So I realize there is another thread concerning former OC Loeffler's possibility of going to BC and in it some of us talked about his responsibilities and how much ownership he had over the VT Offense. Well fellow Hokies, thanks to an SB Nation's BC Blog site called BC Interruption, we now have an answer. Here is the link to the specific blog post/podcast.
The blog scored an interview with Mike McDaniel of Inside the ACC. Here are the highlights:
1) It's was Loeffler's Offense. Coach Beamer gave full control to his coordinators to run their side of the football team. That means Bud ran the Defense and Loeffler ran the offense. Coach Beamer only made suggestions to the game plans but rarely vetoed his coordinators.
2) The never ending RB rotation was on OC Loeffler. My personal apologies to Shane Beamer. I thought the RB rotation was his idea, but according to Mike McDaniel of Inside the ACC, Loeffler is known for using multiple player packages including multiple RBs. I'm guessing that he picked this up during his stint with the Detroit Lions, but without an NFL roster of talent, it didn't translate to the college level. Unless you are Alabama, OSU where your two deep roster is loaded with 5* talent of course.
3) Play selection. Yup, you guessed it, it was on him as well. According to Mike McDaniel of Inside the ACC, Loeffler is known for being kinda stubborn and will stick to his game plan, even if it doesn't initially work. He will eventually change his mind, but by then, his team may be behind. Yikes.
Give the blog podcast a listen folks, it was very revealing about OC Loeffler and very interesting. Only 26 minutes long. If there are any mistakes in my highlight, please let me know via comments section. Go Hokies!
Comments
Geah!!!!!!
I wonder how the Shane
hattershaters will handle this.Edit :
I wonder how the Shane Beamer haters (or hatters, maybe Im a poor speller, or maayyybeeee I was making a play on words to cover both those who were hating or those who are in the Shane Beamer fan club, hence they wear the hat??hmmm maybe???, no, I cant pull it off, Im a terrible speller) will respond to the fact that his biggest criticism is largely attributed to a coaching call he didnt have control over.
Is it now on Shane for not taking the responsibility of the rotation or does it prove to be more in-line with the controlling atmosphere created by Loeffler that reports seem to be hinting at?
That seems like an odd dynamic and I would imagine it created some tensions behind the scenes, if that were truly the case. It never appeared to me at a 10,000 level view that there was any strife with the coaching staff, but you never know what goes on behind the scenes.
> I wonder how the Shane hatters will handle this.
Hating Shane is soooooo last season.
Strangely I think of the same image for both "hatters" and "haters"
Your comment added nothing to the thread, or enriched the community in any way. And yes, I downvoted. Respect the signal to noise ratio.
I thought it is pretty interesting the way you and Mason and French responded to the thread.
Sounds like we have a new coach who may not have as deep a rotation but will have a rotation nonetheless.
I've often wondered how the energy systems are supposed to work with a one back system.
Runs are probably anaerobic and those systems need time for full recovery. You have a run, you get another one you can almost be assured you are operating at less efficiency. Now, it may matter more that you are involved in the "offensive flow" in some way shape or form, or that the new RB is not involved in the "offensive flow". You have to really pay attention and talk if you are going to be inserted into a game and not drop off just on not understanding what is happening in the trenches.
Ages ago we used to go after single guys. Someone had a 20-40 yard sprint to cover, we'd rotate a fresh guy there and do it again. It is literally impossible not to fall off dramatically if you can get a guy isolated with 3 short term sprints. Now it is hard to get the guy isolated 3 times in a row. But many skill athletes are called upon to perform at a high level 3 times in a row. Most folks would say you fall off unless you've had 3-5 mins or rest time.
Similar thing with the "Bucky is out of shape" idiots. Ummm... Bucky wasn't just 5 yards sit and wait kinda TE... he was turning it upfield. You can't do that time and time again without recovery. Rather have a guy his stature in the game winded than on the sideline recovering, but acting like a guy that big can sprint forever is lunacy.
Not sure I buy the consipiracy theorists, saying this was some kind of FB orchestrated play calling. Sure SL may have gone a bit conservative at Frank's high level direction to protect a lead, but I cannot imagine SL was not calling the plays. Similarly the notion that Frank's son was foisting a RB rotation on SL seems completely absurd. The VT offense and system seemed a shambles. And it is easy to put bits and pieces of info from different sources together and make it seem like SB was holding back our offense based on a misguided RB rotation. But ... come on man. Either you OC is on top of stuff and getting what he want or he isn't. SL doesn't seem like a delegator to me. Not buying that at all.
Hatters gon' hat.
I listened to the podcast, and while Mike is well-spoken, his analysis is very narrative-based (and I doubt the accuracy of some of his points). Aside from his byline appearing on InsideTheACC (which published a preseason top 5 list of receivers in the ACC and left off Tyler Boyd), why should I consider him an authority on Loeffler or Virginia Tech?
