I have always been a big supporter of Logan. Even early in 2011 when he struggled and we had nothing else to judge him by, I thought he would come along and surprise people. By no means did I think he would do as good as he ended up doing, but I knew he was better than what we were seeing early in the season. I wouldn't criticize Logan for 2012. He had hardly any reliable weapons and way too much pressure on him in a stale program.
That being said, the regression we have seen in the last two games is inexcusable. Early in the year, I would put most of the fault on the receivers, but these last two games have been a lot on Logan. Against Duke, I don't know how he doesn't realize after not once, but twice that he needs to take a little off the ball when throwing it short to a receiver, THEN he does it again and it turns into his fourth interception. I blame the coaches or whoever is around him for this too because if I can notice it, then they should too. The second interception in the endzone from last week was, in my opinion, his worst decision of the year until today. NO FIFTH YEAR SENIOR QUARTERBACK WITH NFL POTENTIAL SHOULD EVER, EVER, EVER THROW A PASS LIKE HE DID TODAY THAT WAS RETURNED FOR A TOUCHDOWN AND ULTIMATELY LOST THE GAME. You can only justify throwing a pass like that on fourth down trailing with less than a minute left in the game. It is a tie game with plenty of time left and you have a great defense! So if anything, risk the intentional grounding penalty and live to fight another day. It was third down anyways so it is not a big loss if we lose a down, but to throw a lazy ball to where he did (I have no idea what he saw) is ridiculously poor.
Now, I know there are going to be a lot of responses to this defending Logan and blaming others. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around but everything has been the same except for Logan's performance. The play calling has still been well below average over the season, the receivers played terrible early but have come along for the most part, we haven't had a running game, Journell has been terribly inconsistent, and the defense has been outstanding. The key? Logan Thomas. Logan was forced to not play great early on because of the receivers (still had some bad moments, but not as costly), but now the receivers have come into their own a bit and he played extremely well until last week. So if you want to put it on the play calling or receivers or lack of a running game then fine, I understand. Yet, we won 6 straight with all of those problems when Logan was managing what he could and playing well. So the difference? Logan's performance. This isn't really an attack on Logan except for the two very costly picks he threw from the last two games, but more of we are only as good as he is. He certainly can not turn the ball over multiple times or turn it over in key times in the game. That is losing the game. He doesn't even really have to go out and truly win games with our defense. He just has to eliminate bad decisions while getting a little help from his receivers. You can still blame all the other things mentioned before, but the truth is we haven't seen those other aspects do well. We have seen Logan do well, which is why we were able to win (and an awesome D) despite all our other problems and why he is held to a higher standard. So that is why, as much as I hate to say it, he has been the major issue and cause for us losing these past two games.
I will tell you I am still going to support Logan and think we are probably better off with him than anyone else right now, but I will not be disappointed to see him graduate. I think he is a good quarterback but not a great one. I think he can be groomed into a great one because he has all the physical traits, but our coaching staff and system just couldn't get him there.
Comments
" I think he can be groomed into a great one because he has all the physical traits, but our coaching staff and system just couldn't get him there"
You hit the nail on the head. Maybe if SL and Grimes were here earlier things would be different, but it is what it is, and we can only hope for a bright future for him in the NFL
My comments (taken from Dr.'s thread):
If a receiver or running back coughed up the ball 8 times in two games, regardless of talent level, would they play? No. And that's why I'm officially on the Mark Leal train at this point. He can't possibly be worse than this. Logan may give us an opportunity to win at times, but he's always directly responsible for these two losses. I don't think any of the current excuses - no weapons, TE playing QB - hold water at this point. Recall that, in game TWO of 2007, the coaches pulled the rug out on Sean Glennon, a QB who actually played QB and had had four years of development (AND WON TEN GAMES) at that point for an 18 year old with "upside". I'm not saying that Leal is Tyrod, but I'm saying that "upside" at this point could be considered a QB who doesn't turn the ball over 4 times a game.
