Interesting read from David Teel.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/virginia-tech/dp-spt-teel-column-loeffl...
I've written about a couple of ideas Teel touched on, like Tech not luring a top-flight offensive coordinator with Beamer nearing retirement and positional coaches / staff slots a potential barrier.
However he dropped this.
But given the promise this group has flashed and the rash of injuries, I believe head coach Frank Beamer will, and should, retain Loeffler
Teel's well connected and while he's not "reporting" Loeffler will be back, he's got an educated opinion.
What do y'all think?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'm willing to give him another year, especially if the offense plays decent this Saturday. Recruiting is definitely picking up again, and the new staff wasn't handed the best cards to begin with. But the offense needs to show marked improvement. I hope for a Top-50 offense (perhaps top half of the FBS), but the must important stat of all is that of victories. Especially in conference. 9+ wins in 2015 and without any woefully poor/humiliating showings by the offense would be good enough for him to stay in my opinion.
Really depends on what our injury bug situation is like next year too -- it's been a weird anomaly this year, but I'd like to think that if the same crew that beat OSU was healthy through the end of the year, we'd have an incredibly better record.
Y'all getting tired of me saying the same thing over and over yet? In case you're not, here's what I posted earlier on this subject:
So yeah, I think he needs and deserves some more time to get things sorted out. What I think was one of my bigger points up there was that you can overcome youth, a lack of talent, or injuries, but not all 3 at the same time. Let's see how one more year goes and then reevaluate. I think trying to start over again in the middle of a rebuilding project would do more harm than good.
I definitely wouldn't say he "deserves" another year. Loeffler has put two of the most ineffective and toothless offenses on the field that I've ever seen at Tech. The case for "deserving" to get fired is much stronger.
That being said, it comes down to whether Tech can get better results with a different offensive coordinator. I doubt it, mostly because I don't think a top OC would want the job right now.
Techs best bet is to stick with Loeffler and hope that the talent level improves (which it's doing). Loeffler still has a high ceiling as an OC, but he requires a lot of talent to play with. Hopefully the talent catches up to his scheme before Beamer leaves
My point of him deserving a third year is summed up in my last sentence up there (of the quoted bit). We hired him and are paying him to fix a catastrophically broken offense. It would be wildly unfair, not to mention a terrible football and business move, to oust him two years into a rebuilding project we all knew would take at least 3 years.
And for the record I think your second and third points are spot on.
Loeffler has been paid. He doesn't "deserve" another year. I think it's best to keep him another year, but deserving is a whole different thing.
Beamer "deserves" to fix VT and bring the team back out of mediocrity; he is the main reason that VT reached an upper echelon. Foster "deserves" to be paid as a top-10 coordinator. He consistently puts together a top-tier defense year after year.
Loeffler has done nothing that any mediocre offensive coordinator could do. Give me any run-of-the-mill offensive coordinator and VT would still be in the bottome 25-percentile in scoring offense. That does not "deserve" reward or retainment.
My argument is that he's done everything an "elite" OC could do - scrape together enough offense to put VT in a position to win games. With 2 exceptions (Miami and Wake), he's done that. You really think Chad Morris would have magically put together a top-20 offense with this group's talent, experience and injuries? I doubt it. Again, he deserves a 3rd year because he was hired to do something that was gonna take at least 3 years. I wish people would stop being so shortsighted and see the big picture here. Yes, the offense has sucked for the past 2 seasons. It sucked for years before that. You can't undo damn near a decade of suckage in 2 seasons and 1 recruiting class. It just doesn't happen.
Also, the bit you chose to quote, for some strange reason, is simply to highlight that he's got a job to do and we're paying him to do it - fix an offense that was broken for years.
Chad Morris took over an offense at Clemson that ranked 86 in scoring offense and turned it into 23. So, I believe Chad Morris would have had a top-60 scoring offense at VT this year. That would have put VT near 10 wins (maybe 9, or 8). Of course, that is just conjecture.
I don't buy that the 98th best scoring offense is what an "elite" OC could do, regardless of injuries and lack of depth on the O-line. I believe any pedestrian OC could have gotten VT to the 98th-best offense. Of course, these are just beliefs, so there is no way to prove either you or me wrong. But I just think it is silly to suggest that the 98th scoring offense was the ceiling (or near the ceiling) for VT.
I chose to quote the payment bit because that is ALL that he deserves. He deserves compensation for the time he's worked at VT. He does not deserve future compensation. He'll get it and it's probably the best scenario for VT; but he has never earned it.
Yet again, look at the offensive line and the backfield. I'm willing to bet quite a bit that Clemson had much better talent up front when Morris took over, simply because I don't believe there are many OL coaches in the business worse than Curt Newsome. When your starting RT is a D3 transfer who played DL in August, you're gonna have a bad time. So yes, I think 90ish actually was about the ceiling for this team by the end of the year. They just didn't have the horses to consistently move the ball. There isn't some magical playcalling button you can push to make all your talent and experience issues just go away. As I've said before, I'll reserve judgment on Loeffler as an OC until after next year. Personally, I think he's a good coach, but at some point the numbers do have to back that up. I just believe that time is at least 3 years in for this particular situation.
