In my opinion, the recruiting in the last two years is proof-positive that these guys are making a difference. I felt that way since the day we overhauled our offensive staff but I am curious if any of the folks that harbored negative feelings about one or both of these men still feel that the program cannot be turned around or that either one of them should be shown the door.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
To Clarify, I am talking about the FRANK Beamer.
Arrogant Bastard....it'll get after ya.
Are you expecting anyone to come onto a message board and admit they were wrong about something? Firing out poorly thought-out ideas is what many people use the internet for primarily. Don't expect heavy traffic here. (I wasn't one of those guys)
If this was facebook, no. But on a site where I see guys who have substantiated opinions and aren't just out to troll......maybe.
172 posts and counting. ;)
As with those who called for Beamer and/or Loeffler's ouster these past 2 seasons, it's too early to determine if the ship has been righted.
I'm bullish. I think we are definitely heading in the right direction, and the recruiting wins we are getting are importantly athletes with experience at skill positions rather than athletes we try to plug in somewhere.
As important as Loeffler is, don't ignore the impact Moorehead has had. I think before it's all said and done, he has the potential to be the best recruiter on staff.
As a person in the pro-Beamer camp, I agree that there must be on-field success. But I also very strongly believe that success on the recruiting trail begats success on the field.
I don't discount Moorehead......or Shane, no less. Most of the headhunting has been focused on Frank and Scot though. I believe those two, more than anyone else, are responsible for the success. When shit goes bad....its on the top dogs....when shit goes right, the top dogs don't TOUT their prowess (if they're decent leaders) , but they sure as hell get paid for it.
This...that's what great leaders do. Deflect the praise and absorb the blame. This is what I've struggled with most with Beamer these past couple of years, everyone gives him the praise when things are at their best, but no one wants to hold him accountable for the current downturn. I'd love to see him turn it around, but he also allowed this current fiasco to materialize. It was years in the making, but it was just business as usual. I'm glad to see recruiting get turned up a notch, but one or two classes isn't going to turn this around overnight. These new recruits are going to need a year or two to get acclimated, etc., so we're still in that rebuilding process. I'm certainly pulling for them to succeed...
Not in total disagreement here, but if it takes more than 2 or 3 good recruiting classes to turn it around, the recruiting classes were probably not as good as we thought.
I think you're right. With skill players, they can start to make a difference sometimes from day 1. However, I'm thinking more along the lines of an offensive or defensive lineman. They tend to take a year or two to develop before you start to see progress. Unfortunately, that's where we are in greatest need at the moment.
Honestly, I was just happy that we had gone a while since having to have this discussion...
But I don't think the past couple recruiting wins are enough to change someones opinion on the issue, especially as far as Loeffler is concerned. If you lay the blame for the past two years of offensive ineptitude at Loeffler's feet, are you really going to turn 180 and be convinced he's a national championship quality coach because he got a QB to flip away from Miami? If you don't think Beamer has the goods to get back to the national championship, why would a few recruiting wins overshadow poor on-the-field results... not to mention the multitude of recruiting misses this season?
I'm not saying I want either Beamer or Loeffler fired, just the opposite. But I also don't think the past few weeks have completely turned the program around either. There is still a ton of work to do, and only time will tell if the coaching staff is up to the task.
That makes sense. I'd call it more than 'a couple' of recruiting wins. We've had a couple of recruiting wins we may not have necessarily expected, but when we talk about I. Ford, Williams, McKenzie, Settle, Lawson and Clark, coupled with what I think were some pretty darn smart coaching changes, I suspect we'll see some results.
Virginia Tech has always been a very well-coached football team under Franks leadership (er, minus the offense for about 8 years). In that, I believe the results will change based on the very different level of talent we've obtained.
Another factor to consider is that the ACC isn't what it used to be. We're currently 4th in ACC recruiting according to 247 and we have one of our best classes of all time, if not THE best. That's kind of scary. Nothing's guaranteed but I'd put our staff up against many of the best in the country.
I have been happy with Loeffler from a recruiting perspective. I was impressed with his gameplanning and playcalling in the last two games. That protection issue against Wake Forest was a huge red flag for me, and will continue to be for a long time. Also, the habit of getting away from the running game when it is working (he didn't against the Bearcats and it paid off) still drives me crazy.
Again, he gets another year. We will see going forward.
Regarding Frank- that's Whit's call. When Whit says it is time, I will agree with him. Otherwise, my opinion remains for Beamer to be the head coach? Why? Because Beamer doesn't have an impact on the things that can be evaluated on film, and the quality of the coaching staff can't always be reflected purely on wins and loses. Therefore, the reason to get rid of Beamer would be that he is failing to lead and serve as an executive properly. To draw that conclusion is purely subjective unless you are within the program, so I will trust Whit to make the correct decision.
Everything you just said is absolutely agreeable. But...
Frank does impact the 'crootin'. And some would say it's not a positive impact.
Meow, recruiting has definitely improved with the new staff, but so has almost everyone else's in the ACC.
So... is recruiting important enough to nudge Frank out? Definitely not, but (#conjecture)... primarily because expectations within the AD's office are that Frank wont stay beyond 2016.
#sources
Uh...no. #conjecture, like he said.
My dumb self completely read over that. Apologies.
Saved my breath.
a drop the mic post? really? I am glad you saved your breath but surely you could have found somewhere more fitting for this one. It seems overly negative. I read his post. It makes sense, but it sure as shit wasn't a mic drop - there was nothing to drop a mic on.
I thought Mason covered all the bases.
1) The break from this discussion sure was nice.
2) Why would a couple recruits change anyone's mind on this topic?
3) The only answer will be given in time.
Personally I think that's all that needs to be said on this. It's been discussed umpteen times already. Everyone knows Loeffler and Beamer will be coaching VT next season, so we'll see how it goes in 8 months. Over and done (hence the mic drop).
More negativity? I think that what I brought up has not been discussed "umpteen" times. I've seen no other threads concerning the topic of how someones feelings about Beamer and Loeffler may have changed since we've had a very successful recruiting effort this year so far....so bullet #1 is....a stretch. Bullet #2...already someone has replied that their mind has changed about Beamer at least partially because we're recruiting well. #3, I never claimed all of this was a success with nothing more needed. I said that these recruiting results were proof-positive that the two guys were making a difference - that's all.
I gave you a turkey leg for your mic drop.
Agree, let's let the " fat lady sing" before we proclaim an encore! Edit: reply to post by Mr. Mason
For me, today was a visible show of what it would be like to have Bud Foster as HC. The pedigree of the Pitt coach seems very similar to Bud's pedigree.
We may not want to have this discussion this year, and this is just my woman's intuition (not a woman last I checked), but I think the longer Frank stays on unsuccessfully the more likely it is we get a new HC from outside the program. I think this is probably a one and five to one and three likelihood Bud decides he wants to be DC under this guy. Maybe because Whit it is a higher probability. I just think that Whit will have conversations with coaches who see the future of the NFL and college games in different terms than Bud does or that they will differ in the way they see recruiting Va Tech and or SWVA in dramatically different ways in regards how Virginia Tech should architect the program.
I am biased as I really want to see Bud get a shot here.
I haven't watched the game in detail but for me it seemed the same old crap. A smart guy outthinking himself. I think we should have been able to run at the Pittsburgh ends by putting bodies on them. We seemed to always leave them unblocked and then they ended up blowing up the play. For chrissake leave the DTs for PITT unblocked and run away from them. I also never get to see us exploit all our slot WRs / RBs in space against LBs. I saw maybe one dump off that I recall and I think one LB sprained his pelvis trying to cover #34.
