A few questions are on my mind as we look back on the last few years.
1) Did CFB deserve the chance to re-build his staff at the end of 2012?
100% yes. Look at his record as of the end of 2012. 10+ wins in 8 of 9 years, multiple BCS bowls
2) Do we have more talent and depth on offense than 2012?
Yes as it relates to top-end talent for skill players, and we are in similar (not great) shape as it relates to depth. Recruiting of skill positions has picked up while the re-build of the offensive line was hampered by turnover.
3) Do we have more talent and depth on defense than 2012?
No, yet it's a mixed bag. Similar or better talent currently for DT, slightly less for the secondary and less for DE and LB. Depth issues caused by recruiting misses are evident.
4) Was the re-build a failure?
Sadly, yes. Not a complete and utter failure but a failure versus what was possible and expected of this program by most on the inside and outside. When the re-build occurred, we were one year removed from competing for ACC Championships. We have not competed for one since.
5) Would another year help the re-build?
No. At this point, Frank's departure looms larger than ever and the impact on recruiting puts us in a hard spot. The little remaining momentum seems to have shifted in a bad way for all involved at some point this season and it's unlikely that another year would us back to competing for ACC Championships.
What does everyone else think?
Comments
Actually, the ironic part here is that the non-rebuilt part - the defense - is what has suffered the most recently. From a tweet just sent out by Mike Barber,
So yes, it looks like the rebuild itself was a success. We are deeper and more talented on offense across the board than we were in 2012. However, we've seen a significant decline on the defensive side (losing an all-American corner, playing 3 freshmen in the secondary and getting inconsistent-at-best LB play will never end well) and that's what's, unfortunately, covered up a pretty impressive offensive rebuild.
Well, the offense has improved from Dumpster Fire status to Tire Fire status to now in the Singed Eyebrow status.
Foster has had his defense fall from Fourth of July Fireworks to Sparkler status. But Sparkler Status is still a full Smores Campfire away from Singed Eyebrow status.
Sorry, but there's nothing sparkler about our defense right now. It's currently a Yankee Candle. It's nice when it's on fire, but when it's not you wonder why your wife bought it because, other than the name, it looks no different than any other candle.
Hey man, Yankee Candles are phenomenal. They last practically forever. Wanna fight?
We're more like a wood wick candle - makes a nice crackling sound every once in a while, but provides little heat in general.
I don't know... The defense is getting slaughtered out there when we can least afford it. That 1 play TD drive in the 4th OT was just baaaaaaaaaaad, and yet breakdowns like that have become the norm not just this year, but over the last couple.
The offense can now do enough to win most games. The defense is the reason we're 3-5 this year and likely not going bowling. For the first time in a long while, our offense is out pacing our defense.
So what you are saying is our offense went from really shitty to less shitty?
It doesn't make sense to me to use one datapoint to draw a conclusion (either way).
Which data point and conclusion are you referring to?
Boxscore stats; success of the rebuild.
Not alone, but players like Teller, Ford, Hodges, Nijman and Philips pass the eye test, something we haven't had around here in quite a while. Add onto that statistics which have been trending the right direction despite bad circumstances (massive injuries and freshmen everywhere last year, injured starting QB this year), and it'd be hard to argue that we're worse off now than we were when Loeffler got here.
From a talent perspective, Tech has more depth, but again, that's not going to make me declare the rebuild was a success, which was your original point. If anything, Tech is still rebuilding and is moving in the right direction.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think saying that we're moving in the right direction is a hard sell right now given that we're 3-5 and staring down a schedule where it's hard to pick 3 games we have a realistic chance at winning. We're having discussions if missing a bowl game for the first time in over 2 decades and postulating Beamer's seemingly imminent retirement. I don't see that as 'moving in the right direction.'
The conversation was about the offensive rebuild, which is what I was referring to.
people will continue to point at the shortcomings of Scot and the offense in general. Whether the offense is actually improving doesn't really matter to the general public. What they'll see is the W-L ratio and relatively low scores and blame the offense. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that it's a pretty tough sell.
