David Teel wrote an interesting column on offensive coordinator Scot Loeffer's attempt to find a better work-life balance this season: http://www.dailypress.com/sports/virginia-tech/dp-spt-teel-column-loeffl.... In particular, this stood out to me.
"We were too young last year," Loeffler said. "We were inexperienced at quarterback. We were still, similar to the first year, going, 'What are we? Who are we?' You're trying to paste things together to get positive yardage, and when you're doing that, you're going to be average as dirt.
"This year, in the spring, ever since we know who we are and have gotten experience, we haven't had to piecemeal anything. It's systematic. The kids know it inside and out, particularly the first guys."
I hope that means there will be more rhythm, cohesiveness and focus on offense this season.
Comments
Whatever Loeffler may lack, it certainly is not commitment. Still amazed at how much he's given this team
Good find! Hopefully Lefty can achieve a good OFFENSIVE balance this year
and more points and sustained drives.
I hope that means there will be more rhythm, cohesiveness and focus on offense this season.
I don't speak this in relation to football much, but I do feel it warrants bringing up. I taught high school band for a number of years, before that and now I teach drumlines.
A year of seniors and juniors and life is good and easy, freshman and sophomores.... Good luck sleeping.
I really, really do hope this is the corner for the program
I know that feeling. I taught drumlines while in college. Over the course of 4 years at 2 different high schools I saw the full spectrum of awful and some great lines. The problem I had at Radford HS was keeping the seniors from quitting because they "wanted to spend more time with their friends."
I was like, you've been in band since middle school. Your friends are here!
I've flip flopped on Loeffler a lot since he came here. I've always been quick to point out the things that have hindered him since he came here and I don't think that they're merely "excuses." We all know what it was like in terms of our talent level. Recruiting failures had built up and it appeared that our program, or at least the offense, was sinking faster than the Titanic.
This is the year. He's had two years to recruit people that he wants and teach them how he wants to be taught. There are still a host of unanswered questions (back up WR, back up O-line, etc) but as has been stated before when was the last time we were trying to figure out back ups and not our starters? I don't expect our offense to suddenly be top-25 in every statistical category but improvement needs to be demonstrated. FWIW, I think we'll see it.
I HOPE that we'll see rhythm, cohesiveness, and focus on the offense this year. Not just for football reasons either. Loeffler has looked like death warmed over several times in his two seasons here. You've got a kid at home, man. I know that this is your job and it's very important but nothing, I mean NOTHING, is more important that your family. Hopefully our guys can pull it off for you so you can actually go get some sleep at night, so you can go be a great father. Because THAT, my friends, is what it's all about. Period, end.
As long as our offense is in the Top 40 we can be dangerous as a team with our defense. As a new father your last comment is 100% correct! Leg for you!
This and a buck-fifty gets you a cup of coffee, but...
Throw out total offense rankings. I don't care how many yards we get, and we'll get a lot of short fields thanks to our D.
Scoring offense will suffer because Frank likes to shorten games when we have a lead. Not running up the score means a lower scoring offense ranking.
To me, the yardstick to measure this O will be third down conversions and red zone TD%. Those will be where my eye lingers all season. Stay on the field and don't leave points on it, and we'll have an O that is contributing to the success of the program. Those are the marks of a consistent offense, and will tell us way more about if Lefty's scheme is working way better than over-generalized stats of total or scoring O.
If we're winning games without us wondering how in the hell we're winning games, I'll consider that successful.
In today's world of popularity competitions for playoffs spots, I am hoping Frank is willing to at least run up a 3-4 TD lead before taking the foot of the gas rather than a 2 td lead.
Totally depends, IMO. There's the non-blowouts like FSU had last season, where they were winning games at the wire, and were clearly the beneficiaries of good bounces on more than one occasion. But if we are clearly in control of our games and don't run up the score to win by 28, I don't think pollsters are going to hold that against us.
Also, realize that there is a not-small faction of college football illuminati that would like to see Frank get a national championship before he retires. I'm betting if we field a team that's in the conversation, there will be some pollsters who lobby hard for us just because of that.
At the end of the day, what counts is the win.
yeah, I don't think they could have left out the only undefeated P5 team from the playoffs, but given the nature of some of their wins, I think a single loss would have pushed them out of the top 4. So yes, if you win them all, the W is all that counts, but in a popularity contest between one loss schools, your wins better look good.
That said, one could argue that another team could have provided a better game against Oregon even if they had fewer wins than FSU. I think that game could be used as evidence to increase emphasis on strength of schedule and quality of wins from here on out.
OSU had some of the fewest quality wins last year before the playoffs started. In the end, osu only got in because the big12 didn't have a championship game (and kept changing who they said was "champion").
The playoffs I think will continue to pick primarily the p5 conference champs with the worst looking one being kept out. That's why winning convincingly will be important from here on out, especially with us being in what is perceived still as a weak conference.
I'm guessing blanking Wisky 59-0 in the B1G championship game carried a good bit of weight in the committee's eyes. It's not like they eked out a win there. I don't think they would have been left out even if Baylor had beaten TCU again in a Big 12 championship game unless it was equally as dominating.
So I guess I agree with your point (worst looking champ left out).
If TCU had beaten Baylor in a big12 championship, they would've gotten in even without a stomping. Remember, prior to championship week, it was #3 TCU, #4FSU, #5 OSU, #6 Baylor and #13 Wisc. Even with a close win over Baylor, TCU would've had to drop 2 spots after beating the #6 team in the country for OSU to make it in, as I don't think the voters would leave out the only undefeated team in a p5 conference with the reigning Heisman winner in FSU out.
All that counts is the win, but what happens when 5 teams are all on the same record.
The fact that the Defending National Champions, on a 27 game win streak (42-2 in 3 seasons) weren't number 1 says that points matter.
Had they lost a game they wouldn't have even been in the running.
Yes, strength of schedule and quality wins has some bearing, but only after the wins have been tallied.
It's a lot easier to defend an ugly win that a fluke loss. OSU NEEDED that stomping of Whisky to make up for the VT loss.
Beauty contest? Sure. But most of the contest is based on the record.
Honestly curious, what makes you say this? I won't get into some of the major officiating gaffes that consistently crop up at the end of big games, but NCAA football as a system seems to be set up to prop up the blue-bloods, and if anything schools like us are a threat to that institution.
Every article, segment, editorial, etc, that I have seen or read about Beamer in the last five years mentions how good a person he is and how the only accomplishment not on his resume is the NC. Frank commands a monumental amount of respect both in the sports media and his colleagues in the coaching profession. There are lots of people pulling for him to clear that last hurdle before he retires.
We basically have the surrogate grandfather of college football as our head coach. He's a (rightfully) beloved figure, and if in a position to possibly play for a NC, I honestly believe the people who are on the selection committee would feel compelled to give him that opportunity.
