Finally got a chance to see the entire game (I'm half-way around the world), and must say that watching our offense through four quarters wasn't what I had thought it might be - considering many others' comments around the web and Logan's stats of 25 of 43. Of course, they stuffed us in the middle, but the difference between this year and last year is that Loeffler had a notion of how to counter. I don't think the guy last year would have known what to do, or his scheme and receiver routes would have been up to the task. Two well-run series for six and several points left in the wind, I can't wait for the next game to see if we can put it all together. I really think some of the teams who try the same thing that ECU did, pack the line, are going to be made to pay by some of the things Loeffler did, for example, the TD series where Coles scored on a play action; last year we would have seen three runs to set up a field goal if we couldn't stick it in.
I'm hopeful. The O line "can" perform at a high level as evidenced by Alabama. The receivers "can" catch passes and Logan's settling down and getting it to them better. I also think we're seeing more variety in the use of our running backs and am optimistic that Edmunds, Mangus and Coleman (when healthy) are going to punish teams that stack against us and break more than a few on runs and screens. And above all, the offensive coordinator seems engaged and aware of what's happening. If we can get by Marshall, I'm really interested to see what else he has in his bag. I'm really hopeful for the first time in ten years that we have an offense that will be methodical and able to punch you in the mouth in more ways than one.
Can't wait to see the full Offense analysis on this site.
Go Hokies!
Comments
Logan had his best completion percentage since duke last year. We're making progress slowly but surely. I'll take it.
If we can work in a deep ball to Knowles that would be awesome. I really like what I'm seeing from Byrn and Stanford as well. We are close!
Except they get picked every time we try this
Deep balls have definitely been forced. Seems Knowles gets open on play before, then Logan will stare Knowles down all the way down the field leading to the interceptions.
I've thought a lot about the game and I think we are discounting Loeffler's smarts. 1) He knows how to game plan as shown vs. Bama 2) He knows how to make adjustments and setup plays for later in the game as shown throughout the games. Obviously execution KILLED us vs. Bama and is slowly getting better, but I think he is staying pretty vanilla against these non-ACC foes. As French and others have mentioned he didn't run many (if any) counters against ECU which I think is purely by design. I think he wants to put certain things on film and come ACC time have everything setup for him to open up the playbook. I think he's doing something similar (but opposite) to what French pointed out that Foster is doing, putting what he wants to put on film in order to mess with opposing coordinators.
I'm still amazed by us actually having a game plan and being able to make adjustments and not just run bubble screens all day.
It really is a lot more fun to watch the games this year, even if the offensive production hasn't been stellar.
And you are almost certainly right about Loeffler not using the full playbook. That's the only explanation for the lack of counters in the rushing attack.
Spot on. Between TKP increasing my football IQ and this I haven't enjoyed a football season like this since I was a student. I feel like we are FINALLY on the right path. I'm excited for the future of Hokie football; something I haven't said in a LONG time.
I'd torn between the two schools of thought:
1. Keep it Vanilla so opponents don't know your full capability - Lefty
2. Show them a whole range of stuff so they have more to plan for -- Bud
What do you think about those two approaches? I for one like Lefty's approach better, but Bud is Bud and he's a lot better at this than I am.
I think each approach works for their side of the ball. On offense, show them nothing so they don't know what to expect and can't figure out tendencies. On defense show them all these players doing everything so that you have to try to plan for something that may not happen which may play into the defensive game plan. Also the QB in real time won't know which player is blitzing or what coverage you are in because you've shown every and any thing. Foster is a genius. Loeffler is on the path towards it.
I don't think Lefty is trying to hide potential study film from opponents as much as he's slowly introducing his philosophy to his players and staff. Lefty's had about 9 months to work with his current players/staff (excluding Grimes). Bud has worked with some of these players for 5 years. He's worked with Wiles and Torrian for longer.