Chad Moriis' entire offense wasn't broken by game 4 and the rest called walking wounded when he did that.
Really. Watching these guys fall was like watching " The Walking Dead".
Really, the coaches had no idea by Thursday who their starting line or RB would be.
Try scheming with this.
Saying that the offense has been good enough in 10 of 12 games this year is extremely charitable.
Well, we were at least in a position to win late in the game, so I don't think that's too much of a stretch.
Yes, because the defense kept the team in the game while the offense ate paste. The team fell behind against ECU in part because the offense couldn't get a first down to buy time for the defense. They couldn't move the ball at all against a Pitt defense that was less than imposing. The offense blew the GT game with horrible turnovers, dumb penalties, and dumb playcalling (like going hurry-up and throwing when trying to bleed the clock late in the 4th). The offense sputtered for long stretches against BC. The defense had to set up the offense against Duke for the last 10 points and even then the offense struggled to score. Even against UNC's tire fire of a defense the offense sputtered after the first quarter. The offense had two good games this year- Ohio State and UVA. They played their best against their biggest rival and against an opponent they schemed for all offseason. The rest of the season reeked of a team being ill-prepared with half-baked game plans.
Blame inexperience, injuries, or whatever. The offense under Loeffler has gotten worse since he took over.
2012: 23.7 PPG, 373.2 YPG, 5.0 Yards/play
2014: 22.4 PPG, 356.6 YPG, 4.6 Yards/play
The defense had a down year in 2012 and Foster fixed it in subsequent years. Loeffler's solution has been bubble screens and jet sweeps. I don't think it's working. If you think he deserves another year that's a defensible argument but suggesting in any way that the offense produced at an acceptable level is just not true.
The defense gave up 21 points in the first quarter.
Yup played like complete garbage, but completely locked them down from that point until ECU's final drive. The offense also had a chance to put the game away in the 3rd/4th quarter and failed to do so. The defense also saved more points after brewer's int almost got them another score until we stripped the ball around our 2 yard line if I recall correctly.
I don't recall being in position to put the game away in the 3rd quarter
Defense also had a chance to seal the win and failed. Team loss.
The defense was on the field to give up 21 points because the offense gained a total of one yard in their first 3 drives. In the 2nd quarter Brewer put ECU in great position to score but the defense held them off.
I'm not going to make excuses the defense was just bad. Can't blame being tired on the offense that early in the game.
The offense totally sucked canal water in the first half but the d gave up 21 points in the first qtr. that wasnt on the offense. Losses to GT, Pitt, and Wake can easily be placed on the offense but that's it imo.
I'd argue the GT loss is pretty squarely on the shoulders of Michael Brewer rather than the offense as a whole. Hands down his worst game, IMO.
I agree with that and included GT in my list as well.
GT game was a lot on the defense 4 and 15 less than 2:30 on the clock bud runs a cover 0 blitz Riley gets beat deep first down 2 plays later they tie. We simply run A ZONE in that situation they likely don't get it we have ball at the 50 and they have 2 timeouts left. We run the ball 3 straight times and even if we don't get a first down they have 0 timeouts under 1:50 inside the 20 to drive the field for a td that's likely a win IMO.
I can't agree with your assessment. Our offense and defense were terrible in the first quarter irrespective of one another. The defense surrendered those points because ECU targeted Faycson and exploited his (injury-derived) limitations. There's no reason to think that if the offense had answered, our D would not have given up scores on their first three drives.
I agree with a lot of what you said but comparing our offense vs defense is not exactly fair. Our defensive talent is in a different world from our offense. There have been several NFL Draft picks on defense the last 2 years, including one 1st rounder, and another almost sure bet 1st rounder in Kendall. There have been several other guys that got picked or will get picked from our D.
The draft picks from the offense last two years are either freshman right now or Logan Thomas in 3rd round last year. Think how much better the offense would be with one or two first round picks...and how much worse the defense would be with a D-3 walk on transfer playing DT.
"trying to start over again in the middle of a rebuilding project would do more harm than good" - well said and I think right on the money!
I think we have seen flashes of what could be, but have been inconsistent because of the aforementioned youth, lack of experienced talent and injuries. Recruiting has improved - look at all the freshmen playing AND contributing and doing it for the most part in their recruited positions.
Teller will be a beast next year and if we can get a couple of other OL guys to step up, we might have a respectable group for the 1st time in a while and if that happens then this offense will be just fine and the defense will be it's usual top 15 self, even better if they stay healthy.
Back to Loeffler - Yeah I think he has earned another year, especially if they play well in the bowl. I do think we should expect a significant up tick in the Offensive production next year though or all bets are off.
When Scot Loefler puts a top-20 offense on the field at Virginia Tech, I will buy you many, many rails at TOTS.
I'm there.
I'm bookmarking this comment.
You and me both.
Hold me to it
After all this rails, they probably would need to hold you up.
The depth of our injury situation cannot possibly be overstated...
At the end of the day, we really have no (good) choice, do we? We release him and who do we get? And honestly speaking, he inherited a mess; I think we all agree it starts with the O line. That said, he's been erratic and predictable at times, which I think has frustrated most of us knowing our limitations. Just not a great situation. Really frustrating not having a Bud Foster on offense combined with a Bud Foster on defense.