I'm not selling something to anyone about the whole team. The scope of my statement was with regards to the offense. I understand your point, but don't understand why you are making it because it doesn't pertain to the above back-and-forth.
even if we look at just the offense in a vacuum saying that we're still rebuilding and moving in the right direction seems like a strange thing to say. It implies that making changes to the staff now would be ill advised and premature. Even if we are moving in the right direction I don't think we'll be moving in that direction for very much longer. I think Loeffler has to realize that his days in Blacksburg are numbered. I guess I just don't see why we're talking about whether or not the offense is improving. There are all kinds of problems with this team in all phases. There is plenty of blame to go around.
The offense is definitely improving.
S&P+ 2013: 91st
S&P+ 2014: 85th
S&P+ 2015: 70th
Yep. Improving.
S&P+ 2012, the year that got O'Cainspring fired: 68th
The rebuild is a failure.
That's a myopic view. There is almost always temporary regression when a new scheme is implemented, during the learning curve.
The problem with this rebuild is that while the offense shows some life, the defense has regressed, thereby mitigating the gains.
I agree with you, overall that is the issue our program is facing. However, making decisions regarding the offense based on regression of the defense is a recipe for disaster. You have to examine what each unit is doing independent of the other, to some extent. You wouldn't fire Scot Loeffler because Bud Foster fields the worst defense of his career. That just doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, if it's determined that the overall issue with the program is the leadership at the very top, and that a changing of the guard is required, then that of course affects both sides of the ball in some way. That's actually the boat I think we're in, which makes me feel bad for Scot, because we might be wiping the slate clean just as his efforts are starting to pay dividends. I think he's gonna wind up being a pretty good OC somewhere.
Yeah I feel badly for him too....He's had a pretty rough 5 year stretch. He went into a bad match of a situation at Auburn and was probably seriously micro-managed for a year before coming to an even worst situation in Blacksburg where everyone knew the Offensive line was at least a 4-5 year rebuild. Despite the fact we've seen moderate improvements offensively in his 3 seasons he still catches a ton of heat for not being good enough.
Part of the problem is the expectation. We look around the country and see a handful of OCs working magic at other universities but we fail to see that for every successful OC there are a bunch of OCs struggling to do much of anything with the resources available to them. Scot, IMO, falls somewhere in between. He hasn't had much to work with and he hasn't really done very much with it but he's done his job adequately enough to keep him employed. He's likely not going to be in Blacksburg after this season but I don't think he is solely to blame for that. The deck has been stacked against him this entire time and he's done about as well as we could have reasonably expected given the circumstances.
If the rumors are true that Frank will be stepping down this year (I still have my doubts) I don't see any likely scenarios that include keeping Scot in Blacksburg. He'll be looking for work and that is a pretty shitty way to end a job that's not yet completed. Sucks for the guy. Hopefully things turn up a bit and he gets back on Lady Luck's good side.
I was speaking about this with my Fiance last night and I mentioned that the likelihood of Bud Foster roaming the sidelines next season continues to plummet. She was floored by that...What is life going to be like without that icon in Blacksburg? It's nearly unfathomable for some of us younger fans.
It is not a myopic view. If you fire someone for poor performance, then hire a replacement who underperforms significantly for 2 years, and in the 3rd year almost performs as well that is a bad hire. In any business. College football is not different. This was a bad hire.
I could bring out a raft of other statistics, but they all show the same thing. Yes, the offense in improving, and yes it is more fun to watch than any year since the Sugar Bowl year, but a good hire should improve, not hurt the bottom line.
EDIT: Reading further down, I do agree with many things you say. But not the myopic part.
Let's see how the offense does with Brewer back, I think our offensive ranking could see a significant uptick
It's myopic in the sense that you're basically shoehorning Loeffler into Stiney's job. Love him or hate him, the offense Loeffler runs is a different animal than the "offense" Stinespring ran. Lots more to learn, lots to install.
The comparison you were making would have been valid if you're talking about changing the OC at a program like Ohio State. The Buckeyes are going to run Meyer's offense regardless of who the OC is. So if you have a new OC in year three in Columbus who is underperforming the last year of his predecessor, yes, he's a downgrade. But that's not what happened here.
Your assertion wasn't faulty in principle, it was just ignoring the scope of the change Loeffler was charged with bringing to the offense.