So, yeah, maybe noone gets fired this year. But I think if I am Whit I interview Scott and Bud as if they are going to replace Frank next year. If SL wins the interview, Frank stays on (or if Whit has a better guy he wants to pull the trigger on he does it). If Bud wins the interview, Bud gets to determine OC, the role that Frank plays next year, etc. Totally impractical? Perhaps, but this is VT we're talking about and I don' t think Bud would have it any other way.
I dunno, in house hiring from a terrible team sounds too small school. It's what have us Shane. As much as I like bud, I feel like him being promoted would leave to many of the current staff here as it would probably just be a hc switch
I agree with you that people shouldn't be calling for Loeffler's or Beamer's head, but using these last two classes as "proof" that it's what's best for the program is premature. It could turn out to be amazing and they should definitely get at least a year or two to produce results(with these classes), but in basketball we thought the 2011 recruiting class was "proof" that Greenberg was finally getting us over the hump into the NCAA tournament again and none of them are here now. While I'm looking forward to seeing what these two as well as future classes do, but I do not think there is any "proof" either for the pro-loeffler beamer camp or pro-new blood camp. Though I have to admit that all signs point towards the pro-beamer camp eventually being proven right.
agree to disagree. This programs brand became stale before we overhauled the staff. Since that time the input into the program has elevated significantly. Kids WANT to be Hokies again....ahhhh, so refreshing.
I'm definitely thrilled about the Hokies recent recruiting classes, and honestly I was playing more devil's advocate than really disagreeing with you. I'm liking what I'm seeing and am cautiously optimistic.
roger! Yep, nothing is set in stone.....I know a couple things that leave me more optimistic than cautious.....BUCKY HODGES for one. The ability to score quickly (which we did so many times last year) for two. A stacked backfield for three. JC Coleman (an overall average college back) tearing up the field for four. A developing O-line for five. Isaiah ford for six. Andrew Ford looking like the backseat driver to our newest QB recruit for seven.
I cant remember having more reasons to feel good about where this team is headed.
Shit...I'm drink and I am done posting. I'll visit TKP 400 times tomorrow to catch up.
I was on the fence about Beamer and was leaning towards the "Bobby Bowden" argument. I am here to say I was wrong for several reasons. Several members on The Key Play have explained to me what Beamer has done for this program and given me an understanding of the state of the program and how spoiled I was as a fan to come in at the end of the Tyrod years. Im not saying expecting wins is a bad thing but you still need to keep a level head. It's going to take a little while for things to click and the inexperience and injuries that effect the season cannot be ignored. We beat OSU, flat out beat them and we have the coaching staff to thank. With the change in the talent being brought in and things turning up I have to say I was wrong. It's best not to let expectations proceed the improvement we see on the recruiting front and some of the wins we achieved.
Agree, sir! Get pumped up. We have some exciting days ahead!
There are a lot of spoiled fans considering what Beamer created over the last 20+ years. Is it greedy to expect 10-win seasons and a top-15 ranking every year, and whine how we're snubbed for NCG appearances? I'm not sure. But with 20+ years of success, the fan base is restless for the good times, the top-10 rankings and ACC dominance.
Lets look at how Beamer got there in the first place; lots of 757 and 804 kids, a dominating defense and stars on special teams. Speed. ESPN Thursday night games. A run-first offense happy with 400 grinding yards. Dual-threat QBs. And Virginia recruiting dominance.
And today? FSU, other football superpowers, and rating agencies have discovered the great talent in Virginia. Mike London has found a way to steal kids once destined for VT greatness (Oh how I wish Al Groh never left.) VT has been FORCED to recruit better nationally, because they're not getting all the home-grown talent they once were.
A lot of recruiting misses has left the offensive cupboard bare; TE recruits switching to OL or QB because of lack of depth. "System" issues, where perhaps recruits weren't comfortable with how their role at VT would translate to the NFL game.
Now we are seeing Loeffler turn things around on offense. The defense will always be good. Bud Foster could field a top-25 defense with R-freshman and volunteers from Home Depot. But now the offense is getting better, because of better recruits. No way we beat tOSU without all those freshmen this year. That was one of the biggest wins in Beamer's 25 years. It didn't happen in '99, '03 or '08. All those teams had veteran players and still didn't get the big win. This year's young team got the national stage win but also lost to ECU, Pitt and WF. Frustrating, I know. But the ability is there.
I've been drinking the Kool-aid ever since Loeffler got hired. Grimes (who has since left) and Moorehead know what they are doing, know how to recruit and how to win. Realize that Loeffler recruited them too, just like he would any other recruit. Same with Searles. Can these guys build a team that can win a national championship?
Don't take my word for it, just ask an OSU fan.
Let us take UVA's recruiting class from 2014 as a comparison to the situation we currently find ourselves here in Blacksburg. UVA had a bad 2013 season, but Mike London kept his job. The working theory was that London kept his job as HC at UVa because the AD felt that if UVA fired London, then the Recruiting class he had assembled would all go somewhere else. So fast forward to 2014 football season. UVA improved from 2 wins to 5 wins, but would any of us consider that a successful season? Go on over to "Streaking The Lawn" and read the comments and you will find that most of the commenter have lost faith in the UVA football program and lost faith in London. Do you think Mike London is a success at UVa? Now ask yourself the same question in comparison to the article concerning Scott Loeffler and his recruiting.
Now to be clear, I am not happy with this past season and I am still on the fence concerning Loeffler as OC; its obvious the guy can recruit QBs. But I also believe that he needs a minimum of three years to see if he can fix the horrible offense VT had before he came to VT. But keep in mind the game against Wake Forest and the result of that miserable game. Wake 6 vs VT 3.
Loeffler still stinks. But no reason to go find a new guy with Beamer so close to the end. We chose poorly, just gotta make the best of it.
I am glad you showed up! 20 TKP-bucks says you don't say the same thing by the end of next year. ;)
TKP-bucks? Are those like turkey legs? Because if not, nobody wants those.
I hope so. I think we can be adequate next year, which defined to me, is in the 50-70 range in total offense and/or points. In advanced metrics, we were 99th in FEI this year and 89th in S&P. We aren't asking for the moon here, but as good as Tennessee was (49th, S&P) or Louisville (51st FEI) or LSU (44th FEI) on offense. That's a pretty reasonable bar.
Be average.
I think the injuries/youth was so much trouble this year. Who was our most veteran offensive player? Willie Byrn who had the 4th most yards of any receiver and no TDs? Third String RB JCC who barely saw the field until we had no options yet? Transfer Michael Brewer, who wasn't on campus until halfway through the summer?
david wang was as veteran as they come lol. Gibson, Farris, Malleck, Knowles all had significant snaps and were upper classmen.
And none of them have had consistent coaching. The rotating door at OL coach has been a significant detriment to this program, I think. Grimes was doing fine in developing the OL, but since he left and Searles changed some things, there was regression. Two straight years of the same coach is one of the biggest things that I'm watching from this year to next.
I had hoped for the same thing in regards to seeing SL's offense progress from year 1 to year 2. Not much improvement, if any.
Not a fair comparison, in my mind. This is why I've always stuck to the 3-year plan for evaluating Loeffler. Last year was a mixed bag of talent and the plan was "live and die by LT3" - the entire offense was designed around their one legitimate offensive weapon. This year was an influx of young talent. The two years aren't comparable because they're very different situations. 2015 will be the first year where I think an evaluation really has some meaning because we will see (1) the ability of the coaches to develop the young talent and (2) whether or not continued recruiting efforts will be paying off.
