Recent Comments

These arguments are weak and I don't think you've actually thought through what you're saying. Yes, it would be nice if our offense could have come around immediately like it did at TCU. You could argue that their situation was just as bad as ours, and maybe you're right, I don't buy it (because we were really, really, really bad), but let's just accept that and move on.

So we didn't get the best possible outcome, do we now fire Loeffler and move on? Bring someone else in who might do a total turnaround in one year? I think we can agree that's a bad idea. The only thing worse than taking over an offense in rebuild mode, is taking over a rebuilding project where the administration has demonstrated a lack of patience. We'd be guaranteeing a second rate hire.

So we have to give Loeffler a couple more years. Last year I would argue there was a large improvement in potential, if not shown in the numbers. Despite the fact that our upperclassmen were still on the team, we were manned by freshmen, sophomores, and transfers nearly everywhere. Former starters (ie. Demetri Knowles, JCC) were no longer even playing. That's how much better our talent got immediately. We have a lot of talented young players, and that's a clear step up from where we were. There was also an absurd injury bug that you have to take into account, especially when depth is actually impossible to solve in one year. You're saying we haven't seen results, and that's just not true.

No one is saying that Loeffler is absolutely the answer and is clearly a great coordinator. Only that there has been improvement shown, obvious dedication to the job, and that this is the year when the results should clearly be shown on the field. And if he's not the answer, by waiting this long we at least set ourselves up for a decent hire, thanks to the influx of young talent and the perception by coaches that we gave someone an honest shot to do their thing.

You're argument seems to be that because he didn't do as good as a historically good turnaround at a school in a very different situation, he is a failure and any support is naive until proven otherwise. That just doesn't make sense.

But as soon as that conviction comes through, the hammer should come down swiftly and hard. And in this case, I'd be willing to bet it does.

You mean for the player or the school?

There are reports that he's blanketed Bucky in coverage on multiple occasions now.

2011 is a curious year...24 and 105? ouch

In this thread was the first time I saw someone accuse TKP of being pro-SL. For the most part I always thought TKP was kind of 40-40-20. The hard leans for or against, and then the one's on the fence.

It's funny how both sides think they are realists.

Andy Bitter in his blog mentioned that "Holland Fisher's days at Virginia Tech appear to be numbered". Does anyone have any background on that statement?

I'm just curious why you think that? He is the fastest player on our team, good size (6'1, 215) with serious moves.

Keep in mind, the difference is, nobody is ignoring what you're saying. They're providing examples of why it's too soon to render a verdict on Loeffler. But you've already stated, the reasons they're providing, you don't accept.

My question, though, is, how can you honestly say the state of the OL was anything other than an unmitigated disaster upon Loeffler's arrival? Forget everything else that's given as a reason for patience and just focus on the condition Newsome left the OL. Are you saying that wasn't a nuts and bolts rebuild?

No OL, no offense. (Unless you have a Tyrod Taylor taking snaps.)

That line makes me wet myself every time I see that movie.

It's a sensitive matter, and both victim and the accused have rights, so I totally agree with keeping it entirely out of the press until a conviction was reached. Now is when the floodgates should open. The scholarship thing was messed up, but there's also no evidence of it being related to her coming forward. The writer implies it, and I think he's wrong to do so unsubstantiated. I have no issue with a person who has been indicted taking part in team activities. Innocent until proven guilty should include all facets of life. But as soon as that conviction comes through, the hammer should come down swiftly and hard. And in this case, I'd be willing to bet it does.

As for run/pass balance, I don't know if we can say for sure, because Loeffler is basing his running game strategy around what the OL will allow. But there have been times Loeffler seems to spurn the run when it's working (a concerning holdover from his predecessor). There was one game last season, I can't remember which, when Loeffler called the exact same run play like six consecutive times coming out of halftime. It was like he was waiting for it to not work anymore so he could say, well, run's not working, back to the pass.

But again, he's obviously timid about committing to the run because of how the run game has looked the last two seasons. (Hint: it ain't good.) If we start seeing push and if backs start hitting their cutback lanes, that might change. He wasn't afraid to go run-heavy when JCC caught fire down the stretch. I'm hopeful.

We can definitely break down the specifics we've seen in the scheme, though. Like his passing tree. Dude is on point with structuring his routes. He forces zone defenders to make a decision, and that decision leaves a receiver with one on one coverage. The route situation is much, much better than it was under Stiney, and in my mind it's only an issue of bring pass pro along in the OL so the QB has time to make his read and pick his target.

I love the way Loeffler uses tight ends. And Stiney produces exactly the TEs to thrive in this scheme.

Overall, my biggest worry is if he's going to be willing to have faith in the run.