First, I appreciate all the reporting being done by Andy, but reading through the comments on the blog and also McFarling's blogs, it's all I can do to keep myself from throwing the computer against the walls.
People have clamored for years to have a change in the offensive staff, and we got it. Yet, some of those folks are bitching about Loeffler with the same compliant about Stinespring. They are casting a wishful eyes upon sexy offense like Baylor or Oregon and saying we should be like them.
Jeez. I think comments on this site is far more levelheaded than at those blogs. Makes me appreciate y'all, TKPers.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The problem with those slick sexy offenses is that BEAMER doesn't like them. He doesn't want one, and as long as he is in charge we won't have one. PERIOD.
As for the Oregon teams domination, how many players have they actually put into the NFL from that scheme that have stayed? If a player has NFL aspirations, I think they are better off going to a pro style school.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Respectfully, I disagree with you. I seem to remember Bitter writing a blog post where Beamer was very complimentary of Clemson's offense, liking it and even respecting it.
The thing is - Beamer prefers to rely on the same formula he used during the stretch of 10-wins seasons, strangling, opporunistic defense, special team, and ball-control offense. The defense has continued to carry that tradition. Special teams has undergone a metamorphsis, as Mason alluded couple of weeks ago, Beamer is now playing the field position game instead of going high risk/high reward with punt blocks, field goal blocks, etc. I suspect that the many running-into-kicker penalties and blocked punts have changed his mind on what do with special team. The offense will always be up and down, unpredictable even if we know what's coming from the stands.
As for the NFL...I think the NFL don't care what system you come from as long as you have the potential to translate your skills to the NFL.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Totally with you. I'm perfectly fine with the tried-and-true Beamer method. I love physical defense more than anything in football. Ball-control offense is great; nothing better than seeing your opponent's offense on the sidelines, pacing around uncomfortably, knowing there is nothing they can do, while you plod your way down the field for 8:00 or more. These blazing fast TD drives that Oregon and the like put up, that's fun and all, but to me it's incredibly repetitive and boring. Also, good defense can stop anything thrown at it.
The problem isn't with the system, it's the execution. I agree with Loeffler's assessment this week that it really comes down to details. I put some blame on him for (what I believe was) bad play-calling and personnel choices in some instances, but really, if the offense executes as it should (makes better decisions, doesn't get penalized), then we beat Duke 27-13 easy.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Even among Oregon fans (someone posted the article on here yesterday, I believe), there are idiots who want more from their team. People expect college football to be just like their X-box NCAA football games, where the players execute at the highest level constantly and there are only 5 or 6 plays you need to know to absolutely dominate.
Let's face it, the players are human and they have a whole ton of stuff on their plates. I played rugby for Tech, and I can tell you anyone who believes that athletes can just get up on gameday and perform at 100% all the time is as delusional as a UVA fan hoping for a conference title in football. It's hard to do and the fact that these guys can do it even the majority of the time is amazing.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I have tremendous respect for rugby even though I don't understand the game, which looks more physical than football because of how little protection you wear.
Thanks for the levelheaded comment.
As I wrote at Gobbler Country, I have resigned to the fact that the offense will never be sexy as Oregon or Baylor, and know what? Last weekend, watching Duke, I wasn't as worked up as I was prior to that game because I accepted the fact that the offense is perfectly content to play boring, even if it drives us fans nuts.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Just to be clear, the "stupid" to which I was referring are the majority of the commentors on Bitters blog... yeesh. And thanks, but to be honest, there are very few people in the world who fully understand the game. The nice part about not wearing much protection is that we have to actually be smart about the way we take/deliver hits, so serious injuries are still relatively infrequent.
Yes, the offense may play boring, but even a "boring" offense, if executed properly by talented players, can deliver a very exciting product. Just see what teams like Stanford and Alabama have been able to do.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
I hope we make BC pay for our poor performance against Duke.
First, I appreciate all the reporting being done by Andy, but reading through the comments on the blog and also McFarling's blogs, it's all I can do to keep myself from throwing the computer against the walls.
People have clamored for years to have a change in the offensive staff, and we got it. Yet, some of those folks are bitching about Loeffler with the same compliant about Stinespring. They are casting a wishful eyes upon sexy offense like Baylor or Oregon and saying we should be like them.
Jeez. I think comments on this site is far more levelheaded than at those blogs. Makes me appreciate y'all, TKPers.
The problem with those slick sexy offenses is that BEAMER doesn't like them. He doesn't want one, and as long as he is in charge we won't have one. PERIOD.
As for the Oregon teams domination, how many players have they actually put into the NFL from that scheme that have stayed? If a player has NFL aspirations, I think they are better off going to a pro style school.
Respectfully, I disagree with you. I seem to remember Bitter writing a blog post where Beamer was very complimentary of Clemson's offense, liking it and even respecting it.
The thing is - Beamer prefers to rely on the same formula he used during the stretch of 10-wins seasons, strangling, opporunistic defense, special team, and ball-control offense. The defense has continued to carry that tradition. Special teams has undergone a metamorphsis, as Mason alluded couple of weeks ago, Beamer is now playing the field position game instead of going high risk/high reward with punt blocks, field goal blocks, etc. I suspect that the many running-into-kicker penalties and blocked punts have changed his mind on what do with special team. The offense will always be up and down, unpredictable even if we know what's coming from the stands.
As for the NFL...I think the NFL don't care what system you come from as long as you have the potential to translate your skills to the NFL.
Totally with you. I'm perfectly fine with the tried-and-true Beamer method. I love physical defense more than anything in football. Ball-control offense is great; nothing better than seeing your opponent's offense on the sidelines, pacing around uncomfortably, knowing there is nothing they can do, while you plod your way down the field for 8:00 or more. These blazing fast TD drives that Oregon and the like put up, that's fun and all, but to me it's incredibly repetitive and boring. Also, good defense can stop anything thrown at it.
The problem isn't with the system, it's the execution. I agree with Loeffler's assessment this week that it really comes down to details. I put some blame on him for (what I believe was) bad play-calling and personnel choices in some instances, but really, if the offense executes as it should (makes better decisions, doesn't get penalized), then we beat Duke 27-13 easy.
You can't fix stupid.
Even among Oregon fans (someone posted the article on here yesterday, I believe), there are idiots who want more from their team. People expect college football to be just like their X-box NCAA football games, where the players execute at the highest level constantly and there are only 5 or 6 plays you need to know to absolutely dominate.
Let's face it, the players are human and they have a whole ton of stuff on their plates. I played rugby for Tech, and I can tell you anyone who believes that athletes can just get up on gameday and perform at 100% all the time is as delusional as a UVA fan hoping for a conference title in football. It's hard to do and the fact that these guys can do it even the majority of the time is amazing.
I have tremendous respect for rugby even though I don't understand the game, which looks more physical than football because of how little protection you wear.
Thanks for the levelheaded comment.
As I wrote at Gobbler Country, I have resigned to the fact that the offense will never be sexy as Oregon or Baylor, and know what? Last weekend, watching Duke, I wasn't as worked up as I was prior to that game because I accepted the fact that the offense is perfectly content to play boring, even if it drives us fans nuts.
Just to be clear, the "stupid" to which I was referring are the majority of the commentors on Bitters blog... yeesh. And thanks, but to be honest, there are very few people in the world who fully understand the game. The nice part about not wearing much protection is that we have to actually be smart about the way we take/deliver hits, so serious injuries are still relatively infrequent.
Yes, the offense may play boring, but even a "boring" offense, if executed properly by talented players, can deliver a very exciting product. Just see what teams like Stanford and Alabama have been able to do.