Having said that, they aren't passing up an undefeated team for a one loss VT. We have to legitimately be in the running. But if it were truly a tiebreaker situation, the number of people in the sport rooting for Papa Beamer to clear that last hurdle would be a big impetus toward giving us a playoff berth.
I give Lefty credit for coming into a situation that was not very good from a talent perspective. The man has recruited QB talent and that is amazing for us. I really like how Searels has adjusted to his guys' skill set or so it seems. Man/drive blocking instead of overly complicated zone blocking when the situation warrants.
Lefty is giving it his best shot and that is VT attitude. Let's go!
I've always liked what Lefty has done for us offensively. He was trying to make lemonade with limes, aspartame, and a solid block of ice. It took some time but his concoction turned out better than what good 'ole stiney could make. No offense to stiney but there was no offense...pun intended. He's a hell of a great recruiter though.
Now that its year 3 bringing in the tight ingredients for that lemonade and a year 2 brewer in the Lefty system with year 2 OL under Searels, we definitely can get after them instead of them getting after ya.
With all the articles and topic posts on our offense and how it stacks up, it's reasonably safe to board the hype train this year. I haven't been excited like this since T-mobile days.
Stiney vs. Loeffer, The Data:
Stinespring (OC from 2002 to 2012)
Scoring: average of 41.72, best year 12th (2003), worst year 90th (2008)
Yards per game: average of 66.63, best year 35th (2011), worst year 103 (2008)
Loeffler (OC from 2011 to 2014)
Scoring: average of 92.5, best year 39th (2011, Temple), worst year 122nd (2012 Auburn)
Yards per game: average of 97.25, best year 68th (2011, Temple), worst year 122nd (2012 Auburn)
Loeffler's best years are Stiney's average years.
I appreciate that you're using numbers to back up your argument but this is cherry picking a bit. For one, the sample sizes are different and with the exception of Auburn for the one year Loeffler was there (without a real QB, mind you) Loeffler has had considerably less talent to work with compared to Stinespring. This is as close to an apples and oranges comparison that you'll find.
I'm not a Loeffler apologist but I'm smart enough to realize that he was coming into a pretty ugly situation when he took the VT OC job. We all knew from the beginning that whoever took that job would need at least 3 years to rebuild. I'll agree that the jury is still out on him but I've been patiently giving him the time he deserves. VTs offense was run so hard into the ground before he arrived that it was absolutely ridiculous to expect significant improvement over night. If we don't improve as an offense this season then we should really start asking the tough questions. But based on what he had to work with, I'll give him benefit of the doubt for one more off season. You can't deny he was dealt a pretty awful hand.
The three year average of VT's offense before Loeffler took over:
Scoring: 53rd
Total Offense: 52nd
2 of those 3 years include Tyrod's senior year, and Logan's awesome year when he was surrounded by upperclassmen talent. What happened when that talent aged out? Who was there to step up?
That's why Stiney & Co are gone, and that's why Loeffler was brought in. Its also the single main reason why our offense has been as bad as it has been since then.
Stop trying to make conclusions where none exist
The difference is yards per play VT ranked 98th.
In the last 10 years Tech ranked in the Top 25 Yard per Play twice 2009 & 2010.
2011 at 45th.
2005 at 57th and
2004 65th
other years between 95th and 110th.
What if the Offensive Play clock winding down, Run first Philosophy is less Philosophy and more a Stipulation of the Coach
I'm not sure what Loeffler did to earn his bulletproof status with the fan base but nothing is his fault.
no one is saying he's bullet proof. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that if he doesn't produce this season it's the end of him. All we're saying is that he deserves more time. This offense was one of the biggest dumpster fires in all of college football and it's absolutely ridiculous to expect significant changes in less than 3 years. Especially when you consider that he has had different quarterbacks each season that he's coached over the last 4+ years.
The problem is, the criticism of Loeffler is exactly in the same vein as politicians who approve a 5 year road construction project, then bitch a blue streak 3 years in about wasteful spending because the project isn't competed yet.
You have to give a rebuild time. In my book, and I feel comfortable guess in most people's books, that's 3 years. 3 years is sufficient to get your scheme established and get some of your own recruits into the depth chart.
Loeffler's first two seasons have been statistically disappointing, and if this is his average level of output, he should be fired. But I'm not gonna call for his head before he's had his fair shot to do what he is trying to do. That's counterproductive. You make a change and give the change a fair chance to work.
We see another year of this same level of output, no one will sound the horn for a change louder than me.
Meanwhile Doug Meacham shows up at TCU and the offense improves by 21 points/game in his first season.
TCU want in nearly as bad of shape as we were
Apples and oranges
Loeffler is the best offensive coordinator in football. Not sure why people on here can't seem to wrap their minds around that.
TCU wasn't a rebuild. We were. That's a valid point to make.
By and large I tolerate the Loeffler Sucks crowd, but what is really getting old is the resorting to hyperbole and straw men in response to specific examples. Show me anywhere on this site where the consensus on Loeffler is more than cautious optimism, but the Lefty critics like to paint the picture that this place is the Scot Loeffler Admiration Society.
In this thread was the first time I saw someone accuse TKP of being pro-SL. For the most part I always thought TKP was kind of 40-40-20. The hard leans for or against, and then the one's on the fence.
You're right, they were in worse shape.
TCU 2013: 107th yards/game, 89th points/game
VT 2012: 83rd yards/game, 83rd points/game
Average Rivals recruit class ranking, TCU 2011-13: 31
Average Rivals recruit class ranking, VT 2010-12: 26
So VT had more talent on hand and started from a higher platform. TCU jumped from the Mountain West to the Big 12 starting the 2012 season so they had to deal with that additional handicap as well. But yes, keep telling me how unreasonable it is to expect a good coordinator to have done more than make a terrible offense worse in his first two years.
First, I have no idea what type of offense TCU runs or what their player personnel situation was like when the new OC showed up.
Second, I am not an apologist for any coach, but I do follow VT football pretty closely thanks to TKP and various other sources. What I know is that Lefty was hired to install a run-heavy/play action pass offense. To accomplish that style of offense, the critical elements are excellent run-blocking linemen and several top shelf running backs who can get lots of yards after contact. When Lefty arrived, we had neither of those. When your QB is your best running back (Logan Thomas) and your O-line is a bunch of walking wounded who started out as D-Line or TE's, your run-based offense is in a big hole.
This year, there finally exists an O-Line that MIGHT be able to provide a power running game, and we SUSPECT that our RB's are up to the task. If either of those fail, we get a repeat of last season, and Lefty may or may not get one more chance with his new toy/freak athlete/QB Lawson.