The young talent passed the existing talent. We did have 3 600 yard WRs returning last year prior to ford/Phillips winning the starting spots. We all know what happened with Stanford, byrn was still consistent and Knowles couldn't get on the field. So there were pieces from the '13 team that could have developed and had been in the same system. I feel like people could make excuse and excuse to justify how bad our offense has been, but not many sit back and say hey we aren't the most talented offense in the country by any stretch but is there any possible way we should be in the 95-105 rankings in total offense? I think the answer is no and that is predominately on the OC IMO.
(I edited my original comment to be more clear about what I meant about young talent)
The problem with your argument is this - what is the system? We don't yet know how to characterize Loeffler's vision. We cannot use 2013 as a reference for Byrn et al. developing in "the system" because, as I said, "the system" in 2013 was LT3. This year, well, I'm not football-savvy enough to know what to call our "system," if we have one. We're still developing the young talent. They're clearly going to be playmakers, and I get all happy inside thinking about Ford, Phillips, Hodges, Juice, and Shai all hitting the field healthy. With a halfway decent OL and a couple fewer turnovers from the QB, that's a top-50 offense easily. The growth from 2014-2015 is all I'm going to go on.
Don't good OCs adapt their system based on the talent they have to work with? If you aren't constantly tinkering/evolving your system you aren't a very good OC IMO.
Would definitely agree after watching all the games this year that I couldn't say what system we run or what our identity is which is my main concern with SL. I thought the same thing about Stanford after the previous year that most think about ford/Phillips for next year. I want to see AMO continue to develop them and for them to improve next year.
Of course they adapt, but I just think that things changed so much between 2013 and 2014 that it was less a matter of adapting as it was overhauling. 2014-2015 will be adaptation/growth, if Loeffler is worth his pay.
Hoping you are right pal. Would love nothing more than seeing VT with a top 50 offense this coming year and taking some of the pressure off of Bud.
I mentioned this below, but it's not easy to draw a line between making adjustments and lacking an identity. Same goes for drawing a line between having an identity and being stubborn.
And under the old offensive mindset of seniority rules, that's what we would have seen. But those other receivers weren't arbitrarily passed over. Ford and Phillips usurped them. (With the exception of Yoshi, who could have been the anchor of the receiving corps this season.)
We're putting our players with the most upside on the field on offense. There's not really ant excuse built into that statement, it's just what we're doing. So to say they're were pieces from '13 that could have developed, in the coaches' minds the new guys were the better prospects to start. Meaning they came in ahead of where the returners were after developing last season.
There's a difference between making excuses and understanding what's going on at various positions on the team. It doesn't excuse Lefty's offensive rankings, it's just a discussion of the issues we face as a program. It's Lefty's job to address those issues that affect the offense.
VTGM isn't excusing Lefty's performance, he's saying he buys into the three year rule. A new coordinator gets three years to install his system and get his guys in place. I ascribe to the same philosophy. In my mind, Lefty's been playing with house money the last two years. 2015 will be the year when I can feel comfortable saying, okay, this is what Scot Loeffler brings as an OC. Does he pass muster? A lot of people have already made that judgment call, but to be at least, it's premature to do so.
so after SL was fired from auburn did the new OC need 3 years to get a decent offense?
Irrelevant. Malzahn came back to coach Malzahn's guys after Chizik tried to turn spread into pro overnight.
This. Auburn was about as messed up of a situation possible. Malzahn leaves to be a great coach. The defensive-minded Chizzik, who is already on the hot seat, thinks transitioning to a pro-style offense is a good idea, so he hires lefty to install one. Running a pro style offense with players recruited for the air raid has predictable results. The head coach is subsequently fired and the entire staff dismissed. Malzahn returns to the offense he had built and has unsurprising success with it. So really, it wasn't year one, it was a return from a sabbatical.
Not irrelevant in my book. Back to the point of OC's utilizing the talent they have to maximize output. I do agree he wasn't in a great situation there, but that offense went from like being in the 110s to winning a natty the next year and yes they did have quite a few changing pieces between. Just saying there could be a reason why none of the schools that SL has coached at recently have nothing nice to say about him?
Many people speak highly of Loeffler. Are people from Temple bashing him? All I know about are Auburn fans complaining for the same reasons. Seriously, Chizik was clueless and wanted Loeffler to put a square peg in a round hole. His performance at Auburn was a direct result of trying to make players recruited for a very specific system (quite well, kudos to Malzahn) do stuff they had never done before. If Loeffler had a couple of years to develop and recruit, I'd be more willing to hear this argument. If Loeffler had Nick Marshall (keep in mind that Auburn's QB was not very good and moved immediately to safety upon Malzahn's return), things would have been different.
marshall was a CB at UGA before being dismissed just as a point of reference. He played JUCO QB for one year prior to coming to AU. I forget the QB SL was working with at AU and I know he got moved to DB after, but he was a very highly touted kid coming out of HS.
A couple of years is college football is an epoch.
I disagree. Taking someone who familiar with a pro-style offense, techniques and play calls and having him run the spread is like hiring your math professor to be your attorney. Yeah, he should be able to get up to speed, but not before the trial.
I love this argument, it basically gives Loeffler credit for inappropriately utilizing his talent.
Yay?
Who is more at fault - Chizik for hiring Loeffler to do something crazy, or Loeffler for failing to do something that shouldn't have been attempted?
Shouldn't have taken the job if it was an impossible task. Both had their own part in the blame though and completely excusing SL of any wrong doing is ridiculous IMO.
I said "more at fault," not "bears the full blame." There's a difference. I don't "excuse" Loeffler, but I think what was done has to be fairly interpreted in light of all the circumstances. He failed at Auburn. Was it entirely his fault? Only if you read the Auburn message boards. That was a dumpster fire there. Loeffler played a part, yes, but he does not deserve what he's getting from people who make very superficial assessments of what was going on.
If a Fortune 500 company offered you a VP position in your field, but their logistics system was fundamentally different than the one your current employer utilizes, would you decline the offer? Not many people I know would.
if I was starting my career and that position was going to be a failure to the extent that year at auburn was I would pass. I also don't think a fortune 500 company would offer me the position without me having laid out a plan on how I would adapt to their logistics system...
I think there is a basic chicken poop/chicken salad threshold here. I just don't buy that he had such bad players for his system that it wouldn't work. He had Tre Mason! That dude is good, and he was good in Shottenheimer's traditional "pro-style" offense this year in St. Louis.
I'm not a believer is the "talent isn't good enough" or "talent isn't well suited to what we're doing" myth. There are teams in MAC level conferences out there putting up big numbers in all kinds of systems. You don't have to have everything perfect to be successful. And it doesn't take 3+ years.
Scot Loeffler has been the author of three straight really, dreadfully, stinky awful offenses in a row. It's reasonable to be critical of that. But, like I said in the beginning, no reason to pull him now. Beamer could be done at any moment. Loeffler can be an adequate OC, that's all we need. We need him to be as good as Stinespring. That's it.
I don't get this comment at all. How was he supposed to utilize Air Raid talent? He doesn't run an Air Raid. He tried to install his system with Malzahn's players. He adapted his scheme as best he could but it was just too big a transition to make in a year. In a lot of ways I'd say it's similar to what Buzz is dealing with on the basketball team this year.
Has David Wang ever played more than 9/10 games in a season even once? Knowles had 3 catches this year. Malleck has played less than 10 games under Lefty. Gibson and Farris might've had the attitude of leaders, but some Saturdays that just weren't able to play like it (likely due to 3 the OL coaching carousel).
No disrespect to those players, but if you're citing Gibson, Farris, Malleck, and Knowles as the most veteran players on the team, it's no wonder the team struggled this much.
Scot Loeffler is the most cursed OC in the NCAA. It's always something.