I think this is an oft-overlooked point when it comes to Loeffler's performance thus far. He didn't have the opportunity to bring in his own coaches, and the players he recruited for his offense are, at oldest, sophomores.
He really was shoehorned into a position where he had little to no ability to take full reigns of the offense. I see improvement in what we are doing on that side of the ball - not top-10-offense-level improvement, but improvement nonetheless.
But I can't say that installing someone in his position, with the long-time OC still on staff, the coach's son at RB coach, and a revolving door of OL and WR coaches has really put him in a position to be successful. I think he's done quite well given the limitations of his job.
I gotta be honest, I'm damn impressed with how much Lefty seems to be in control of the thing from top to bottom. When I first heard Stiney was on staff, I had my doubts. But from everything I've seen, Loeffler seems to have complete control over this.
We can talk about position coaches. It's gotta be weird as hell having the head coach's son as one of your position coaches. But that aside, it seems like the position coaches know exactly what Scot needs from each position. And strangely enough, Stiney has probably been Lefty's biggest asset, with Bucky and Malleck both figuring so heavily in the passing game.
Cheers, mates.
I would argue that just because the rebuild isn't over, that doesn't mean it wasn't successful. Shoot, the offensive line itself was going to take 3-5 years to actually fix and we knew that in 2011. In this case, taking meaningful steps forward in year 3 is to be considered successful. The last 2 years, we've finished with a total S&P+ offensive raining of 93 and 85 (2013 and '14, respectively). Right now we're sitting at #70. I consider that meaningful progression, especially considering we played with our backup QB for all but 1.75 of 8 games so far. We have a featured back who's been productive the past 3 games he's started (gripe at will about it taking so long and you'd probably have a leg or two to stand on though), and a receiver leading the ACC in receiving. No, not every play is executed perfectly and yes, there have been some head-scratching decisions. However, overall I can't see how there's any argument to be made that this offense is not significantly better than it was in 2012.
I am anxiously waiting for the offense tracker this week. Like you, I think we have seen improvement on offense, exception being Pitt.
True, but there are 4 data points and the rebuild revolved around the problems we had in those 4 data points. In general, the offensive rebuild hasn't been a failure and it is putting up better stats than the previous staff in that area so how would that not be a success? The rebuild did not focus around the defense which has been the main culprit in 3 of our loses. The argument that W-L is the true measuring stick, to me, does not accurately reflect the effectiveness of the rebuilt parts.
Those boxscore stats are a data point. If they were opponent adjusted, or situation adjusted, that would be another (much more statistically valid) data point. And those aren't the only two things I personally have judged the offense on.
Part of the reason for this is that the defense has had to give up a lot of its players to the offense to bolster that talent. Losing players like Teller, Trey Edmunds, and Nijman, have affected the defense more than it should coupled with the recruiting failures, the injuries to Fuller and Nicolas, underperforming players (esp. linebacker play), and promising players who have not contributed (e.g. Van Dyke, Fischer).
That goes back to other recruiting failures. The coaches recognizing they'd be better on offense shouldn't be held against the offensive staff. All the guys mentioned may have been good on defense, but were far from certain bets, so I'd take them all in their current positions (and certainly Edmunds in 2013 although I don't see him running as well now) over the defense anyways.
Agreed that there are multiple factors contributing to the defense's situation. Still, I don't think we are having this conversation if Kendall and Dadi were both 100%.
Also, I have a hard time understanding a lot of what's been said elsewhere to imply that Bud no longer knows how to coach defense. I completely disagree. He needs more bodies, but is working with what he has.
And isn't recruiting one of the major job roles of a coach? If he doesn't have the bodies to compete, that's a failure on the recruiting end.
I agree that he has under-performed as a recruiter, as implied in my OP.
In the previous comment I was referring to game prep and gameday coaching.
That's the thing though. When Whit is putting his VT HC list together, Bud must be held accountable in some part for the defensive recruiting misses on his record.
I agree, but I think his efforts as a recruiter and his reputation as a DC could be used to great effect in the hands of an outstanding recruiter at HC... Maybe someone who was the B1G's beat recruiter while at OSU and has already lured a 5* DT to freakin' Houston.