I am pulling for Lefty b/c I think he works harder than any man in Blacksburg, and because I want to see VT win every single game this season and make the college football world finally give Coach Beamer the level of respect he deserves for the exceptional and inspirational coach that we know he is and has been for decades. Go Hokies!
1) I'm not totally sure Loeffler knows what offense he's supposed to run given how the offense changes every week.
2) That sounds like the offense Steve Addazio installed at Boston College.
BC 2012: 4.9 yards/play (96th), 25.1 pts/game (86th)
2013: 5.9 yards/play (36th), 28 pts/game (65th)
He then had to replace his QB, his RB, his top receiver and three offensive linemen. I bet their offense stunk last year.
2014: 5.5 yards/play (59th), 25.1 points/game (86th)
A drop off, but still functional and still better than VT. Apparently if you actually have a consistent philosophy you can make it work.
If people want to argue that Loeffler needs more time, that's fine- just admit that other coaches have been able to get tangible results in shorter amounts of time.
Other coaches also already had big OLinemen on hand to make use of...BC was a run first team which recruited big OLs before Addazio got there. It seems that most people tend to undervalue the importance of having a good OL for offensive production. When you inherit an offense that already has big OL players who played OL in HS and were recruited as such you have a big headstart on what Scot had to work with at VT. Pre-SL we built OLs mostly by transitioning players who couldn't make it on the DL or having TE recruits bulk up to play on the line. We didn't start bringing in true OL recruits consistently until after Loeffler was hired. And even then, they were being coached by different coaches every year for 3 years running. Not only is it important to recruit actual OLinemen for OLine positions, but to field a competent group you need to develop consistency and chemistry among them. VT hasn't had the opportunity to do that until this off season. We're still concerned with our depth on that unit but all reports suggest that the first team looks to be a decent unit for the first time in years. The offensive line takes the most amount of time to rebuild and that unit was an absolute mess when SL arrived. Our offense goes as the OL goes so it's not at all surprising that we've struggled in recent years. The struggles can be directly correlated to our shortcomings on the OL which can be attributed to lackluster recruiting from the stinespring era, poor coaching by newsome, and the nature of the beast that is rebuilding an OL from scratch.
So nothing is Loeffler's fault. Got it.
No one has ever said that and we should drop this false argument that everything is black and white. There are a ton of mitigating factors in Loeffler's tenure - that's all that anyone here has ever said to defend him. Somehow this gets interpreted as homerism and blind faith that he's awesome. Is he the best OC out there? No, I don't think anyone would say that, which is why you can cherry-pick examples where other coaches did better (under different circumstances, so all of these comparisons get pretty absurd). Is he, as you say, "bulletproof?" No, also absurd. He got dealt a tough hand, didn't play it well at all times, and is obviously still learning about how to be effective. He walked into a trainwreck and is now in the process of fixing it. So let's drop the false duality that everything is either perfect or abysmal.
The examples of other teams who have turned things around quicker are used to show that it's not impossible to get results in less than 3 years. Of course, people defending Loeffler quickly reject the data because the data doesn't look good and instead argue things about how no one else had it as bad as he did (which probably isn't true, but hey, you can't prove a gut feeling). If someone really wants to argue that Addazio inherited a better situation than Loeffler they can go right ahead but good luck proving that. There's an awful lot of blind faith in Loeffler and he hasn't really done anything to earn such faith.
Is it really that difficult to accept that the situation that Loeffler inherited was SO bad that any expectations of legitimate improvement needed to be tabled for at least 2 years?
He needed time to get his system in place. He also needed time to get his own players up to speed to be everyday contributors to this offense. I fully believe we will see improvement this year. But even if we don't I still think he deserves 1 additional year on top of this year to get it right.
2013 he inherited a trainwreck and had to polish a turd. We made a bowl, and that's really all you could have expected out of that year.
2014 started off brilliantly, but the injury train completely derailed any semblance of hope we had before we really got underway. IMHO, making a bowl with the roster we finished the year with (needing to start true freshmen and guys who were in DIII a year prior on the OL, being down to our 4th and 5th string RB, what should have been a massive advantage at TE withered down to a hobbled Bucky) was an over-achievement.
You ask me, he fully deserves a pass on those 2 seasons. NOBODY could have come in and done well with a hand like that.
The danger in overreacting too soon is that eventually the sentiment gets so loud the administration catches on and starts pulling triggers on replacements far too early in a rebuild and just screws everything up. Prime example: NC State. Trust me, you do not want to go down that path. Those fans are perpetually miserable with what they perceive to be under performing programs. Got help Doeren if they don't win the Atlantic this year. Heck, most of the fans were ready to run Gottfried out of town right before that Sweet 16 run this past year.
Unfortunately, with this consistent B&M about Loeffler and some of the things I heard from certain areas about Buzz this past season, I do worry we're headed down that path.
I don't think our fan base has anyone who is perpetually miserable and TKP DEFINITELY doesn't have any members like that...
The difference is... here, those people are the squeaky wheel minority that nobody in power takes seriously.
At NC St, those people are the ones driving the change.
that's not at all what I'm saying...what I'm saying is that Loeffler deserved a full 3 years right off the bat. We knew before he was even hired that whoever took the OC job was going to need several years to get it right. I'm not Pro-Loeffler as much as I'm not ready to light the torches and pull out the pitchforks. I recognized that the VT offense was in such disarray before SL even stepped on campus that it would take years to rebuild. Our biggest issue for years has been our offensive line (or lack thereof) and that takes TIME to rebuild. It was certainly a setback when we lost Grimes and had to make a transition mid re-build. This is the first time that we have had the same coach and same players from one year to the next for both the OL and QB spots. If there isn't noticeable improvement this season then I'll be ready to light my torch. Until then, I'm giving SL benefit of the doubt because he came into a situation where he was buried under a mountain of sh**. College football is very much driven by the 'what-have-you-done-for-me-lately' mantra and it's tough to suppress that thought for SL but it's absolutely necessary to do so because of what he was up against. It wasn't going to get better right away. In fact, I'm surprised it didn't get worse before getting better...we're lucky we kept the bowl streak alive, though we probably have Foster to Thank for that more than anything.
Shhhh. Let's give him his moment with his hyperbolized straw man. They make a cute couple.
Everything in your first reply was blaming people other than SL for the struggles of the offense the last two years. Again, if the argument is that SL needs more time, that's fine, but no one seems to be willing to admit that other teams have turned things around quicker. Somehow it's impossible to make a bad offense better in less than three seasons, except for all the teams that have done it but those offenses don't count for nebulous reasons.
Does he deserve 3 years? Sure. Is it unreasonable for to think that maybe the offense should have looked a little better than it did last year? Not at all.