Additionally, Leal needs game experience if he's to be the starter next year, and I honestly don't think he could be worse at this point. Not to mention he's not built to run this veer/read option system where the running back is bigger than he is. Put the QB under center, let it be Leal, hand off to the best player on our team 30 times a game (Trey), and give us an actual shot to win on offense. OK, rant over.
Its a lot easier to turn the ball over as a quarterback than it is as a reciever. So that is a pretty bad comparison. Not saying Logan is doing well, but your analogy is pretty unfair.
So when you have leal starting, what do you propose we do when we need to run it? Say goodbye to our bad ground game and hello to a non existent one
Leal has demonstrated that he is mobile.
I'm saying that any player experiencing a similar slump would be benched in any other position. Sean Glennon didn't turn the ball over nearly as often and was yanked in game two for a quarterback with legs, which you could argue wasted one of the best receiver corps VT has had. Mark Leal is mobile, I'm not trying to compare him to Tyrod, but maybe most of this has to do with scheme. We aren't fooling anybody at this point with pre-snap motion and meshing the read option. There is no schematic advantage to what we're running now, and I absolutely believe they will not (or should not) run it next year because outside of LT, nobody fits a QB-focused power run game.
May have posted a little below this, whoops...
...but additionally, I think it's unfair to skew Edmunds stats (which aren't great) because he isn't being put in a position to succeed. Most of his hand offs are taken away from him by Logan in the read option/veer look. I'd like to venture we'd be decent in a pro-style set that we used to run, in the I-form, with a FB blocker because that is a scheme set up to take advantage of Trey's skills...not robbing him of each read option handoff and giving him the ball only when the defense is already on top of the QB exchange.
My 2 cases in point: Eli Manning has 2 superbowl MVPs. Brett Favre has 3 season MVPs. Both have had games like Logan's past 2.
VT is still in contention for the ACC championship. Until they're mathematically eliminated, you do not give up on your best chance to win. 2014 will be more a rebuilding year than 2013 anyways. So, playing Leal to prepare for 2014 isn't a very strong point.
I'll agree with the points that have been made many-a-time about Leal/Logan: Logan is best prepared and, until more evidence is seen, gives us the best chance to win. But here's the kicker, in my mind:
Logan appears to want to make plays all the time. He seems to want to carry the team on his back all the time. The pick 6 yesterday wasn't a good decision, but I think it comes from the perspective of wanting to make a play to save the team. We put it on Logan to do everything, so, even in bad situations, he always tries to do SOMETHING.
Now, I think if Leal were playing, he'd feel less pressure to be the guy all the time. We likely wouldn't ask him to save the game for us all the time. I'm guessing he'd be more likely to put his teammates in positions to make plays, maybe even view himself as more of a game-caretaker than a playmaker. I could see Leal throwing that pick six ball out of bounds, allowing himself to be tackled (as opposed to trying to fight for more yardage, taking hits, and possibly fumbling). Maybe he'd be more of a hey-a-punt-isn't-always-a-bad-thing type of player.
I guess my point is that, maybe, we need Logan to do LESS, not more, and that I think Leal would be able to do this. Hell, if Leal was in the game at QB, he might have TWO awesome TEs.
I don't know how you reach this conclusion? What makes you think Leal won't turn it over as much/more than Logan?
Pure speculation, but based on Stanford's comments I get the impression that Leal doesn't have a grasp on the offense. Again, speculating, but I think our QB position is in a bad spot right now. Logan is inconsistent at best, I fear that Leal is far worse. Bucky is raw.
This is FAR from guaranteed. Ford is lighting up the stat sheet this year, he's Lefty's guy, and he's enrolling early. Bucky is raw, but extremely athletic. Leal has just as much time in Lefty's system as Bucky, is more a more refined player, but doesn't have the same athletic gifts as Bucky.
So you want us to redesign our offense around a player who may or may not be our starter next year AND give up on a 6-3 season?
I can't imagine that the coaches would leave Leal on the bench if he was really a better option. They are professionals who spend far more time with the team than we do. They have bonuses attached to their results; I don't think they're going to stick to Logan if he's not the team's best option. Not to mention Leal (to our knowledge) hasn't exactly been begging to play.