I think Bud's recruiting track record will make it more difficult for him to get the HC job. I also think he gets some of those elite guys with another HC who is more of a "closer". Maybe if Bud was HC and we had an energetic young DC, we would be better from a recruiting standpoint. I agree that Whit needs to (and will) evaluate Bud as a recruiter and I think there's a reasonable chance that keeps him out of the HC seat.
I was going to say the same thing. I seem to remember that it used to be defense that would take their pick of athletes, now it seems that offense has become the priority and the defense is missing those depth makers filling in gaps.
Frankly, I am fine with where the offense is at. As I look at this particular season, outside of the abysmal Pitt game, I feel the offense has given us enough to win every other game. How many years have we been saying "If we only had an O that could give us a little bit?" Well now we do, and the defense stinks.
Ohio St. game - Offense got going after a slow start against an elite D. Playing well until Brewer went down, not much you can do about that.
ECU - When you score 28 against a G5 team, you should be able to win more than you lose. D laid an egg against the backup QB
Pitt - Bad offensive game, but Pitt's defense is proving out to be pretty good
Miami - Not an awful game, not a great game from the O
Duke - 43 points against what was considered a top end defense by stats. Sure 4 OTs, but the offense didn't cost us that game.
And I am pretty confident if Brewer doesn't go down, we probably win the ECU and Pitt game. Such is life. If the point in 2012 was the rebuild the offense, then I would actually say "Mission Accomplished" on that front. It's just we forgot the other side. Whiffs on big time defensive recruits in that time, no development at LB, tackling has gotten worse each season for awhile it feels like, etc.
I'm not confident that Brewer's return would change the outcome against Pitt or ECU. You said it yourself, the offense did enough to win against the Pirates, and unless Brewer is P5 quality offensive lineman, Tech still struggles against Pitt's defense.
He would change the dynamic for sure, but I haven't once looked back on the season and thought, if we had Brewer we'd won that one.
Do you think having Brewer from the beginning of the Miami game would have changed it? Personally, I do.
In a vacuum, yes I do, but the circumstances are everything and they make me lean to no. Primarily, he didn't take starter's reps during practice and he didn't benefit from the extra week of practice like against Duke.
As Mason wrote today, Brewer adds another dynamic to the offense—his precision and knowledge of the scheme allow him to execute Loeffler's short passing attack and take advantage of mismatches, respectively. He's a tough kid that I love rooting for, but he's not an All-ACC quarterback. I honestly wish Loeffler would rely on McMillian, and to a lesser extent, Rogers and run the ball more.
Depends on which Brewer. People seem to be forgetting his stinker games. They are coming.
If you say so.
I think the stinker games were 2014 less than 100% Brewer. Spring 2015 and his limited time on the field this year point to an improved football player with the knowledge needed to make the most of this offense.
I hope we can keep him 100%........
Agreed. I'm grasping for the right adjective to describe our O-line's ability to protect our QB.... Average? End rushes seem to be especially difficult for the O-line to engage. Same with delayed blitzes. Don't know.
I agree with this.
I also don't love the "if we had Brewer" comments I keep seeing/hearing. If we are being honest, our offensive line play can't protect the quarterback. So if we can't prevent the quarterback from being pummeled into the ground constantly, can we reasonably expect him to stay healthy all season?
I've seen a lot of criticism of our LB play the last few weeks.
Why isn't anyone talking about Cornell Brown?
For the simple reason no one talks much about their appendix: he doesn't do much and his players (RVD and Sheggog) haven't been screwing up enough to make it painfully obvious.
Because its sacrilege to legitimately criticize our defensive coaches.
But seriously, though... Our LB play is awful, and our LB recruiting is leaving a lot to be desired.
He's responsible for just the whips (and sometimes works with the DEs). Bud is the insider linebackers coach. This is seriously what Cornell told Beamerball dot com after the Purdue game.
On-the-field coaches are a limited resource in college football. If Bud is back next season, I hope he adjusts his assistant coaches' responsibilities.
To be fair to Cornell, defensive players doing their jobs has been an issue this year.
There is something I was looking at in terms of recruiting over the past 5 years and we are a big FAILURE!!!!!
Period, I'm not talking about just signing a recruit and convincing them to stay but the number of players that have left the program or just booted off is a lot, I mean a lot, hence our freshmen who are mostly 3 stars are out there playing regularly.
