Only reason I was ok w this hire was because it seemed to be an improvement over our High School competent offensive coaching staff. I did not buy any of the QB coach hype.. Tom Brady at Michigan, Tim Tebow at Florida.. I only gave him credit for his Temple stats and really did not blame him for the Auburn blemish either.
I felt like the media and fans hyped him up to be something special but that it was hollow as it related to his previous accomplishments that pretty much were undocumented.. meaning there was a lot of sizzle and little steak and we did not know what we were getting w Loeffler.
Listen I know VT has basically no talent on Offense.. no skill players to think of that we start walk on players etc. I get all of that. Edmunds should be a LB and JC is a scat back at best. We do not have a legitimate feature back, I understand all of that.
-AU under Loeffler was #115 ranked offense.
-Mahlzan takes the same group and has them ranked #13 in the country.
-AU is running wild over their opponents.. maybe ranked #8 in the country in rushing offense
-It is the same group that Loeffler had with the exception of a new QB and a new LG.
-Dont fool yourself, AU is killing folks w almost the same players on offense.
-VT has regressed and rank around #110 on offense
-A new OC hire is supposed to provide some sort of a boost, not get worse
-I would have been happy w a #70-80 offensive ranking
-If our QB is running the ball for 100 yds in a game, that disguises how ineffective our traditional run game is
-Loeffler should get more time to prove himself.. maybe 2 years at best but the jury is out big time and I am not surprised based on his undocumented/unproven prior record. Sorry, he does not get a pass from me because Lloyd Carr said so..
Comments
I think you hit the nail on the head. There are obviously some things you want to see that we aren't seeing from a new OC hire. Some people have hit on it, and I am in deep waters here (i.e. I don't have the full understanding of the situation) so I am not going to delve into this too much...From what I understand, feel free to correct me here, the previous offensive staff really dropped the ball on recruiting some good talent. Loeffler has to deal with subpar offensive line, subpar wide receivers, OK running backs and a decent QB (yes decent, serviceable, say what you want). I think the issues really start with the O-line. If they can't execute decently, then nothing is going to go right, timing is off, holes close up, pressure on QB, etc.
I thought last night, the running game looked better and I am not sure why we didn't lean on that more. That being said, give Loeffler a good 3 years. He was only able to start implementing his offense in the spring, then had to stop and resume 30 days before Alabama. It takes a few years to get the offensive fully installed and in an evolutionary state (evolving every game), and to get the right players to run it.
I just don't buy the it takes years to get an offense installed argument. Like the original post said Auburn has done it in the same amount of time we have. May not have the talent necessary but I feel like I am watching the O of old when I can predict what play is going to be run a lot of the time. I get what pre snap motion is supposed to do but like in the past were not fooling anyone. The read plays take way too long to develop and by the time we finally decide to hand it to a RB running east west even a bad defender is in the backfield. That means were asking a QB who is obviously not comfortable doing so yet to run a read option, fake it then look downfield and TRY to go through progressions again which he is not comfortable doing. If we can see this why can't coaches. We could have run every play out of a power I yesterday and based on the few plays we did that they gained positive yards then run play action giving your QB maybe two options and if not there throw it away. All this presnap shit ain't fooling anyone so adjust. Other person that needs to take some heat is "mr tip o the spear". Grimes better show us something in the next year or two as well unless that too will take several more years to fully install!
Consider the circumstances, Gus Malzahn recruited his players at Auburn, then was replaced by Chizik for Loeffler and Co. To bridge the gap Chikiz had Loeffler run a hybrid offense, with players fit for Malzahn's HUNH, not a prostyle multiple attack. It should be a surprise to no one that Malzahn returned to Auburn and has had immediate success. Not only is he a brilliant man, but his offense is geared to be a quick install, and his players were already there. At Tech again Loeffler fell into a situation lacking talent for his scheme. There's a reason this staff is trying to sign 4-5 receivers and 5 o-linemen in the 2014 cycle. The cupboard needs to be restocked.
There were both bad play calls and missed execution yesterday. Based on other comments you've made, my guess is you can't predict plays based on formation or motion. The read option is different than the veer / inverted veer, which is what we run with Logan.
Here here to this:
Malzahn should be considered the gold standard of offensive coordinators. Sure, Helfrich is a great OC but hasn't been as successful at Malzahn in as many places. Malzahn is an innovator on offense.
Malzahn : Offense :: Foster : Defense
If those two ever teamed up the world would implode.
I move we keep going with Lefty, we've seen some good stuff out of him, and I think that things will get better. However, the thought of a Foster/Malzhan coaching staff does send shivers down my spine. Is Fat Frank Beamer allowed to come too?
IMO Chip Kelly, Gus Malzanh and Chad Morris are the three most innovative offensive coaches in the last decade of college football. There's a reason Chip is in the NFL and Gus is a head coach in the SEC. Morris might pull a Bud Foster and stay at Clemson for sometime, but there will be many opportunities for him to advance his career in the next few years.
But I very much agree with Joe, Auburn's success is not at all surprising.