I still don't feel like he gets to call his own shots in terms of leaving, but I think that can be addressed at the conclusion of next season. Before you get all haywire, let's take a brief walk down memory lane
No doubt, this was confounding.
I hate this pic. Because it is very much out of context. If my memory serves right, WF was putting together a drive and the D had a stop. Beamer was celebrating the play that saved the regulation game and afforded VT overtime. I believe even at that time I celebrated not losing.
true, but I think the whole point of people posting this pic repeatedly is because there is no reason for FB to be cheering when we are tied with WF, and they hadn't won an ACC game yet. I get that he was excited because their kicker missed the field goal at the end of regulation, but is that what we want to cheer for? The other team missing a field goal so that we can go to OT? I'd rather have seen him cheer after we kicked their ass, or even won in regulation against one of the worst teams in the country
THIS FOREVER.
That's not the first time a coach has celebrated an opponent missing a FG that would have won them the game with no time on the clock, and I can guarantee that that won't be the last time, either.
True, but the reason it is such a great picture is because how often does a coach celebrate a missed game-winning kick while the score is 0-0?
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say 100% of coaches celebrate not losing, and getting a chance to play in OT to win, no matter what the score it.
But it would not be funny if the score read 20-20. 0-0 is hilarious though for an ending score in a college football game.
My emphasis was the scoreboard at the conclusion of regulation against WtF. Definitely one of the lowest points (no pun) in the history of the program.
It is completely in context. Beamer is celebrating a missed field goal to not lose the game 3-0 to a team with 0 conference wins. It is exactly as bad as it looks.
He celebrates in the same fashion whether the score is 0-0 (as per the picture) or 24-24.
So would any other coach with a soul (thus eliminating Saban, P. Johnson, and Belichick).
Yeah he was celebrating just like the rest of us were for not losing. I think Wake Forest had just missed a field goal. But it is still a hilarious picture
Ok, I too am getting tired of seeing this pic (I sometimes feel like posting a pic of the win over OSU every time I see it). Football is a game of matchups, more so at the college level than at the pro level. We were injured in several key spots and knew going into that Wake game that they had a weak offense that we could take advantage of with our defense. We also knew that they had a VERY good DL, while our weakest points on offense were the OL and the running game. We hoped that our OL could hold up long enough to allow Brewer to take advantage of their weaker secondary, but that didn't happen. Did we play good? No. Did we have costly mistakes and turnovers at critical times that likely cost us the game? Yes.
On the other side of the spectrum when we played OSU we were healthy and the matchups were favorable. Their major weaknesses were an inexperienced OL and QB and they were missing at least one stud D-lineman. Our strengths were our DL and experienced secondary (along with Foster out-scheming Meyer) that befuddled the OSU Offense. Add that to an inspired performance from Brewer and our OL and we have the end result.
Was the OSU win Great? Yes. Was the Wake loss terrible? Yes. But both need to be taken in context with a grain of salt.
Lighten up man. Our game against Wake Forest is historical basically. And thanks to the internet, everyone knows about it. Just laugh, the more you fight it, the more people will bring it up just to piss you off. It's the old, laugh at yourself instead f getting laughed at adage. Plus, come on, it is a hilarious picture.
Every time I see the Wake photo I recognize it's a motivation that wants to do nothing but embarrass Beamer.
You go ahead and celebrate with that photo taken out of context. I don't understand the motivation to want to be a hater. That is what continuing to post that picture represents. Taking a picture out of context and pretending it represents cheering an offensive failure when Frank is cheering the opportunity to win in overtime after barely avoiding a loss in regulation and attempting to keep his guys fired up.
I'm not proud of the Wake game but understand whence it came. I do not want to go back. I'll celebrate where I want to return and understand we're capable of returning there.
Would it have helped if I had just posted the score?
Yes, it shows a complete difference in motivation.
If you think we really needed a reminder.
If you go back and look at the video following that you'll see Frank greeting and congratulating his Special Teams guys coming off the field. That's what he is at the time of that photo, he's playing speial teams coach keeping his guys up for the FG attempts he knows is coming.
Hey, could've been worse. Could've been that JMfU game that never happened [surprised and relieved no one's brought up that. Btw, looked for the score gif without Beams, no dice].
If you needed a gif, this one took 15 seconds.
Same search
again, same search. I'm not sure your googlefu as stated is effective.
I was looking for one without a gif (after your #pandaSads). Probably would've used the 3rd one but was looking particularly more for the way the score was presented in my initial gif without the double fisting Beamer.
Yea this was very embarassing. If I were coaching in that game, I would be so pissed that we played so poorly that we were even in this position at this point of the game. I would not be cheering for a missed field goal that keeps it 0-0.... again 0-0, against WF..... absolutely patheitc. The only thing I was show would be relief of not losing (not in a cheerful way) at that moment.
Absolutely inconsequential. Should he have been screaming at the kids to play better after Wake had just missed a field goal to win the game? I just don't understand why fans of a team would keep posting this when it hurts the perception of the program AND it is a perfectly natural reaction to still having a shot to win.
Ok. But as a hypothetical, if you were a member of the media (ie $ec$pn) without any emo ties to Tech and this opportunity presented itself, would you take it and run with it or not? See, I hate it as much as everyone else. But I can't totally blame the person who did it.
I don't think too many media members at TKP have posted it, but I've seen that pic about a hundred times on here I think, And I guarantee every person that posted it was also cheering as the game was still alive and headed to OT.
But no, I don't blame the media using it. a 0-0 game isn't something that happens every day and the shot of Beamer just made the story that much more odd to the outside viewers.
I think people are way too sensitive about the picture, really. I liked it because... Well it was a damn funny picture and thought it symbolized or season pretty well. If the pic had been of Mike London instead of Beamer, I guarantee you that it would be one of those automatic 38 legs a pop memes on here from now to eternity.
Sometimes it truly is OK to laugh at yourself every once in a while.
I agree if it is used as humor. But if it is used as some kind of proof that Beamer is delusional or satisfied with mediocrity, it's unfair.
I agree with this. I have created a few memes with the 0-0 pic, but they're laden with sarcasm and a healthy dose of self-deprecation. If you can't take a moment to laugh a bit during a disappointing year, I can't help you.
well...if there is anyone on this site who can help anyone else...it's you
you have 26,108+ pieces of proof that you can help people
UGA just hired a Schottenheimer (sp?)....
I prefer Loeffler.
The sentiment down here in Athens is that it's a dubious hire as well.
The funny thing is that most people in the fire Beamer camp have all the confidence in the world in Whit. And yet when Whit comes out and aggressively backs Beamer and the rest of the staff, it's ignored.
Lot of "but Whit is aggressive and going to make things happen...". I knew all along he wasn't touching that yet. In a year, maybe.
Most of the ones I've heard have read into that release thinking Whit was putting Beamer on notice. Seems I got the complete opposite or of it.
Half of me is glad Whit said it because it solidifies the stance of the AD and unifies the staff.
The other half of me is wondering if this was akin to the dreaded vote of confidence we see all too often in pro sports where the GM comes out saying how confident he is in the job the coach is doing only to see the guy fired a couple weeks later.
This is just speculation on all sides. I'm pretty sure what Whit and Frank said behind closed doors wasn't going to be made privy to the public. To think he would openly challenge Beamer in the media doesn't present unity, and that was never going to happen. So I'm not too sure Whit "aggressively" backs Beamer or not. I think Whit understands that the team needs to win games and have a better record than this past year, but he wasn't going to say anything to the contrary to the media. I have plenty of confidence in Whit, I'm on the fence with Beamer...but he wasn't going to throw him under the bus publicly, even if he lit a fire under his ass during their private conversations or not.