The following is from a 2014 Washington Post excerpt (emphasis is my own).
(There are also post-game quotes from Shane in which he discusses his rational behind the situational substituting of the running backs. My Google-Fu at 12:31 AM is weak though.)
You mean to tell me the offensive coordinator called his own plays?
Here's what's missing from the conversation, Loeffler and Addazio was a marriage the worked well before. Loeffler was Addazio's offensive coordinator at Temple in 2011. Temple was No. 39 in scoring offense, and were No. 7 nationally in rushing (and the overwhelming amount of carries that season were split between Bernard Pierce and Matt Brown).
And, at every public speaking opportunity, Shane announced how important a role JC, Trey, Travon Marshawn, Michael Holmes etc. etc etc. would have in the game plan.
As much as it drives us nuts, lots of teams (especially those that use the spread) use this approach with running backs. It is a trend. The NFL and college thrived on multiple backs getting carries from the inception of modern offenses until the 70's. Jim Brown may have stayed on the field most snaps, but he split carries with Bobby Mitchell and Leroy Kelley. By the 70's, wishbone teams rotated backs and split carries three ways.
The change started with OJ Simpson and the rise of the I formation, and then took the next step with the one back offense. OJ, Charles White, George Rogers, and Herschel Walker all came in a short period of time where the tailback served as the primary ball carrier. Even Barry Switzer abandoned his wishbone for a short time to give carries to Marcus Dupree. Joe Gibbs then perfected the one back offense, which eliminated the second running option. Spread no huddle became in fashion with Ted Marchibroda's "KGun" used first by Boomer Esiason and then most famously by Jim Kelly.
Now, we are seeing a course correction. There are not enough elite backs (in part because running backs are so poorly valued by NFL GMs who don't want to invest with a player who loses his legs right after his first big contract due to wear and tear) to line up and pound teams except on the elite of the elite. Offensive coaches are returning to the mentality of having multiple options, mis-direction, and multiple running options on the field. The hurry up, at least in their mind, necessitates keeping fresh legs in the game.
I, and I would imagine most of you born between 1970-1990, have grown up with the idea of having the feature back, ie that kid from Varsity Blues-stamp his butt US Mail. I cringe when I saw the running back rotation and wanted to see the best back stay in the game when he started to get momentum. But, this isn't just two guys (Loeffler and Beamer) who are off their rocker when it comes to running back rotations. Their general philosophy is pretty much aligned with the industry standard.
Now, their timing for making switches and the use of those backs when on the field... to me that is fair game.
I was saying this all season, but would get little agreement here because the RB rotation was an easy target. There is nothing inherently wrong with a RB rotation. Some of VT's best seasons were when the carries got spread around among 3 backs and the QB.
I would argue that McMillian got overused (and misused to a lesser extent) once they committed to him as the number 1 back. I would not be shocked at all to see more Trey Edmunds in the mix next year.
except, the main issue with the rotation wasn't that we were using 3 or 4 backs. It was HOW they were being used. I don't have an issue with using 4 RBs in a game. I have an issue with using 4 RBs on a 5 play drive.
French alludes to that here:
The issue with the RB rotation was how they were used. Not that we were using 4 of them. I think you've mis-understood that this entire season.
The main issue with the RB rotation was that 2/3rds of the RB rotation didn't perform. JCC just couldn't get it going and Trey just runs too high and tentative to be effective.
It was still frustrating in the 2nd half of the year when it was just Mac and Rogers how Loeffler would sub out Mac after two good runs to put in the Rogers package. Everyone loves Mac and Rogers, but he still subbed in his packages to the detriment of momentum even when he was down to only two main tailbacks.
Edmunds in particular was terribly misused. Yet, even though he got a lot of predictable 3&short carries and goal line carries, his YPC numbers were still quite respectable.
Yep- I thought both Coleman and Trey were underutilized down the stretch. That isn't a knock on Travon. However, he clearly wasn't healthy late in the bowl game. JC had the fumble, so I understand being concerned, however Edmunds was averaging almost 6 yards and doesn't have a history of fumbling. Why were they putting McMillian out there on one leg after the Coleman fumble. Flabbergasting!
The complaints were generally not that nuanced. The complaints were mostly along the line of how VT needed to commit to a feature back because rotations don't work.
Yes and no. There was always a question in my mind as to how much autonomy OC Loeffler had when it came to play calling. This is not to say he was a figure head, but with the presence of Stinespring still on the staff and with Shane being on the Offense staff, I always wondered who was in charge of what when it came to the offense.
As far as Mike McDaniel goes, he seems just as reliable as other media types. A quick Google search reveals that he writes for a website called "Inside The ACC" and has been on ESPN Blacksburg so I'll just leave it there.
