One of the narratives stemming from the Duke game from media outlets and fans alike is criticism of Scot Loeffler. On Tuesday, Daily Press scribe David Teel tweeted that the Hokies were, "averaging an #ACC-worst 21.5 points per game. On pace for program's most anemic season since 1989's 18.5.". Others have commented on both on Twitter and within our community that the offense has regressed under Loeffler. I think both viewpoints lose track of the bigger picture.
- Scoring numbers are down for the Hokies in part because Virginia Tech found itself trailing early and often at the beginning of last season. Tech had to throw the ball down the field in an attempt to get back into games. This season, the Hokies have maintained leads and have been in the position to kill the clock more often. The focus has been on working the clock through short runs and passes underneath zone coverage. Last season, Tech finished 57th nationally in possession time (30:08). This year they rank 19th (32:43).
- When I review the film, a cohesive offensive system is in place. Multiple plays are run from a variety of formations, each play has a counter which makes it difficult to defend, and formation and alignment are designed to garner favorable matchups. Loeffler has been able to get guys open despite having a special teams guy (Byrn), three guys with very little football experience (Knowles, Cline, and Stanford), and a hobbled veteran in D.J. Coles, none of whom have consistently shown the ability to get separation or go up and bail out the quarterback. I think he has done an excellent job of building an offense with receivers who each bring something, but not the complete package to the table.
- A tremendous amount of responsibility has been placed on Logan Thomas' shoulders. When he plays well, the Hokies likely will win. Thomas played better than Tom Savage versus Pitt. The Hokies won. On Saturday, Thomas played a poor football game. Even those of us, like me, who ardently state that Logan is the quarterback and should remain the quarterback unless injured can recognize that Logan had receivers open last Saturday, and either missed them or didn't throw to them. Against Duke, Logan seemed to miss read options on both veer and inverted veer. Regardless of play calling, if Logan makes the correct decision on only 3 or 4 more plays, the Hokies win against the Blue Devils.
During the bye week, we heard that the Hokie running game was being tightened up, and that the Hokies would self-scout and cut chafe out of the playbook. In my review of the running game, I concluded that Loeffler re-establish the zone running game that he had so much success with at Auburn. That would alleviate some of the running burden from Logan Thomas, and establish a credible running threat that would cause defenders to bite on play-action from ace sets.
On the first couple of series in the Duke game, it appeared that Loeffler had come to the same conclusion. Three of the first four running plays that Loeffler called were zone blocking concepts from the one back formation with Logan under center.
On the opening play of the game, the Hokies ran a stretch to the left. Note the formation. The Hokies align tight end Darius Redman on the right side, and align fullback Sam Rogers as an H-Back to the left. The Hokies also align their two receivers to the left side. The Hokies run the play to the passing strength of the formation, but away from Redman.
00:00:39–00:00:47
At the snap, the offensive line takes a hard zone step to the left, with Jonathan McLaughlin forcing the Duke defensive end to widen out with him. McLaughlin gets outside leverage on the end without overextending and allowing the end to cut inside and up field to disrupt the play. This is the critical block. As long as none of the other linemen are beaten to the inside, Edmunds can attack the edge or can get his shoulder turned and cut up the field.
Watching the play develop, the focus shifts to the skill position players. Willie Byrn effectively option stalk blocks one defensive back, but Josh Stanford overruns his guy to the inside and loses outside leverage. At this point, Edmunds likely sees that missed block and knows that even if Sam Rogers gets the player that Stanford missed, there will be one unblocked man on the edge. By cutting back, Rogers allows Stanford to suddenly have inside leverage on the play. He takes two hard steps, plants his outside leg and moves back.
Now, rewind the film to take a look at the penalty. It appears that the Hokies have adopted a technique I called for last year called a "roll it" block. (Mason has used the term "pin and pull.") Andrew Miller and Brent Benedict both engage the back side defensive end. Perhaps Benedict was supposed to give ground and curl around behind Miller to move to the linebacker, but Benedict is making contact high and Miller cut blocks the end. It doesn't look like an intentional chop block, but it certainly makes the hole that much bigger. Edmunds hits the seam, and gets 8 tough yards.