Some things confuse me at times with the playcalling, not throwing more slants/crossing routes, or going deep every once in a while to give the receivers a chance and get some of the D out of the backfield. But I do agree that he definitely deserves to see another year to see what we can do.
Just a quick note on the two issues you brought up: I think he tried to get more of that quick slant game going early in the year, but Brewer's height combined with our OLine's inability to keep DLinemen's hands down led to a few batted balls and a couple picks early in the season. Maybe we'll see that come back this season, maybe not. I know Logan was very comfortable with those types of routes, but maybe Brewer is less so? Who knows?
As for the deep balls, I'd love to see that more as well (Hey, Bucky), but I think Loeffler shied away from it largely because of our protection issues up front. Brewer was getting the Hell kicked out of him every play even when he only took 3- or 5- step drops. Asking him to drop back, move the safety with his eyes, set his feet and deliver a deep ball sounds like a great way to get him absolutely destroyed. Again, maybe with a little more work up front and time to develop the passing game over the spring, we'll see an improvement with our explosive plays.
This is very true, good points. The QB definitely has not had much time to spend at all in the pocket. From my recollection, that's why I seem to always feel that we have historically been more successful with a mobile quarterback to save our ass when things break down so quickly up front. It has helped to mask some of these issues we've had in the past. I think this is an obvious, duh sort of point that can apply to most teams, with many of the successful teams in CFB having a QB who can create for himself with his feet.
Bingo. Unless you've got a Stanford or Alabama O-Line, a Hogan or McCarron-type QB is gonna get killed. Defenses are just too fast these days. Actually, if you take a look at Stanford this year (after sending I think 3 OL to the NFL), they really struggled protecting the passer and the offense struggled immensely as a result. As has been discussed many times here, Tyrod covered a multitude of sins which were exposed during Logan's last 2 years.
What if I said USCw, ND, Arizona, and Oregon all were similar to us
All teams had 28 - 31 sacks this year
All Teams threw 30 - 40 completed passes a gameAll Teams attempted 30 - 40 passes a game
USCw, ND, Arizona, Oregon, and VT's 2012 Recruiting Class ranked between 9 - 41
USCw, ND, Arizona, and VT rushed the ball 36 - 41 times a game
USC, ND, and VT Completed 35 - 36 passes a gameArizona, ND, and VT completed 55% - 60% of passes
USC and Oregon each have 4 Fr on the Starting Oline,
Who is not calling the RIGHT plays at the RIGHT TIME.
Total Offense Rank of each team
3 28 31 36 96
In the ACC
Pitt has 7 FR/So Oline starter and has only 20 sacks on the year and rank 44th in offensive production
UNC has given up 27 sacks and ranks 51st in Total Offense
Edit-completed passes were wrong. Attempted not completed
The difference between 9th and 41st is bigger than you're giving it credit for I think. And are those recruiting rankings overall, or just offensive? We've recruited more successfully on the defensive side of the ball than the offensive side of the ball for many years.
ooo yea 41st is far back.
That's Arizona. Besides offensive rank (96th) VT is generally in the middle of all of those numbers and thats the point is we are in the middle with this group yet aren't getting the same results
but his point still stands, that if you are recruiting much better on defense than on offense then you can't justify an argument that "team A has the 28th ranked recruiting class and team B has the 29th ranked recruiting class therefore they should both have an equal offense"
Holy out of context, Batman. Are you gonna tell us Frank was involved in 9/11 now too?
Joking aside, as has been pointed out already, there's a big difference between 9 and 41, especially considering the rankings of offensive players specifically. Not to mention other factors, such as overall talent level (2012 is a pretty small sample size for recruiting) or coaching continuity. I don't recall Oregon, ND, or USC ever going into full rebuild mode anytime in the past 5 years.
Not much more rebuilding than bringing in a new coach
Oregon - New Head Coach
Arizona - New Head Coach
USC - New Head Coach
As for recruiting, 2012 is a small sample but best helps the Hokies in the idea of rebuilding. USC is led at tackle by 3 FR and a So. Oregon is led at tackle by 2 Fr and a So. None are from the 2012 class.
Joke however we want, but if we are doing the same plays as other top programs but not getting the same results what needs to change.
Yeah, I think the state of Oregon's offense when Chip Kelly left was pretty similar to the state of our offense when Mike O'Cain left.
Oregon basically did the same thing Stanford did - plug in the OC and keep on a'chuggin. Arizona and USC, despite the relative "failures" of its previous coaches, were still in a pretty good spot from a talent point, especially offensively, when the new guys took over. As for their freshmen.... I'm pretty darn sure that a freshman that chose Oregon or USC this year is a whole lot more talented than a freshman who chose Tech. Not a knock on guys like Colt or Billy Ray, but they weren't exactly 5-star guys. Last year, USC signed 3 4-star guards and a 3-star tackle. Oregon signed a 4-star guard, 4-star tackle and a 3-star tackle. Yes, star rankings are pretty meaningless especially for OL, but you get the point.