Chad Morris learned everything from Gus Malzanh and Art Briles, but yea, he's doing a pretty good job on his own.
As and Auburn grad and lifelog Hokie fan, I have been thinking about this since 2010. Bud Foster is one of the (if not the) best DC in the country, and Malzhan is one of (if not the) best offensive-minded coach in the country.
You have no idea how giddy I got at just the mere thought of Auburn hiring away Bud Foster last year...the probability of it happening was <0.01% (probably lower), but the mere thought of it got my football mind all excited...
Two years ago I had a discussion with a Big Auburn fan over who had the worst offensive coordinator. Much to my dismay we hired the only person that I have ever had anyone try to tell me was a worse than Stinespring. After yesterdays performance I think I might have actually been wrong.
Do you not realize that we moved the ball effectively but just didn't finish drives? The finishing part isn't really on the play caller but the players. Four turnovers doesn't help. Especially Logan's decision to try to be a hero on the play inside the 10 and threw a pick in the end zone.
To add onto that comment, I think what really killed us was stalling out on the 30 whenever we did have offensive success. If we had a kicker that could nail 45 yarders, the offense would have done it's job and scored just enough to win. You still want to see the offense get the ball into the endzone, but the output was there.
Thanks, I was gonna include that but I didn't wanna bash Logan and Cody in the same comment.
Yeah, I'm not big on player bashing but the field position game isn't as effective when you don't have a good kicker. You have to be able to finish drives, and we seem to only have a couple finishing moves each game. We botched one TD on an illegal motion, and missed two field goals. Long drives that eat clock and only end in 3 are fine as long as we have this defense. We can't afford zeros though.
Agreed, their two FG were from > 50 yards. Meaning they didn't even get into the red zone but still came away with points. All three of our FG attempts were closer than any of theirs, and we only got 1/3 of them. It was literally the difference in the game
Loeffler didn't throw the 4 INTs out there yesterday, and the second INT was one of the worst I've ever seen; 10 yds behind a receiver who was wide open. Logan had a day that rivaled Journell's earlier this year.
I think there are a lot of parallels between Auburn last year and VT this year. In my mind, not all of the blame falls squarely on Loeffler. His play-calling yesterday was disheartening and confusing. I am upset with him for it and I place a lot of blame on him because of it. But here's what I'm trying to keep in mind:
1. Auburn recruited spread players and wanted Loeffler to install a pro system. Then Chizik interfered with the offense and it got worse. Square peg, round hole. We don't have the players that Loeffler needs to execute his schemes. We lost good receivers, have an O-line that's cobbled together, and have no go-to RB (and we haven't for a few years). That's on the previous coaches for not recruiting well enough. Auburn is turning around because Malzahn has the same spread players and he's now running a spread offense.
2. Auburn had a QB who was a great athlete and not a great QB. Sound familiar? Frazier is now a safety. Logan is a great athlete and I love his heart and dedication, but it's not enough. I keep reminding myself that we have great QBs in the pipeline.
As you said, he deserves more time. That's very true. If we're still in this position in 2-3 years (enough time to keep recruiting and develop the talented incoming QBs), then we have a serious problem.
There is a world of difference in talent between what Auburn has to work with this year, and what VT has.
And from what we hear, there is a world of difference in the situation Loeffler was in with regards to control over the offense compared to Mahlzan.
I think anyone that says his grace period is up this early is ignoring the complete disarray this Offense was in after years of Stiney trying to implement an "Everything" scheme, and the complete Oline retooling required after years of Newsome training converted tight-ends to bunny-hop their ways through D-1 football.
Loeffler gets a grace period that should last at least 2 years IMO. That's 2 years to get his and Grimeses players into the system.
2 years of a QB recruited for the ability to play within Loeffler's system learning the ropes. Likewise for Oline recruits.
Logan was recruited as a TE/QB. The reason he is a QB is because we failed in recruiting the QBs who were our first priority. And the reason we failed to recruit those QBs is because highly recruited QBs were generally smart enough to look at Newsome's sieve of a line, and Stiney's system & results and grok that VT is a graveyard for pocket passers and therefore a graveyard for pro-hopes.
I'm not saying Logan can't be a great QB. He's shown he has the ability. He needs the consistency that comes with repetitions in a coherent system. The previous system wasn't coherent, and he's just out of time for the number of reps that he really ought to have to truly internalize this system. Hopefully yesterday was just a bad day and he'll get back on track next week. I really respect him as a person and as a player, and want nothing but the best for him.
In the end, I know yesterday was a crushing reminder that we have a long way to go offensively, but I see a lot of promise for the future still.
This year is just going to be a grind.
I wanna know why people on here calling out Loeffler? There was a couple bad play calls yesterday, but Logan Thomas is unfixable. Hes an average qb and always will be. And everyone has their right to an opinion. Logan had great pass protection yesterday and he had wrs open all day long yesterday. Its not loefflers fault that logan cant throw the damn ball. Time and time again yesterday logan threw into double and triple coverage when there was an open wr. The 4th INT he threw coulda been the game winner for us, but logan doesn't know how to read defenses or go through progressions. We should let Loeffler get his players and his qb in here first before we crucify the guy for the old regimes short comings. END RANT
We're calling out Loeffler here because how many 1st down plays did he call for a qb draw of some sort that went for no gain or less than a yard. There was some fake read option (Logan wasn't doing any reading obviously).