Apr 16 2008, The announcement Wednesday is that contract talks are on hold until the conclusion of this season, and that Joe might not even need a contract to coach, how do you see this saga ending? Is this the final year for Joe Paterno?
The story ends when Joe says it's over. He and Spanier went head-to-head and Joe won. He played his trump card when he publicly stated he didn't need a contract to keep coaching. He was basically daring Spanier to fire him, and Spanier had neither the support or balls to do it. He had no choice but to give Joe a vote of confidence for the sake of the Penn State Football Empire.)
Now replace Spanier with Whit and it could easily be the same thing.
So Whit did what was best for everyone without any drama
Silly stretch.
I believe someone can be a good recruiter but not a good coach. The jury is still out on Loeffler. He has shown great potential at times. But again, the 0 points in regulation against Wake Forest still lingers.
Frank Beamer, though, I am concerned about. I'm not questioning him as a coach. He's one of the best of all time. What I am questioning though is his drive. Obviously he has some because he's coming back to coach after having throat surgery. But, he's just not showing the intensity and fire we used to see out of Frank. I love watching old Tech football games. Back in the day, Frank was all over someone's butt after making a mistake. Now, it just seems like it's whatever to him. Nobody is held accountable. He's obviously still a good coach. For crying out loud he beat tOSU in the Shoe. I just question his drive as a head coach.
Did I miss where it was explained that Frank is not holding people accountable? I seriously doubt he looks at anything and says "whatever".
I also find it funny that you "cry out loud" that Frank beat OSU and call him a good coach, but don't do the same for the OC that beat OSU.
Someone should ask Bucky how he felt after drawing one of his 15-yard unsportsmanlike penalties this year. Or the block in the back on the great punt return back in week 3 or so. Frank was in his face like I hadn't seen in a long time. There was a vein in his forehead standing out so bad it was approaching Bud Foster status. He had more fire in 2014 than in 2012+2013 combined.
Agree. He knew what this team was capable of compared to the previous two years.
Sorry, just now getting around to seeing this.
But, I did not literally mean "whatever." He just does not seem as intense as he once was. Granted I don't want him slapping players on the helmet in a negative manner (2003 Ernest Wilford), but he just doesn't seem all that invested anymore.
And yes, Loeffler called a spectacular game during the Ohio State game. I still play back the throw-back to Malleck in my head over and over again and smile. But, like I said, he still managed to call a bad enough game to not even lead the offense to a field goal against Wake Forest. I thought the team was decently prepared and was pretty well motivated, especially for a noon game at Wake Forest.
These are just my opinions though. I apologize if you find them "funny," and I will try to keep them less humorous in the future.
I just don't see how the assessment can be made that he is not invested anymore. Why do you think this? Granted he isn't riding Stroman down the sideline but I saw him plenty animated this season.
I think the jury is still out on Loeffler as well, I just think that too many people are quick to toss out the "good" when it comes to their assessment of him and focus only on the "bad". From my perspective I see a lot of both, 60/40 one way or the other. I will be among the first to say he needs to improve a hell of a lot to stay in the job in the future, but I also see all the constraints and bad hand he was dealt and can perhaps be a bit more patient than others.
I didn't mean to be snarky about you being "funny", rather that I think giving Loeffler his due in one of the program's biggest wins is important.
I do think Beamer is still invested and does show intensity still, but again, it's nothing like what he used to show. Of course that is reasonable as he gets older, but I still think something is lacking.
And I agree 100%. I think Loefller is one the best X's and O's offensive coordinators in the ACC. I think he has a problem with keeping things simple, though. He wants to stick to his gameplan way too often, which eventually, if the gameplan isn't working, can really bite you in the rear end.
To be fair, you can't expect an offense to come out every Saturday and look like world beaters. Even the Oregon Ducks have one or two games every year where their offense sputters. But, they always seem to find a way to win by finding one part of the offense that is successful, and building around it.
At Wake Forest, if Loeffler had left Motley in when he was moving the ball down the field, Tech may have scored a TD or at least gotten a field goal (i.e. if Loeffler stuck with the read option and didn't throw that screen to Bucky). But, the offense looked very good in the UVA and Cincinnati games, and next year the offense will be more experienced, so Loeffler should be able to work with the X's and O's more.
I do believe Frank still has some left in the tank, and I definitely think he wants to go out on a high note. I think Scot Loeffler has potential and will have a decent year in 2015. I am thinking we will see a year similar to 2004 when not much was expected of the Hokies, and they came out and played awesome. I wat that for Frank more than anything.
I'm with you on Lefty against Wake. I think his offense is capable of being great. But, he has to learn how to dumb it down when the need arises.
Nailed it. I've tried to like Loeffler. The OSU game was great, but he had 7 months to prepare that game plan. The games against Wake and Miami were painful to watch. I dont care if Wake was a "matchup nightmare." They won two games before they beat us (vs. Gardner Webb and vs. Army).
He is recruiting well, but that shouldn't be a reason to forget his playcalling throughout this season. There is a certain school, north of Blacksburg, who keeps their coach around because he recruits well. How have they been doing?
And CML isn't even recruiting so well, these days.
As for Loeffler, I think a top-50 offense is a fair benchmark this season, or at least one that doesn't cost us a game. If VT wins a good deal more games this year, but doesn't light up the stats offensively, I probably won't demand his ouster but will be disappointed.
I was never for firing Beamer, ever. Lefty, on the other hand...
The jury is still out. I'm sure I'll have my definitive conclusion by midseason.
I will say, if a more lucrative offensive hire came along, I wouldn't think twice.
Let's see Loeffler run an offense that finishes in the top half of the NCAA before we start puffing our chests out about him.
9/7/2015
You fool me once...
Of course not that it boils down to anOSU, but pulling off that type of performance twice in 2 years would probably make me question reality immediately afterwards.
Realistically, barring injuries, the results should speak for themselves for both Scot and Frank. If we can make it to the the ACCCG, they've got my full faith. Lock, stock and barrel.
I think we should play football all year round, because I hate the offseason.
Yes
Yes I am still requesting Frank to graciously step down and allow us a year of remembering him and a year of transition through the 2015 season.
6 games to honor the achievements
20 years since the First BCS Bowl Win 15 years since the NC Game
Recruiting
Recruiting continues to focus to narrowly on the state of Virginia. Of the 116 players on the roster currently We have 1 Payer from Texas, 0 from Cali, TN, MS, or Alabama. There are only 6 from Fla
6.03% of the roster comes from the 'hotbeds' of football recruiting
Since 2012 More than 60% of players at Tech are instate
UVa has 50% instate
Clemson - 35%
Stanford - 23%
Auburn - 28%
Wisconsin - 26%
Nebraska - 9%
Ole Miss 44%
UGa - 52%
Who we Recruit now
Our defense was fine . yea depth will be nice and it's some nice pickups but whats the difference having a Top 15 D vs Top 5 when theres been no Offense recruiting change
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 making that better 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., Florida St, and Clemson
Of the Top 75 OT and Top 75 OG ranked by 247 two chose Tech in 2014 class.
We recruited the 4th best class in the ACC last year, in 2013, and 2012 and we are right there again this year. Yes we are getting better players but so is the rest of the ACC.
Offensive times, They are a changin'
Time of possession matters* (Big asterisk)
*Only if you're scoring points
GTech's clock draining, nation's leading rushing triple option gameplan has GT 4th in TOP 2nd in Rushing and 12th in points scored
Mich State is 1st in TOP and 7th in scoring and 22nd in Rushing
Wisconsin is 6th in TOP 4th in rushing, and 29th in Scoring
VTech is 36th in TOP and 96th in scoring
OSU is 35th in TOP and 5th in scoring
The reaction to Scott LOEFFLER on here when he was hired was a fear for the loss of the running game that he brought with him a high/fast pass game.