So who's at fault for not recruiting a better Oline. Again this year we aren't doing great but don't seem to be looking at that again
Colt or Billy Ray are exactly what Tech needs in spades
Signing 2 Good level players is a start, not a finishing point
USC signed 4 OG that were ranked in the Top 25 of OG/OT recruits in 2014 class, and followed it this year signing the #2 OT in 2015
Ole Miss Signed 2 Top 25 OG/OT recruits in 2013, then 3 in 2014, and 2 more commited for 2015
All of that is just those that rank at top 25, add in more that are not at top 25 Olineman
Same thing is at Wisconsin and Ohio St. Flordia St and Clemson
Of the Top 75 OT and Top 75 OG ranked by 247 two chose Tech in 2014 class.
Neither Stanford nor Oregon were looking to fix a broken offense nor make any wholesale changes.
World of change from what Frank wanted to do at VT.
Wow. Either you're not a math expert or you just made up numbers for a couple of these statistics, because the VT passing stats aren't even close to accurate.
My original stats came from Yahoo/rivals but I did check hokiesports.com and for this year Brewer has a 59.5% completion rate with 29 sacks.
Does appear the completed passes are less so I was wrong there only 20 a game. (A very sad stat and state of the game planning)
But all the other states do check out correct
Yeah, I was referring to the two statistics on completed passes which were way off.
How are 20 completed passes per game a sad stat and state of the game planning? We're trying to establish a running identity, not put in an ECU or Texas Tech air raid offense. So why is 20 completions per game so disappointing?
Yea... to much number crunching has numbers crossed in my mind. Its 20 completed passes a game and thats great and its 30- 40 attempted a game and thats good.
What I want is more long passes more medium passes. More pass yards. And more momentum going on offense
As Teel objectively stated, but so many fans refuse to admit, Frank's looming retirement changes the equation in retaining Loeffler. Add to that the fact that Frank is loathe to make coaching changes at any time, and you (hopefully) begin to understand why Loeffler will be the last OC that Beamer employs.
It is not at all about whether fans are willing to give Loeffler another chance, it is solely about what Frank Beamer decides. While there are unhappy fans , etc. Beamer knows that he's not going to get a quality OC - quality meaning anybody as good as or better than Loeffler - to come in when Frank is so close to retirement. This is essentially the coaching staff we have unless someone bolts for another job. We have who we have, and we might as well accept it.
I don't buy the argument that Beamer's retirement holds back an OC hire. There are probably a host of other reason before that one. . Nussmeier going from Alabama to Michigan , and Roper from Duke to FL - both of those guys knew they were going into situations that they only had 1 year to make a difference or they'd be looking again, so I think coaches wouldn't list Beamer retiring as an issue.
I think it was fairly evident that Pep was our first choice and Bobo was probably more wanted than Loeffler. So the VT OC job isn't considered attractive to begin with , IMO. Some of the reasons may no longer be around (JW not opening up the purse strings), but others till remain (OC can't bring in other coaches , stuck with Shane Stinespring).
If CFB wanted to bring in a new OC, I think he could find one , but as others have said before, I don't think it would be markedly better than a year 3 of SL. We had a boatload of freshman playing , a new QB. Frank his going to give him next year. I'd be more interested if CFB or SL have issues with the job Searels did. Injuries attrition are issues, but last year coaches raved about Alston after the switch, but we never heard from him this year. Is that on him or Searels? I am concerned with the loss of Wang/Ferris/Gibson, we are going to be even worse next year because those kids we thought would be good aren't prepared.
Hey look! another condescending, presumptuous and negatively-toned comment by swavadon!
I honestly think whoever is in charge of keeping players healthy and conditioned should be sat down before Loeffler. I don't know if that is Gentry to what but we're doing something wrong.
I'm sure the way we do things will be reevaluated at the end of the year. Keep in mind, the past 2 years have seen us bring an increased focus on toughness and physicality. The coaches are either gonna have to find a balance between establishing that identity and keeping guys healthy, or accepting the injuries and hoping to have enough depth to get by.
Coaches, or at least Gentry and trainers should go meet with the Stanford's, Bama's, MSU's, Wiscy's (team MANBALL!) and see how they keep the toughness up while minimizing injuries.
Not a horrible idea, but remember it wasn't too long ago people were coming to us for that. Not really sure what the solution is. Recruit tougher guys to start out with? Tweak the S&C program? Stay the course and hope the injuries are due to technique issues the guys will eventually fix? I dunno.
We don't recruit to the levels needed to withstand going through the kinds of injuries we did this year.
I think we did in 2014 and started to in 2013. Still, it sure would be nice to USC it and just plug in another 4- or 5-star guy when the first couple dudes went down. I mean, technically we did at RB, but still.
How can you control someone blowing their knee out? How players get hit, bent, and twisted on the field has little to no correlation to our strength and conditioning coach
Other teams seem to manage a lot better than ours. Honestly, how many teams do you know that had as many injuries as VT did? Our TOP THREE tailbacks were injured. At what point is it no longer coincidence?