If you're going to give him three years, what's the point of wringing your hands over the results of year 2? It's an exercise in futility. Would I have loved a quick turn around? Yes, and it's what I was hoping for. But when I look at the last two seasons, I see viable, rational reasons why the installation of a new OC might have produced underwhelming results. That's not an apologist attitude, it's an attempt to rationally analyze what we've seen on the field the last two seasons and uncover what the weak spots are, what the schematic deficiencies are, and whether Scot might be a good fit once his scheme is installed.
Because I'm not going in to hibernation for three seasons. Because trends are important. Because results are a good way to see if someone is on the right path.
There's no guarantee of linear progression during a rebuild. If you commit to X years, you wait until after year X to formulate an opinion on the effectiveness of the change. You keep your eyes open and follow trends during those years,sure, but that's not what you're doing. You're being a vocal critic and calling out anyone who isn't a fellow critic.
No, I'm just not seeing why people are showing such blind faith in Loeffler and why he gets absolved of all blame for the last two years. It's one thing for Bud to get a level of blind faith; what's Loeffler done to earn it?
I don't get this. I really don't. I see people in one of three camps:
1. We haven't performed well, due to a combination of a lot of factors
2. Loeffler is awful
3. Insufficient data to judge definitively so far, this year really says a lot
Massive crossover between 1 and 3.
Valid. I am going based on people who stick to "I see what you're saying, People in Group 1, but I'm holding off until year 3, 4...and then I will look back on everything and judge." But yes, lots of overlap.
The comments are getting extremely old, extremely fast. They're completely ignoring what's being said, and are replying to their projections on what they think people are saying.
And the thing is, I would enthusiastically welcome a debate on the merits of Loeffler's specific scheme. Breaking down the passing tree, down and distance philosophy, tight end blocking philosophy, etc. etc. etc., could make for some GREAT conversations, and there are specific parts of Loeffler's game that I'm not thrilled about. But the conversation always revolves around total and scoring offense, not the actual scheme being installed.
Do we even know what Loeffler wants to run? If his offensive style is a balanced attack that tries to evenly distribute run vs pass with a get up to the line hurry up that we saw vs Ohio St last year, than completely sign me up. In fact, with the athletes we have, that's the offense we should be running, and if we have the team prepared for it, by the time a legit dual threat takes over like Lawson.... Look out
As for run/pass balance, I don't know if we can say for sure, because Loeffler is basing his running game strategy around what the OL will allow. But there have been times Loeffler seems to spurn the run when it's working (a concerning holdover from his predecessor). There was one game last season, I can't remember which, when Loeffler called the exact same run play like six consecutive times coming out of halftime. It was like he was waiting for it to not work anymore so he could say, well, run's not working, back to the pass.
But again, he's obviously timid about committing to the run because of how the run game has looked the last two seasons. (Hint: it ain't good.) If we start seeing push and if backs start hitting their cutback lanes, that might change. He wasn't afraid to go run-heavy when JCC caught fire down the stretch. I'm hopeful.
We can definitely break down the specifics we've seen in the scheme, though. Like his passing tree. Dude is on point with structuring his routes. He forces zone defenders to make a decision, and that decision leaves a receiver with one on one coverage. The route situation is much, much better than it was under Stiney, and in my mind it's only an issue of bring pass pro along in the OL so the QB has time to make his read and pick his target.
I love the way Loeffler uses tight ends. And Stiney produces exactly the TEs to thrive in this scheme.
Overall, my biggest worry is if he's going to be willing to have faith in the run.
can't tell if posts are getting longer or the comment boxes are just getting narrower...
Keep in mind, that's exactly what Rocco and I believe of the Loeffler supporters.
It's a no win situation, one that I generally prefer to not engage in anymore. What set me off this time was a remark that Stiney could never have done what Loeffler is doing. That is so fundamentally wrong it needed to be corrected.
Whether the Loeffler supporters believe 3 years is the right time frame isn't something worth debating. Rocco and I believe 3 years is an eternity and have provided comps for how it is done faster (we haven't even brought up Auburn, the most relevant comp ever). We have to agree to disagree about the 3 year thing. We also disagree about how bad the situation Loeffler inherited truly was. You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.
Other than that, we all want Loeffler to succeed this year because we have a once a generation defense and we don't want him screwing that opportunity up.
see this is the whole problem...we're not Loeffler Supporters. We're not in his camp. We're realists who see what he is up against and are willing to give him his due time before jumping off the fence onto the "Get Loeffler out of town" side.
you are tagging us as Loeffler Supporters because we're not Loeffler Haters like you guys are. You're making something that isn't Black and White to be very much Black and White. You have this mentality of "if you're not with us, you're against us" and that isn't the case at all. We ALL are displeased with the results and lackluster performances that our offense has produced over the last 2 years under Loeffler. The difference between our perspective and yours is that we're more willing to be patient.
Can we cut it out with the 'Supporters vs Haters'? This kind of 'me vs everyone' crap is the same 'Stiney Apologists vs Stiney Haters' that devolved TSL as quickly as it did over the past 10 years.
I just hope that by the end of the season there is enough evidence to suggest Loeffler should be fired or retained and this debate can be put to bed. I'm hopeful that our offense improves this year. I'm not confident that it will. We'll see what happens.
That's fine, go downvote Illinois' mock-u-conversation with the Loeffler Critic then. That was some divisive nonsense there.
It's funny how both sides think they are realists.
well you've certainly been extremely real with the stats. I just think its an apples to oranges comparison when you compare TCU, Auburn, and/or BC to VT. I will 100% concede that our offensive stats have been less than stellar. That is very real and we both recognize that. What I'm not willing to do is use incomparable stats from other teams to defend the argument that Loeffler doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't deserve to have the job he currently holds. It has to be understood that the situation he came into and the challenges he has faced over the last 2 years are completely different from those other cases. This will be the first time Loeffler has had enough pieces in place to give us a good representation of what we can expect from him. Until the end of the season I am still on the fence with regards to Loeffler. I have not seen enough, given the circumstances, to know for sure what he truly brings to the table.
I hear where you are coming from. And I truly do admire it, it's very Hokie of you.
I don't feel that Rocco and I have been heard. It's not just the stats. Auburn was a dumpster fire, at least some of that is on Loeffler...right? (they went from 122nd to 12th in a year!) Temple was good, but he was running Addazio's system....with Addazio there to guide him. As a QB Coach, he led the John Brantley quagmire that resulted infamously in Urban Meyer faking a heart attack. The year prior, he was tasked with making Tebow an NFL passer....the NFL has since ruled that he didn't do so well with that task. The year before that, Loeffler was the QB coach for the first 0-16 NFL team....I'm not sure what their QB situation was that year, but it probably wasn't good. You can look at each of these situations and have a different interpretation of each event. That's what has been happening here, interpretation of events. I tried to use stats to root out that qualitative component, but if we want to get to an analysis of the context, there is a lot of context on our side as well.