Finally, I don't think we should give up on a 6-3 season to gain experience for next season. We still have a shot at winning the ACC Coastal.
Whereas Logan has proven that he doesn't have a solid grasp of the offense. Watch the read plays and plethora of missed open receivers in the game film if you don't believe me.
I agree, the season is not over. If we are mathematically eliminated at some point though, then we need to start preparing for next year. Next season is probably going to be rough and we just have to hope that our coaches can somehow turn things around. They would be put in a better position to succeed for next year by starting to evaluate whatever they can this year in real game situations.
Im sorry but this is plain wrong. I dont know what all of yall were watching yesterday but with the exception of that horrifying pick 6, which was one of the worst decisions and throws ive ever seen, Logan played an above average game. He made a lot of phenomenal throws down the field and moved the ball when there was nothing there. I know he still has trouble not throwing the ball in the dirt on the dump downs when he is backpedaling but in all reality those plays arent going to gain very many yards anyways. The two fumbles are plays that just happen in football, especially when so much of the offense is run through one player. The first interception was not his fault either, so saying Logan turned the ball over 4 times is kind of ridiculous. I would say maybe 2 of the turnovers are on him.
Secondly, calling for Leal to get him time for next year is a moot point as well because I am becoming more and more convinced that Ford is the guy next year not Leal. Leal will be given a shot but I believe Ford will beat him out.
I agree with you on mostly everything you said. The fact is that when Logan is the "good" Logan he is absolutely hands down the player that we want/need/should have on the field. But when he is the "bad" Logan the team cannot overcome it. The question becomes who should you play the starter who is playing worse than a second teamer but has the potential to be the star, or the second teamer who isn't gonna be the star but potentially can be just a manager. I am not saying that Leal is the answer and I realize there is nothing else besides either Logan or Leal, but I am saying that if Logan is playing poorly then there should be no risk in swapping him out for Leal. Clearly if Leal comes in an plays poorly you would put Logan back in, but this team need a game manager as you were saying essentially. All the quarterback would need to do is come in and don't make any bone head plays. The team will win if they could just get that, but currently Logan is not doing that, nor is he being the star to win the game.
I am interested in seeing what Leal could do.
I agree in that if he is who we plan on starting next year then some experience would be nice.
I just am afraid of what it could do to the mentality of the entire team. Logan is the leader and everyone on the team at least seems to be behind him. Last thing I want is the team to fall apart.
But in my honest opinion or prediction, I don't think Leal can be good enough or he would have already gotten a shot. He may not make bone-headed plays like Logan sometimes but I think he'd be "forced" into turning it over as in not having the physicality or arm strength Logan has that allows him to get away with some things. For instance, I believe if Leal starts today, we lose by a touchdown or FG in a much lower scoring game. Yet, if Logan plays well today we win by 2 touchdowns or more. I could be totally wrong but only time will tell.
One thing I will say for sure, a game managing QB can only be successful managing the game with at least an above average running game. Whether we don't have one or are not giving it a chance to develop I do not know, but Leal would have a tough time without a running game and I'm feel pretty confident in saying that.
I think Leal would also limit our offense even more than it is limited now so that would be trouble as well. Our short passing game may improve but our mid level to deep passing attack would weaken.
Like I said though, hard to know without him having a chance out there. This is all my guess and going off the coaches.
I completely and 100% agree with you. Have a leg.
There's another thread on this same subject - why start another?
Agree with jpcvt. I know this is about Logan but Edmunds is being used in a horrible way in my opinion. The Read option takes way too long to develop and with inconsistent offensive line play that leaves him pretty much shit out of luck. Praying for Power I football. The Read option is a nice wrinkle but we are using it way to much for my liking. I just think it develops way too slow.
Someone tell Logan that it is okay to punt or to throw the ball away...or even just take the sack! Agree that he feels to much pressure to make hero plays but as long as you don't turn the ball over, this works in our favor to win.
Yesterday I would have been right in the middle of this thread. Today I realize he's a senior, and finally will be nowhere near wrecking us next year. He'll be the next Josh Freeman in the NFL and I'll smile that he's someone else's problem.