It happens darn near everywhere from time to time. Remember Maryland's QB situation a few years ago? Or Georgia pretty much every year (although word on the street is that their situation actually does have something to do with the S&C program, but still). Man, Todd Gurley.... Anyways, OSU had pretty much the exact same issue at QB as we did at RB this year. Guess what? The backups and the rest of their team are talented enough to overcome that with relative ease. We notice all the injuries (and this year has definitely been a higher than normal year for us) because we're actually paying attention. But hey, that's part of the sport. Duke got slammed this year (TE and MLB lost over the summer with ACLs) but managed to keep the rest of the roster healthy and consistent enough to put together a solid season. Again, I think a big reason for the uptick in injuries is the renewed focus on toughness, which was sorely needed. Is there a balance to be found? No idea, and I have no clue how we'll fix this. However, Gentry & co. are among the best in the nation when it comes to S&C, so if there is a way for them to help prevent injuries, you can bet they're doing it.
I seem to remember both backup QBs at OSU were studs themselves. So much so, the incoming starter is rumored to transfer.
Bingo. Injuries really don't bother you so much if there's another outstanding player sitting right behind the starter.
Unless of course you just plain run out of players. At RB this year we were somewhat stacked, then got into 4th and 5th string. Luckily JCC stepped up.
I think our talent depth is getting better.
aCL's and a clavicle. Tough.
I'd look into Edmunds bone density and minerals/diet bit other than that, right now the level of medical knowledge tells us there's nothing but coincidence here.
Should not be back. Said before the season if he couldn't get us into the top 75 offenses, not asking much, that he shouldn't return. We definitely had a ton of injuries but we didn't play a murderer's row schedule and for the 2nd year we were near 100+ in total offense including a complete embarrassment against the worst ACC opponent. He's shown flashes that he knows how to construct a game plan and then had other games where he looks like he shouldn't be a JV coach. There is not a single argument that can be made to suggest we didn't have enough talent on the offensive side to be above 96th in the country in total offense IMO.
The argument could be made that our OL was in the bottom 3 of the ACC therefore a critical piece of "talent" was missing. Poor recruiting and 3 OL coaches in 3 years have something to do with that. I am not saying he deserves to be back but there is definitely an argument yo be made regarding offensive talent.
The teams that have top tier coordinators don't usually keep them very long. If we spent money like an SEC school we could field those kinds of coaches, but we'd still lose them pretty regularly to head coaching gigs. There is a reason why our string of 10-win seasons was a big deal - it doesn't happen very often. I'm just amazed that nobody will give Bud a head coaching gig. Seems crazy to me, he must not play the game very well at interview time.
We don't even need a top tier guy. We need someone that can get us in that 40-50 range paired with Bud's defense and we'd be a scary team. We recruit at a 20-35 level, so the fact we can't get our offenses anywhere near that is clearly on the coaches.
If we ever hope to be nationally relevant again, we need a top offense to go with a top defense. This point had been shown and proven numerous times on here.
A mediocre offense probably won't even win the ACC anymore even with this defense the way that FSU is loading up. The level of play we were at even during our initial ACC run isn't going to cut it anymore.
Need to go from being an atrocious offense, back to being mediocre to potentially land some more game changing type recruits on offense to get to that top level you are referring to.
Defense wins championships. If the offense is good enough to get us in the game anything could happen. Bottom line is we can't be around 100 in offensive statistics and that's all that loeffler has shown the last 3 years.
In college football, the whole 'defense wins championships' mantra is a bit overstated. Look at the teams that have played for National titles over the years. Someone pulled the stats recently, but I think in the history of the BCS only once did a team even enter the title game without both the offense and defense being ranked in the Top 10 nationally. And there was an impressive correlation between elite recruiting and having both offense and defense ranked high.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise. Yes, it will take time, but its not as simple as "if only we had an offense ranked at 50 to go with this defense". The gap between us and national title contender is enormous. We don't need a good offense to get to where our goals hope to be, we need an elite offense to be there. Right now, we have an awful offense.
Ya I'm in agreement with you. I just see us progressing in steps and getting an average OC at this point is better than then one we have. Keeping SL for another year is just delaying the inevitable. He's not ready for the position.
I also don't care much about that statistic because in all honesty I don't see VT as a program that is going to compete for national titles anytime soon. If we can get back to the ACC Championship, win one occasionally, get to a BCS bowl every now and then, and play competitive football when we do face elite competition I'd be ecstatic.
I disagree with that. Loeffler is the last Offensive Coordinator that Frank Beamer will ever have. Period, end of story. I say this because Beamer is very close to retirement, and with his health apparently deteriorating, its not inconceivable that even the game this weekend could be his last (chances are remote this happens, but considering the slow recovery we're seeing and the fact he hasn't taken part in practices yet is eye opening). If you get rid of Loeffler, who in their right mind would take the job? More importantly, which coach capable enough to legitimately turn this program around would take over as OC in this situation. Where, if you don't show progress within 2 years, you're canned, and you have to do it with a head coach who is a city block from retirement, knowing you'll likely be looking for yet another job after that happens. Nobody is going to take that job. It would be a massive step backwards big picture to replace the OC at this point.
If a move is made, the only one that makes sense is the wholesale change. Wherever Beamer goes, Loeffler goes with him, and vice versa. Right now, the only thing that makes sense for us, if we're not willing to force Beamer out (and I don't believe anyone is) is to stay the course.
Just seems like you are extremely risk averse. We know we have a bottom 10-20% OC in SL there are OCs at other non-elite programs that would jump at the chance to be an OC in a P5 conference, especially if they had any aspirations to be a HC themselves at some point knowing FB may be on the way out and if they do a fantastic job maybe their name would be thrown into the mix.