Lefty seems to have a vision for what his offense will look like, but the offense isn't there yet. Bud on the other hand has completely implemented his full defense. I view Lefty's 'Vanillla' offense as teaching/practicing the basics. Conversely, Bud's unit is 100% up to speed, so rather than practice the basics (which everyone should have down) he can practice for different scenarios and exceptions.
I certainly think that's part of it, but it doesn't explain his lack of use of counters and counter-type plays in the ECU and WCU games. We showed more of the playbook in the Bama game (triple option, counter, etc) then in any of the other games. Sure he wants them to learn the basics and fundamentals but he also is only using the parts of the playbook that he thinks he can beat these OOC opponents with so as not to tip his hand. I think he wanted to just keep running against ECU and had to use the spread look which, my guess is, wasn't want he planned or wanted to do, but decided that was better to use than to dust off the counter plays.
Another positive note about the offense against ECU - the WRs are actually blocking well downfield and running good routes. Additionally, and probably most importantly, the drops have decreased since that horrendous showing against Alabama.
Serious question - how many OLs in the 2-deep who played against ECU are either currently dealing with injuries, rehabbing old injuries, or have never reached 100% since their last major injury? I know about Wang, Benedict, and Miller - are there any others? Shuman didn't play at all because of his injury situation. Our offensive line is basically a MASH unit.
Final comment - we left 7 points on the table against ECU - two missed FGs, and a missed extra point. By all rights, the final score should have been 25 -10. There was another FG missed late in the game, but that play was negated by a roughing the kicker penalty against ECU. Moving forward, I'm confident Journell will be able to overcome whatever caused him to perform so badly against ECU.
Technically it was a "running into the kicker" penalty good for 5 yards. I think a "roughing the kicker" would have resulted in 15 and automatic 1st down. Semantics.
It was stated as a "roughing" the kicker penalty. I was shocked that it wasn't 1st down at that point. Having not seen the game, and only getting updates, I was pondering myself if there was a rule change in this. I remember at some point they were talking about getting rid of the running into/roughing distinction and just making it one penalty, but I don't know what they did with it.
ESPN's Gamecast incorrectly reported it as roughing. That's how I was following along, and couldn't imagine why it was only a 5-yard penalty to bring up 4th-and-1.
Gamecast also said that Mark Shuman got credit for the safety at the end of the game...
It was called "running into the kicker" by the ref on the microphone and echoed by the Fox announcers, who also differentiated the penalty from the more severe "roughing the kicker"
This was definitely the most effective I have seen Logan play in some while. I was saying to my friend that if teams focus too much on the run and allow Logan to get into a rhythm, this could be great in the long run. Everyone saw what one great game against Miami did for his confidence back in 2011...
In regards to Loeffler, I really don't see why everyone is giving him so much credit. I feel like everyone is so excited that we no longer have idiots calling our plays that they overlook the fact that we had only two good drives. TWO! And please don't say that we should keep running the ball "because it keeps the D honest". This may be true if our play action was even remotely crisp, but it's not. We run some of the most sloppy play action "fakes" I've ever seen. I know we're supposed to be the big, physical Hokies, but if the runs not working, throw the ball. Especially when Logan is looking sharp.
And I'm dedicating another paragraph to this because it pissed me off so much. You want to know what a smart coach calls on fourth and short? I'll give you a hint: ANYTHING but a run up the middle. When you are in obvious run situations like at the goal line or 4th and 1, only an absolute fool runs up the middle, especially when your OL hasn't gotten any push all game. Loeffler can do whatever he wants to get us in good situations, but when he makes calls like that, he's going to lose us games.
I think you are being extremely short sighted (or is it sided?) but it's your opinion and you are allowed to be. The game plan was to run the ball, something we should have been able to do and something that needs to be able to get done in order for us to be successful. The fourth and short call was somewhat questionable but you have 6'6 260 lbs batter ram at QB and an OL that should be able to get a push. I don't think that call was bad, it ate up some clock and they got the ball back deep in their own territory going against a D playing balls out. We obviously couldn't kick it given CoJo's issues so try a low turnover risk play and see what happens.