For example, in the class of 2011, there are only about 3-4 guys that actually contributed. Go on to the next year and it's a similar story and even more similar. While some have left due to injury, others had discipline issue and some came and felt the program wasn't for them and left (Melvin Khein comes to mind immediately). This leads me to believe that the coaches' talk of family environment and whatever politically correct words they throw out are false. Something is not clicking, previous to 2011 recruiting class, we didn't lose a lot of players to attrition and our depth was a lot better. There is something going on in the Locker room that is not meshing this team well. And this chemistry issue carries into the game. I'm glad to see the Duke game in-person, I could tell being close to the field that the players are not on the same page, especially on defense. I could literally hear Deon Clarke arguing with just about everyone after each broken play by the defense. In general, you can tell from observing that there is no leadership, no sense of urgency and no excitement from the team. This all starts with the coaches, there is definitely something missing here. I'm not telling the coaches to go out and injure our guys, but put some passion into them, I see some guys who are just happy to be there.
Speaking in terms of lack of urgency, I noticed that last touchdown drive we had in regulation took almost 10 minutes. We didn't run the ball when we should have. Our O-line blocks well on pass plays but only blocks well on outside running plays; so in another words McMillan runs 15 yards across just to gain 6 yards, at least its not the jet sweeps where he was running 20 yards across just to get 2-3 yards since those plays were predictable.
There is also the lack decision-making or willingness to adapt to games that is really upsetting the crowd. It makes no sense that the coaches keep going overboard with the Bear Defense. It basically creates overpursuit up the line and then QBs/RBs run right up the middle. Bud's defense was always zone which worked even when didn't have the strongest players because it helps to cover a larger area and helps in disguising blitzes. Even Bud has to realize he needs to change to a more zone scheme to allow for more coverage and ability to adapt to circumstances.
We need to be able to keep players, we need to recruit better, we need a lot and I'm seeing that these coaches are constantly losing out, even after we get players here we cannot keep them due to lack of discipline, or whatever else. Something needs to change with the culture and it falls squarely on these coaches.
I genuinely thing the bear is our best chance at winning. Bud has adjusted time and time again in the past. I don't think he would continuously run the beer unless he was convinced that our players cannot execute other more complex schemes.
Although, that is a result of recruiting/attrition.
UPDATE: Bud Foster essentially confirms this here. Basically says the secondary is athletic, but inexperienced. The bear allows the younger players to think less, and ideally, just make plays.
either way, its very frustrating.
The beer defense: where fans find themselves saying "I need another beer" after each defensive series.
Not changing it
I don't think he would continuously run the beer unless he was convinced that our players cannot execute other more complex schemes.
And you shouldn't change it. It's fine the way you wrote it.
Where do you get the idea that we have improved talent and depth on offense as relates to skill players? We have zero explosion. Zero homerun hitters. Even our good running back is not anywhere near the level of talent that we had before. We don't have a top end quarterback. Honestly, I have no idea where to start in dismantling your comment about her offense. But dear God, there is no chance we have greater talent and depth on offense.
I am just going to agree to disagree with your entire statement.
Travon < David Wilson
Travon < Lee Suggs
Travon < Kevin Jones
Travon < Ryan Williams
Travon < David Wilson
I. Ford < Andre Davis
I. Ford < Ernest Wilford
I. Ford < David Clowney
I. Ford < Eddie Royal
I. Ford < Josh Morgan
I. Ford < Justin Harper
I. Ford < Danny Coale
I. Ford < Corey Fuller
While McMillian is arguably less talented than the running backs listed, Ford has a legitimate chance to be the highest drafted WR since Royal.
OMG no he won't. I doubt he gets drafted.
Right now he's he beneficiary of being our ONLY target (except for Bucky who's not 1/2 what he thinks).
He's a decent college player, but when Ford plays a physical man press he will disappear.
The idea that Ford won't be drafted is the closest I've yet come to downvoting for difference of opinion.
EDIT: I will, however, forego my standard practice of upvoting comments I don't support to even out a downvote for opinion. I just can't bring myself to upvote this tomfoolery even if I don't think you should be downvoted for it.
Instead I'll just laugh heartily when his name is called at the 201X draft.
I agree. Ford will definitely be drafted. He's very fast, but isn't known as a burner. Doesn't have elite size, but finds a way to get open. Incredible work ethic, and dedicated to his technique and getting better. Stays in great shape. Don't mean to correlate his potential with how he will turn out, but a la Jerry Rice, he's the type of heady receiver that could have a VERY long and successful career in the NFL.
Rapidly becoming my new favorite meme.
it really is just the perfect way to shut it down before it even gets going
I know, I love it. He even points upward. Too perfect.
Side note...
I might start downvoting for opinions on the rare occasion. Community guidelines aside...sometimes a downvote is just...what it is, you know?
Yes. This.
There's a difference between agreeing to disagree and refusing to participate in a discourse.
It's one thing to say, "I don't think this offense is very good, based on X," and saying, "OMG we suck take off your O&M glasses you homers, we need to fire all the coaches." Some posts aren't intended to start or further any type of dialogue.
Generally, whenever I feel the urge to down-vote an opinion, especially posts like you are describing, I just up-vote everyone that disagrees with the offending party in that thread. You cannot beat the darkness with more darkness, you beat it by shining light.
Considering neither player is anywhere near finished playing at Virginia Tech its foolish to compare them to those other players. It would only be fair in a couple of years when their college football careers are over.
This^^^. You are marking against a sophomore and a redshirt freshman. Give them time. But tell me if we had any depth, you wouldn't want to see Isiah Ford returning kicks and punts like Eddie used to?
The entire premise was that our offense is better now than in 2012. This is like saying Brewer < Mike Vick.
David Wilson, left in 2011
Lee Suggs, left in 2002
Kevin Jones, left in 2003
Ryan Williams, left in 2010
Andre Davis, left in 2001
Ernest Wilford, left in 2003
David Clowney, left in 2006
Eddie Royal, left in 2007
Josh Morgan, left in 2007
Justin Harper, left in 2007
Danny Coale, left in 2011
Corey Fuller, left in 2012
Only one of those players on your list was on the team in 2012, so what's your point?
Career stats:
Corey Fuller: 19 games, 45 rec, 834 yards, 6 TDs
Isaiah Ford: 21 games, 97 rec, 1273 yards, 13 TDs
I only pulled out the stats for Fuller because the number of games they played is close enough that it's a remotely valid comparison, unlike any of the other receivers you listed.
Ford is already #13 all-time in receiving at Tech after less that 2 full seasons playing. He's ahead of Fuller, Clowney, and Harper on that list and he's scored more TDs than Royal, Wilford, and Coale did in their entire careers.
You're comparing a true sophomore to 5 of the top-6 WR in school history and implying that the fact he hasn't already surpassed them is an indicator of declining talent team-wide. That just seems a little intellectually dishonest to me.
1. Statistics
2. Rationale
3. Retort
...
5. Profit (Leg) [Turkey emoticon]
"intellectually dishonest "
I really like this term and hope to incorporate into my everyday vocabulary.
HEY YOU CAN'T USE STATS AND REASONABLE ARGUMENTS TO BACK UP YOUR POSITION!! THAT'S CHEATING!!! DOWNVOTE THIS MAN!!!!
You have Wilson listed twice. I assume you mean Darren Evans?
Regardless, In Trevon's three games as a feature back, he's put up 96 yards, 99 yards and 142 yards respectively. Those are not numbers to frown upon.
I would take Isaiah Ford in his sophomore year over most of those players in their sophomore year
While I believe the offense has been rebuilt, as statistics show, the team itself just cannot find ways to win games. This is where Beamer has lost his mojo. It used to be Tech would find ways to win close games. Nowadays, we find ourselves pondering one or two coaching decisions made that possibly changed the outcome of the game. I'm happy with the job Loeffler has done, although I wish he would run the ball on 1st down more frequently. I trust Bud to fix the defense as he did after the 2003 season. I don't trust Frank to guide this team to victory anymore, though.
Completely agree with 01 Hokie commentary. The offense is headed in the right direction, defense has been the big disappointment. Not saying the O is all the way there yet but it is light years better than what Loeffler inherited 3 years ago.
Also, I love Bud but absolutely no way he gets the HC gig. We need a HC that can lead the recruiting charge and rebrand the program.