I'm hoping for the wholesale change as you put it, but loeffler needs to go or we're looking at another year where BF has to carry the team to another 6-8 wins.
I tend to agree with this line of thought.. there are plenty of young offensive coaches out there that would jump at the chance. And Leftys contract is expiring soon, we owe it to the kids to upgrade the OC if its possible to do so
Smart people don't jump at chances. They ask themselves whether the personnel exists at the new opportunity to make them a success in the period of time many call "runway time".
I think we're getting better recruiting wise, but its not clear to me that the talent on board and 2 years is sufficient to recruit anyone worth considering. We may get lucky, but I don't think Whit makes that his operating philosophy.
We have much better talent than quite a few programs well above us in offensive rankings. Talent isn't being helped by play calling, scheme, atm. Bucky Hodges is potentially a 1st round pick and he is not being utilized like he should be. Had what 1 catch for a few yards until the 4th quarter against UVA. Not acceptable. I guess it depends on what your definition of worth considering is. If it's a top 10 OC than sure I agree with you. If it's someone that can get us back to average and is an upgrade to SL than I think we could easily get one.
I don't know, talent doesn't do a whole lot of good when it's hurt.
I do think the VT opportunity is a very very good one. And think we need a guy who sees it as such. Talking with folks in the DelMarVa area, most think Maryland will begin a very aggressive push into Virginia because they are on the fringe of the B10 area and want to leverage the B10 and the UA desire to have Maryland become Oregon east.
Whether you believe that Md can get out of their own way or not... I think it is clear that Md and many other teams are aware that Virginia is a great area to recruit talent. To date noone in this area has shown any ability to consistently leverage that location based advantage into a top 10 top 15 type of talented team. Someone will make this happen. VT, UVA, UNC, MD I think are the most likely candidates.
I think we have better than average talent on offense, and have produced worse than average results... if there is a guy out there than can produce an average offense with the talent on hand he's gonna be in pretty good shape backed up with a Bud Foster D
My takeaway from the article you reference was the exact opposite. I don't have it in front of me but I remember being surprised at how many of those teams had top-drawer defenses and mediocre offenses.
I know the idea that "defense wins championships" is usually somewhere between overstatement and hogwash, but that article convinced me that college football was one place where it might be true, at least recently.
The recruiting side of it was less surprising. The teams with the top recruiting classes win the trophies, and the teams with the trophies win the top recruiting classes. Twas ever thus.
Totally agree!
Suggest you examine the composition of the Top 25. Far more offense-first teams now, including three of the playoff teams.
We haven't been able to exploit our biggest strength (outside of experienced coaching on D) which is Virginia. We get rock solid on O, we're gonna get better O and D players.
There is a big talent magnet in Tallahassee. We need something only partially that scale in Blacksburg where we do very well in VA, pick up some MD, NC, NJ, PA, GA, SC talent and strap it on with the big boys. Getting 8 or 9 4 stars is a heck of a good position. An attractive offense and I think we can bump those numbers up and attract an occasional 5 star.
After further review....I think the problem really is with the Offensive Line. I'm not sure it will get better sooner than later. Many times I see linemen looking for somebody to block, while defenders rush past them. We need backs who do not whiff on blitzers, and the line needs to make a few holes for backs to run through. I believe we covered up our warts with very mobile quarterbacks who got out of the way when things broke down. Improving line play, or another mobile QB is what we need. If we are going to be a power running, play-action pocket vertical passing team...we need a line and backs that can do what is necessary. If not, then we need the mobile QB.
For the last few years we have been saved by talented Qbs. The line has been a joke. I just hope with some of this new blood we get some guys that are mean and nasty. Teller seems to be a good start. When I went to school 98-02 the line would hit people in the mouth and open up holes. If we can get back to that we should be a 9 to 11 win team each year.
Lots of path dependence in life. Think SL stays on and that makes the Bud situation much more binary IMHO.
SL does well, Bud probably gets in line for HC spot. Shane continues to be groomed. SB, BF, SL compete for the HC spot. I think Bud gets it with SL possibly getting it if he were to light the world on fire (if he were to KISS, I think he might become a better playcaller - find your advantages, keep pounding your advantages til they compensate, make them pay, repeat).
SL doesn't do well, we need to look for an OC. The HC position is offered up so we can get the best OC possible. Bud Shane probably don't get to be a big part of competing for the HC position. Sure they get interviewed but its really about getting that topflight OC.
Is this the legacy of FB? (Beyond VT football, which is a considerable legacy). Developing guys by giving them a shot at positions a little above their heads? I'd sure like to see SL succeed and Bud get the HC position. Instead of remembering FB as loyal to a fault, we can remember him as developing coaches using a patient approach that yielded mixed, but overall very positive results. With its two best successes staying with the program. And of course VT football legacy. Shane hopefully gets a crack at a bigger role either at VT or with another program.
I think we should keep him. He has been inconsistent but he has shown some flashes of brilliance. We all remember the OSU game. He had a QB who had played in a spread style for probably most of his life-who only had a few months of practice in Loeffler's system, two true freshmen WRs, two true freshmen RBs, a first time TE, and a struggling OL with a new coach.