Logan looked improved but I would hardly call him "sharp". If ECU could hold on to the ball he easily would've had 3+ picks in the game. This passing game still has a ways to go and I can't fault Loeffler a bit for not 100% trusting it.
We obviously dis-agree but I think everything Loeffler is doing right now is paving the way (both by establishing fundamentals and what he puts on film) to ACC play and (hopefully) beyond. We should a complete different playbook against Bama then we have against WCU and ECU. I think it's all part of the SL master plan.
Why are we giving Loeffler so much credit?
Every realistic fan understands that our offense has a LONG way to go. However, we're finally moving in the right direction.
except LT threw the ball 43 times. And completely abandoning the run in a close game is never the answer. It eats clock and does more than open up play-action (which might not look crisp from our vantage point but we did get a wide open DJ Coles TD out of it) but it keeps the defense from putting everyone in pass coverage every play.
I do agree with you thinking the 4th and 1 QB sneak was pretty predictable and Loeffler could have drawn up something more creative especially when the O-line was getting manhandled BUT more often than not that play WILL work with LT as seen in 2011 when we ran it every 2/3/4 and short.
If you have 1 yard to gain and a 6'6" QB, there really shouldn't be any excuse for not getting the first down. Yes, everyone is expecting it but you should be able to execute. Logan can lay down at the line of scrimmage and get 2 yards. I'm assuming that most people's definition of a "run up the middle" is a run that follows the center, but if you watch Logan, he tries to follow his best Guard. No way he's going to run it off a tackle. He typically follows Andrew Miller hoping that his path has been cleared. Execution there comes down to the OL getting 1 yard of push and that's it. It's not really that much to ask.
I remember having the thought during the game that Grimey is probably driving the point home to our OL that we ARE going to run the ball. I think reinforcing the mindset had as much to do with the run/pass distribution under challenging conditions (8 in the box) as anything. Grimes may have been evaluating talent in this game, too. (re:Benedict starting the game). So, we'll see...remember...
Actually, we had 4 decent drives -
- 70 yards and a TD in the 1st Q;
- 75 yards and a TD in the 3rd Q,
- 43 yards and a missed FG in the 4th Q,
- 48 yards that resulted in an inability to convert a 4th and 1 at the ECU 10 in the 4th Q.
What other have said above rings true. I would add one more important facet that nobody have touched on: attention to details.
Loeffler was hard on Thomas about missing check downs, and made it a point of emphasis during the practices leading up to the WCU game. Then in the ECU game, we saw Thomas actually hitting his check downs or making audible if he felt something was funny (one of that audibles lead to a brilliantly placed throw for a first down, IIRC).
Think that Grimes' stomach was developing ulcer when he turned on the film? I'm sure that both Loeffler and Grimes were having steams coming out of their ears when they saw how ECU dominated the OL.
I cannot remember hearing Thomas or Miller both saying that the line's play was unacceptable. That was sorely missing last year...accountability. Additionally, today, I learned that Tariq Edwards was not pleased with his performance. He actually said that he felt like he was slow when he watched film. I cannot, in the history of following Virginia Tech football (2004-present for me), recall one single Hokie who criticized himself.
Loeffler brought a brand of football that was missing in Blacksburg for the last decade - a physical, no-nonsense smashmouth football that chewed up and spit up opponents (win or lose), and I firmly believe that Loeffler has the offense trending in the right direction. He was spot on when he said the only way to bring his vision of a physical, hard-nosed, mud-stomping, ass-kicking football through recruiting. Thank God that Grimes has received verbals from five offensive linemen. Not tight ends who were destined to be bulked up, moved the line, and floundered. Offensive linemen!
I don't think Shane Carden would rate Tariq as "slow."