Yet at the end of this season we are still attempting more running plays per game than passing plays 39r-36p. So did LOEFFLER evolve to like Beamerball offense and the rushing game or is there a resistance to call a passing based game from internal pressure.
Who's ready for 2014, whoops, I meant Who's ready for 2015, sorry, really though, I meant Who's ready for 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!
After building up 2014 as the season to rebuild in to 2015 success
Yet now 2015 is the building for 2016 success
In Bitter's Q&A a question came on 2015 Results he gave the expectation of a 7-5 season on another weak schedule
So to quote myself a few times
Aren't we all looking for great success
National Championship GamePlayoff GameACC Championship GameACC ChampionsJan 1 Bowl GameA Bowl Game
Is getting to A Bowl Game really getting where we want
And an important one to remember
someone needs to start the push. Beamer is following a bad path. Bowden, Brown, Fulmer, and Paterno
(Side Bar - Apr 16 2008, The announcement Wednesday is that contract talks are on hold until the conclusion of this season, and that Joe might not even need a contract to coach, how do you see this saga ending? Is this the final year for Joe Paterno?
The story ends when Joe says it's over. He and Spanier went head-to-head and Joe won. He played his trump card when he publicly stated he didn't need a contract to keep coaching. He was basically daring Spanier to fire him, and Spanier had neither the support or balls to do it. He had no choice but to give Joe a vote of confidence for the sake of the Penn State Football Empire.)
Between the 4, There were - 19 Conference Championships won, 6 National Championships Won, and 4 Heisman Trophy winners, yet in the Last 6 years of each of their careers they won only one conference championship before being forced out. Except Fulmer who couldn't win one of the 3 Conference Championship games he Coached in during his last 6 years
Bowden was told to retire. He was told he was running out of time to coach.
He was told to wrap it up
He ignored all the writing on the wall but FSU was already preparing for the football program to continue. Bowden didn't accept change and lost a Lifetime Mentor, a boss that supported him, and a lifetime best friend. (the relationship between the AD and Bowden was very deep) But FSU was ready and prepared to move on
And the life of a kicked out coach
"This time, Bobby Bowden accepted Florida State's invitation to return to Doak Campbell Stadium for a Seminole football game." After a 4 year hiatus the coach returns for his first home game and will only be attending 2 games
We definitely are too in-state as a roster and I think its no coincidence that a good number of our best players over the last 5 years have been OOS. We are trying to go out of state more now (all three of our current 2016 commits), with good ties in Florida and Maryland, but as a school that's geographically closer to NC than nova or 757, I do wish we'd hit NC a little more
Just checking in on my yes
damn it's too fitting
What are next week's lotto numbers? Please?!?
Certainly not these ticket numbers...
It's all Newsome's fault. Still. And Stinespring's fault. And Rickey Bustle. And the CIA, the KGB, and the Illuminati.
Cosigned
We are recruiting at our average level or just slightly above. I want to see development of players on the roster and improved play calling on the offensive side, which should lead to wins. Personally if it was my call SL would have been gone but I can understand we have an uncertain HC'ing future and the call was perhaps deferred until next year. No our offense hasn't been filled with talent the last two years, but I don't think there is any argument that can be made to suggest we have bottom 20% talent in FBS which is where our offensive production has been the last two years.
If someone said we had bottom 20% talent on the OL as a group the last 2 years, I would not argue that we didn't. Mix a lack of overall talent with inexperience, 3 OL coaches in 3 years, and injuries that caused a constant shuffling there will be some serious struggles.
Even OL we aren't bottom 20%. We've had OL drafted off these supposedly awful OLs. There is no excuse for our offense to be ranked mid 90s or in the 100s with our competition and how we recruit.
2 OL drafted since 2009 in late rounds with Painter being drafted after the 2012 season as a pure physical specimen. We have had singular talent but as a group our OL talent has been pretty poor.
If talent is defined as natural skill, I would say we were definitely contenders for the bottom 20% the last few years as a group, top to bottom especially when combined with lack of depth.
Also had an acc OL POTY in that stretch, but let's not include that? I don't think it's the talent on the OL I think it's been the coaching/scheme. Some of the directional schools would kill for our OL recruiting I just think they'd do more with it.
I have said many times that the rating was as a group, top to bottom (that means the guys on the bench too), and we have had good individuals but on the OL, individuals means failure because the line has to work as a cohesive unit. Injuries have exposed a lot of the talent deficiencies. If the recruiting had been good, we would not have had a D3 DT STARTING at RT for us this year. We have 3 defensive line converts in our OL play this year (Hansen, Smith, and Teller*) Teller I will give you because he showed great promise as an OL but he was recruited to play defense and not by Newsome.
There is no doubt that Newsome was a questionable coach but what great OL recruiting did he do that any school would kill for?
As for the coaching, going through 3 coaches and 3 schemes in 3 years is going to make it tough on any OL as I pointed out in my other posting.
Very true. Hard for anyone to succeed in a situation like that (which is why I would almost rather see Brewer remain the starter this year, so everyone can focus on player development instead of trying to get on the same page with yet another new guy behind center).
That being said, the jury is still out on this coaching staff. Can they recruit? It appears so, but we don't yet know if they can effectively coach on gamedays, and the last 2 seasons have left far more questions than answers.
My question to you is, does the QB have much to do with the success of the OL? I understand any argument to have Brewer back under center next year (tough, a leader, timing with the WR) but will that translate to the OL play? Would having a different QB who can see the middle of the field better, or get rid of the ball quicker actually help the OL? There have been some major breakdowns but there have also been times when they gave Brewer 3 seconds and he didn't get rid of it or take off in a forward direction in time and got sacked. Just want to play a little devil's advocate.
Do the QBs call the protection for us or is it all on the center or a combination? Does anyone know this?
The reason we are in this shit stain of an offense was the lack of recruiting on the OL and QB position. This current staff has been working very hard to address that. I have been very critical of Leoffler but never strongly felt he should be fire but if he were let go, I would not have be distraught about it. I do believe he should be given the chance to play with the players he is bringing in as well as any coach should be able to before judgement is made. I think the offense will improve a good bit next year and I think the recruiting will continue to improve as well.
Loeffler still has a lot of on-field proving to do for me before I change my stance that I just don't think he's very good. If he can improve after a year of maturation for nearly the entire offense (and it should improve), then I may soften my stance a bit.
I've never been a supporter of the Fire Frank movement, but I DO still think he needs to be looking at the end game here soon, and I have to believe he's doing that. So no problems there.
*sigh*
It is way, way too early to have this discussion. Yes, I am very happy to see the direction that recruiting has taken recently, and I'm excited to see what the future holds, but lets not count our chickens before they hatch. Good recruiting means nothing if it doesn't translate to good play on the field. After last year, nobody has been questioning the ability of these guys to recruit, many have questioned their ability to lead a competent offense.
This good class doesn't change the fact that, even with a supposed QB guru as OC, we saw our quarterback regress over the course of last year. We saw an offense stagnate at the worst times. We got shut out over 4 quarters by the worst team with the worst defense (who lost every other ACC game played by an average of 20 points) in this conference in a game where not once did we even attempt to go for a score in regulation. This is still the team that got whipped badly at home to Miami, a team that immediately after that game couldn't buy a win the rest of the year. A few wins in the recruiting dept doesn't immediately make me forget all the outright bad play we saw throughout the season.