Loeffler did the most with what he had IMO. It was maddening to see him call plays that didn't work, like some of the not so well executed screen passes, but I'm sure that these are things that can be fixed, especially when the players are young.
With that being said, next season, he must do a better job making sure that the team is comfortable running the plays he calls. I recall him saying that "every play counts"; he should call plays that actually have a chance of getting positive yardage. It sure didn't seem like he made a lot of in-game adjustments-something he could certainly improve on. I'm looking forward to seeing his offense run on all cylinders; I want to see the RBs really rack up the yards, the WRs catch some long bombs, and the TEs picking up those tough catches. Year 3 better be what he said it would be; he won't have any excuses this time.
i think he will stay because right now theres not a better option. it worries me because i feel like there is some acceptance of mediocrity with our current offense and it seems like its been that way for years. if he were to be replaced i feel like whit wouldve tried to do something right after the uva game in attempt to get a good name and not wait til late after the season.
my question to you guys is that say we had lost to uva. would he be saved or let go? i really feel like the uva game saved him. the offense was great at times but horrific at others all season. i get the injuries and freshman playing but we also had a ton of mistakes by upperclassmen. can anyone else remember a year with as many presnap penalties as this year? it was simply undisciplined football.
its been said before but wake happened and osu happened.
I think your question about a potential loss to UVA would have depended on how we lost. If we has lost like we did to BC (offense getting it done for the most part, defense breaking down late), I think he would have been fine. Had we lost like we did at Wake... not so much.
Again, I think a lot of the issues we're seeing, even with upperclassmen, is essentially year 1 of a new scheme. Searels brought in a lot of new concepts up front, which I think was a factor in some of our older guys not doing as well as they did last year. On top of that, Loeffler has had to design his offense much differently now that we can't just go 3rd and Logan whenever we need to.
Your comment about Searels is exactly why I never understood why we didn't do more man blocking rather than zone. I hope to see more trap/ISO blocking as bread and butter plays. I doubt that I get that Christmas wish lol.
What about hiring someone else and having co-offensive coordinators? Isn't this how Bud was groomed, and I do believe TCU, Auburn and Ohio State all have similar setups, which seems to be working well for them.
An interesting read on TCU, that feels very similar to me as Tech in many ways (a team with a typically great defense; coming off a season losing a lot of close games; issues recruiting offensively, they're not your classic FSU, OSU, USC, Alabama, LSU kind of school, etc) : http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2014-08-22/tcu-football-looks-...
Kevin Rogers type? I know it has been said that bridge was burned but I would like to see what SL can do with his recruits. No excuses after that point.
Loeffler can recruit his tail off, he and Searles have brought in some good recruits and only have 1 year of working together, leave it alone, the D is set, the freshman will be better on special teams next year and I'm excited about where this is going. Past 3 years we have been doing good recruiting now and I can't wait to see what Bradshaw, Holland, McMillian and Reid can do for us next year on offense. And Clark, Teller, Conte, Jglock, and Gallo are a solid 5 on the O-line, with Hansen and Mitchell off the bench. The future is bright, I doubt OSU beats us next year, or FSU!
+1 for optimism but if you are excited about that what do you think OSU/FSU fans are saying about the talent that they are bringing in, which includes guys that we wanted badly and picked them over us?
I think our D will straighten them out. Sweat is recovering from a bad knee injury, I will take Nijman over him, Ricky Walker to me is fine without landing Nnadi. WR we lost out on Harrison but got Ford, I do not see anybody complaining there, OSU got Burrell but we got Clark, I'll take that, they also got Torrance Gibson but if we get Dwayne Lawson I will take that. We got plenty of good guys coming in on the D side of the ball and still may land some good O commits. Stars can mean a lot or nothing. The number 2 roster in the nation which was OSU lost to Tech which had the 25th roster in the nation as far as star talent. I have faith that our coaches and our team can get the job done and our players are used to being snubbed just because they aren't FSU or OSU and playing with a chip on your shoulder and good coaching is how you get guys like Nicolas who play better than guys like Edwards who was a 4 or 5 star and what was Dadi a 2 or 3? But we've held our own with less and over the past few years we have been getting more 4 star recruits and being in it till the end with some 5 stars and we still have a chance for Settle who ESPN has as a 5 star so it's not over yet. FSU is barely beating teams in the ACC and OSU has lost to the last 2 ACC teams they played the way OSU beat Kent State is how Alabama beat Texas A&M and we beat OSU so that shows how overrated they are right there IMO. But honestly they can say what they want. Miami gets a lot of good recruits too and they have sucked for a while, they beat us badly but they have the same record as us...
Really OSU should have lost to Penn State also if you saw that kick they got credit for even though the clock expired. Any team with a decent defense such as Tech and PSU gave OSU a fit, they are the UNC of the BIG 10Can score a lot and they have a slightly better defense, but it didn't do much damage on our weak offense. Even though many say their D-line is one of the best in the nation, we will see after the Alabama game.
would put money that nijman does not play DE for us and he's not in the same category as josh sweat IMO. Nijman may play some DE in situation like corey marshall when we go to a 3 down lineman front though. I'm not talking about just the guys they got over us but their classes as a whole. If you see optimism for the few 4 stars we bring in what do you think they are saying considering they are already in the playoffs and bringing in a top 5 class again, both OSU and FSU...
what would happen if VT played OSU this month? we got them at the right time. that was all.