On the second drive of the game, Loeffler again features the zone stretch. Again, he aligns Redman away from the strength of the passing formation. Again, they run away from the tight end behind Rogers, Stanford, and this time Knowles. The variation is the motion, which gives Stanford and Byrn a bit of inside out leverage. Benedict, instead of trying to reach the end like McLaughlin did earlier, instead puts his head on the inside shoulder and drives the end to the sidelines.
00:01:33–00:01:41
Miller gets downhill, and Wang does an outstanding job of reaching the defensive tackle. Edmunds reads off of Benedict's block, and cuts inside for a nice chunk gain of six yards. The only blocking error is on Sam Rogers. The strike safety flies forward to force the play inside, and Rogers overruns him. Fortunately, Edmunds makes such a decisive cut that the Duke defender flies by.
Later on the drive, Loeffler calls one more zone, this time back to the left, again following the H-Back and twin receivers and away from the tight end.
00:01:52–00:01:58
A beautiful seam forms, but Edmunds trips on his jump cut and falls forward for three yards. McLaughlin again throws a terrific block, aided by a Duke stunt inside.
On all three plays, the Hokies gained solid yardage. The offensive line not only completed their assignments, but got downhill on Duke and drove them off the football. The way it looked, we should have expected Loeffler to dial up the zone stretch at least 15 times. Yet, it vanished. by my count, It was called only one more time the entire game, the 4th-and-1 in the 3rd quarter where Edmunds was inexplicably stopped when he appeared to have a hole.
Instead, Loeffler changed course mid-stream to focus on running power plays from the pistol and read option with both jet sweep action and a tailback aligned in a traditional shotgun. Loeffler used some new wrinkles (both a tailback counter off of inverted veer and a quarterback counter, both with two lead blockers pulling across the formation) but the zone stretch was abandoned. Oddly, Loeffler continued to attempt using play-action off the zone stretch action. In fact, Logan Thomas' first interception was an overthrow to a wide open Josh Stanford on a post pattern.
Loeffler started to feature a power concept from both the I, ace, and pistol formations. The Hokies blocked the play side tackle and guard down, and then pulled the back side guard to lead through on the offensive line. They used it on short yardage (note the beautiful back side seal block by David Wang).
00:02:06–00:02:11
In the second quarter, Loeffler featured the same power concept from the pistol formation. On a long drive, Loeffler hurried the offense up, calling no huddle and running the same power play three times in a row for significant yardage.
00:06:51–00:07:08
Essentially, the play is blocked almost exactly the same way that the inverted veer is blocked, except the tight end blocks down inside instead of taking the veer step outside.
Again, sustained success in the running game, but the power lead also seemed to go away. Edmunds got a couple of touches in the second half, but too few to make any kind of difference. Even more baffling, Loeffler (or whoever is in charge of the tailback rotation) decided to use J.C. Coleman as a goal line tailback. He also decided to run the power behind Kalvin Cline, who was replaced by Rogers and Redman on every power and zone play up to that point. This utilization of personnel defies reason, and despite an excellent lead block by Derrick Hopkins, Coleman ran into the back of Cline and couldn't push the pile into the endzone.
Meanwhile, as the game progressed, Duke maintained their lead, and Logan Thomas continued to play tighter and tighter, Loeffler relied more and more on the inverted veer. I get that the inverted veer is a terrific weapon, and Thomas ended up with 101 yards on 24 carries. But, in a game where Thomas wasn't sacked and was only hurried a couple of times, he took a pounding. Imagine for a moment how an NFL coach would react to his quarterback taking those additional hits. If the Hokies were an option team, I could understand it. But, the Hokies are dependent on Thomas to be a proficient passer in the pocket. I can't believe that all those hits are not having some impact on Thomas's consistency.