I'm pretty sure the TD run was a QB draw
It's become quite apparent that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please see the section titled "French" at the top of the screen.
Loeffler ran so many veer/inverted veer plays because 1) Thomas is his best runner (100 yards yesterday), 2) It sets up just about everything else in the offense and 3) It's one of the few things our offensive talent has been able to execute with any sort of consistency this year.
Reality'd
My man TechHokie13 the fantasy coach dropping the science once again. I was waiting for you to weigh in on yesterday's game. Did you see the hit Trey Edmunds put on the Duke defender after the interception on the Hokie's last possession in the fourth quarter? I really think Trey would be a better linebacker than running back, he just not quite natural at that position in my eyes. Also think Logan would have been better developed as a tight end. What do you think coach?
Lolz.
I'll go ahead and take a chance to feed my own ego here. For starters, I haven't weighed in on Saturday's game yet because quite honestly, I didn't want to deal with the majority of the people on the internet. Also, the hit Trey put on that guy was a thing of beauty. Dude hits like a truck and I like it. He probably would have been pretty darn good as a LB, but our options at RB were/are limited, so I can't blame the coaches for keeping him there.
As for Saturday, sometimes you're off, simple as that. I know a lot of people have complained about the playcalling, but really, I don't think you can second-guess that too much. During the game, I could see a clear reason for just about everything Loeffler called, and really can't complain. I'm definitely interested in seeing what French & co. have to say with the benefit of film review. This was one the worst games of Logan's career, plain and simple. His overthrow of Josh Stanford was reminiscent of his pick-six against Clemson last year, and he seemed to be just slightly off on some of his throws. That said, he still had some very good throws and didn't get a whole lot of help from his receivers, so it definitely could have been either much better or much worse than it was Saturday.
Something I really wish people would consider about Logan Thomas: I consider him to be a r-Freshman in terms of QB development. In the past 8 months, he's gotten a new OC/QB coach, a new system, new mechanics, has been taught to actually go through progressions for the first time (remember how he always locked onto one receiver? Well, what do you expect when that's all you're taught to do?) and done ALL of this with a group of extremely inexperienced receivers. Growing pains are to be expected. "But, it's the 8th game of the season!" Yes it is, but coming off a bye week, just about everything looked sloppy, which Loeffler said was a big concern with such a young team. My point is this: the man's tough as nails, is the unquestioned leader of this team and is far and away our best option at QB. You won't see Leal, and you don't want to. Yes, Thomas probably would have been better off at TE, but we didn't have any good QBs in the program (lookin' at you, O'CainSpring system) and that ship has sailed a long, long time ago. Logan is human. He'll have bad games and then there will be times he puts the offense on his back and grinds out a win all by himself. See GT this year. To expect perfection all the time is insanity. Even elite QBs have off days, just see Brady, Peyton, and RG3 from yesterday. It happens. Deal with it, learn from it and move on. We're still in this thing, still 6-2 and yesterday's game, while still a very bad loss, will not break our season. BC game in 6 days, time to right the ship.
I can not tell you how much I agree with this. So I won't. I will just say that it gets a turkey leg. Oh, and, when everyone sh1ts at the same time, the whole place just stinks.
Good points coach! That's why I look forward to your posts. You know I'm pretty happy how this season has gone so far. I honestly expected maybe 8-4, and they have 6 wins already. The defense is a big surprise and a good consolation to the fluttering offense. Also, I'm very excited about the future recruits and what they might accomplish. Still think we need to sign a few more explosive skill players on offense, hopefully D.J. Reid will actually join the mix next year.
I'm tickled you consider me a coach, but I'll take it. And yes, the recruiting class of offensive skill players we currently have, plus a couple more of our final targets, if they'll pull the trigger for the good guys, will help immensely. Add to that the Fab 5 (and possibly Sexy 6, yes I just made that up), and you see 2 things. 1, as I believe Joe has pointed out, there ain't a whole lotta talent for the coaches to work with in Blacksburg and 2, they're trying like you wouldn't believe to get said talent into Blacksburg. I'm excited to see where this team can go once the cupboard's restocked.
Logan isn't good, but Loffler's playcalling might be even worse.
That's not loefflers fault? if its 4th an 1 you obviously sneak with the qb we have cuz he sure as hell cant be trusted to throw it. Its not loefflers fault the oline was getting ZERO push. Logan and Journell were the 2 that deserve most of the criticism from last night even tho there is a tad to go around elsewhere. Whats sad is that duke didn't even have a catch in the 2nd half at all and was 0-11 on 3rd downs and threw 4 ints lol
I have a question for french, Mason, whoever can answer it, because it has been a point of frustration for me for a long time regarding the offense. I hope it's taken seriously because I don't want to add to a flame war over yesterday's game:
After watching VT yesterday, then tuning into, well, all the other games, it seems like we always have trouble executing even the most basic plays. Mizzou ran a screen pass yesterday and it appeared to be pretty well covered, but still went for something like 46 yards. Oregon runs screens and it blows defenses wide open. But when we do it, they never go anywhere.