Nice 'optimism' but Nijman to OT is every bit as likely as Nijman to DE (probably more likely), which means he's likely a 2-3 year project before becoming a starter. Quickest he sees the field (IMO) is at DT, but how often have we seen 6'6" DTs in the lineup?
And...
The coaches put exponentially more effort and resources into recruiting Sweat than they did Nijman so... they wanted Sweat more than Nijman. Make your own conclusions from that, but mine don't equate to Nijman > Sweat.
I'd say Hill is close to being on Sweats level, their schools played each other and I saw Hill in the backfield the whole time, Sweat could not even play and I can't help but trust ESPN and other articles I read on Nijman, doubt em if you want, they want to be Hokies so I am all for em and have seen what they can do. 2 healthy guys that can contribute and are 4 stars are better than 1 unhealthy 5 star, and if he doesn't want to be a Hokie, his loss. And Nijman was recruited as a DE by the way...
Are we talking about Hill or Nijman? Are we only trusting ESPN "and other articles" when they say something we want to hear or are we also trusting them when they say things we don't want to hear? I don't read ESPN all that much when it comes to recruiting but I do try and pay attention to the guys the coaches seem to want. I think that's a better indicator of who's good for the program (or not) and it's pretty easy to see who they prioritize.
I don't know where Nijman will end up, but but at 265 he'd already be the heaviest DE on the roster (by far) and that's before getting into a college S&C program. His film doesn't indicate that he's as quick as Sweat, let alone any of the guys currently starting for VT. Maybe he can develop that quickness, maybe not. I have my doubts and I'm not the only one - hope I'm wrong.
As for Hill, he may or may not make it to VT. I hope he does, looks like he could be pretty good. Hope Gaines makes it here too.
It's great when kids want to be Hokies. I'd like to see more kids want to be Hokies. I'd like them to still want to be Hokies even though Jimbo Fisher wants them to be a Seminole or Nick Saban wants them to be a bammer.
Recruiting isn't terrible, but it's probably not good enough to win the ACC right now. I don't see the need to dismiss the programs current shortcomings and pretend like it's on par with FSU. IIWII.
Sweat was the #1 recruit in the country. Hill, while good, is only a 4* recruit.
To say they are nearly identical players is a stretch at best.
When Salem and OS played Hill did a lot more than an injured Sweat who may or may not return to form. What good is the number 5 or number 31 recruit in the nation when he is on the bench? Sweat fell from being 1st overall due to his injury, Hill even agrees he is as good or better than Sweat and this was after he committed to VT, if it wasn't true why would he say it? He already had committed to college and his game against Sweats school proved it, Hill got mvp for that game, not Sweat and had Sweat played I doubt he'd gotten it, Hill has a huge chip on his shoulder and wants to be a member of Hokie nation so I take his back over Sweats.
Well that settles it, a player has an extremely high opinion of himself so that must make it true....
You'll have to excuse me if I defer judgement of the people paid to analyze talent and rank these guys nationally over the braggard statements of the players themselves.
His play backed his talk until he was sent back to the school for the district in which he lives, but yeah his play and confidence means nothing, the experts know it all, bad pick up on Techs part, we should just drop him and cry about Sweat, i'm with you!
Holy overreaction, Batman!
I didn't say Hill was a bad player, settle down. I just said he's not at "best recruit in the nation" levels, which Sweat is. You can chill on the hyperbole a bit.
He's not the best recruit in the country.
He lost spots.
Also, the point the prior guy is making is that a 4* on the field is much better than a 5* in a cast sitting on the bench.
Gotta admit, he has a point.
For all that talent that OSU had plus the exposure of playing their first game against decent competition, whereas we did not, they were out coached and outplayed for that one game. Travon and DJ will have to be ready to compliment TE and JC. We will need them all to have a chance next year. Let's just beat Cincy like a red headed step child!
I think 'will retain' and 'should retain' are two different arguments but I come to the same conclusion for each.
Beamer will retain Loeffler as he won't likely be able to attract a good replacement, given his pending retirement and, more to the point, his current state of health.
But I also think he SHOULD retain Loeffler, for a number of other reasons. The OL has had 3 coaches in three years, and doesn't deserve to go through yet another change. Were Beamer to go after a new OC, he'd once again insist that he retain Shane as a position coach. And he wouldn't go after an OC who'd install a high-performing offense - it would be another pro style OC.
Normally I don't put a lot of stock in 'hope' but I think that's where we are - hope that injuries heal and the offense somehow overcomes its inherit limitations and improves next season.
All 3 phases of the game looked solid today
Yup, not outstanding all the time, but definitely solid. We did what 9 other teams failed to do this year: end the game with more points than Cincinnati.
I like how you presented the result of today's game. I really enjoyed seeing our kids have fun and gain back confidence.
Well, it wasn't always pretty, but then again we still have all the same issues we did against Wake and UVA, except we've got Trey back. And you're right, it was really great to see those guys flying around and making plays on both sides of the ball. Hopefully that'll carry over to next season too.