He called passing plays. 43 out of 77 plays SL called were passing plays according to 3rdand31's film review. I would say 98% of the time when it 4th and 1 or 4th and inches coaches are going to run up the middle or a QB sneak. Why? Because it works more often than it doesn't. Even the boys who play on Sunday run that.
A play action with someone leaking into the flats or the corner of the endzone works 100% of the time if the fake is believable; us running the ball up the middle with Logan has worked maybe 25% of the time since the start of last season. Here's my thing; we can all sit here and make these statements about "the future" or "our players are being accountable for once", but it really doesn't mean shit. It's kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy; we all want to think that Loeffler will flip the switch so we subconsciously remember things differently than they really were. All we have right now are facts, which are that our offense has looked very average and the play calling, the same.
In regards to Logan, it's well documented in my other posts that I don't think very highly of him. That being said, while he did have some questionable throws on Saturday, that was one of the more effective games he has played since 2011. If he is having an above average day, why not throw the ball more? 43/77 is only 56%. We were running the ball for basically 1 yard a carry. Which brings me to the point I made earlier, why run the ball in an obvious run situation where a shallow crossing route over the middle is just as safe and has been effective all day? Whatever. I really hope Loeffler ups his game for Marshall.
I disagree with a play action being successful merely because a fake is believable. For one, you still have to make the throw accurately, something that you can't take for granted with streaky Logan Thomas. Secondly, the receiver still has to make the catch, something that you can't take for granted with Tech's streaky receiver corp.
And most importantly, defensive coordinators get paid too. If every 4th and short a team runs a play action, you can be guaranteed that by the end of the season defenses will be swarming that play call. Imagine what Foster would do to a team that ALWAYS play faked on 4th and short.
Totally agree
Things that need to be succesful for us running the ball-our offensive line blocking, which you really can't take for granted with our offense.
And I'm stating this as fact: In the NFL, that play works every time. Literally every single time. Maybe not in college, but it does in the NFL. When a defense gets a goal line stand, I would say 90% of the time, the offense ran 2 unimaginative runs,a play action on third down (when it was predictable), and then another unimaginative run of 4th. If the offense had just ran a PA bootleg on first down, they'd be watching their defense play instead of listening to the boo-birds. (I've watched NFL for way longer than I have college so my expereince with what works and what doesn't is mostly predicated on the former. And yes, I'm aware VT plays college football, but that doesn't excuse us for making pussy play calls.)
That's just not the case. A bootleg is easily defensible even if the play fake is amazing. There are many things a defensive coordinator can do to put his defenders in a position to stop the play if he knows it's coming.
To just say "Every short yardage situation the play call should be play action" doesn't take into account that maybe the reason such a high percentage of those play fakes work is because they are only called when the defense is absolutely selling out to stop the run. If the defense isn't completely selling out, then the odds are definitely better to run then to pass.
The short yardage run may have been the wrong call (I don't even think it was the wrong call, the offensive line should have executed their blocks, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that it was the incorrect call), but it definitely wasn't a "pussy play call".
I think that Loeffler's non-inclusion of some of the playbook is partially due to less-than-full installation at this point, and partially tailoring the game plan to the defense we're playing against. I think a providential side effect is that we aren't showing our hand to folks like GT, UNC, & Miami. I think if we hit on all cylinders on offense, we're gonna be scary.
For whatever reason I just read the "not offensive" part of this thread's title like this:
What stuck out to me about the offense is the drive after East Carolina went up by three. It impressed me to see the offense come out the very next drive and make East Carolina look completely confused the whole drive. Between short pass routes, screens, run plays, and play action it was very unpredictable what was coming next which hasn't happened in a long time. The Red Zone play calling was perfect. I am excited for the future of the offense based off that series due to the fact that I think we have a coach now that will actually make adjustments in game. Can't wait to see what our offense will look like when he gets his style of recruits in the system.