You can look through his resume and conclude that its not real flattering. So this goes back to when he was hired. If you were skeptical with the hire, he has done nothing to persuade you otherwise.
At the end of the day, we want him to succeed. We have a once-a-generation defense, we need Loeffler to succeed enough to not get in its way.
at this point only time will tell. I think the only thing that EVERYONE is completely in agreement on is that if there is no progress this year SL should be sent packing. I'm just hoping he proves his critics wrong. Given his colorful history it appears he has quite the mountain to climb. We shall see.
Sorry, I'm only replying to this to see how skinny my message gets. please feel free to carry on and ignore my curiosity.
wat.
See above comment. We're in uncharted territory.
I had to click reply just to read your message, and now I feel obligated to reply. I think we're entering some kind vortex-loop situation.
Replies, ummm, not thin enough....
Keep in mind, the difference is, nobody is ignoring what you're saying. They're providing examples of why it's too soon to render a verdict on Loeffler. But you've already stated, the reasons they're providing, you don't accept.
My question, though, is, how can you honestly say the state of the OL was anything other than an unmitigated disaster upon Loeffler's arrival? Forget everything else that's given as a reason for patience and just focus on the condition Newsome left the OL. Are you saying that wasn't a nuts and bolts rebuild?
No OL, no offense. (Unless you have a Tyrod Taylor taking snaps.)
The Auburn comp doesn't count because, uh, something or other it just doesn't count.
Loeffler was a terrible hire for Auburn. There was no justification for bringing in such a green OC to try to spearhead a complete overhaul from Mahlzan's spread to a pro-style multiple offense. That needs an established, seasoned pro-style OC with an articulated plan to transition. Lefty was in year two as an OC. No. Terrible hire, one of the biggest boneheaded moves of Gene Chizzik's tenure.
Here, Loeffler is not transitioning from a spread to a multiple, but rather installing a multiple in place of a very poorly designed and executed multiple, while also trying to lead a resurgence in offensive recruiting. The offense that Loeffler says he has always wanted to run is a really good fit for what a Virginia Tech offense should look like under Frank Beamer. He's young, aggressive and a workaholic, so assuming he interviewed well, it's very little surprise he got hired.
So the Auburn comp just doesn't hold much merit. Very different programs, styles, and objectives. And honestly, as a critic of Loeffler, you probably don't want to push the Auburn comparison, because rationally speaking, the transition for Loeffler should be much easier here.
At least one poster absolved Loeffler of all blame. Given that any time there's criticism of the offense the last two years people flock to their keyboards to blame Loeffler's predecessor I'd say you're not seeing what you don't want to see.
Blame in a rebuild is counterproductive. Set an evaluation point, arrive at that evaluation point, evaluate, render a decision.
Complaining in the interim is just angst for angst's sake.
the whole point is that every situation is different and it's silly and near-sighted to compare what SL has (or hasn't) done to the work of other coordinators working for different programs under different circumstances. Without doing the research I don't know for sure but I'm willing to bet that for every offense that has been rejuvenated there is at least one other offense that has floundered much like VT's over the last couple of years. It's easy to cherry pick and find those teams who have turned things around statistically and compare them to VT. If you're going to do that, fine, but you should at least provide examples of other teams that have gone nowhere, or gotten worse. I assure you, VT is not the only team in the country that has gone anywhere but up in offensive categories.
You can point out examples all day long about how other coordinators have worked miracles in their respective jobs but that really doesn't add any value to the commentary. SL is here now and there is nothing that talking about other teams' stats will do to change that. There have been some flashes (French has a lot of praise for his route-structure in the passing game, for instance) of brilliance and there have also been some pretty questionable decisions made by him. He's not infallible and we recognize that. It's possible that he is only as good as VT's record has been the last couple of years but it's also possible that he's better than that. We don't know yet and I think this season is the season to find out what he's really made of. Until then, comparing him to other coordinators around the country is a tired narrative and it's not at all constructive.
What people don't realize about TCU (or possibly in this case, completely refuse to realize) is that they always had players in the system that could run the offense they're running now, and it was the coaches who had to adjust. They had the talent there, and had a solid OL that could work together, and they really just needed to change up how they called the game to maximize the ability of those players. The TCU coaches even admitted this last year.
The problem with VT is that we had no talent on offense before Loeffler. We had nothing to build upon. All those higher ranked recruiting classes those who love to lambast Loeffler... Those were built off the guys we brought in on defense, which is no surprise, as the defense has remained playing at a high level. He didn't have anything to adjust to, there was no scheme that would have made our team play at a consistent high level. So instead of looking to short term adjust, we went for the long term rebuild. You cannot make any judgement off these last 2 years.
The next 2 seasons will legitimately show what we have. If we don't have a well oiled machine by the middle of 2016, when we're running a roster solely consistent on Loeffler recruits, then we have problems. Until then, you just have to give it time.
These arguments are weak and I don't think you've actually thought through what you're saying. Yes, it would be nice if our offense could have come around immediately like it did at TCU. You could argue that their situation was just as bad as ours, and maybe you're right, I don't buy it (because we were really, really, really bad), but let's just accept that and move on.
So we didn't get the best possible outcome, do we now fire Loeffler and move on? Bring someone else in who might do a total turnaround in one year? I think we can agree that's a bad idea. The only thing worse than taking over an offense in rebuild mode, is taking over a rebuilding project where the administration has demonstrated a lack of patience. We'd be guaranteeing a second rate hire.
So we have to give Loeffler a couple more years. Last year I would argue there was a large improvement in potential, if not shown in the numbers. Despite the fact that our upperclassmen were still on the team, we were manned by freshmen, sophomores, and transfers nearly everywhere. Former starters (ie. Demetri Knowles, JCC) were no longer even playing. That's how much better our talent got immediately. We have a lot of talented young players, and that's a clear step up from where we were. There was also an absurd injury bug that you have to take into account, especially when depth is actually impossible to solve in one year. You're saying we haven't seen results, and that's just not true.
No one is saying that Loeffler is absolutely the answer and is clearly a great coordinator. Only that there has been improvement shown, obvious dedication to the job, and that this is the year when the results should clearly be shown on the field. And if he's not the answer, by waiting this long we at least set ourselves up for a decent hire, thanks to the influx of young talent and the perception by coaches that we gave someone an honest shot to do their thing.
You're argument seems to be that because he didn't do as good as a historically good turnaround at a school in a very different situation, he is a failure and any support is naive until proven otherwise. That just doesn't make sense.
You'll notice I haven't said he should be fired, because he's not getting fired. He's most likely Frank's last OC. My point was that people have convinced themselves it takes years to fix an offense even though there's evidence to the contrary. While you can point to potential the offense was still worse than it was in 2012 and cost VT games. And of course you're pointing to the intangible, which is what everyone does whenever there's criticism of Loeffler. There's a saying about what you do when the facts are against you.
