Recent Comments
I know interviewing is a world of difference from accepting the job, but I guess I kind of expected the guy who said he was in Blacksburg to give his family a place to set roots and win for the right reasons to not look for the new thing one year in. Hope he stays though. I thought he was the best hire coming in and I think he can become legend at VT.
(maybe I am confusing him with Lefty but I thought it was Grimes)
Ugh, I couldn't be more oppossed to this. Sorry Clemson, you had your shot at FSU - time for Duke to get a turn. I hate the idea that a team could get left out of the championship just so a higher-ranked team (that already had a shot at the champion, generally) gets another go. I feel like this will eventually lead to an LSU-Bama rematch type scenario.
One thing I can't figure out...expectations for each individual position on offense in 2014 seem pretty high (TEs are stacked, plenty of talent at RB, good incoming class of WRs + returning group, Grimes seems to be doing well with the OL...QB might be the biggest question mark but seems like we will have good options / competition). It also seems we generally think SL does a good job with games planning, utilizing talent, etc.
Yet, it also seems expectations for the offense as a whole are pretty low for 2014. Why do you think that is?
Or what if we could keep the 16 teams as one conference, come up with some sort of computer generated ranking system based on a variety of factors - some of which we will never understand - and take the top two teams and put them in the conference championship game....
French - what are the "profiles" of the incoming receivers? Can you draw comparisons in their size / speed / skillset to any current or past Hokie WRs? Is there an Eddie Royal or Josh Morgan in this group?
Also - where do you see Carlis Parker and Charlie Meyer fitting in next season?
Getting rid of the "6 team divisions" wordage is very important to the future of these large conferences. For a 16 team conference that plays nine conference games, four 4-Team, divisions makes more sense than two 8-team divisions.
🚀🛡️
|
12 years 6 months
# | Bitter blog - 2013 in review: Developing o-line experienced its growing pains I hope Grimes stays, but the longer this goes on the more nervous about it I become.
Bob Bostad is another name to watch here.
I more or less see it as a knee jerk reaction to only playing the team in the other division once every 8(?) years. There was a lot of vocal outrage to that happening. From what I gleamed it seems he's more in favor of divisions, but not having to play every team in the division each year you can do more cross divisional stuff.
Ideally that would be what I wold go for. But I have a feeling that she'd make me compromise for just a second NFL that ran from February to September. Oh the things I'd do for love.
Kudos to French, because I went into the game expecting to see some jet-sweep action. Bravo, my friend!
French,
I have one question about the TE position, and specifically Ryan Malleck. Something that I've pondered all year was how Loeffler wanted to use Malleck that would have made him such an integral part of the offense. On one hand, you can say a pass-catching and good blocking TE is a phenomenal asset to any offensive system. I however, want to submit another theory.
In Loeffler's time at Auburn, he used Lutzenkirchen as a lead blocker from the backfield a good amount. This helped pave the way for Mason to rush for 1000 yards and the whole stable of RB's from Auburn to average 5+ YPC even when the rest of the offense was absolutely dreadful.
I don't know if using Lutzenkirchen as a lead blocker out of the backfield is more of a holdover from what Malzhan did and Loeffler re-using some of his playbook (Malzhan loves lead blockers such as Lutzy and Jay Prosch in 2013), or if it's part of Loeffler's style and thus a situation in which a blocker like Malleck could be used in Loeffler's system. In my mind, Loeffler's comments when he lost Malleck point more towards him being used similarly to Lutzenkirchen at Auburn than pointing towards losing Malleck's blocking at the LoS and pass catching ability as a traditional TE.
I know we have Sam Rogers as a FB and blowing-up-people blocker, but it strikes me that Malleck may have been a more refined blocker than the walk-on Rogers, no matter his level of effort and hustle.
Thoughts? I may be reading further into it than is warranted, but it's an intriguing idea to me, especially if Cline can develop his blocking skills and Hodges similarly develops into a blocker and pass catcher.
***Edited for spelling.
Your Mad Bomber reference made you seem old. Okoye was only 20 years ago. Daryle Lamonica was 60's/early 70's.
I don't work with the brightest people...
That's a really, really, really interesting point.
Nailed it.
Don't most microwaves nowadays have a "popcorn" button on them as well?
You guys should stop burning your popcorn. Flip the bag over and read the instructions.
This strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction to having Duke play in the ACCCG....Somebody can't cope with that idea, apparently.
The rule should be that if UVa wins the Coastal, The next best team goes to the ACCCG because nobody should have to watch UVa play another game. Eleven is already too much.
I take no responsibility for the apostrophe fail. Monday's WHAT are so ruff?
I think my biggest issue with the way the B1G operated for years with the 11 teams was the fact that a team could go undefeated and still miss out on a conference title, a situation that I know happened at least once. The only way I would support this would be to create the schedule such that it is impossible for 3 teams to end up undefeated, which would essentially require a similar "divisional" schedule similar to the current format, but without calling them divisions and just having it rotate.
I suppose what you'd do is take teams and separate them into 7 distinct rivalry pairs, set them in opposite "divisions" (for scheduling purposes), and then each year swap a few rivalries in such a way as to balance the schedule so you play all non-rivals an equal number of times over an X-year period.
I came up with a similar system for once we move to 16 teams with rivalry "pods" instead of pairs, but felt it was unfeasible because of the fact that the "divisions" change every year. However, if you did away with the divisions and just have the two teams with the best records play for the championship, it doesn't matter who is in what division because divisions only matter for scheduling, so the average fan doesn't get confused that Virginia Tech was in the Coastal division last year and is in the Atlantic division this year. I posted this on the site a while back. If anyone is actually interested in seeing the nuts and bolts, I'll try to find the link.
I asked that myself. Without having a direct and candid discuss with Loeffler, I can only speculate. Here are some potential reasons.
1) UCLA didn't have any film on Parker, but they know he is listed as a receiver so they could have anticipated pass upon seeing him as the motion man.
2) Despite his size, Mangus has been mostly a straight ahead runner when used this season. I can't recall him being used on the jet sweep much if at all, and when he was used in any kind of mesh point read option, he seemed to have some trouble with the hand off. Perhaps he just isn't comfortable on those types of plays.
3) Parker proved to be a very good runner. He may have just been the best option for the job.
I'm not a fan of the current escalting salaries either, it isn't a world where VT can compete well. That said, it could be a bit of a "bubble" and things might normalize some. I remember about 5 years ago everyone was blasting VT for not giving Bud a HC In Waiting title when lots of other top schools were riding that trend in an effort to retain top assistants. Kind of blew up in the face of everyone that did it in some form or fashion. So this arms race for assistants might be a bit of the same thing.
Doubling your salary can buy a lot of roots.