Recent Comments
Buck up Little Camper.
I feel like a lot of the shifting around was trying to confuse defenses because the offense needed to have any advantage it could.
I'm really interested to see what the offense looks like next year, could be very different.
Praying for another hilariously overblown Canadian scandal to pop up so I can "productively" spend all my work downtime now that football can't do it anymore.
That and going to Iceland, eventually.
Barr, you're exactly right. People seem to completely forget that we weren't exactly blowing people off the line here this year. See Duke and BC games in 3rd/4th-and-short situations. We didn't have a good, consistent blocking TE (look at just how TINY Cline looks in French's running game breakdown), an elite back or outstanding blocking on the edge to give us a shot at breaking big plays. Look at Oregon, for example. Everyone talks about how great their athletes are, but they have some of the best blocking WRs in college football. It's beautiful. Back to my point: maybe the veer game was overused, but to be fair, between the rushing results themselves and the passing game it opened up, I can see why Loeffler was willing to ride it so often.
Wasn't Poindexter Settle's main recruiter at UVA? If he was then that greatly higher's Tech chances of landing him.
Curling up in a corner and crying until the spring game.
whoa dude. Settle down. I wasn't being insulting. I'm just trying to understand why you are making the argument. As you say you never said Leal would be "better", just that is would be much different. So possibly much, much worse. Even possibly LOLUVA 2-10 worse.
This is why I said I don't understand your argument. I'm not disagreeing with you that the situation isn't grey, but if Leal isn't demonstrably "Better" (by your own admission) then what I said about choosing the constant should be the correct decision as a coach. Go with the devil you know, Logan not Leal.
Maybe, Maybe not. Strikes me like a Post Hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "The seduction of the Veer" has already been mentioned in this thread, and If I recall, there was a *very good* article arguing in favor of significantly reducing our dependency on the RO/IV later in the season.
Loeffler demonstrated in the Sun bowl that he is more than capable of adjusting his game plan based on personnel. I thought what he was running with Wright and Parker is indicative of this. Even as its efficacy significantly dwindled late in the season, the allure of the RO/IV and LT was too strong because of the chance it could have produced something like that "animal champion" run. But at what point did it beome a crutch, if any?
That's why I don't agree with the notion that we wouldn't have had a run game with no logan and no RO/IV. We would have had one, it would have just been different.
Loeffler was asked the same question mid-season and if I am not mistaken he said look we have a lot of new faces in there and we have some trouble running the normal stuff why overload them. He also said his offense has the option to hurry up but its under his discretion.. Which basically means when he feels comfortable that the offense knows what its doing and given the QB can audible out of the play if need be.
Ideally I think once we find Our QB within a year or so we can expect to see some hurry up.
I can't help but feel a bit embarrassed and frustrated that VT's BCS bowl record was so bad.
Granted: In my personal record book, we beat Michigan.
Losing to Kansas was the defining moment of Stinespring's inability to run an offense, and for me the most embarrassing loss despite wider score margins in other games.
Despite these feelings, I am seriously pumped for the future. I think Loeffler, Grimes & Moorehead are on track to complement Darth Bud, and set us up for a solid run at the top prize in the next few years.
I know what you were saying in your post. I was more poking fun at people who use that play as the sole reason why he should be a TE. He's not the first QB to catch a pass, and he won't be the last, but people see that one play and they're like HE HAS TO BE A TE, SEE THAT???
I just find that frustrating, thinking about a guy who has seven years of QB experience and that one play is what everyone points to as to why he's "not a QB"
Not a comment about your post per se, just a general comment.
In my head, I'm just picturing the most awesomely annoying, glittery, MySpace-like font. Otherwise, a simple button to insert this GIF might work:
I agree. I don't think the Sun Bowl should be held against Leal. I think it's unfair to him as a player and the dedication he has put in the program being the backup. The unfortunate reality though is it did put him on a relative hot seat. I really hope that Leal gets his chance but I think he needs to be like bottled lightning in the Spring, or else he may get overlooked.
That would be massively depressing for a kid who put in that amount of time but it happens every year.
You don't see the basis of my argument because you don't grasp what I'm actually saying. I have never said, nor implied that Leal would be "Better." I think this is the cause for your confusion, you're replying to what you want me to be saying rather than what I'm actually saying.
In Summary:
- If Leal, through some instance of fate, was forced into starting I think the season's result would be much different.
- A lot of the criticisms of Leal also apply to Logan
- But one of them has 3 years of starting experience
- I'm disappointed that the gap between the two, in light of said years of starting experience isn't bigger
- Because it's not, I don't agree that the "LT should have been the starter all year without a doubt" position is as strong as people want it to be.
That's really it, that's really my only point. I'm arguing that the issue is greyer than people want it to be and have wanted it to be all year. That's all. If you disagree and think it's black and white no questions asked signed sealed delivered, that's cool too. I understand why you feel the way you feel. We just disagree.
You can choose to understand or not understand why I feel the way I feel. But the first step would be understanding *what* I feel.
It's an interesting thought I'll keep under consideration. Thanks.
I plan to get back to working during the week to make up for my significant lack of production these last few months.
Heading to Lake Placid, NY in February to watch the Olympics (in a former Olympic town) and ski/snowboard/drink beer. Other than that, Hershey Bears games for my hockey fix, and will continue to root for the Colts on Sundays.
I'm just trying to get a job in or near NOVA so I can be with my SO
makes you wanna...
But would we be running much Read Option/IV if Leal was the QB?
No, but if we didn't run the Read Option/IV, we would have an even worse running game than we do now. We would be even more one dimensional and even less offensively effective.
I think that if Leal had a season of game and starter-rep practice experience in an offense not specifically designed around the specific talents of Logan Thomas, then the result would be similar to the one we saw this year.
The interchangability between the back-up and the starter shouldn't be that big if both players have relatively similar skill sets and the offense is agnostic to said skill sets. This was clearly not the case this year, which is why I think it's unfair to use a half of a performance in a bowl game (Against a very good, very motivated, and very physical team) as some sort of grand indictment of Mark Leal's ability as a QB, or some retroactive confirmation on the past. The sample sizes just don't even compare. Logan had some just as bad halves of football this year, even late this year - and the offense was deisgned around him, he's more physically gifted, and he had 3 years of game experience and starter reps.
That's my whole point in a nutshell.
it's annoying that Alabama lost their BCS bowl game and still edged out Clemson who won theirs..but wtv #SEC
I think with a good to great offensive coaching staff, it very well *could have* worked. I'd say the chances are high. But we didn't have a good offensive coaching staff, and this is what happened.
If you understand this then why do you think Leal, who had the same inferior coaching would have been better? Even if Leal was the starter Leoffler would still have to mold an offense around him because of the questions at WR, RB, TE and OL. Would it be the same offense he designed for Logan? Possibly not, but if all other variables are true then you go with the constant which was Logan.
I respect your opinion but I guess I don't see the basis of your argument.
My brother's bachelor party in New Orleans for Wrestlemania XXX is going to be a high point of my offseason. Also, I think becoming a parent will make the first few months of the offseason fly right by.