I fear that Loeffler has been seduced by the prospects of having that power runner at quarterback. It is too easy to see Thomas push the pile for a first down, or burst up the middle for a long gain to not be tempted to go back to the well time and again. I can't imagine there is any reason for Loeffler to rely so heavily on Thomas, as his running backs were very successful at both Temple and Auburn. Bernard Pierce, Onterio McCalebb, and Tre Mason all rushed for well over 5 yards per carry, with Pierce and Mason gaining over 1,000 yards. Thomas is too tempting, and Loeffler can't seem to help himself when things get tight.
It doesn't help when drives are derailed by the occasional poor reads on the veer that continue to creep up in Thomas' game.
00:02:11–00:02:19
The Duke defensive end comes way up field, clearly taking away Coleman on the jet sweep. Thomas should be able to read this easily, and a huge hole opens up in the middle. Instead, Coleman gets eaten up, and the Hokies are backed up to second-and-11. With the lack of big play production, 2nd-and-11 is a situation Tech can't afford to be in. Those poor reads serve as drive killers, and if Thomas can't almost completely eliminate them, the inverted veer won't butter the bread. Instead, I believe the Hokies would be well served to incorporate the inverted veer on occasion, and make sure that Thomas reads it perfectly. If they can do it, Thomas can make 100 yards on 12 carries instead of 24. I continue to think that Mangus makes the jet sweep more dangerous, especially on play-action off the inverted veer motion. There's no questioning Coleman's effort, but right now, Mangus may bring more to the table given he has more polished receiving skills.
So, now the Hokies are four days away from a trip to Boston College. The Eagles will play their tough 4-3 defense and will keep everything in front of them just like Duke did. The Hokies offensive line played their best game since Alabama against Duke. If Virginia Tech can get a similar performance from their blockers, Scot Loeffler must trust Trey Edmunds to remove the running burden from Logan Thomas, and then focus on Thomas beating teams with his arm until his legs are absolutely necessary.
Comments
Thank you, I always learn so much reading these.
great analysis. Now time for work.
Wow Edmunds looks like a completely different back when he gets multiple touches a drive. He runs lower, stays behind his pads, and looked much more natural in the series highlighted above where he ran 3 straight power plays.
Edmunds always look like a good power runner. I hope we can do more of that this week.
With Marshawn Lynch, DJ Reid, and hopefully Shai McKenzie coming in next season, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Edmonds move over to the defensive side of the ball. He's big, strong & fast, no doubt. But he just doesn't look like a natural running back to me. Specifically, he seems, to my uneducated eye at least, to have "tunnel vision", which is to say that his field vision isn't very good. On more occasions than I can count this season, I found myself saying something like ... "Man, if he'd just cut to the right instead of staying left, he had a huge hole there!"
i think you mean Marshawn Williams
Freudian slip?
And this is why I'm a firm believer in TKP. I never fail to learn something new from these columns.
Whenever I've talked to Hokie detractors this year, I've said it's going to be extremely difficult to beat that defense if we can protect the ball. The first 3 ACC games saw zero turnovers and I felt like we were in complete control. Logan had a terrible day. I'm not calling for his head, Tyrod had a similar game against the same program and we had to be saved by Glennon. I think a lot of shock & anger has been thrown around since Saturday calling for heads or jobs, but while out 1 turnover & we probably win that game, keep it turnover free & we dominate. Logan was off, he'll be back on.
I was happier when Logan Thomas had no or very limited carries in some of our earlier games. The beating can't be good for him over the course of the season. I am glad to see that French's analysis agreed with my gut that the running game did appear to be working but for some reason we shied away from actually giving the ball to the backs as the game went on.
The strange thing is Loeffler said the same thing before the season started. He said he didn't want to run his QB too much so that he would still be standing at the end of the season. This has always been one of the strengths of a pro-style offense, to limit the QB as a runner to keep him healthy.
