisions might be coming sooner than we expected.
#MooreheadForOc? I mean, he can't be worse
Great point. A big concern is that Beamer will have a say in the next HC hire. Frank rarely hires coaches and thus may have a small network (purely my own speculation, of course). I really fear he'll push for his son to replace him.
Rest assured, Frank will not have actual influence on the next head coach. Under Jim Weaver? He certainly would have, but not under Whit Babcock. Whit is intelligent enough to understand that he has to deal with the repurcussions if the hire goes badly, while Frank can rest on his past glories. Whit will make the decision, which is as it should be.
Hope you're right!
I have to wholeheartedly disagree, a guy like Frank in no way has a small network.
I'm not sure where to even start on the reasons that would be wrong but I guess I'd start with all the reasons stated In his book.
Too soon to pass judgment on Searels. We went from whatever Newsome was to athletic Grimes to Where's The Beef Searels in three successive years. Stacy bulked up every lineman we had, and some of our upperclassmen just can't play at this weight, especially after playing their first two or three seasons lean.
I don't doubt that Searels is capable. The question is can Loeffler utilize Searels' lines in his scheme? As French pointed out, there's some incongruence there.
French, you asked the question way up in your post. Receivers were getting separation. I was there, and I started to just watch Bucky, Isaiah, Cam, and Ryan. Cam was running free on several plays, as was Bucky.
Brewer has poor vision, and holds the ball way, way, the fuck too long. He was a big liability yesterday. His accuracy is fine, his IQ and poise are good. He just refuses to throw the ball away, and he hesitates on pulling the trigger.
If I were Frank, and the score was 0-0 b y the 4th qtr. I would have yanked Brewer, put in Motley, and between him, Coleman, Caleb, and Rogers, I would have run that ball down Wake's throat. Hokies would have won yesterday if they had gone Western Michigan on the Deacons.
Even TKP experts knew the way to beat those guys was to run it down their throat. Not off the edge, right down the gullet. Get whoever was ther3 running downhill immediately and they can't stop it. The only way we would lose is if we went pass happy and tried to beat them off the edge.
So what did we do? Yep....
It's a major major problem when the volunteer experts on here have better game plans than the guys making hundreds of thousands or millions of staff. That should NEVER happen.
Run game wasn't working either.
We got 111 total yards and Coleman got 98 but averaged less than 3 yds a carry.
Then again, a couple times he got loose and was on the verge of going the whole way.
Strohman had one return that almost went too.
Right now, I don't know what we could have done to make it better.
Nothing was working.
Mtley maybe but that was certainly no guarantee. Brewer had been able to pull it together in the 4Q earlier games.
The run game wasn't always beautiful, but Coleman actually averaged 5.4 yards a carry (18 carries for 98 yards).
Ok, I thought it was better than I quoted but, I went with the number from Roanoke Times.
Perhaps they meant total was under 3, not Coleman.
Coleman had a pretty good game.
Thanks for the insight. Seeing the development of pass routes developing downfield with the TV angle is next to impossible without replay. Lots of players look open when defenders break on a ball thrown elsewhere (which is when they come into screen view via TV)
I am now very concerned about Loeffler as a QB coach, as it appears he has completely mindfucked Brewer. Just watching Michael on the field now vs weeks 1-3 he is obviously dealing with significant self-doubt that was not there to start the season. Not a good sign.
This is an excellent point that I've been dwelling on as well.
Early in the season he moved the offense but then tossed Int.
I think they tried to take the Int out of him and it slowed him down too much.
you can try to take the brewer out of the int, but you can't take the int out of the brewer.
at least i think that's how that goes.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking.
That and in his interview he said he didn't even find his first check before he got hit in the overtime.
Gotta protect him too.
the only couple times we moved the ball, in each case we yanked the qb to put in the other. brewer actually made a couple throws, bam-put in motley. Motley moves them down the field, bam, bring in brewer for a qb sneak. nothing like taking out a hot hand for no good reason.
Maybe Loeffler has been sitting in on Shane's RB meetings...
That was a disaster. Some of the worst offensive football I've ever seen played by us in almost a decade. That was worse than our bowl game against Rutgers. Something is wrong, I don't know what, but at this point...if we aren't open to the fact we may have just watched Beamer kill his career at VT with that one we are being a little delusional. That's the kind of loss that gets not much lesser coaches fired on the spot. I hope he recognizes big changes on the offensive side need to happen again (and they need to be standout home run hires) or that it's time to ride into the sunset before he tarnishes it anymore. I wasn't on that train, but after yesterday...it's gotta be on the table for discussion.
I've never felt worse about our program than after yesterday. Going into the day I figured it would be ugly, but shit they were 2-8 and hadn't stayed within 2 scores of an ACC opponent. Now I have to ask are we now actually the worst team in the conference after that? Is Wake still a worse team than us (maybe), but when you lose to them it makes it confusing. We should never be considered the worst team in the conference, I have a problem with that, and it's where Beamer has brought us.
I can't remember the exact play, but I know Bucky was open for a TD in overtime.
I was screaming for Brewer to throw, even the crappy announcers saw him open.
Any ideas why that was missed???
WF had safety help over the middle and Brewer was concerned he couldn't thread the needle. A bad throw there would have been picked. And the safety was breaking on Bucky at the time.
Sounds good. I'd like to see it again though.
Of course it's easy to play the shoulda, woulda, coulda game now!
It's amazing how a good safety can make a receiver look WIDE OPEN right up until he makes his break on the ball. And with the year Brewer has had with INTs I bet he just isn't throwing when he sees a deep safety perioid.
I am no expert but i feel strongly we need to widen our ol splits and go back to man blocking using traps an counter traps. We either font have the personnel or can't adequatel teach zone blocking. We need to run more triple option and play action off of that. Give our guys more opportunity to win the point of attack with physicality rather than be demoralized mentally because the play calling is unnecessarily complicated. I mean goddamn we are making this simple and pure game way to complex.
One doesn't need to be an expert to know what they have been doing isn't working. I thought this was what Searels wanted to do, bulk his guys up so they could knock people off the line.
This brings me to a question I've been asking myself (and others) for almost 2 full seasons now:
What is Loefler's system?
And don't say pro-, multi- whatever. Than doesn't mean anything. I haven't seen anything consistently to say "this is who he is and what he's trying to do".
Don't tell me we can't run out I formation either behind a Teller either. We have the battering rams necessary at fb to do it. All old school fundamentals would accentuate what physical strengths we have.
The jet sweeps the we run them is total garbage. The one time I saw wake run it they executed better than we find! It was quicker and the timing was as smooth as a sow's ear. I would expect our o line to tell the"game planners" that you better ride us because we are going to kick Virgina's ass! Unfortunately we look like we play scared and timid probably because we are thinking too damn much!!
Ok, sooo... Foster for coach, Torrian for DC, Moorehead for OC? Is that the summary here?
I'm cool with it, I'm just trying to clarify.
moorehead to OC might be a little hasty here. dude was a graduate assistant until last year.
He seems to have done well with WR though they missed blocks yesterday.
ah, good point.
promote him to OC at once!
I actually think if Foster was promoted that Wiles might get DC over Torrian, but that's pure speculation. I'd imagine in this hypothetical scenario, Foster would still be very hands on with the Defense, similar to Chip Kelly and the Oregon offense, so it probably wouldn't matter who the DC was.
Wiles would probably be named "associate head coach", but Torrian would be the guy who becomes the DC. No doubt in my mind.
A Foster HC may do what for OC? I keep thinking a guy like Lincoln Riley makes a lot of sense, right age and experience to leave ECU, knows our recruiting area, Bud knows him well.
It's hard to tell. I am not familiar with Bud's connections outside of his relationship with Ole Miss and their staff.
Nightmare scenario would be VT firing Loeffler and bringing in Major Applewhite. After the Texas Weekend Offense fiasco in 2012, I want no part of that.
What makes you so sure? Not disagreeing, just curious.
Foster will never be the head coach at VT. He has too many skeletons in the closet. I love the guy, but it won't happen. Someone from outside of the program will be the next head coach.
Just spitballing here (with a measured amount of serious wonder)...
Why couldn't Whit name Bud as the "assistant" or "co" head coach? Bud could take more responsibility on offense/head coaching while still overseeing the D and grooming his DC (Wiles, Torian, whoever).
In reality Frank would just be a figure head, but not seen as pushed out by his alma mater. would think this would help with staff continuity (and take the "decision" of a new OC off Frank). Also, think it would help keep the recruits (and may be swing Sweat, etc).
Why would Bud take more responsibility on offense? I think even he would state that he wouldn't want to be involved in the offense. If it's solely to have him debate Beamer on how to run the offense, I'm not sure how that helps team chemistry at all.
We are already inbred and inept on offense and have been. I want a Foster to have a shot at running the whole damn thing as we transition out of Frank. I honestly think the kids would buy in on the offensive side of he ball from an accountability standpoint.
French, I would like to add to your thoughts on "trusting" Motley.....
Motley comes in and has 3 consecutive plays with positive yards leaving a 3rd & 1 at the WF 25. This is probably the only 3 consecutive plays with positive yds, for the VT O, in regulation, all game. Where Lefty brings in the non-runner and calls a QB sneak, to get inside the 25. This is the 1st and only possession that reaches the RZ in regulation. Brewer then goes on to throw the lateral behind Hodges for the turnover. It's a makeable FG, if Brewer doesn't screw the pooch.
How in the HELL does anyone justify that decision? The team was clearly moving the ball. How about you keep at it until they stop moving the ball. Even if it's the same 4 plays, you're in the 4th qtr and have had zero consistency all day and in the RZ. Your D is playing great, a FG likely wins it. Does anyone doubt that with Motley in, the run game gets at least 5 but prob 8 or 9, even if they don't get a 1st down?
This loss is all on the coaches. I've been defending FB, but the coaching in this game was more like what I expect from the head ball cop.
I'm not. While I have a laundry list of concerns about Loeffler, I don't think he is an idiot. He has eyes, and even the most oblivious upper deck quarterback could see that Motley added an element to the offense that was missing.
That suggests to me there is more here to the story. Without knowing for sure (and nobody besides Loeffler and the other staff involved with offensive personnel decisions in game KNOWS), I can only speculate. And all I have is that Motley only had one package, and Loeffler felt that if he stayed with Motley, Wake would have made the proper adjustment.
Was he right? I don't think so. That is the only thing I can figure.
Loeffler likes to have options. Thousands and thousands of options.
I personally, as I always do, blame orange pants. As soon as we turned on the game and saw orange pants, I knew we were gonna lose this one.
could tyrod have executed this offense? could vick have executed this offense? could glennon have executed this offense? or logan? or randall?
I was ready for Frank to step down yesterday. I was SUPER okay with that. I feel somewhat differently today. Frank gets another year in my book. If we keep our top three backs....jesus....yes, our top three backs healthy, I think we see a different result and playcalling during the season in general.
I hated Franks dumbass 'field goal miss' celebrations but I do believe that he made good hires for the team. Scot isn't working with a lot and maybe he's not good at working with a little. But if our demand is that the OC does something with nothing, then we have missed the root cause. Recruiting is up. We have hopefuls all over the field and the bottom line is, this isn't the same old ACC we've been used to seeing.
Win or not at UVa, Frank Beamer may have a pretty good football team next year. I'm okay to wait and see. Give the man a chance to finish with dignity.
I don't see any way Loeffler survives until next year. As Andy Bitter said, what's the harm in switching offensive systems now? We effectively don't have an offensive system.
The harm generally is losing recruits, but it's not like we have a class full of 4 and 5 star offensive skill position guys coming in that we'd hate to lose... We do have a good looking class up to this point, but it's mostly defensive guys.. we'd have to think we could switch OCs and not risk losing much on the incoming class
It is really sad that Friday will be the battle to see which coach keeps his job. I don't think anybody at Tech could have anticipated that scenario at the start of the year.
The 2000 game was said to be both coaches last. Beamer was about to fly to UNC to quasi-accept that job. Welsh was having a 6-6 campaign.
I think winning may keep London around, as the expectations in Hoo-ville are lower than they are here. My guess is that Whit has already made his decision and is just waiting for the Black Friday game to conclude. The man knows football is the cash cow of the athletics department and that a continued slide makes the climb back up that much more difficult. I am 50-49-1 on whether Whit decides that we will get an entirely new offensive staff or a new HC, with the 1% being that nothing changes.
after the loss, i bummed around, drank till 7 am, got real sick and still feeling miserable