I've said before in this thread and in other threads that he should get three years at least and I've also said what I expect to see from the offense (somewhere around 60th in the country). I haven't been terribly impressed with what he's done in his first two years at VT.
The main takeaway I get is that your only measurement of improvement is through end-of-season rankings, correct?
the key is that we are postulating it takes years to rebuild an offensive line. That unit was in complete shambles when Loeffler took office and it hasn't been helped along much by a revolving door of coaches. Auburn and TCU didn't have the complete mess of a situation that VT had in the trenches. That's where it all starts. If our OL stays healthy this year and show progress from last season then I would fully expect our offense to produce better results than in previous years. It is difficult to compare VT to other organizations which turned things around more quickly because, frankly, VT was in much worse shape at one of the most critical spots on offense. VT's offense was a perfect storm of dumpster fire awfulness.
If the Administration (Dave Braine I believe) had taken that approach with Beamer in his first three years (i.e. the team hasn't improved, so you're gone), then there would never have been the breakout season that was 1995. Beamer would have been gone. And trust me, I was at Tech then and was friends with many of the football team who I lived with in Cochrane Hall, and there was general consensus that Beamer was not a good coach/motivator, and he needed to go. The football stadium then sat about 51,000 I believe, and I don't know that I ever saw it sold out in the entire time I was there. Maybe the UVA game in 1990, but I honestly don't think it was more than that unless it was one of the years we played FSU there. But the point is, I guess I have a little more patience when it comes to Lefty. Maybe I'm old, but that's my 2 cents.
I'm with you. 2-8-1 in 1992, when we had a lead in like 7 of those games in the 4th quarter. It was a difficult pill to swallow. Time will tell, but for now we have what we have. Here's hoping for the best.
College football in the late 80s was a lot different than it is today. There's more money. There's more TV and exposure. You can rebuild quicker, and you can also evaluate progress better because every game is on television.
Put it this way- who here thinks London just needs one more year to turn things around at UVA?
Right, because the accurate comparison to Loeffler is a head coach going into his 6th season at the school
So instead we should compare him to a situation 25 years ago because that's far more accurate.
We can compare it to anything. But in all fairness it is a unique situation, just like the coaching situation at loluva and the one 25 years ago. There are past occurrences, but each thing should be judged on its own. There is no accuracy predictor.
I'm not saying we can make a direct comparison, I'm simply saying Rome wasn't built in a day. Sure, I agree there have been some quick turnarounds in the recent past with programs like TCU and a handful of others. But there are also a lot of programs who have made change after change after change with little to no results. Are you telling me that Florida doesn't have just about all the financial resources they need at their disposal to hire the right HC/coordinator to coach all those blue chip recruits? Yet they've languished since Meyer left there, and had many changes. All I'm saying is that unless we can go out and convince the TCU OC to come to Blacksburg, then I think we've got to have at least a little patience. I don't think 4-5 years is asking too much to see what he can do with his recruits working in his system for more than a year or two. Lefty also hasn't had a Tyrod in his system, but I would suggest we should wait and see if Lawson can be our next Tyrod.
Statistics from 4 years and 3 different schools will do that to you. You could argue the talent difference from Stinespring's worst year (2008 with Tyrod, Ryan Williams, Darren Evans, etc) to what Loeffler has had. These are 2 completely different situations and it's hard to compare them. This will be the year to find out for sure.
Ryan Williams first year was 2009.
The point still stands. Look at the talent Stiney had when he was turning in offensive output identical to what Loeffler has managed with bare cupboards and an eviscerated OL. That's the difference between leaning on talent to win ISO battles and actually having a scheme.
Give Lefty the talent Stiney had in the Tyrod years, then make a valid apples to apples comparison.
we were also winning more when BS was the coach, so do we need to wait until we are hitting 10 wins to criticize SL as well?
it can be successfully argued that the primary reason we aren't winning a lot more now than we are is because the BS regime utterly failed at bringing in talent in 2010 and 2011, leading to a dearth of experienced talent over the last couple years.
Newman!
(Edit: I guess his name was Newsome, wasn't it? Not even a good enough villain for me to remember)
Newsome.... Newman...
Annoying, fat, and useless?
just because you say it can be successfully argued doesn't make it true. Would you be surprised to hear that VT has had more offensive players drafted than defensive players since 2010? Those are the classes that BS "utterly failed" to bring in talent for, right? 16 players have been drafted since 2010: 8 offensive players, 7 defensive players and 1 punter.
so are you saying that the players leaving for the NFL since 2010 are the players recruited in 2010 and 2011? Is it possible that the players drafted by the NFL since 2010 were actually recruited in the years 2005-2009? This stat does not back up your argument at all. Players are usually on campus for 4-5 years so there is a lag. Now if we have a ton of Senior offensive players drafted by the NFL this year and next year your argument would hold water since those would be the players recruited in 2010-11. Technically, you can't make that argument yet...but you may be able to in a couple years.
Not sure where I ever stated that? Stating that those players were recruited by the staff that apparently forgot to continue recruiting so that SL would have some players. There are very few players left on the roster from the 10-11 classes. From '11 left: (Asante, Holmes, Knowles, Malleck, Redman). From '10 left: (None, they would be in their 6th year). How many of these players did SL recruit (Thomas, fuller, painter, Wilson, coale)? Again in those same 3 years more offensive players got drafted than from Bud's defensives that performed at a top 25 level, correct?
I'll admit that my math was messed up there...i'll leave it for posterity..the point is that the players recruited in '10 and 11' would only have started being drafted in '14 (last year..how many offensive players were drafted last year, I honestly don't know). The remaining players from those two draft classes won't be drafted until '15 or '16 (assuming redshirt years) so I don't think you have the data to make the point that the 2010-11 recruiting classes were on par with the recruiting classes before them. To say that we've had more offensive players drafted since 2010 just means that we've had better talent since 2005. Your stat could be front loaded with talent which wouldn't debunk the theory that we had a dropoff in talent recruited in 2010-11
5 players were drafted in 2014 and 2015 combined, 1 first rounder (Kyle Fuller), 1 4th rounder (Logan Thomas), 2 6th rounders (Antone Exum, Kyshown Jarrett), and a 7th rounder (Laurence Gibson)
I wouldn't exactly say that's a great counter to the 'dearth of talent' argument.
yeah and how many of those players were recruited in 2010-11? I thought Thomas was on campus in '09?
Didn't look that far back, and if that's the case, its even more grim, really.
Those 2 classes were awful. Its the main reason we had to rely on freshmen as much as we did last year, and why we had to bring in a transfer to start at QB.
yeah that was kind of my point...we're in agreement for sure...I don't really understand how having more players drafted on the offensive side of the ball since 2010 means that we had great recruiting classes in 2010-11. Especially since none of the players recruited in 2011 would have been drafted at all and only some of the players from 2010 might have been drafted at the earliest after last season. The dude's argument is riddled with holes
Yeah... I'm not really surprised that we had a lot of guys drafted during that time, really. You're counting all the momentum we had from that 2005 year where we were very much a national title contender through the back to back ACC title years. We should have been bringing in kids who would have been drafted 4 years later. Which makes those 2 classes even more head scratching, because they happened right in the middle of our last peak, when we whipped FSU in the ACC Championship after going undefeated in conference play and the next year getting the ACC's only BCS At-Large bid. (don't count Clemson in 2013 because I believe the rules had it so that an ACC team had to fill in FSU's spot for the Orange Bowl when they went to the title game)
you realize SL had more than just players from the 10-11 recruiting classes to work with, right? All of those players I mentioned that were drafted were recruited by the prior regime and drafted under his watch. So saying he had no talent to work with is obviously not true. I'm not saying he had A+ talent, but he had more than enough to have a more competent offense than one ranked around 100th in the country for his first two years.
you're really reaching insinuating I called the 10/11 classes "great". They were awful classes filled with attrition and bust for both sides of the ball. They weren't the only players he had to work with since he's been here though.
The fact that you expected him to make a team with such little talent that it necessitated playing freshman and sophomores throughout the 2 deep last year to work like a well oiled machine to immediately outperform the regime that had been entrenched for over a decade....
Yeah, sorry... That's not a reasonable expectation
Man you guys are grasping at straws. A well oiled machine is asking for an offense around 75th in the country or showing some improvement from year 1 to year 2 with a majority of the players back? He didn't have to play those freshmen he had returning starters from the prior year as well. Where is the player development of current players on the roster?
I guess I need to blow a lot more smoke and make excuses for everyone to get up into the 10k leg rank. Can't act like we're a .500ish team against P5 competition over the last few years or face reality.
There's no need for this
knawaz03 starts an argument
doesn't get people to change their minds and agree with him wholeheartedly
blames it on TKP clique-ness
For realz. This conversation has been going on all off season like a broken record. And the deal is, basically no one is singing Loeffler's praises as an offensive savior. It's basically one side calling him awful and the other side saying we don't have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions about Loeffler as an OC.
One thing almost everyone agrees on is this is the make or break season for Scot. He has to show marked improvement in offensive production or he will (rightfully) be out of a job. That seems to be a fairly entrenched consensus. So it isn't a situation of Pro-Loeffler vs Anti-Loeffler, but more a situation of Anti-Loeffler vs Let Loeffler Install His Scheme.
the same 2 or 3 people who will still make excuses for SL if the offense stinks again this year. Keep the blinders on.
You've gone hurling headlong over the threshold of patently absurd now. You are now having hypothetical arguments with what hypothetical people might or might not say after an upcoming season IF the offense is bad.
At this point...what's the point? The conversation is going like this:
Scot Loeffler Critic: The offense is terrible.
Me: Yeah, it's been an underwhelming two years, hasn't it? But I've always said, you get three years to install your scheme.
SLC: Scot Loeffler sucks as an OC.
Me: Well, he walked into a tough situation here. OL in disarray, no real QB on the roster.
SLC: He sucked at Auburn and now he sucks here.
Me: Auburn was a square peg in round hole situation. Chizzik had no idea how to transition from spread to pro style, and he hired a young OC to try to do it. Not sure anyone with Loeffler's experience could have managed that. Plus, he had a pretty good year at Temple. That makes me hopeful.
SLC: But our offense suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.
Me: Yeah, I'm not happy with these numbers either. But rationally, could we have expected any other OC to do a better job?
SLC: Why can Loeffler do no wrong in your mind? Why are you such an apologist?
Me: Not trying to be an apologist, just waiting to see what Scot can manage with a healthy OL and a QB who knows the playbook. He hasn't had that in two years.
SLC: Whatever, you'll just be making excuses after we suck again this year.
Me: I'm not sure I've ever said-
SLC:
you left out the part where SLC sites all of the other offensive turnarounds in the country that clearly show SL is not cut out to be an OC
Player development? How many starters from 2013 also started in 2014? Of those, how many stayed healthy all season? I think it's pretty hard to argue that Loeffler can't develop players when HE HASN'T HAD THE TIME TO ACTUALLY DO THAT. We played a ridiculous number of freshman last year. Michael Brewer was the best QB on our roster and he wasn't on campus until weeks (WEEKS) before the first game.
No, we're not grasping at straws. We're saying that Loeffler was dealt a really awful hand and you're criticizing him unfairly. If you look at just pure numbers then, yes, his offenses have been underwhelming. But when you're fielding a team with as little talent/experience, especially on the OL, as SL was over the last two years you can hardly expect anything different. Did you really expect to see drastic improvement offensively with a brand new starter at QB? Most teams have a drop-off when a 3 or 4 year starter is replaced. The teams that don't have that drop off are usually starting a QB in that place who has more than 3 weeks of experience in the system. Those teams also tend to have a bit of a safety net around that young QB to help him. You know, like talented and experienced players in the OL, and a big time WR threat and a solid RB. Brewer was throwing the ball to a handful of freshman and handing the ball off to a new guy every week. If you expect to see improvement under those circumstances then you're in for disappointment. If you try to take a step back and look at the bigger picture once in a while you may find that your mood will generally be better. The constant cynicism that comes from your posts really wears me down.
We can talk recruiting numbers all day long and never reach an understanding. Recruits and talent aren't good gauges for which coach is better at coaching. I'm not necessarily a Loeffler apologist but I will say that he came into the biggest dumpster fire of a mess offensively as you'll find among P5 teams. Talent is one thing, but probably the biggest issue this team had when Loeffler arrived was lack of viable options on the offensive line. The offensive line is the single hardest unit to rebuild on a football team. The OL has been awful for years and years but special talents like Tyrod Taylor and David Wilson helped to mask those shortcomings up front. This off season has been the first time in half a decade that there has been positive talk and murmurs of hope surrounding that unit. It doesn't really matter how talented a team is if the offensive line is as shallow and inexperienced as ours was when Loeffler arrived you're gonna have a bad time. This is the year that Loeffler needs to put it all together to quiet down his doubters. Sure, he hasn't produced the offense that everyone wants VT to have, but given the cards he was dealt I can hardly blame him. He had to COMPLETELY rebuild, especially up front, and that takes time.