I don't know why Loeffler has changed his tune, but Logan isn't a great runner anyway and should stick to throwing the ball in all but short-yardage situations.
I, too, have wondered about running personnel at times. JCC is fairly fast, but doesn't have the power required for a goal line call.
I did love seeing the QB sneak a couple times in the short yardage situations that earlier this year would have been a run from a couple yards back.
We all like Lefty, he seems like a good dude, and he is a great interview. So I guess that explains why Saturday's playcalling gets a relatively muted 'huh' reaction as opposed to the screaming-from-the-rooftops we'd give Stiney for establishing something that works and then promptly going away from it for the rest of the game.
I agree that the direction and structure of the offense seem so, so much better. But the playcalls are as infuriating as ever. And the thing is, he's shown the patience to go back to the well - even in the Duke game, there was one point where we ran exact same successful play three or four times in a row (and the end of the UNC game was six times I think). Which just makes it that much more frustrating when the stuff that works, disappears, and we're left with the LT battering ram.
One thing I'm a little confused by - french, you say Lefty is seduced by the big power runner at QB and can't stay away from calling his number on the inverted veer - but it also sounds like there is a read element to those plays. Do you think LT is looking for a reason to keep it, is he just getting it wrong, is Loeffler telling him to keep it unless the read is head-slappingly obvious, or is there just a lot of designed jet-sweep and stretch action that is never actually intended to be handed off?
I've wondered the same. Is Logan getting frustrated & trying to put everything on his shoulders, therefor keeping it when he shouldn't?
I think there is a very real chance that LT isn't given a read in the read option. It may be signaled in to give on the jet sweep or run by LT. If so, that would further implicate LT's weakness on the read if his coaches are taking it out of his hands.
On the play shown, it is definitely a read play where he makes the wrong read. You can tell because the tight end takes an outside veer step outside the defensive end instead of sealing him, which the tight end would do if Thomas wasn't optioning the defensive end. He was unblocked, with the tight end using the veer release, so Thomas missed the read.
If your quarterback isn't better on the read plays, and you also depend on your quarterback for pro-style passing proficiency, you can't use read plays as the vast majority of your running offense. As someone stated above, Logan took several big licks. That can't be good for effectiveness.
French, I've seen others mention this here & I've agreed, but doesn't it feel like the handoff in our running game takes substantially longer than it should?
It does. I am not sure how much footspeed impacts those stretch plays or the read, but it certainly renders the true read option where the quarterback threatens the outside less effective.
My eye test was backed up by TKP analyis. That feels good.
I don't get the lack of power running game in the second half. We were down what, 10 points? If the running game is working and you're getting yardage, you don't have to throw the ball (on certain drives - still need to throw to maintain the deep threat, this isn't GT). Loeffler seems to be tentative to call a drive where he only throws the ball once or twice or not at all (that isn't a 3 and out). The power running game was clearly working. If you are running a play that's working, why change it? The other example of Loeffler running repeated plays was in one of our ACC matchups (GT I think...?) where Loeffler ran the same power run like 6-7 times in a row. All to Tre. And we scored a TD and had one of our best looking scoring drives in ACC play.
In essence: You don't necessarily have to throw the ball on every drive if your offensive line is getting a good push up front. There's nothing wrong with calling 12 running plays in a row if it's working. With LT3 having a down day, this was a day to dial up a power run game and stick with it all game long while getting LT3 some easy reads and passes to keep the defense honest.
Love TKP. I haven't had this big a jump in my football IQ since I learned what a "down" was.
My thoughts on the goal line play(s)...why are you putting in the small, not as powerful back behind a mountain of a FB??? If TE14 isn't the way to go...what about that 6-6 250lb QB running behind him...kinda think he could move the pile. If LT3 is going to run 24 times, I would make damn sure they were in goal line situations...since they count the most.