I know we don't have a Henry Josie (who looks amazing, if you haven't seen him) or a DeAnthony Thomas, but why is it that it seems like other teams execute these plays for gains in yardage, and for years we haven't been able to do the same thing. Even running off-tackle seems like an exercise in futility.
Why does it seem like we are always failing to demonstrate what looks like an elementary level of offensive competence? I watch a LOT of college football and I can't say I've seen anyone else struggle this mightily, even against good defenses, even this late in the season (anyone playing against Alabama or FSU for the last two weeks excluded).
We like to use Wr screens, personally I wanna see more rb screens to guys like coleman or mangus. I haven't seen any of those that I can recall
I guess I should clarify that I don't specifically mean screens, but all plays we run. We can run any play and it will look worse or result in less than when other teams do the same thing.
Ill take a stab at this...I am going to say the level of talent on our Offense and a coherent offensive philosophy. This is not an indictment of the new offensive coaches just an indictment of the last ten years. Also not saying that we need 5 star guys but they can help.
I'll bite as I'd had the same observation. (not a guru....official disclaimer.)
I think it's a combination of lack of talent and lack of execution.
I tend to be Pollyanna when it comes to our players 'cause I love them and they're Hokies and I truly believe (except for a certain WR from last year, and maybe a certain kicker this year) that they are busting it.
I'm not convinced this year that it's bad coaching-jury's still out, (although I'm starting to wonder about RB).
Previous years, we've had enough talent, but atrocious coaching on offense, but we lost the majority of talent (and coaching, thankfully) last year.
Maybe too simplistic, but we need better recruiting and time to let the coaches do their jobs...so for me, average fan, it will take patience.
That's part of the fun, for me, of this season. If you told me at the beginning that we would have a losing season, I wouldn't have been that surprised. The rest is gravy at this point.
We could beat, or be beaten, by any team left on our schedule, so I'm just gonna hold on for the ride and not get too upset about much at all.
Me, I'm emotionally invested in this team at this point. They've demonstrated to be a large group of tough SOBs. I want them to win dammit. I know they might not. I know at times a loss will even be probable. But they're just tough as all hell. The personalities on this team are good ones. Not a whole lot of people out there trying to be showboats who think they're better than the team (there are exceptions).
For me, the plan for the rest of the season is grit my teeth during the game, and let a few tears roll when the guys that I want to succeed don't. Not because I'm so sad that my team isn't the best. Instead because I know that an incredible group of guys are disappointed in themselves.
To me it is pretty simple. Duke gave up 58 points to Pitt. I mean, think about that for a minute. We ran more than 80 plays, had the ball for almost 40 minutes...AND Duke did not convert a 3rd down. If anything, Duke's defense should have been so gassed, the nursing home intramural team should have been able to put up more than 10 points. This game made Stiney look like Chip Kelly compared to Loeffler.
I totally get where you're coming from though. Here were my take aways though:
It's always hard to say what's going to happen with a game. I'm not really surprised by this loss. Doesn't mean it didn't hurt though. But I'm glad it hurts. It means I care still. It also means that they guys who aren't on their couch hurt too. It means the guys out there on the field hurt. If this team is who I think they are, they won't just sit down, look at each other and say "Damn you Lefty, we need to fire Beamer, we need to fire Loeffler, we need to bench Thomas," the way everyone around here has been.
They're going to look at each and say, "We need to give more. We need to play harder. We need to prepare better. Let's go out there, and play our nuts off." This is mostly directed toward the offense. I don't think the defense can possibly play their nuts off any more than they already are. But from what I've seen of this offense (with some very notable exceptions), it's a much tougher unit than last years unit. It's possibly a much tougher unit than any I've seen in a long time. I don't think it's the most talented unit we've ever had, far from it in fact. But there's something very special about this year's team.
Agreed that we should have put up more points. But blaming Loeffler for the lack of offense!? What play was working so well that he went away from!? What play worked so well in the past that he abandoned!?
This team can't run for over 100 yds without bribing the defense. Pitt could, but we're not Pitt. Duke took away the one thing that Logan has shown he can do; hit receivers underneath. What he can't do is consistently go through his progressions and make an accurate throw. He showed that yesterday.
The other thing Logan can do is drop his shoulder and pick up 3 yds per pop. He showed he can do that too yesterday, which would have been good enough to win the ballgame if he hadn't thrown 4 INTs. The only thing I blame Loeffler for is letting Logan throw at all.
Hmmm... Personally, I wasn't super pumped when the Loeffler hire was made. I really thought we needed a "system" offense guy-- someone from Baylor, Oregon, etc... Someone that could implement an offensive system... Instead we got someone who runs a "multiple" Offense, which is how our Offense was described when Ocainspring was at the helm.... As far as I can tell, "multiple" means you don't do anything well.