I realize I'm jumping into the middle of a recruiting and talent debate, but all of this makes it sound like everyone thinks that SL came in and just took over Stiney's offense and tried to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. SL has his own offense and philosophy. It takes time to install a new offense. Also, this is the 1st year he'll have a returning starting QB to run his offense. Clearly our offensive performance has been, well offensive. But I'm not ready to declare SL a failure until at least after this season. And maybe not until after next when we see what one of his QB recruits is able to do.
this times 10000
love it.. Also I have heard SL say multiple times he wanted to create the best environment/offense for Logan to succeed/get drafted in the NFL, so technically you can throw out the 1st year.
well, and, goal achieved! So at least he's accomplished something that he set out to do. That's gotta be a positive
So what you're saying is that Loeffler hasn't been able to get that much out of the dearth of talent Stiney left him when he was demoted.
Seriously, its WAY too early to be making these comparisons
I too appreciate the attempt with stats.
But if one were to simply compare Stiney's 2003 vs Lefty's 2009 with the Gators, I think you'd stastically see a different outcome.
Scott Loeffler was not the OC at Florida, only the QB Coach (and only for two years, one with Tebow and one with John Brantley). Addazio was the OC at Florida when Loeffler was there.
Thx for the correction. My fault on that reference. Purely bad form on my end!
Okay, 2003 Stiney to 2011 Loeffler at Temple. Lefty turned in the 39th scoring O and 7th rushing O in the country. That's what he's capable of with a roster suitable to his scheme.
Yep, Temple really ran the ball that year.
The main problems with our offense have been consistent for a while under both Stiney and Loeffler. PACE and PREDICTABILITY. Our formation variation is garbage and a couch-coach can make pre-snap run/pass reads, and our lack of speed/precision from play-to-play hurts us. For the past 5+ years we've had to watch our QBs walk to the line, spend 5 seconds reading the defense, everyone stands up and looks to the sidelines, another 5 seconds getting re-set, and then you snap the ball just to reveal you spent all that time concocting a poopy play (and the defense had all day to adjust). There was some hope last year that our PACE was getting better, but it was still inconsistent.
When you have a very good defense you should be trying to run as many plays as humanly possible during a game. Our defense will win more than they lose, so you'll have more opportunities than most teams to get the ball back which should allow you to take some risks on offense (which we rarely do).
Strange statement being that most coaches of teams with the consistently top rated defenses seem to run ball control offenses. While I agree we should improve our offense, be more unpredictable and occasionally run hurry up, getting snaps off quickly only means your defense is on the field quicker and more often and will wear down (see us vs bama 09).
The problem with running as many plays as possible is that if you don't succeed and gain >1 first down, you have put your defense back on the field with a very small amount of game clock (and actual clock) passed. Oregon has had reasonably good defensive players and coaches while they have been running the Chip Kelly blur offense, but due to the nature of their super-fast offense, they gave up lots of points.
If there is any concern with defensive depth, especially in a key position (MIKE!), putting a defense back on the field quickly is a recipe for sudden, yet inevitable disaster.
Also, there isn't a great deal of data to support the idea that VT has a below average pace of play, or that the pace of play causes problems for the offense. In 2014, VT was ranked 75 out of 128 teams in pace of play (SBN Pace of Play Study) Some very good teams were below VT and some very good teams were above VT.
Personally, I think the Oregon blur and systems like it are incredibly fun to watch, but would translate incredibly poorly to a VT team, especially one that is constructed like the current iteration.
Going fast pace just for the sake of going fast is a bad idea. If we were to get the other team in a personnel advantage, I agree we should be running to the line and not letting them substitute. I would much rather keep our defense OFF the field though. Having a tired defense, no matter how good, is bad.
I can't look up the stats right now but I would be curious to see the relationship of our best defensive ranking years vs the Time of Possession rankings for those seasons. The other team can't be moving the ball on us when we are on offense and if they aren't moving the ball, they likely aren't scoring.
You mean a fast passing offense against a historic defense
As for Time of Possession
The difference in time of Possession for TCU #2 in scoring and VT #96 was 1 mins a game.
The difference in time of Possession for Oregon #4 in scoring and VT was 6 mins a game
VT's ToP was ranked Tied at 21st for 31 mins a game
Not what I was asking for at all. I don't care about scoring offense and TOP. This mini discussion was based on a fast offense being better when you have a great defense because your defense can bail you out when you go 3-out a lot. The point being that I imagine there is a correlation between the years we had top 5 defenses and the time of possession rankings for those seasons. If we have a ball control offense and a great defense, the other team has far fewer chances to score on offense if they don't have the ball for as much time through the game.
Hmmm, not sure how to map that
VT's best Defensive seasons are its worst Offensive and VT's best Offensive seasons are its worst Defensive
My observations
2008-2010 The ball wasnt always moving far but the team was scoring points
2010 The defense was very good at preventing the ball movement but didnt let the other team score
2011 our scoring offense didnt carry its weight for the ball movement
TOP is all over the place and no clue if it has a pattern to the defense
SOURCE CFBSTATS.COM
Thing about these stats.... when our defense is rolling, you can't put too much stock into YPG, because we're going to consistently have short fields to work with, so points on the board is what really matters.
I'll adjust that slightly. Points on the board, yes, but in a dominate defensive game, third down conversion and red zone TD% are critical stats for the offense. Those stats indicate the offense is still functioning and playing a role in the win while we maintain a lead.
Total offense is a feel good stat anyway. I prefer to get down into the situational stats to judge an offense.
Offense 3rd Down Conversion Rank Redzone Offense TD Scoring Rank
2008 71 108
2009 32 52
2010 32 40
2011 24 105
2012 78 100
2013 113 95
2014 80 97
2011 is a curious year...24 and 105? ouch
There you go... that gives a good indication right there on just where our offense stood.
No surprise that 2009 and 2010 peaked like they did. 3rd conversion in 2011 and 2012 spiked because of the dump truck behind center, but even that fell off in 2013 when defenses could key in on him without the help of a David Wilson to take the pressure off.
Its actually a bit encouraging to see the 3rd down conversion rate pick back up last year, despite all the injuries we had. That in itself is promising.
I think you read that backwards. Team rank, 1 being best and 126th being last place
2011 was Logan's year that lead to the Top 5 draft pick talk
2011 Logan avg 7.8 yrds a pass vs Brewers 6.1 last year
2011 is the Tech Dream Team. But we couldn't score points
At the end of the day if we take to long to get off plays, if the play calling sometimes still looks stineyesque, we have poor offensive line play, small linebackers, Bud Foster, and Shane Beamer as the backfield coach, it's something that never has changed in all our deliberations. It's Frank Beamer's team.
Slightly different topic but have we seen the play that Edmunds had the 78 yard TD against Bama with since that game? I imagine Brewer would not be our guy to run it but I think this season would be a good year for it with Durkin as the wildcat QB. We also have an H-back type guy that Leoffler wanted to use Coles for in Rogers so I wonder if we will see more of those play philosophies this season.