And for all the recruiting wins we've had, lets put the brakes on just a little bit. Yes, we hauled in some excellent RBs last year. They both came in off of injuries, they both reinjured themselves with season ending injuries midway through this year, and both are likely redshirt candidates next year because of those injuries. The QB wins we've had were great, especially given the spot we were in, and with the addition of Lawson and Byrd in the future, things are looking up, but at the same time, for the time being, it doesn't appear that the next Tyrod is walking through those doors. And its really outstanding that we landed the likes of Settle, Mook, Hill, etc, but its really hard to get too overly excited about how recruiting has gone when we missed out on the likes of Sweat and Hand, when both of these guys were ripe for us to take, and we landed neither. And for all the good momentum we have going with OL recruiting right now, these guys still need to prove it on the field. We've pulled in classes with good OL before, and they didn't pan out. Yes, this was with a different coaching staff, but when it comes to VT football, I have just been trained over the years to be skeptical of our OL until they can prove me wrong.
Plainly put, the results need to start showing on the field. .500 football cannot cut it anymore. We need to start being a competitive team again on a weekly basis. Recruiting is only half of the equation.
We've never stopped being a competitive team on a weekly basis. Miami was the only game all year that was a dud.
As for your points about recruiting, it has been well documented that VT makes the most of our talent and plays above expectation. Its no coincidence that our worst years followed our worst recruiting classes. With recruiting back to where it has been, the results will follow as they always have. Missing on Sweat and Hand is unfortunate since it seems like we should have had them since they're in-state. But they're also top 10 guys nationally, something we have NEVER done, so missing on them is not a killer, even though getting them would have been a serious boost to the program
You realize that we have been a competitive team because of our defense, right?
Should they not count?
When you're talking about whether or not you should bring back an offensive coach, no, the defense should not count into that discussion. We are competitive only because we have a great defense. If you isolated the offensive side of the game, we're very close to as uncompetitive as it gets.
First of all, the context of this thread was for Beamer and Loeffler so the discussion was not just about offense. You brought up defensive players and then pointed to our record as a sign of the whole team not being competitive. You did not isolate the offense.
The reason we were 7-6 and not 2-10 this year was because we have a legitimately good defense. Half of that is because we recruit well on defense, and that is not changing at all with these new coaches, as I specifically stated in my original comment. However, these guys need to start showing how good of a coach they are on the field, and that means the offense needs to start getting their act together, beginning this season.
With little to no help from our offense, our defense is good enough to get us to .500. If we want to get back to where we want to be, and contending for Division crowns, our offense needs to start picking up the slack on the field.
Actually, Wake Forest was ranked 9th out of the 14 ACC teams on defense through 1/4/2015. So... not quite the worst defense in the league. Also, the Hokies were 12th out of 14 for total offense.
(Sidenote - I just felt like being "that guy". I still like you.)
Beamer should stay. He tightened up special teams this year and has been recruiting better than I can remember. Kids seem to love him and his dancing.
Now, my $0.02 (or perhaps more) on Lefty:
Lefty has proven that he can put together a solid game plan (Bama '13, Miami '13, UCLA '13 pre-logan injury, UVA '13/'14, OSU '14, Cincy '14). These games he used his (limited) playmakers in creative ways. He's also had some WTF?!?!?! games (Miami '14, Wake '14, etc) where his vision wasn't really clear.
When things go wrong, how drastically do you move away from your plan? Where is the line between having an identity and being stubborn? On the other side, where is the line between making good adjustments and lacking an identity? How does this line shift when your playmakers are injured? These are tough questions to answer. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like every play caller will have some WTF moments (especially when reviewing a game in hindsight) but the WTF games are troubling.
All that being said, I think Lefty deserves another season because of
Right now the jury is still out. Lovers will point to the improved positional recruiting and the uptick of the rushing game the last couple of games. Haters will point to our offensive rankings during Lefty's tenure. And both sides have a point.
2015 will be the year the lot is cast for Lefty. There are some who will never be satisfied without a top ten offense, and there are those who will always make excuses for why a lack of performance is understandable. But after 2015 I feel we will have a better grasp on whether or not Lefty can compliment the VT football formula.
Unless we strike gold with another MV I don't think a top 10 offensive ranking is ever a realistic expectation here. I do think we should consistently be in the top 40, which isn't asking a whole lot IMO.
To me it's not so much about the ranking as it is the contribution to the program. I felt that Stiney's offenses didn't pull their weight when it came to controlling the game. Too many 3 and outs with small leads, etc.
To me, the offense I want to see is what the offense did in the last touchdown drive against OSU, or the field goal drive that look like seven minutes off the clock. Or how the offense contributed to clawing our way back to tie ECU after both offense and defense had a wretched first quarter. Or how the offense carried the team against BC all day. Or against LOLUVA and Cincinnati, which were just good all around program efforts.
As long as I can say the offense is carrying its weight, the rankings aren't that critical to me. Granted, the offense didn't pull its weight against against Wake, just like the defense didn't pull its weight against BC. And in general, you gotta do better than the bottom quartile of offenses. But let's see what the rankings look like once we can rely on a balanced run/pass gamelan. I think a lot of our ranking struggles have coincided with our struggles to reestablish the run game.
Offense carried it's weight in far too few games this season. one of the reasons we had to claw back against ECU is because the offense had what < 50 yards in the first half? BC was a good day. UVA was probably one of our best games and cinci was an average offensive performance. The rest of the season the offense hardly carried it's weight or we wouldn't be 7-6.
Well, let's look at those six losses. Offense takes 100% of the blame for Wake Forest and I'll give you Pitt. I'll say the offense gets most of the blame against Miami even though the defense had no answer for Duke Johnson. ECU is a team loss. The GT loss is 100% on Brewer's three picks. You can call that loss on the offense, but the game plan and play calling were legit. And BC is on the defense.
Saying if the offense pulled its weight we wouldn't be 7-6, you're right. We'd be more like 8-4. There were some losses that weren't on the offense.
I feel like this is similar and applicable for Beamer as well.
Whole program, really. I've heard people criticize the defense when the O managed to score ten points.
"Then the D should've held the other team to nine!"
Yea VT was one of only 3 teams to not allow 35 points in a game all season. While some people point to the BC game as a big defensive let down, games like that happen to everyone. Our defense played as well as you can expect a college defense to play. They can't be lights out every week
Yep... I'm much more willing to give the defense a pass for a game when they get shelled, mainly because it happens so infrequently that they can legitimately be excused as a one time event. Unfortunately, with the offense, we are at a point where our good games happen to be as infrequent as the bad games are for the defense.
Thats why a game like BC is just one of those "oh well" moments. Good job by the offense for actually finding their game for once, sucks that it had to happen on a rare defensively poor outing.
That's why I'm hopeful to see things out of the offense like the OSU game, the ECU comeback, the BC game, etc. It feels like although we're seeing it in fits and starts, the difference between Lefty and Stiney is that Lefty's offenses can answer the bell. A lot of Stiney's offenses performed worst when we needed them most. There a "rise to the occasion" quality in Lefty's body of work that hasn't been present in a while.
One thing I want to see come in spades next year is an up tempo offense. Like seriously, up tempo, get to the line, and snap the ball. We demonstrated an ability to do that well at times throughout this past season, in fact, we actually were at our best offensively when we did that. Didn't matter if we were running the ball or dropping back to pass, when we hurried it up, we moved it well. We got the defense on their heels, and we started seeing success. Our struggles happened when we would slow it down, milk clock, and let the defense get a bit of a breather between snaps.