Obviously, loeffler has to play the hand that was dealt, but unfortunately we need/want it now. Like someone else said ITT, we havent run a good looking screen, since Parker and Edmunds were the Fullbacks here. I'm just tired of watching crappy offense. I'm also not fully buying the we have no talent line either. I can accept that Logan isn't a QB, but we have 3 RB's who are/were highly ranked. On the OL, Gibson, Benedict, Shuman, Miller, were all highly ranked and had very good offers. I know it doesnt mean they will be any good, but it generally is a n indicator of likely talent. I do think we lack talent at TE and WR, albeit they are doing an admirable job after a rough start. I guess I just thought we would at least be coached up into a better run game. I guess I just miss the mid-late 90s offense, where we would just line up and smash you in the face.
I do have some questions on QB play, though:
When was the last time Beamer ever yanked a starting QB? (maybe Glennon vs LSU?)
Why is Logan untouchable? -- Why not see what Leal has to ffer at this point, since we will need him next year. And if it really is because Logan is that much better, then we are in a heap of poo next year.
Yesterday, Spurrier yanked his starter when they went down 17-0. It provided a spark and USC came back to win. Whats wrong with Beamer trying that, Logan didn't have it yesterday. Maybe it sparks the offense, but Beamer never gives it a chance...IMO..
To be fair with your last point, the second stringer had started the game because the starter (Shaw) was still recovering from injury, then at the half I think they said screw it, and put Shaw in. So the argument there is slightly invalid. Just slightly.
Very true. But I'm just thinking about the premise for VT. Who knows if it would have sparked something? I'm just kind of playing the what if game here.
I'm not so sure we're gonna need Leal next year honestly. Take Thomas out and the little bit of offense we had goes out the window.
We have two other QBs on the depth chart as well who are both really young. Whenever the coaches talk about Thomas, they talk about him as a leader. His playing qualities kind of get washed over. I can only assume this speaks to something about Leal. I don't know what it is, but the coaches just don't feel like if he's on the field everyone's going to play to the best of their abilities. Sure he might be talented, talented enough to be the best choice if Logan gets injured, but there's just something that the coaches are worried about.
I feel like next year those younger quarterbacks are the choices for starter.
The very premise of a "multiple" offense is to find and exploit mismatches. If you don't have personnel that can win many one on one battles... well your offense is going to struggle.
It is VERY telling that the Hokie offense hasn't had many big, explosive plays.
Were our RBs just overrated in HS, or is the OL just bad? Combo?
I guess most of it is just on Logan then, because there were plenty of WRs open yesterday. I would think all the more proof that we could have at least seen if someone else could have at least gotten the ball to them, IMO .
Trey Edmunds: # 16 LB in the nation out of high school.
JC Coleman: #10 RB in the nation per 247 sports, up to #46 RB in nation by other services.
C. Mangus: #32 RB per 247 sports.
J. Caleb: #7 athlete in nation, thought of as a WR prospect out of high school.
Herp derp can't analyze offense, default to blame quarterback. Obviously he didn't play perfectly, but I doubt Logan was the primary cause of the offensive failures. The film will tell the true story, but I don't (want to) believe that Logan lost all of his progress over a bye week. Something else had to have happened Saturday
I'm afraid you're wrong.
Zero sacks (and no knockdowns that I remember) shows he wasn't pressured at all. He was given great field position all day, except for that drive that started at the 1, so no pressure there. His receivers seemed to be running the same routes they always do (Bryn on the 5yd drag, Stanford the 15 yd in, Kline on the seam with outside release, Knowles on the post or the fly, RB releasing over the middle). If I know where these guys are going (and they'll be running the same routes next week too) then Logan sure as well should. His job is to play point guard out there; read the coverage, identify the open man and throw it. He has a progression to go through, which probably differs on a few plays. But he was lost out there yesterday, and the 4 INTs prove it. There wasn't a ton of drops or a multiple INTs on tipped balls (the last INT was a tip in traffic, a throw he shouldn't have made; give him half an INT.) Logan actually looked better in the spring game than yesterday (only 3 INTs against a better defense).
Ford can't get hear fast enough IMO; I can't wait to see a kid who is good at running a pro-style offense (instead of running FROM a pro-style offense.)
Growing pains and it will take time. That's how I see the hire, and that's why I'm not totally surprised our offense hasn't turned the corner.
Did anyone else notice the multitude of times Byrn was WIDE OPEN deep? Especially on play action. Happened at least 3 times and Logan checked it down each time. His last INT was one these instances. He forces it to a guy triple covered. Even though he hit his man in the chest, he got clobbered and coughed up the ball. Meanwhile, the safety moved up and Byrn blew by him. Looking at the replay, Logan even looked at Byrn and chose not to pass to him.
This wasn't a deep ball, but we had a 3rd or 4th and short with Byrn running to the flat. He was open again and Logan decided to not throw and barely converted when he ran. I just don't understand why he'd pass up his clear primary read when it was open.
I've been a Logan apologist for a while, but that game was flat out atrocious from him. He made so many bad reads and showed little to no accuracy.