Which brings me to my next question. On short yardage, everyone in the stadium knows its Battering Ram time...D puts 10-11 in the box. Why don't we have a fake run, pass (or jump pass, ala Tebow) out of that situation?
I have often thought that on short yardage, if Cline veer releases to the flat off the inverted veer action, he would be wide open. Oddly, he has not been off IV play action from more normal down and distance on short routes.
Great column as usual.
Critical question seems to be why go to the IVeer. SL is not stupid. There must be a reason for why he went to that formation vis a vis other alternatives. I still don't understand what is so attractive about the inverted veer. Is it a risk reward thing, can we run and throw short with it? Did we get more conservative as the game went on?
My very uninformed guess is that good DBs shutting down WRs and 8-9 in the box bring a conservative playcall which may be the inverted veer. The IVeer stretches the field a bit effectively alleviating the pressure from the stacked box. I would also guess that the IVeer allows for a plethora of short passes again effectively making the field bigger without resorting to longer throws. Both statements are totally a guess. Frank(Beamer)ly, I'd much rather see us throw over the 8-9 with a TE, RB rotating out, DJ Coles or RB from the slot. More aggressive, more prone to interceptions, but sometimes you gotta have some balls and trust your people to make plays. Yes I am stating with no proof that when games get tight Frank doesn't trust the arm of his top 3 rounds draft pick.
Guess what folks, when you have a stacked box, you get lots more deflections. Haven't watched the tape beyond Q1, but wisdom of age tells me that conservatism blew us up more than any other thing vs Duke. I'm not saying 389 yards is a bad performance, I'm just saying we have more talent than Pitt, UVA, Troy or any other teams that Duke played this year and we should have destroyed and embarrassed that defense. Play tight allow 8-9 in a box and you'll fail to beat the little sisters of the poor.
Well, the IV means that the tight end really doesn't have to block anybody (veer release) and it allows his slower linemen to down block, which is a much easier block than a reach block. On the outside, any team that can play man coverage will give the Hokies huge problems on offense. This week, Loeffler got guys open against the zone, and Logan didn't pull the trigger.
I really think he believes that the IV is the best way to move the football with the talent he has. I disagree to an extent, because I think that when Logan is a primary ball carrier instead of an alternative, it makes him less effective on those critical downs where you need him to make a play with his feet or his legs.
Your comment about Logan Thomas "Regardless of play calling, if Logan makes the correct decision on only 3 or 4 more plays, the Hokies win against the Blue Devils," is a true statement standalone. However, if you connect the dots over LT's career there is undeniable pattern: his consistency is below average for QBs in college football. Frank Beamer got criticized for saying "if only I could have 3 or 4 plays back," time after time last season. My prediction: in at least two of the next four games, we will hear "if only Logan could have 3 or 4 plays back."
You just do not hear that comment with the top QBs in college football. They are as a whole, more consistent than Logan has been.
yeah well they're also QBs. I love LT and he's our team's leader. But there is no denying that he is a TE
I think Logan will bounce back from this and beat BC...but if he doesn't he usually plays well against Miami and that is a winnable game for us.
If we lose to BC we're still not out of it. We need FSU to beat Miami, Miami to beat Duke and we need to beat Miami and win out and that gets us to charlotte.
Seriously, enough with the "Logan is a TE" crap. He has caught ONE ball in his career at Tech and didn't play TE in high school either. Every year when Logan has a bad game, all of the "he's a TE" claims come out of the woodworks. He may have the measurables and stature of a TE, but he's a QB. Plain and simple. Nobody said he was the best QB in the nation but he sure as hell isn't the worst.
Not to mention that "TE" holds many (and will get a few more) QB records at VT. Hard to argue he's not a QB when statistically he's the best we've ever had.
It's funny everytime someone brings him up as a TE...I've looked all over and have found no evidence of him ever playing TE. LT is as much of a TE as Jack Tyler is a punter.