I look at what Oregon did against FSU. In reality, they weren't doing anything fancy. They weren't throwing trick plays, or fancy routes, or gimmicky blocking schemes. In a way, they ran an offense similar to ours. The difference is that they ran up, and immediately snapped the ball, and put FSU on their heels the entire game. By the time the 2nd half rolled around, FSU was so gassed, they literally gave up.
I don't see any reason why we can't do the same thing here. With our defense, if we were to have an offense that actively attacked like that, we could develop into something unstoppable. And we've shown, if only for a series or 2 here and there, that we have the ability to run it.
I agree for the most part, but there were some absolutely critical long sustained drives this season that secured some wins. The 7 minute drive against OSU in the 4th quarter springs to mind. A lot of the uptempo teams lose close games because they can't seal the win by getting time off the clock. I don't want to see us be that team.
But I think that problem will self-correct as we get the O line and running game figured out.
Those teams don't have Bud Foster coaching the defense
Granted, but late leads weren't always safe just this season. We could be a 9 win team right now (assuming we win against ECU in overtime).
I agree with 99% of the stuff you're writing in this post, but I can't help myself here... the difference between Oregon's and Tech's offense is a lot more than just tempo. Tempo is one of the most overrated aspects of modern offensive football, although its something fans (and announcers) latch onto because it's so recognizable.
Oregon is effective because they have an incredibly talented team, a Heisman quarterback, an offensive system that all the players are familiar with because they've been running it for years, and have one of the best offensive staffs in the country. If you took Virginia Tech's offense and suddenly went no huddle all the time, we wouldn't get results anything like Oregon's. IMO.
Absolutely not, and at least not right away, and I'm not saying we would. But I do think we would see a noticeable improvement in the on the field results if we did go to an up tempo offense more often. And if we did focus on that kind of execution, within a couple seasons of coaching to that effect, we very well could have an offense that puts up a lot of points and wears defenses down. And really, the only adjustment I'm asking is that we get up to the line and snap the ball quickly on every play. It wouldn't really be THAT big of an adjustment, but would potentially help to tilt the field in our favor when we have the ball, which is something we haven't had in a while.
I should mention that I don't think going "uptempo" is inherently beneficial. The reason teams have success when going uptempo is because a lot of times their "2 minute offense" is the most familiar part of their playbook. Same thing for teams like Oregon, who go uptempo all the time. They practice like they play, and thus get more reps in practice than huddle teams do. Many people think that the most important thing Chip Kelly did for football wasn't the spread or uptempo approach, but the ways that he tries to make practice more efficient for players. By the end of the year, Oregon players have repped their base plays hundreds (if not thousands) of times more than other teams.
Uptempo offenses wear defenses down not because they snap the ball quickly but because they snap the ball a lot. If the offenses didn't get first downs, all they'd be doing is spend less time inbetween punts. Tech can wear defenses down the same way if they were just more effective.
yes, i think if VT can use up tempo for different situations that would be huge.
Imagine getting inside the 20 and boom 3 quick plays and a td. Going up tempo in the red zone would help because we would be able to quickly get to the line and defense wouldn't have much time to adjust or substitute. If memory serves me right we did it against OSU and in the Miami game but then we fumbled on the 2
One of the weirdest things was how our offense had some of its more consistent games against the best defenses we faced. OSU and UVA come to mind specifically.
Can someone explain to me why the OSU game keeps being cited as a game of good offensive execution? Brewer threw 2 picks and under 200 yards. We had 10 penalties for over 100 yards and we ran the ball for a whopping 3 yards per carry. Yes we made some big plays when we needed and got the win, but it should by no means be pointed to as a game for the offensive consistency we want
Mostly because the offense reached out and retook the game when it had to. Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, it's not always about raw numbers. The offense contributed its fair share to that win, so it gets cited as an example of what we want our offense to be.
We can obviously win games when our offense comes up in big spots. But I think our goal should be moving the ball consistently and having complete control of the offense. You can't expect an offense that rushes for 3 ypc or turns it over 3 times to do well in crunch time every time we need it. On a per game basis, it isn't about raw numbers, but for the season it certainly is
Agreed wouldn't need to take over the game to the extent they have had to at times if they were more consistent throughout the game.
We're in 100% agreement. The OSU game is just an instance of the stats not reflecting the game. We held a 7 minute TOP advantage against the Buckeyes and established our will on them. (TBH, provided that our offense is completing drives with points, I put more value on TOP than total offense. We don't always have to put up a bunch of yards, and our defense gives us a lot of short fields to work with.
Best stat of that game from the offensive POV is 3rd down conversions. We were lights out in the first half then hit a lull and turned it back on at the end but going 9-17 will win you a lot of games.
True dat. Third down conversion is a deeply undervalued stat. Then again, there was a game a couple years ago VT converted zero third downs and win handily, because we coveted primarily on second down.
Because the offense moved the ball when it needed to and made plays. Brewer's first interception wasn't a horrible play for us. Brewer made some great game management decision and we executed well on 3rd down. We scored 28 points on offense against them. We held the ball for 33+ minutes against them and overcame 3 turnovers and 10 penalties on the road against a team that is playing for the national championship.
For fun, I found Temple and Penn State to be the others. Both of those names surprise me.
So what you're saying is, keep recruiting the Keystone State hard?
Maybe McKenzie can reach out to his old HS for us.
I was 100% a Lefty critic this season. I am still baffled by the inconsistency with which the offense performed throughout the year, but I would like to say I can look at things objectively. Lot of 'his' pieces coming back next year.
If the offense continues to have 'train wreck games', ya know, the ones where you wonder what the h#ll you are watching, then he has got to go.
I did not like what I saw most of the season on offense but wasn't looking to get him fired as I was able to see the difficulties and the reasons.
After the Wake game I was willing to see him go due to the lack of ability to adjust to the blitzing scheme WF used.
The next game we had an adjustment on the OL and guys were able to run block. I forget wanting him to be dismissed and willing to give some more time. Games following allowed me to also hold and wait for recruits and health in order to see what they could do.
I was never after CFB to be dismissed as I could see the adjustments he was making with the permissions of the new AD and new resources available to him.
Im still a lefty critic, even after the bowl game. Nice way to finish on a high note but that was just a small sample size from the whole season. Too many inconsistancies. I am willing to give him one more season. Let more new kids come in and the ones there now mature even more.
We , shall see next year if this program is improving or still regressing. With fewer injuries , 8 or 9 wins and a bowl win , be in contention for coastal championship and finish in top half or ncaa in offensive production , are realistic goals. As stated above the jury is still out! Still not convinced this coaching staff can accomplish any of this.
I should learn not to be surprised that topics like this get so much attention. No Offense to Bruce Smiff at all -- good post really, as it has definitely encouraged participation on the boards, and some pretty reasonable debate.
But man. I just don't have the attention span to debate the whys & wherefores. Lefty is back next year, and nothing I say is going to change that (not that I'd want to). I denounce myself for reading all the last 115 comments in full.
My only excuse for another post to the thread is that my wife is hosting a gardening social, and by typing away here in my home office, I can pretend I'm actually working, and she won't be sad that I avoided it.
But none of them are talking Hokies football, so honestly, what would I have to say?
ETA: And before any of you wiseguys say it - She already nixed my go-to ice-breaker, and said I couldn't tell Wang jokes to her friends.
Plan B, Fullwood and Moorehead jokes? If those fail you can always just talk about the kinky pool.
You should educate them all with Sam Rogers facts. There are so many attributes that young man has, only he can count them all, because he has counted to infinity. Infinity times.
Don't limit yourself to Sam. While he is incredible, it doesn't stop there. His brother risked his life to save a fellow friend in a house fire in college and received his share of burns in the process. In all of the Sam Rogers talk, we shouldn't forget dedication is a family trait.