Why though? I've heard people say that before, but I just don't know why they would question it. I've never heard anything suggesting that Loeffler didn't call the plays.
I can't speak for the others, only myself. Okay here goes:
Early on his tenure, the play calling by OC Loeffler seemed inconsistent and, to me at least, it came into my head that Stinespring was influencing the play calling. Remember that some of us kept complaining that he was in the booth with the OC? I kept going back to the 2011 season when Stinespring was made Co-OC with O'Cain in the booth and him on the sidelines. Great season and Danny Coale caught that ball! Then in 2012, Stonespring was back in the booth and the Offense took a step back. Also the end of the streak. The idea then evolved, or devolved, into a question of perhaps it was Coach Frank Beamer who was calling in specific plays and overriding OC Loeffler sometimes. Keep in mind that OC Loeffler was billed as a real OC who was going to update the offense, so when I started seeing familiar tendencies with the play calling, well that's where the idea originated since the one constant between OC Stinespring and OC Loeffler was that they operated under Coach Beamer.
That's a whole lot of dots to connect to support your theories.
Loeffler's play calling - especially early in his tenure -- bore little resemblance to Stinespring's, IMO. Just think of his use of the inverted veer with LT...when did Stinespring take that approach schematically and thus with the play calling driven by that?
Although I recognized that it was not the most well thought theories, bordering on the tinfoil hat area of my personal psyche; I think people are putting way too much thought into this. Like I said in an earlier post on TKP, being a sports fan also means embracing the irrational, illogical and superstitious nature that I normally suppress as an engineer at work. ;-)
I don't think it's implausible to think that Coach Frank Beamer put constraints on the offense (or defense) in some ways. There is certainly evidence that he restricted what our offense was allowed to run in order to minimize risk of turnovers. Just think about how we NEVER threw the slant route for years and years and years. Vick, Randall, Vick2, Glennon, Taylor may have thrown all of 5 slant route passes combined. Do you think that that Bustle, Stinespring, Rogers, and O'Cain all magically came to the same opinion on slant routes?
Finally we started throwing some when Loeffler came in and we had LT3 behind center. (Brewer was arguably too short to be reliable throwing the slant .. unless of course we did something to accommodate his height like cut-block to create passing lanes on the play side, but I digress.) So maybe Beamer gave Loeffler more freedom in that regard.
Beamer was the boss. Beamer believed strongly in winning the battle of field position. While Beamer was not in any way a micromanager, you can bet - like any subordinate who likes his paycheck - Loeffler took general cues from his boss.
Stephen A. Smith writes for a website called ESPN.com and appears on ESPN, the television network.
So you're saying that if Stephen A. Smith wrote a piece or gave an interview about Virginia Tech, you wouldn't take him seriously? It could be that Mr. McDaniel is privy to some information that he has gathered while covering the ACC. I'm not saying definitively that this is the case, I'm just saying that I am not going to automatically discount what he says nor just make-up my mind that he is not knowledgeable about Virginia Tech. I guess I just don't get what the issue is with Mike McDaniel.
No. My point is just because someone is on the radio, TV, or the Internet, it doesn't automatically make them a credible news source.
In your original post, you presented Mike McDaniel as an authority on Virginia Tech. I'm challenging that. Another TKP staffer said "Who the fuck is Mike McDaniel, and why do I care about his opinions?" in our Slack chat when he saw this thread. The only credibly you've presented for Mike is he may or may not be credible. In no way does that convince me to take anything he said with anything other than a grain of salt.
Not to belabor the RB rotation issue, but couldn't it also be the case that OC Loeffler tells Shane Beamer that he wants to use multiple RBS because the new offense will be using different players for different packages so as RB coach its his responsibility to get the RBS reps. The how and when are left to Shane. The why is on Loeffler. BTW, apologies for any typos, this large smart phone gets heavy after a while and I'm typing in bed trying to get to sleep.
Wouldn't this create tendencies? If I were a DC, I would eat this up knowing guys who were good at running the ball on certain down and distances, and then other guys who were better at other things - backfield routes, pass blocking, etc.
I don't think that's what Mike McDaniel said, but regardless if he did or not it isn't a statement I'd agree with. Loeffler does use a multiple offense and even if he specifically requested that Travon be used on Jet Sweeps, it wouldn't explain why the other backs were rotated out seemingly every play.
Shane Beamer was responsible for deciding which backs would rotate into the base offense. He has admitted (even defended) that he wanted to rotate JC, Trey, Rogers, and Travon as frequently as he did. I disagreed with his game plans at the time and Travon's production since the switch has, I think, proven Shane's mistake.
So the OC didn't like the RB rotation, or the timing of those RBs being rotated, but he didn't have the authority to either end it or modify it? Doesn't that go against your point that OC Loeffler wasn't responsible for the RB rotation? Maybe he just agreed with the RB rotation implemented by Shane Beamer, maybe they are both responsible. For myself, the question has been answered, but I will be watching more BC games to see how much RB rotation occurs under Loeffler.
Whoever and whatever, he is Gone and I am damn glad. He brought nothing to the offense that showed improvement with His Play calling. BC , you got a bonehead.
How ironic to read this, and then read the 'Isaiah Ford Concludes Record-Setting Sophomore Season.....' post.
this is ridiculous. Loeffler left our offense 10 times better than it was when he got here. Even if the stats don't show it. Fuente and his staff have a lot less work to do than they would have if they were hired 4 years ago. To say he brought nothing to this offense is just plain wrong. We may not have gotten the high-flying Clemson offense that everyone wants around here but he improved the talent and installed concepts that we had been pining for for ages. The passing structure improved dramatically and we saw some spurts of brilliant play calling / play design. IT wasn't consistent and Loeffler may be stubborn when it comes to his game-plans but he's done more to help set this offense up for success than anything else. BC's offense this year was historically bad. They were just about dead-last across the board. I think Loeffler is an up-grade for them. I'm not surprised he ended up there. I've been suggesting that Loeffler would be a good fit with BC for 2 months now. He'll do just fine there.
Agree. Except I'm not sure that Loeffler will be a good fit with BC. But I'm not sure he won't either. It's not that his philosophy doesn't fit there, but that it requires certain players to make it work. Sometimes he'll have them there, sometimes he won't.
I think the number of places where his philosophy will work is dwindling. I think he would be really successful at a place like USC (but then lots of guys would be great there).
I guess what I meant was Loeffler to BC makes sense. Maybe it's not necessarily a great fit but he's worked with Adazio before and they were successful as a team. Adazio needs some improvement offensively and BC isn't going to draw top-end coaching talent. Loeffler needed a job and there is familiarity with Adazio so it's an easy sell for BC to get Loeffler. On the other side of the coin, BC badly needs an offense and Loeffler, sadly for BC, is probably about the best possible candidate they could realistically lure to Chestnut Hill. A perfect match IMO.
It will be interesting to see the effectiveness of Loeffler in the future, his stats dont bode well for him to say the least, but I agree, where we were 4 years ago, there HAS to be credit given to him and the staff, maybe we didnt perform on the field as hoped, but the level of talent has certainly improved.
I also think his time at Temple, could be attributed to Loeffler or it could be attributed to Bernard Peirce, I think there are pretty even arguments for both.
Offensive Efficiency for Temple (per ESPN)
2008 - score 26.3 rank 102nd
2009 - score 45.8 rank 70th - Pierce rushed for 1336 yds (freshman year)
2010 - score 38.6 rank 83rd - Pierce was injured missed about 5 games
2011 - score 60.2 rank 36th - Pierce rushed for 1481 yds Loeffler OC
2012 - score 40.7 rank 80th - both Pierce and Loeffler gone
Football is so interconnected its really hard to pinpoint metrics that pinpoint the effectiveness of a coaching staff...
Loeffler will be effective at BC if Addazio leads him there, like he did at Temple.
For all of Loeffler's faults, his biggest IMO was his running game. Addazio won't let Loeffler get away with such a poorly schemed running game and the fragmented playcalling sequences. It seems Loeffler can add value to BC in the passing game but he has the potential to screw up BC's bread-and-butter if Addazio doesn't overrule him in the running game.
I am not saying that OC Loeffler left the VT offense a mess. Nor am I calling him the anti-christ nor Hitler reincarnated, with regards to college football universe. My only point with this particular blog post was to introduce more evidence that we can piece together to discuss/talk about how much of the issues we as fans had with the offense under OC Loeffler. I'm actually pulling for him to be successful at BC, expect when they play VT of course, because I do think he is a good football coach. I just not completely sold on the idea that he is a good OC.
Biggest thing Loeffler gave us was a win over anOSU. No one can deny he had great play calling games and did a lot to set guys up for success in the future.
The offensive talent certainly improved under Loeffler, that's the biggest win I will give him.
Fundamentally, I disagree with his philosophy on how to run an offense but he improved the talent level.
And I am more than willing to give the man his dues. I know the highlight of his tenure as OC will be that win over OSU and some other great games, bowl wins over Cincinnati and Tulsa come to mind.
I am merely pointing out some of his deficiencies as an OC. I know that the guy did his best job for VT and I've read enough about him on this blog site and others to get the idea that he is really knowledgeable about college football in general and QBs are his specialty.
Regardless of how your takeaways were taken by others in this thread, I found the blog a good listen/read. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you.
I would like to know for sure when, in one of our games, Lefty changed his mind. I'm curious to know how we looked prior to him changing his mind and I'd like to see the result of one of his mind-changes.