I would be willing to bet if we had moved him to TE 3-4 years ago, right now people would be bitching about why we moved a guy who played his entire career at QB to another position and stuggled (ala Marcus Davis, Dyrell Roberts, etc.).
Agreed. LT is not a tight end, won't be, so let us end it.
"My prediction: in at least two of the next four games, we will hear "if only Logan could have 3 or 4 plays back."
Ok, got you down. You have us losing at least 2 of our last four games. Nice.
Well allow me to retort.
We will win this week against BC, and there is a very real possibility we will beat Miami. If that happens, we will run the table. Sam Rogers will score a touchdown in there somewhere. Oh and, by the way, Sam Rogers forecasts that it will be partly cloudy in Chestnut Hill will a 100% chance of pain.
Griffer, I did not say we will lose. I just said you will see some key plays and go wow .. Logan should have hit that. Winston with FSU, Boyd with Clemson -- they just reliably hit the receiver when he is open (exception is Boyd's game against FSU). They read the field better. They are more consistent. Even Renner with UNC has been slightly better than LT in that regard. We have a 6-2 record in spite those LT issues. And I still believe we can and will beat Miami.
As an aside, remember when Tyrod had that comeback against Nebraska? Or even last week, Conner Shaw against MIzzou? Ever see LT do that in four years? No. He does well in spurts. But his inconsistency bites him.
UHH..Miami '11
pretty sure that was a comeback win
This is correct, scored with less than a minute left to take a 3 point lead. Also Georgia Tech '12, he had the bomb to Knowles to tie, and then another drive to set up a tying field goal by CJ
Indeed he is frustratingly inconsistent, but I will disagree with your conclusion here. In 2012, both the GT and Cinci games featured a clutch drive that LT led to tie the game or put us ahead. Against GT, he had two completions of 20+ yards (albeit to Corey Fuller, who was clutch in his own right) in a drive that marched downfield in 0:44 to tie the game. Against Cinci, he led a drive 93 yards in just under 3:00 to put us ahead, including a 56-yard TD pass (also to Fuller). That should have won the game, but unfortunately the D faltered against Cinci. The BC game also featured a nice drive to tie it, though it featured mostly rushing to control the clock, there was a 33-yarder to Marcus Davis that was key in getting us close to FG range.
As I was unable to watch the game, and it was a great team effort all around, what about Duke 2012? Weren't we down 21-0 in the first quarter? Didn't LT (with help, but still) come back and beat Duke 40 something to 20 something?
And people forget the 14-10 nail biter in Blacksburg with Tyrod at QB. Remember, Taylor wasn't an efficient accurate throwing QB either until the stretch run of his senior season. Most of the plays he created were breakdowns, and he had vastly superior receivers.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here... 3-4 plays (often times less) typically separate teams in a one score game. No one thinks that Logan is the world's most consistent QB, and no one ever called him a top college QB (ignoring the heisman hype preseason last year, which, given how we've had surprise heisman winners the last 3-4 years, wasn't a ridiculous hype, but I digress).
This is a REBUILDING YEAR. Almost all of us agreed preseason that we would be happy with 8 regular season wins and an offense with a direction/identity. We have the latter, the former will not come easy, but is very obtainable. It sucks that (arguably) our best defensive in the past decade has to play with an ineffective offensive, but we are setting the groundwork for a team that's tough, physical and smart, on both sides of the ball.
Agree 100%. The offense has improved as the year has progressed. And that is a good sign. With some better recruiting and better talent, I think the next few years could see a really tough team. Especially with what we have seen on defense this year.
The move away from zone stretch was baffling. LT having a bad game isn't. These kids are 18-23 years old, and having two myself, I can attest that consistency over a 3-4 month period isn't something that I'd expect. The fact that they do as well as they do sometimes amazes me. It seems that LT seems to try to take on things that he shouldn't in the inverted veer by keeping the ball more than he should, especially if things aren't going well. Hopefully, this was a bad day that doesn't get repeated.
