Recent Comments
I think Beamerball is better defined lately as returning punts for negative yardage and squandering opportunities for 3 points.
No problem
|
12 years 8 months
# | Bitter blog - ESPN's Todd McShay weighs in on Thomas, Exum, Gayle's draft stock Logan Thomas is not going pro. I liked the Carolina Panthers announcers last week when talking about Cam Newton. One of the announcers said that LT may be the next Cam Newton. The other retorted, "Except his passing is not as accurate, and makes poor reads on the field. Thomas' is not even as good as Tebow and we can see where he is now." That summarizes it.
I've noticed that as well, although I chalked it up to him playing with a lot of emotion. I get nervous when Wiles rotates him in because he always seems to play so aggressively that he loses contain. I realize it's easier said than done, but he needs to learn to channel his intensity without losing sight of his responsibilities. It's almost like he thinks he can make a play every play but doesn't see that his aggressiveness can be exploited. I'd hope that even with a good DT next year he learns to rein it in a little and play within the defense. I also think he borders on unsportsmanlike with some of his actions after the play and hopefully playing more under control will help him clean that up.
#Fosterball
As and Auburn grad and lifelog Hokie fan, I have been thinking about this since 2010. Bud Foster is one of the (if not the) best DC in the country, and Malzhan is one of (if not the) best offensive-minded coach in the country.
You have no idea how giddy I got at just the mere thought of Auburn hiring away Bud Foster last year...the probability of it happening was <0.01% (probably lower), but the mere thought of it got my football mind all excited...
It was definitely a compliment. Fact about me: I go to a liberal arts school. We do unmanly things like talk about poetry like it's a good thing that people should do.
No but a good defense can put 2 or 7 points on the board as well. And that's called Beamerball.
I s i n c e r e l y h o p e t h a t t h i s i s g o i n g t o w a r d s a c o m p l i m e n t a n d n o t a j a b a t m y m a n h o o d . T h x ?
🍪 🐶 COOKIES 4 LIFE!
|
12 years 8 months
# | The Seduction of the Inverted Veer: Running Game Reviewed My thoughts on the goal line play(s)...why are you putting in the small, not as powerful back behind a mountain of a FB??? If TE14 isn't the way to go...what about that 6-6 250lb QB running behind him...kinda think he could move the pile. If LT3 is going to run 24 times, I would make damn sure they were in goal line situations...since they count the most.
Which brings me to my next question. On short yardage, everyone in the stadium knows its Battering Ram time...D puts 10-11 in the box. Why don't we have a fake run, pass (or jump pass, ala Tebow) out of that situation?
My eye test was backed up by TKP analyis. That feels good.
I don't get the lack of power running game in the second half. We were down what, 10 points? If the running game is working and you're getting yardage, you don't have to throw the ball (on certain drives - still need to throw to maintain the deep threat, this isn't GT). Loeffler seems to be tentative to call a drive where he only throws the ball once or twice or not at all (that isn't a 3 and out). The power running game was clearly working. If you are running a play that's working, why change it? The other example of Loeffler running repeated plays was in one of our ACC matchups (GT I think...?) where Loeffler ran the same power run like 6-7 times in a row. All to Tre. And we scored a TD and had one of our best looking scoring drives in ACC play.
In essence: You don't necessarily have to throw the ball on every drive if your offensive line is getting a good push up front. There's nothing wrong with calling 12 running plays in a row if it's working. With LT3 having a down day, this was a day to dial up a power run game and stick with it all game long while getting LT3 some easy reads and passes to keep the defense honest.
Love TKP. I haven't had this big a jump in my football IQ since I learned what a "down" was.
A situation that could stretch so vertically that it becomes binary lingo.
You sir have the words of a poet.
A situation that could stretch so vertically that it becomes binary lingo.
EXACTLY!
Yes - you have the right to an opinion, but you don't have the right to be an asshole about it. Or you do, but you should expect to get disapproval from others when you are.
French, I've seen others mention this here & I've agreed, but doesn't it feel like the handoff in our running game takes substantially longer than it should?
that situation, kind of like he right side of my screen, is ever approaching
I've wondered the same. Is Logan getting frustrated & trying to put everything on his shoulders, therefor keeping it when he shouldn't?
O jeez I completely missed the fact that this was the "ask french" thread...I didn't mean to answer a question directed at him
my b
We all like Lefty, he seems like a good dude, and he is a great interview. So I guess that explains why Saturday's playcalling gets a relatively muted 'huh' reaction as opposed to the screaming-from-the-rooftops we'd give Stiney for establishing something that works and then promptly going away from it for the rest of the game.
I agree that the direction and structure of the offense seem so, so much better. But the playcalls are as infuriating as ever. And the thing is, he's shown the patience to go back to the well - even in the Duke game, there was one point where we ran exact same successful play three or four times in a row (and the end of the UNC game was six times I think). Which just makes it that much more frustrating when the stuff that works, disappears, and we're left with the LT battering ram.
One thing I'm a little confused by - french, you say Lefty is seduced by the big power runner at QB and can't stay away from calling his number on the inverted veer - but it also sounds like there is a read element to those plays. Do you think LT is looking for a reason to keep it, is he just getting it wrong, is Loeffler telling him to keep it unless the read is head-slappingly obvious, or is there just a lot of designed jet-sweep and stretch action that is never actually intended to be handed off?
I, too, have wondered about running personnel at times. JCC is fairly fast, but doesn't have the power required for a goal line call.
I did love seeing the QB sneak a couple times in the short yardage situations that earlier this year would have been a run from a couple yards back.
It was probably a fearful respect of Bud's defense that made it just an offense mention. Just like it was Sam Rogers that kept it dishonorable mention. "The O is turible...that fullback though...don't hurt me"
I couldn't agree with you more on that. But I must say that at this point it's a mental block for the player. They have been worn in several disappointing losses (eg: UNC 09) and some sloppy wins (eg: GT 08). It's a lot like the dreaded green jerseys that Notre Dame used to wear.
Again, it has nothing to do with superstition, but I think it does creep into the players minds. It shouldn't happen, but it does.
And my last point: I was a kid when Tech used to wear the blaze orange jerseys in the early 90s and when I look at our current all orange uniforms I flash back to those times and shudder.