Look, Frank Beamer was never going to bring in a rock star offensive genius. Scot Loeffler was the right guy to Beamer because they share a football philosophy (which many would probably argue is dated). We are foolish to think he was going to come in here and get the program right on track in the limited time he had before this season. It is going to take a considerable amount of time before we have an offense that actually looks like what Loeffler and Beamer WANT to have. I think it's unfair to cut him down after 8 games. I also think that a lot of people are overreacting here after ONE (somewhat unexpected) loss. Yes, I realize we lost to Duke, but Duke is not the terrible team we're all accustomed to. Cutcliffe is a terrific ball coach, and he has that team trending in the right direction. It's taken David Cutcliffe(who is somewhat of a QB guru himself) 5 years to field an offense that is capable of scoring 13 points on an elite defense. The mess he had to clean up is probably comparable to what Loeffler has to deal with. Think about that for a minute.
It's a huge disappointment but we need to see how the team recovers before we really start to lose our shit. I'm willing to give Loeffler benefit of the doubt here. I think we'd all agree that the previous staff left him a pretty huge mess to clean up. If our offense is still ranked in/near the 100s in 3 years, then I think it will be time to be concerned. But for now, calm down....we've played 8 games. Not a single one of them has been pretty. We should be happy that we're already bowl eligible before the end of October. There aren't a whole lot of teams that can say that. S.Beamer is absolutely right when he says the VT fans have been spoiled. Most schools would be pretty happy with a 6-2 record and still in control of their destiny for a conference championship berth. And we're doing it in a rebuilding year with a completely different offensive coaching staff. I don't think we have anything to complain about.......yet
stepping off soap box now
Go Hokies! Beat BC
I think a lot of people are looking it at as Loeffler is coming in to a blank slate. "Sure the guys who are there aren't the guys he had picked for his scheme, but he can shoehorn them in somewhere right?"
To me it's not that simple. He's coming into a group of guys that have been taught when X, do Y. But he wants them to do Z. That means completely unlearning old habits and then getting the good habits. And it's not just him either. Our line and wide receivers coaches are going through that too. It shows too.
Who have been our standouts? Willie Byrn, Joshua Stanford, Kalvin Cline, Trey Edmunds (to a lesser degree). All of them freshmen. Who have been our habitual worst offenders? Thomas, Coles, Knowles (to a lesser degree). All of them upperclassmen. Thomas and Co. aren't going to unlearn 3-4 years of bad coaching instantaneously. I would say that Thomas was probably at the blank slate phase at the beginning of the season, if not still lingering in the O'Cainspring era of coaching. He's shown improvement most of the season, and had a rather big sized flop yesterday (it was a pretty big flop). I would assume that him and Lefty are starting to get into the hard stuff now. He can't learn fast enough what he needs to know, so when he's focusing on the new, he's gonna mess up the old. Do we stop trying to coach him into a better quarterback because it's working decently enough? I don't think so.
THIS. +100
It makes a lot of sense that Logan looked bad after a bye week because he's was concentrating on something new. He definitely took a step back yesterday and messed up the old.
Another great point about our young players being farther along than the upper classmen out there as well.
I dont know about anyone else, but it isnt so much losing to duke that had me worried (they are an improved team after all), it was only putting up 10 pts on Duke. If we basically lost to them in the way we almost lost to Marshall I would've been disappointed, but probably not shocked.
I get that Loeffler is implementing a new scheme. I also get that we are lacking in talent on the offensive side of the ball. But consider this: Duke gave up 31 pts and 512 yds to TROY (5-3, Sun Belt). Dont tell me they have better athletes than us, even with us being out of scheme they shouldnt hold a candle to us.
Our TOP was 39:27 and we ran 84 plays from the LoS. Out of shear volume alone, despite having 4 TOs, how did we not score more than 10 pts? Its like we keep waiting for the defense to score and our offense just kind of eats the clock as its sole goal.
That's the offensive deception they run this year. It only LOOKS like they're trying to eat the clock; they are actually trying to gain yardage.
I know, I was shocked when I found out too.
Agree.... I'm not fully buying the we have no talent excuse. I guarantee that Troy, Ball State, Duke, etc... Would have gladly traded recruiting classes with VT the past 4 years....
I also think it's really wrong to say "we don't have talent." That's ridiculous. We have plenty of talent, but I don't think the players that we have were recruited with any coherent plan as to how to integrate them and build a system. That's what is encouraging me so much about the recent recruiting, especially by Loeffler and Grimes, to go out and get "their guys" - players that have skill sets they want for the schemes they want to develop.
Yeah, wrong recruiting and no talent are two completely different things. For example, a prius engine is a great engine. It's very fuel efficient, and it has a very low propensity for catching fire (a major design flaw in several similar models). However. In a ford F-350 that engine doesn't make any damn sense.
As the old saying goes, if you've got a "multiple" offense, you've got no offense.
Pick something and get good at it.
that will happen. Loeffler has made it known that he wants to run a pro-style, power running, play-action type of offense. Why aren't we doing that you ask? Well, because we don't have the personnel for it. This 'multiple offense' is temporary. Don't expect this 'no-identity' offense to be the identity of VT football in 3 years. SL needs time to get to where he wants to be. In the meantime, he's doing what he can with what he has to work with. If you had 6 converted TE's starting on your offense you would be struggling too. Especially if they were all coached up by an incompetent coaching staff for 2 or 3 years. The old bad habits won't go away over night. When we start getting players in here who never learned those old habits they'll learn what they need for this new system and will be a lot more effective a lot more quickly. I have faith that this will be an effective offense in 3 years. We all suffered through 10+ years with ocainspringsome. I know that every single person here wants to see completely different results and see them pretty fast. That isn't fair to Loeffler. Give him 3 years and if by then the results are the same as they are now, then we should start to be really concerned. For now, give him a break! We're 6-2 and we control our own destiny for the ACCCG. We're in much better shape this year than last year (I know that a lot of that has to do with Defense, but we shouldn't be complaining)
This whole "we don't have the personnel for it" argument would hold more water if we didn't see other OC's come in and immediately show improvement.
The tertiary argument here is that if you are running a "multiple" offense, you've inherently got options to match up your "scheme du juor" and the personnel. This isn't Paul Johnson not having an option QB here.
Instead, we seem determined to continue to try to run every scheme under the sun...on every drive. It's madness.
Yep... Even LOLUVA scored on Duke, but we didn't... They have a new OC this year; their O has improved a bunch since the beginning of the year, we look the same or worse, with no real increase I yardage or scoring production...
Do they have a tight end under center? Do they have tight ends peppering their offensive line? I like LT3 a lot. I'm not one of the LT3 haters on here but he is NOT a quarterback. Loeffler didn't throw 4 interceptions. Loeffler didn't miss 2 field goals. Loeffler put our players in position to make plays. We had over 300 yards of offense. We had a touchdown called back by a penalty. We had an interception in the end zone. We missed two make-able field goals. That game could have ended very differently and nobody would be complaining about the offensive coaching. I think the previous staff seriously underestimated the importance of having a big strong o-line. The guys that are playing now are playing well for the most part, but most of them aren't playing in their natural positions. We have a true freshman at left guard. Our offense just doesn't have the personnel needed to be successful. I don't care if you brought chad morris in here...he would still be struggling to find ways to win with what has been left behind by ocainspringsome. Calm down and give Loeffler and co some time. Everyone can't be expecting a miracle worker to come in and turn things around in <8 games. If our offense is still inept in 2 or 3 years with Loefflers recruits, then we have a serious issue. For now, give him a break. It's hard to sword fight with a piece of aluminum foil.
Understand your point, but Logan is still a 5th year QB. I acknowledge that he has had bad coaching in the past, and maybe this last game was a big aberration for this season. I'm hoping that is the case.
With the OL, we have no converted TEs playing on the OL anymore, so that is a non-starter. Benedict, Gibson, Farris, McLaughlin, and Miller were all recruited as OL and never have never played TE at any level. Wang was recruited as Ol/DL. Shuman and Conte are also straight OL recruits. I'm not sure the converted TE point is valid for this team. Maybe they just have to unlearn the "Newsome" tendencies.
Regardless, I do agree that LT, while being a 5th year QB, would probably be a better TE... I agree that Loeffler needs more time, though. I'm hoping, that at the very least, the run game is improved next year. That would make everything else easier.
What Newsome did to our OLine in terms of recruiting and "coaching" should earn him a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, IMHO. The mishmash of skillsets and overall lack of talent on our OLine is unbelievable for a BCS-caliber program.
As for Thomas, the lack of coaching cannot be understated. This spring, he had so much new stuff thrown at him: mechanics, playbook, terminology, PROGRESSIONS (for the FIRST time, are you kidding me, O'Cain?), it's more than understandable he hasn't mastered every aspect of the game by now. We've seen him make huge strides, but growing pains, like what we saw Saturday, can't be unexpected. I fully believe he's a strong enough person and a good enough leader to get things back on track for both himself and his team for BC.
The hellstorm Loeffler and Grimes walked into, IMO, rivals those of USC, Miami and PSU. Those men have the unbelievably difficult task of replacing under-performing coaches who left them very, very little to work with, while dealing with the incredibly unrealistic expectations of a very passionate fanbase.
Also, let me be clear on one more thing: If anyone wants to know what a true man, and Hokie, looks like, look at Brian Stinespring. He took loads of crap, a demotion, a paycut, and now answers to his replacement, and still has nothing to say but how much he loves this school. He's in a position to succeed now and I'm very, very happy he's still a part of this program.
Well said again. TechHokie13 for Pres in 2016!
I would like to make it perfectly clear that I have no idea who this guy is and in no way have asked/given monetary or other incentives for him to post nice things about me.
That said, I appreciate it. Warm fuzzies all around.
good point on Stiney. He's one hell of a character. Not much of a coordinator, but I respect him a hell of a lot for taking the demotion in stride and sticking by the side of Beamer. A true man indeed.
Agree with this. For as much as I've dumped on the guy, he's taken all of this in stride. Now he just needs to get back to beating UVA at recruiting the 757 and he'll be in my good graces.
It makes me happy that there are enough people on here to clearly and concisely point out why the doomsday brigade are wrong. Im not saying that the doomsdayers are not entitled to their opinion, they are, just that it is refreshing to see an argument based on reality and an understanding of what is really going on. That is what separates thekeyplay from most boards.
+1000 my man. It also sucks to lose to Duke but it's not as bad as it would have been a few years ago. Duke is in the upper half of the conference now. We still should've won but credit to Duke for showing up to play. We had a perfect storm of bye week jitters and poor execution to set up the upset.
I wonder if Bud Foster every loses his shit on the offensive staff. He whips his defensive in tip top shape year after year and the offense always lets him down.
I would wager that Foster has more class than that. I'm sure he's aware that the Defense does it's job and that's all he can do. I'm sure he wants to be rewarded with championships and stuff but he has a job to do and he makes sure that job gets done. That's what he's most worried about. He had enough patience to hang around for the last decade with Ocainspringsome and I'm sure he'll have enough patience to give Loeffler some time (3 years ish) to see what he can really bring to the table.
In a depressing sort of twist you can kind of see how the lack of offense actually highlights his abilities. When anyone says anything about Virginia Tech the first thing you talk about is his defense. The fact that we win despite our horrendous offense just gives him more attention. At least that makes me feel better about it haha. In other news what does Bud make? Double it.
With Bud, I think silence would be more terrifying than anything he could say.
Everybody recognizes Foster for being one of the best in the business, if not THE best. His defenses put in the work and gets the results year after year.
I think the offensive ineptness of the last 10 years just highlights what a great job he does.
I bet that not only does Foster not lose it on the O coaches. I bet he helps where he can such as give analysis of other teams defenses and diagram how a competent defense would line up against offensive lineups.
We all, or most anyway, love Foster, but one thing that seems to recur often is that offenses move the ball for a lot of yards quickly to get scores near the end of a half or game. Is that his bend-but-don't-break philosophy at play, or something else?
That sort of thing happens to all defenses. Running hurry up like that limits what the defense can do to adjust etc and is why a lot of teams are moving towards the no huddle.
That said, coaches normally have a limited (ie cant run it all game) set of almost 'money' plays designed to pick up big yards specifically for those types of situations on offense.
I, for one, am really looking forward to VT having a QB who's job it is to read defenses and throw passes. I strongly believe that Logan's running the ball constantly takes away from his ability to pass effectively. I cannot count how many times I saw LT choose to run on the read option plays (granted all I know I have learned from French). Almost every one of those option plays I was praying for LT to hand the ball off and let the RB's do the work they are on scholarship for. I think LT has no confidence in the RB's and chooses to keep the ball b/c he believes that he is the best option to run the ball. Having the QB run the ball 20 times is bound to nick him up a bit and take away from his ability to read the defense, identify the open receiver, and deliver the ball on target.
I would like to see Loeffler restrict LT to only running the ball less than 10 times per game, and not at all if we are winning. I believe that if the RB's are going to learn how to have success, they have to get the carries they need in order to learn their position. LT is not a great RB, he is not fast, he is not shifty, he is a bull to tackle, but that's it. Giving LT the option to run or hand-off results in LT running the ball more than 50% of the time. I would love to see some stats on how often LT has kept the ball on all of the option plays this year. I know that I saw multiple times during the Duke game when LT kept the ball for a minimal gain when his RB option ended up running into empty space, that would have resulted in a nifty gain.
Just my uneducated opinion, but I don't blame LT for all the INT's b/c he was asked to do too much in the Duke game, he needs to concentrate on being a good passer and Loeffler needs to take away his ticket to run and start using the RB's in a pro-style attack out of the I or pro set a whole lot more. Count me as done with the read option, it just doesn't work well with LT b/c defenses are keying on him since he keeps the ball so often. Yes, I know he had 100 yards rushing, but is it worth 4 INT's? Me thinks not. #LT4QBnotRB
Him not running probably doesnt make those ints go away this game. Limiting his running would be nice, yes, but would result in us having another sub 50 yd rushing game in all likelihood.
I agree that in the long run, running the qb will get them banged up and can cause their throwing to suffer, but LT was coming off a bye week after resting and never really had a big hit that caused me to worry. Lets just hope we get a running game from our RBs by the time he leaves, because the rest of our QBs on our roster cant carry the ball like him
I don't know why you guys are arguing about this. The Hokies lost because of those stupid orange uniforms. Period.
If you don't agree, have no fear. I can take questions and handle debate on this all week if you wish.
Fucking orange pants.
Fucking orange fucking pants.
They need to stash those motherfuckers in the top secret Raiders of the Lost Ark warehouse. (Along with the black ones from the Boise game.)
Or they could just, you know, send them to UVa.
/thread
Loefler isn't on the field making bad reads, missing blocks, throwing picks, making penalties, and missing field goals. No OC is perfect in play calling every play. If CJ makes those FGs and DJC doesn't have the motion penalty we probably would not be having this discussion. O was definitely rusty after the bye week and running yards were better, but they could have had more run plays.