I'm really tuned into looking for the zone stretch look now, and I was confused as to why we went away from it. Edmunds seems so much more comfortable in a one cut situation instead of taking feeds from the veer.
It may not be a good play against some teams, but it was clear right off the bat that the Hokie tackles could reach the defensive ends. Duke played a 4-4, with the outside guys playing half safety/half linebacker roles. In the zone stretch, you run at those outside guys and force them to take on blocks, and you increase the distance the back side safety/linebacker hybrid has to run (while also being responsible for bootleg.)
With the IV and the read option, you are leaving one defender unblocked. The tight end is veer releasing. That leaves five blockers to block 6 or 7 defenders. When Duke was stopping the run, it wasn't because the Hokie OL were missing blocks. It was because the unblocked defenders had a free shot at the ball carrier. I know UVA had some success with read option, but UVA is even more discombobulated than the Hokie offense right now. Those are not the people to emulate.
Is the Inverted Veer SL's Screen Pass? The play he loves to call and we all get upset when it doesnt work?
At least with the Inverted Veer there are a few options (keep by QB, sweep wide, cut back inside) where as the screen pass is, well, just a screen pass. I'm not too upset with the overall playcalling of the season, let's just hope he fine tunes it to fit the defense he's playing and the situation.
I miss the days of pounding the rock, even if it wasn't working for three quarters, because when the fourth quarter rolled around the opposing D was tired and we gashed them
I'm with you there. Felt like I was getting a little taste of it back with the Duke game, but for some reason they just wouldn't stick with it. Side thought - just imagine how good this D would be if we could run the ball and the clock just kept on ticking...
Oooo, inverted veer... you so sexy.
Great work, French.
So, to answer my second question from the open thread the other day... you DO seem to think that Lefty's playcalling does seem to be "cute" at times.
UGH, on the final clip, if its Marcus Mariota, he makes the correct read, explodes through that hole with Farris in front and steaks to the endzone... sigh
We likely didn't run the ball as much as the staff had planned too after getting behind in the first half..even though it was just 6-0. That's the only thing that comes to mind b/c I felt that Trey was picking up good yardage on the ground . Hopefully that changes this week against a defense that will GET AFTER'YA!
If you want to discuss this issue at the big picture level - I don't understand how you give Loeffler kudos for offensive design, while giving him a pass for offensive execution. The reason our offense is rated low this year isn't due to the quality of our defense - it's due to our inability to create sustained scoring drives ending in TDs. When TOP is up at the same time scoring is down, it's not a good thing.
Unfortunately when you get down to it, it's the players who aren't executing. Loeffler can't just strap on a helmet and go do it himself.
I agree with that for the most part, and I think that overall our offensive scheme is better this year than it has been in the past. But that having been said, I don't think Loeffler and his offensive staff called a good game against Duke. I think that French's critique is right on the money. When the inside zone and zone stretch plays were getting good chunks of yardage, why go away from them so that your QB, who's not particularly good at it, can start running slow-developing plays from the read-option look? Also, why call for a handoff to the tailback on 4th & 6 inches when you have a 6'6", 250 lb QB??? Finally, I can't fathom why they had JC Coleman in the game down close to the goal line rather than Edmonds.
Personally, I'll be glad when Logan Thomas is gone solely because we can then remove the read-option from the playbook, or at least dial its use back considerably.
Great job French
Is anyone else picturing a simulator to train QB instincts? You could train both run options and pass options.
Kinda like the police style "shoot the bad guys but not the hostages" simulator?
We are Virginia Tech...how about a VR sim?
I'm sure we could make that happen. We already have the 3-D CAVE environment (which was upgraded not too long ago). All you'd really have to do would be to figure out how to hook up some sensors to LT3 to act as his own controller and pretty much let a video game play out.
Sounds like an outstanding graduate project.
Posted in wrong place.
In response to the football simulator as a grad project: