WARNING: You may get triggered by reading this article, as it will undoubtedly describe some reoccurring frustrations you have seen with the offense.
http://www.thewareaglereader.com/2012/10/the-tragedy-of-offensive-coordinator-scot-i/#.VECO1RnD_qD
I guess I will quote some highlights, if you don't feel like reading the whole thing:
And after coming all that way and getting up early, to see this football team be so unprepared to play after a week off was staggering. We will go into detail on Loeffler below but I want to point out some specific things in the game that drove me bananas:
The useor non-useof fullback Jay Prosch is infuriating. What the heck are we doing with him???? With 40 seconds left in the first quarter we bring him into the game in the I-formation and then hand it to him. He gains a couple of yards and leaves the game. Carrying the ball or blocking, either one, Auburn ran the ball out of the I-formation with Prosch at fullback one time on Saturday. Once.
What did they do during the week off? How could this offense get worse against a defense that everyone else in the SEC tears up? And if it looks like this against Arkansas, what happens when we play UGA or bama? (Van notes: I think we all sort of know the answer to that question.)
Here is a simple question: What is Auburn trying to do on offense? We all see what the results are. But what is Auburns offensive identity supposed to be? You would think after watching every play of every game that we would all know this by now. We thought Loeffler was hired as a run-first guy but we are actually throwing the ball much more than last season. (The actual breakdown shows more run plays than passes, but when you account for all the scrambles and sacks, the numbers are much more even.) And the constant rotation of players and seemingly random play selection at times doesnt allow anyone to get a rhythm.
This offense is attempting to do way, way, way too much. And that is one of the reasons that execution is so bad. Pick a few things and execute them perfectly. We dont care if the playbook is thicker than the last volume of Harry Potter if we cant run mostor anyof them successfully or even competently. Oklahoma State is leading the nation in offense and they will often run the same play six times in a row on a drive. But they execute it well.
Teams practice so that they can execute during the game. And this Auburn offense cannot execute during the game.
Does any of this sound familiar? Was Beamer perhaps a little too optimistic on hiring an offensive coordinator coming off a historically bad year at Auburn? I'll admit, I was flabbergasted at the hiring when it was first announced. I was expecting these results, and, so far, I unfortunately haven't been surprised. I see a team that isn't taught to execute and an offense that plays to its weaknesses rather than its strengths. Now, we'll be stuck with an average to awful offense, while the defense will carry us to decent enough seasons to ensure that the needed changes on offense come way too late. I just hope that we learn from our mistakes. We could've been a powerhouse in the 2000s if we hadn't been in denial about our offense. Let's not repeat the same mistakes please, Virginia Tech football administration.
Comments
Injuries and lack of execution. These are things play calling do not easily fix. The game plan, when executed, works. The man hasn't called perfect games, but the full deck isn't there bro. His judgement year is likely 2016, when a system he's fully recruited and coached is implemented. Put down the molotov cocktail; experience and talent have carried the offensive side of the program this far as far as I can tell.
Time heals all wounds.
If the game plan calls for a double reverse fullback pass when your offense is finally getting some momentum on, not first down, but SECOND down then the game plan sucks too. Using JC up the middle for the entire first half was dumb and everyone knew that going into the game. I have and always will hate rollout plays on short yardage situations, especially when Brewer was finally reading the field well and making good decisions. Loeffler is not good at his job, this is just another example of that. People can keep trying to defend him because our VT bias gets in the way, but the fact is his track record shows a good QB coach and a bad OC. All I'm seeing now is more of that.
Actually, when I saw that reverse to Rogers, my first thought was - 'Oh no! Loeffler had to go to the rest room & Stinespring has grabbed his headset in the mean time!'
I swear that's what happened during the GT game. WR screen on 3rd and long. Is that you, Bryan?
You mean like that time it worked beautifully against UVA and OSU?
Idk about beautifully. Against UVA it got like 10 yards and against OSU I think Rogers scrambled for what like 8 or 9? Could be off on those exact numbers but when you run double reverse passes, those are supposed to be big time plays. So I would say they went OK, not beautifully
How bizarre. Everyone creates gifs and memes when those high risk plays work and then turn around and light the fuse when they don't shakeout. Ohio State happened. It wasn't a fluke it, it wasn't Zeus opening up the clouds and smiling down on Hokie nation. I was focus and preparation, two things this team have apparently been lacking in.
If you want to talk about the inability of the coaching staff to have a team properly prepared, then there's a conversation. It's not a surprise anymore and that's just how things are shaking out this year.
Speaking as a 45 yr old triathlete, I beg to differ. The saying should be...
"Time wounds all heels."
I've always said that 'when he has his recruits' is a sorry excuse for bad coaching. Good coaches will play to the strengths of the players they have and adjust their schemes accordingly. By saying 'he needs his recruits,' what's really being said is "He doesn't know how to coach outside of a particular set of circumstances."
I still don't know why we hired him other than the fact that he was cheap.
He inherited a dumpster fire on O. Hence the reason most of our production is coming from Freshmen. And to call the situation on the line a dumpster fire is being kind. So, yeah, he deserves a couple of years to right the ship.
I do agree about some of the play calls. He doesn't seem to want to stick to something that's working. I know he wants to break tendencies but if its working, go to it again. Be Spurrier, run it till they stop it. He has done wonders for the passing game IMO, but sometimes his playcalling lacks flow.
Really? Because coaches routinely agree with schools that they need a full cycle before a turnaround. And if what you are saying is really true about recruiting being a sorry excuse for bad coaching then we may as well fire most of VT coaches:
Searles: Well, Grimes laid the foundation, so we should have a top 10 line now. What's wrong with this guy? He should be able to coach the line he has and turn them into something special. get rid of him.
Brown: We haven't had a good Whip since Cody Grimm and he was a walk-on, what the hell is going on? We have recruits here. he must not be coaching them. He's fired.
S. Beams: He's had pretty much no real running back until Trey Edmunds who played last year as a freshman until he broke his leg, and now our top 3 RB's are injured. But hey, he should be able to coach the other players we have to be amazing. Sorry Shane, gone.
Foster: Defense is great but in all honesty we haven't really had a great set of LB's since Hall and Adibi, so what gives? He has the recruits, no excuses Bud.
Fact is that having recruits is absolutely critical in today's college football. Gone (for the most part) are the days where VT would find the overlooked kid and he becomes a 5 star player. That was before recruiting websites, social media, recruiting events and TKP type fan sites. It rarely happens now and will be more rare in the future. So the final 5 years of Stinespring era and the unbelievably bad run of recruiting basically tied an anchor around our legs as we circled the toilet. To keep the bowl streak going through those years has been remarkable and I am sure required great coaching.
I want success fast just as much as every Hokie fan does, but I remember exactly where we were and how bad we all expected us to be these past 2 years. During that final year of O'cainspring most fans here, TSL and elsewhere were expecting a season of 2 to 3 wins, not a bowl season. I'm not thrilled with this season by any means. I have serious questions on play calling but I haven't lost perspective of where this program was and how seriously bad the last coaching staff left us for the future.
great post Fernley ... my question is about everyone crucifying the OC for play calling. With all the variability and control given to the QB (see all the check-down throws) how does a fan even know what was called? I get the reverses, etc. but for the most part, I just don't get all the fans complaining about the play calling. What was called versus what did Brewer audible? Also, it's not like we had Shai ...or Marshawn .... or Edwards ....
Does Scot Loefler know what a Scot Loefler offense looks like
You know that little heart murmur during dramatic resuscitation scenes in the movies? It's kind of like that.
IMO Loeffler's goal is to use misdirection and a variety of different looks to get playmakers in space. Get the playmaker the ball and let him do his thing. Unfortunately, all of our offensive playmakers are either hurt (TEs) or very young (everyone else) - this poses a challenge to Lefty.
Our recruiting (especially on the offensive side of the ball) is trending up. I'm confident that by 2016 (the year I had circled when Lefty was hired), we will see a fully functional offense. If not, I will call for a new OC, but I'm not ready to jump the gun.
We were warned. I didn't want to believe it at the time.
I should have stopped reading. Damnit.
Is it coincidental that Auburn goes to the National Championship, the very year after Loeffler and his 115th offense, with pretty much the same players?
edited because my grammar isn't too good...
No. Malzahn doing Malzahn things with his players.
Not the same players. Marshall was a JUCO transfer. So he didn't have him at QB.
Auburn that year was a dumpster fire started from the very top. I'm giving Lefty a pass on that year because of how truly bad the HC was. The problem is he went from a VERY bad situation there to a not so great situation here. Any Hokie fan that thinks otherwise, that we should have won ACC championships those years, are kidding themselves. I am just as baffled at playcalling as the next fan but what I see beneath the surface is some of the best recruiting we've ever had, a team of freshman playmakers like never before and a schedule that lends to some really great runs in the next few years. I want to see what happens when Lefty has players through a full cycle. Frankly, I see freshman making the most plays and veterans making the most mistakes. if that's the case and we have better QB recruiting than ever before, better WR recruiting than ever before, better OL recruiting in a very long time, and a return to form on RB recruiting. Then I in it for the long haul. If Ford, Bucky, Phillips, Williams, mckenzie, Teller, Smith, etc don't turn into an effective offensive machine then Lefty has got to go. Until I see if he can or cannot mold a team of recruits I'm not going to be calling for the guy's head.
This is the mantra of VT football. We wait too long for things to happen in a world where events happen at alarming rates. We live in slow motion because we need to wait it out, while consistently falling behind and playing catch-up. For once, I'd like us to sack up and do something big, instead of playing it safe forever and always
completely disagree. your line of thought would have had Beamer fired and VT still a no-nothing mountain school in SW Virginia. Yeah, everyone wants success now. talks about how you "sack up" and do something big. Yet, IMO "sacking up" means you make a commitment and see it through, not fire someone for struggling through a rebuilding and in the midst of a recruiting renaissance because I want my ice cream now. Yeah, sometimes success happens immediately, but those coaches tend to move a lot until the get to a top position. Teams have wild swings up and down based on the performance of one individual and not the team as a complete unit. Look at Ole Miss hiring Freeze. They gave him time and resources and he's doing amazing. Rodriguez at Arizona, brought back a coach everyone was down on and stuck by him to get recruits full cycle into his system. They just knocked of Oregon for second straight year and are a damn good team, moving to be great.
Time. Commitment. That's "sacking up".
And if we are using fan base articles from Auburn as proof that Lefty was a bad hire, I will counter with a fan base article from Temple stating the exact opposite.
https://templefootballforever.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/auburn-gets-a-gre...
Quotes:
Keeping Lefty is nothing like keeping O'Cainspring around. that was good ol' boy thinking. It was standing on the stability of being a 10 win team while our future was routinely being cut out from under us. Now it's the exact opposite, a team in rebuilding with recruiting that is bringing in real playmakers, many of which would probably not be interested in VT if Lefty wasn't here. Sack up and give the man time to use the playmakers he is bringing in that will be able to deliver the offense he wants to run.
All y'all hush now and listen to the man! Pitt's gonna Pitt. Tech's gonna Tech and Brewer's gonna Brewer. This too shall pass, and with it comes that feeling of knowing something great is out there. We've seen the light shine down. We've just got to weather the squall.
Well to counter, I am one who would like to see a change at the head coaching position. I know I may be in the majority, but I want it now, and I've wanted it for quite some time.
Talking about Loeffler, I don't think tonight's offensive performance was due to the fact that he's "rebuilding" an offense. He has plenty to work with, but he doesn't know what the hell to do with it. He needed to show that he can produce OSU-like results week in and week out, and he cannot. He is a roller coaster of a coach, which is exactly what we've had forever now. It is all about getting your ice cream now, and you can do that with the right hire. We hired a guy with ONE good season at a school, but we keep chalking it up to "not having his system in place." If you are a good offensive mind, you can create and execute a gameplan to fit the system in place, and Loeffler does not have the capacity to do so.
No need to get into a Beamer debate, but I disagree.
yeah, this is true but it's not like the top OC's in the country are beating down our door to move to Blacksburg let alone take over a team that was down with a bare cupboard. You wanting a home run hire is fine, but the realities suggest what VT needs are coaches that respect commitment to stick around and build something. *cough* Bud Foster *cough*
I don't think he needs to show he can produce OSU type performances game in game out yet. That seems fairly naive to think that a team heavily laden with underclassmen and injuries is going to be capable to do that.
Agreed, but I'm beginning to suspect that Loeffler is fighting for his gameplan and being overruled to revert to something he's not. It was one of the big issues at Auburn, he didn't have the right players for his system and when he tried to run his system to build for coming years he was overruled by Chizik. I am beginning to think Beamer is doing some overruling. I'm not saying Lefty is going to be immediately successful if he was left to his own devices but I would prefer we be all in on one system. Again I go back to Temple, where by all accounts Addazzio let Lefty run the system he designed and he had great success at it a year after they had quite poor offensive production.
Well if Beamer is overruling him, then why the hell hire the guy in the first place?
What it boils down to is that we have a coaching problem. It can be left up to interpretation where it's stemming from. All I know is that the offense can't even line up and execute before the snap, let alone after. And the special teams have been abysmal going on a few seasons now.
offensive penalties
definitely coaching problem. Do you know if these are happening in practice? Or are these game day issues? If game day issues how much control of that is on Lefty in the booth and how much is on field coaches?
Special teams
Agreed, abysmal for long time. yet we are hitting more field goals than in a long time. punt return is coming back. at least it seems that way.
Sounds like you're just reaching now. I'd assume it does happen in practice since it happens 10 times a game, and yes that's his fault (or Beamer's fault, you pick). He is the leader of the offense and if said offense commits at least 8 pre-snap penalties a game, then it's on the coach for not having the kids prepared (every fuckin week) and not teaching discipline. One or two pre-snap penalties a game can be chalked up to players making mistakes, but not the amount we have. And I know pre-snap penalties aren't what dictates an offense's success, but in our case, they seem representative of a bigger problem.
Be supportive of the team but be honest as well.
There is too much pre-snap confusion because there is too much complexity or lack of practice. Overthinking is going on so execution is not instinctive. That is the cause of penalties and blown assignments.
reaching? no, not at all. My point is none of us know, we are all assuming. I agree with what you're saying and I believe I am being supportive and completely honest. More honest than people calling for Loeffler's head with nothing more than a rant.
exactly this, 757. If you know (from past games and probably practice as well) that the offense struggles with a certain level of complexity, doesn't it stand to reason that a good coach will implement a scheme at a level he knows his players are comfortable with? Then, as the season progresses, analyze how well the players are grasping the scheme and increase/decrease the complexity of the approach to achieve best results. I'm not a coach (obviously) but this is the kind of thing you do in all phases of life, you can't expect a team (and a young team, at that) to handle everything you throw at them and then never change the approach, that's NOT putting the team in a position to succeed.
Bud Foster has a pretty complex scheme overall, yet our defense seems to be in the top 30 nationally year in-year out. The announcers even touched on it...why do you think there's such a disparity between defensive and offensive production? The evidence compiled over years (way beyond Loeffler) of results suggests the ability of the coordinators to get the best out of their players.
Bravo!!
The O-Line (and to an extent the rest of the O) has to be aware of their inconsistency. I think this is in the O linemen's head so much that they are not focused on their success but focused on not failing and hoping the drive will stay alive. I think the immediate stress and memories of inconsistent production has lead to a lack of composure pre-snap. Do the players have a sincere belief that the next play will be one where they impose their will, much less one which goes for a 45 yard TD? Right now, I don't.
I don't know how to coach a change in attitude from playing with only fear. As in most things in life, hoping for your own success is not viable; you have to believe that you will be successful.
I'm proud of everybody. Having a good debate/discussion with no rudeness or downvotes.
Me too. I was afraid I would have to rate a ton of modes today. A little snarkiness in some places, but otherwise everyone is TKPing so well.
You may not be in the majority, but you're not alone either. I don't talk about it much because most posters here feel differently and there's no point getting into an argument about it. But IMO we're F$U circa 2007. The only difference is that we don't recruit at their level so our recovery will be longer, slower, and likely much more painful.
Still, I think it's premature to call for CSL's head. Whether or not I agree with CFB's decisions (or lack thereof), the fact remains that CSL, CJG/CSS, and CAM inherited a mess. I say give them three full years and then let's see where we're at. If we haven't seen dramatic improvement by the end of the 2015 season then I think it's time for a much bigger change, starting at the top.
Do you just realize you used TEMPLE quotes???? Yeah, Temple was probably happy to have Loeffler... as far as I'm concerned I wish they'd offer him a head coaching job just so he'll go away. When I have to sit in a bar with Pitt fans and they're asking me what the hell we are doing on offense...things aren't good.
both those articles are from fans of those teams, so your point is that a Temple fan can't understand understand football as well as an Auburn fan? really?
I agree that hearing that from Pitt fans, or any other team fans, or really from anyone at all blows. I just don't it is all Loeffler's doing, and I believe that he is putting the building blocks for the team that is going to be capable of running his offense.
Legitimate questions, I'm not just being a smart ass:
1) What exactly is "his offense?"
2) What, specifically, are the building blocks you see him putting in place that makes you come to this conclusion?
3) If he is building something, how come we haven't really seen any improvement at all in the offense over half of a season now? In short, what specific pieces of evidence are you using to support your opinion that Loeffler is good at his job?
Exactly. People keep saying "I like what he's doing, he laying a foundation." Well I don't see a damn foundation, I see the same joke of an offense with poor play-calling that I saw before Loeffler. People are trying to convince themselves he's doing a good job because he's what we have. Don't kid yourselves, he's bad at his job.
This is a reply to you, deathrow and IMissTyrod down below since your all asking the same thing.
IMO following the last year of O'Cainspring we were circling the vortex of the largest toilet ride in VT's history. Our recruits from 5 - 6 years before were gone and the recruits that we got in the recent years were largely not up to the same caliber. Almost no OL recruits at all. Very few true playmakers. No great RB recruit to replace DW4. No QB recruit to replace Tyrod and Logan (not to mention terrible coaching), AND no great TE's (largely because we converted them to OL and QB).
You are all quick to say Loeffler is at fault for all the bad, but are not giving him any credit for the good. (This may be more directed to Imisstyrod) yes, Moorehead and other coaches are killing it on recruiting but that has a lot to do with Lefty. If you think it doesn't then I'm not sure you know how important the OC and DC is in a recruits decision making process. Not to mention that in his first year of recruiting he was attracting elite QB talent. landed a future play maker in A. Ford and flipped a kid sight unseen in Durkin from Mich St, and then got a QB transfer from TT when we needed it. NONE of that happens without Lefty there, because he is a well respected QB coach.
Let's get back to Duffman's questions:
1) I'm not sure what exactly his offense is. But I think part of that problem is that he has yet to really be able to run "his" offense. Last year it was all about Logan and this year I think it's about establishing the building blocks for young players, and as I mentioned before I personally believe he is getting hemmed in by Beamer. But this is only my personal views. You believe that he is running is offense the way he wants to and it's a mess. I don't. neither of us actually know so it's moot. We are just speculating.
2) Building blocks I see are related to the recruits he is getting and how he is using them. We want multiple TE sets and he is using them. We want running and when Williams, Shai and Trey were there we were running them. We want (at least i do) more up tempo down field passing and we saw that in OSU most prominently. I see all of that as building blocks. i wish they could do it every week, but this is a very young team with a lot of injuries. And a lot of veterans making stupid mistakes as well.
3) No improvement: Well, we lost our top 3 RB's. Our line is still not the best. Our QB rattled, injured or something since OSU. We have had really great highs this season, and frustrating losses. What does that tell me, we are rebuilding. Not there yet. You really expect championship caliber offense with a freshman laden team with this many injuries?
Finally, I would like to say, that I am not trying to avoid criticizing Loeffler. I think all the substitution and other dumb penalties are maddening and as OC his fault. My point is I can see VT as it is now toady in a place that I in no way believed we could be in during that last season of O'Cainspring. I can see a team that is being supported by mostly underclassmen, a lot of them true freshman. I can see QB recruits that would never have considered VT actually wanting to play for us. All things a good OC does. It may not be as fast as you want, but it doesn't mean it is not happening.
Thanks for the well thought out response, even if I disagree with a lot of it. My fundamental problem with your position is that you admit to not knowing what the identity of an SL offense is, but then you say you see the building blocks of it. I don't see how that's possible. If you don't know what the blueprints are, how do you know if the foundation is being laid correctly?
Even when you tried, you threw out a bunch of different things: multiple TEs with lots of running, then it was up-tempo with a lot of downfield passing. You did that in the same paragraph. So, SL is building to a multiple TE, run-heavy tempo offense that bombs the ball down the field a lot? I'm sorry, that sounds like Springfield Elementary talking about what Funzo should have - "He needs to be soft and cuddly, with lots of firepower! And he should love to dance!"
That said, FWIW, I agree with you about Beamer. He's handicapping the whole deal. I don't know that any co-ordinator would be able to consistently perform under him in 2014. I was against the notion of getting Ralph Friedgen to be OC at the time because of Old Man bias, but in retrospect, I think he might have been the only possible hire who Frank wouldn't have meddled with. The result might not have been the best, most modern offense in the world, but I bet it would have had an identity, and it would be consistent.
I've been on the Fridge bandwagon for at least 5 years. He's a national championship caliber OC. Frank doesn't have many years left, so age shouldn't matter. Hell, look at what Rutgers is doing this year.
I get your point about building blocks without know what we are building too. But i guess I am a glass is half full kind of guy. I see things happening that has not happened at VT before, or for a long time. No I don't know what his offense looks like or if it's going to be better than Springfield Elementary but IMO until he proves he can't succeed with the players he wants and recruits then I can give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't like his playcalling as much as you do, I can assure you. I just don't think that is all his fault, and it seems you think the same. And agreed of the Fridge comment, though I am more happy to have Loeffler in the long run.
I think the jury is still out on SL. All I want to see in the world is any sort of improvement. Continuous gradual improvement should not be too much to ask. You seemed to imply it was there, but when I asked for specifics, you couldn't really provide any.
That's my problem. Where's the improvement? Where was the improvement from 2012 to 2013? Where was the improvement from 2013 to 2014? Where as the improvement been over the course of the season? Everyone has injuries, everyone. The problem is that not only is the offense overall not improving, individual players aren't really improving. The young talented players who were good to start the season are still good, the old, not very talented players are still not good. But the problem is that they're not any less not good than they were to start the season. That shouldn't be a thing.
Continual, gradual improvement shouldn't be too much to ask, even for a unit that's "rebuilding." In order to re-build something, at some point the actual build part needs to start. If you hire someone to build your house, and you come by and visit every week and no actual progress is being made, then "Trust me by the end of this a house will appear here" is not the most comforting sentiment in the world.
I think I did just that in my answer to your questions above, specifically point 2. Maybe the offensive production is not improved but I see improvements in other areas as well. I wish we could be racking up the TD's every game but it's not happening. But let me ask you, do you think beating OSU is not a mark of improvement? last years team could not have done that, definitely not year before that, or year before that.... You really see zero improvement at all? Or are you just frustrated it's not happening as quickly as you want and the offense is lacking a clear identity?
Beating anOSU was amazing, but it was a gigantic fluke that was followed by a string of mediocre to terrible performances. That, under any analysis is not an improvement, it's an outlier, and outliers are generally discarded.
Yes, I see zero improvement from last year to this, and over the course of this season. Even you are saying offensive production is not improved. But then you say things are improving. But, I keep asking - what's improving? I mean, I literally keep asking over and over again: what's improving? So far literally all you have given me is "things."
Things that aren't improving over the course of the season, or from last season to this:
1. TDs
2. Offensive production
3. QB play
4. OL play
5. Penalties
6. Offensive Identity
Things that are improving:
1. ....
2. ....
3 ...
I dunno, fill in the blanks, man. I'm begging you.
Things that are improving:
1. ....
2. ....
3 ...
Again. My answers were given in response to your questions above.
You didn't though, that's the thing. Don't worry, other people are.
Things that are improving:
1. .... recruiting
2. .... frank's yardage when he throws his headset
3 ... the amount of alcohol I drink when watching us play??
ohh you're talking about the actual plays. oops
From football outsiders:
2013:
#91 Offensive S&P+
#93 Offensive efficiency S&P+
#104 Rushing S&P+
#65 Passing S&P+
#93 Drive efficiency
22.5 points/game (from cfbstats.com)
2014:
#77 Offensive S&P+
#100 Rushing S&P+
#84 Passing S&P+
#27 Drive efficiency
28.4 Points/game (from cfbstats.com)
So we're essentially the same rushing, a little worse passing (LT3 is an NFL QB for a reason) but we're finishing drives much more consistently and successfully, not to mention scoring more. What this tells us is that we're inconsistent, but when things click, we have drives that work beautifully and score points, which is exactly what the eye test has told us every week so far this season.
These are good numbers, thanks. The massive improvement in drive efficiency is a good thing, and encouraging.
Unfortunately I'm wondering if a large portion of the drive efficiency can't be chalked up to making FGs more often this year and having a nearly absurd 3rd and long conversion percentage to start the season that is starting to prove fluky and unsustainable.
Freeze took a 2-10 team with 0 conference wins and immediately turned them around to go 7-5 with a bowl win. He improved on that the following season by getting 8 wins including another bowl win. Now he's 6-0 and has one of the best teams in the country.
Do you see a similar turnaround or continued improvement under Loeffler? Do you *really* think this is an apt comparison? If anything I think the evidence you presented disproves your point. It *doesn't* take half a decade to turn around one unit of a football team. It just doesn't. Not when your good at your job. Everyone has injuries, everyone has attrition, everyone has to play underclassmen...not everyone has 10 false start/motion/procedure/sub, BS-easily avoided penalties in *game 7*.
Freeze also immediately landed a slew of 5 star and 4 star elite talent to support that turn around, and an administration that opened their pocket books. Most of those recruits were playmakers or at least contributors immediately... and what do you know, the same thing is happening at VT under Loeffler with recruiting classes that aren't nearly as good. I agree Freeze is having quicker success but that doesn't mean Loeffler will not be successful given time to get kids that can meet his demands. So yes, a very apt comparison. We have not gotten nearly the level of talent in our recruiting classes that ole Miss has gotten but our trend is following his. A turnaround with new young playmakers.
FYI, Loeffler was hired on January 18, 2013. No where near half a decade.
4 football seasons is "anywhere near half a decade."
Come on man, you made a bad comparison it happens. Enough with the excuses.
The Freeze comparison is bad because he got good new, young talent (like you yourself keep touting Loeffler is pulling in), mixed them with the old, dumpster-fire players, and produced immediate drastic results.
Loeffler has done absolutely nothing of the sort, not even close. Freeze didn't replace 85 scholarship players with 4 and 5 stars and start winning games. He figured out how to get the existing players to, you know, play football at an acceptable level. Something Loeffler seems unable to do.
Uh... what 4 seasons are you talking about? he coached one year with Logan and now one with Brewer. Have you time traveled into the future?
And no... sorry. You're absolutely wrong about Freeze at Ole Miss. i suggest you look more into it. Ole Miss actually had good recruiting classes in 2009, 2010, 2011 and only in 2012 Freeze's first year was it below average. Then he landed an absolutely great class followed by another good/great one. So he mixed amazing young talent with pretty damn good older players that were not being coached well. He needed one year for them to learn the basics of his system, another for them to get experienced playing it, and now he's killing it.
Loeffler, who came in to a place that had just had some of it's worst recruiting classes in recent history, has taken one year with Logan and a team of almost no playmakers and a bad OL. Now a second year to do what Freeze did in his first/second year. So I expect him to have a pretty good offensive unit next year. Maybe still not championship level but good.
Unfortunately for you, you're looking at what was with rose colored glasses and looking at the green grass growing where others had a quicker road to success. it doesn't work that way. Be honest with how bad a situation we were in and then maybe you can see how far we've come from that.
You said Loeffler needs until 2016 before he can be evaluated on whether he's doing a good job or not: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. That's 4 seasons. Is this really that complicated? We're almost halfway through that now.
I'm not comparing Freeze to Loeffler, you did. You implied that there was some sort of altrusitic waiting period by Ole Miss and they were being rewarded for dealing with the bad. I said that was a bad comparison because there never was a bad. There was an immmediate turnaround, and continual improvement since. There has never been single reason for Ole Miss to think Freeze wasn't doing a good job.
I don't care how that compares to Loeffler - you're the one who made the bloody comparison. It wasn't a good one, it's fine it happens, move on.
A better comparison, since you're telling everyone to wait 4 years before offenses can do anything would be someone who did exactly that. Show me a HC or an OC who inhereted a dumpster fire, and turned it into something successful after 4 years. Show me how that coach had almost no improvement in his first season and a half on the job, and things miraculously turned around in years 3 and 4, because that's what you're telling us is going to happen. It's starting to sound like the Underpants Gnomes:
Season 1: No Improvement
Season 2: No Improvement
Season 3: ...
Season 4: Good Offense!
I compared Freeze to Loeffler for the commitment a program/school gives to a coach for the time necessary to make a turnaround, not for how they are turning around separate programs. Ole Miss made it clear they were giving Freeze the time and resources he needs. He didn't need long. Fantastic. You are the one that brought that up and said it wasn't comparable. that's where my points on what aided him in that turn around come into play. Loeffler came into a worse situation but should get the same level of commitment from the program/school to do so. How many years do you think that should happen in? seems like it's less than 2. My response to that is you are forgetting how bad a situation we were in and are asking for it to be just as fast as Freeze when that situation was a lot better.
Sure I have a coach for you. He's called Frank Beamer. It took time. Give Loeffler time and don't forget how bad a situation we were in.
Regarding 4 seasons. No i never said it should take that long. I said I am willing to give Loeffler a full cycle because I can see things improving. That's my perspective. Your's is a lot more negative. If I didn't think things were improving then I wouldn't be willing to give Loeffler more time.
I'm sorry, I was hoping for an example this century.
Specifically what. Specifically what is improving? Give me a for instance. What has improved from last year to this? What has improved over the course of this season? If it was that obvious you wouldn't be using generalities like "building blocks" and spending all your time defending a terrible comparison that you made without actually doing any research. You made a mistake and got called out, it's OK.
Again, nope. You are the only one who brought that up. All I did was shoot down that comparison using facts to back up my opinion. All I've ever asked for is demonstrable improvement from season to season and over the course of a season. I can't see that but you can. Please use facts to back up your assertion.
Not being a smart ass here, please prove me wrong. I can't find evidence to support the notion that things are improving under Scot Loeffler. If it's there, show it to me.
A better playbook for the passing game. You can argue with his play calling, but loeffler has passing route concepts that are much better than before. That's the most obvious, I think. The downside is that we've had very inconsistent qb play the past two years, and young wide receivers
You know what, I'll absolutely give you that. Scot Loeffler has a better approach to the passing game and passing play design than Bryan Stinespring.
I would hope that over two seasons, that would result in an actual improvement in offensive production, but here we are...But I'll give him that. He designs a better passing play than Bryan Stinespring, no one can deny him that.
First off, your attempts at "calling me out" with comments like:
aren't working. You tried to be clever but you weren't. It's OK.
You claim I am providing nothing but generalities but I have. I specifically stated multiple times that the "building blocks" lay in recruiting and the success of the young players on the team. Hence, building something for the future. I've been more than clear on this point.
I'll ask above and repeat here. do you think last year's team could have beaten OSU? Your honest answer would be NO. And so that would be what?... the word you're looking for is "improvement". We are up and down this year. I get it. incredibly frustrating. You want cheese with your whine?
are you seriously trying to troll here? Everything I wrote is factual about Freeze. you offered zero facts. The basis of your argument is "nope". yeah, you're really winning that one.
Actually you are. this entire comment is you trying to be a smart ass. emphasis on trying.
I've given your point of view respect and argued mine. you should really learn to do the same if you want to make any kind of point counter to what i am saying.
"Building Blocks" isn't a specific, it's the definition of generality. I keep asking you for facts, and you keep failing to provide them. Interestingly enough, other people in this thread are having fewer issues providing facts to back up your points. I'm trying to engage in discussion and you're too busy calling names because your upset I disagree with you.
My mistake, carry on.
I didn't start the smart ass comments, you did and I called you out on it immediately. Feigned indignation didn't work for Hokieknight and it's not working for you. So you saying:
is as pointless as your entire post where you failed at being a smart ass in the first place.
And you're right, other people providing numbers is interesting, because it proves I'm right. Thanks for playing.
Your definition of a "smart ass comment" is one that disagrees with you. It really, really, upsets you to have your opinions questioned. I know that now. Consider it a lesson learned. Best of Luck.
Just stop Duffman. I've been thinking you've been acting like a smart ass during the entire thread with fernley. You can't make comments like "Is this really that complicated?" and "You made a mistake and got called out, it's OK" and say that isn't being a smart ass. You can have a discussion without things like that, but as soon as you go down that road, you are immediately going to rub people the wrong way, including those not involved.
^ THIS. The snark is strong throughout many of these posts. Getting close to devolving into the type of "discussion" that gets a lot of eye rolls around here. There is a lot of good, respectful back-and-forth going on across multiple threads, but Duffman, I've got to say, much of what you're posting reads very condescendingly.
Apologies to all, especially fernley.
No condescension was ever intended, but if that's the way it came off I am sorry.
All I was trying to do overall was honestly engage in discussion, because I think this is an important topic. My real intent was never to argue whether Hugh Freeze at Miss was an apt comparison to SL here, it was to genuinely explore if and how this offense was improving and the evidence that supports such a conclusion. It was my mistake for continuing to fuel the unrelated tangent.
Again, I am very sorry to everybody.
everyone is frustrated. no problem on my side. leg for hugging it out
ok, calling it now. attempting to troll like hokieknight should be called Bendering.
Your bendering is not working. Stop trying. Never once in any of my comments have I gotten upset. just like vtfly's comment to you on Joe's "late night thoughts" post:
Your entire "argument" is based on "nope", "prove it" and feigned indignation. it didn't work with vtfly, it's not working with me. just stop.
Leg for quoting me
Also, I really wanted to use this gif since it makes me laugh.
right back at you
I agree 100%.. where is the improvement?? I'm not asking for a huge improvement but something that resembles a functioning offense.
However I think the things that are improving with the coaching staff is the excitement of the recruiting/commits that are coming to VT. We are recruiting position players not a ATH that we will move to be a undersized RB. or a D linemen moving him to O line to cover for the last 3 years recruiting cycle/lack of cycle.
With that said we might have a bright future ahead of us.. its going to take time but Loeffler has to understand what he has in front of him and see whatever he is doing isn't working..
Dumb it down, make it simple run hurry up. It's crazy to think hurry up will help but it takes out the thinking in the players. They know exactly the route/where to be and are non hesitant. When you have shifting/2 looks/option routes for the wr it complicates things. Lets take the playbook and find plays that we can constantly run and gain yards. IDC if the other team knows what going to happen, look at WMU we ran the same 2 plays and gained yards..
Running a simplified, tempo-based offense for the rest of the season is such an obvious answer it's painful.
It's a shame that it will never, ever, happen under Frank Beamer.
Art Briles at Baylor?
3-9 the year before he comes on board. Then, 4-8, 4-8, 7-6, 10-3, 8-5, 11-2, and currently 6-0 this season.
Awesome thanks, great example.
I would even say Harbaugh at Stanford. After Willingham left, they were a joke for 5 years, then Harbaugh brought them to respectability and then dominance before he left for the NFL.
It's worth mentioning that even in Harbaugh's first year, the Cardinal only won 7 games. I was there, and quite a few of those games were pretty painful. Doesn't matter who you are, rebuilding a program (or even half of one, in Lefty's case) takes time.
In the minds of too many fans, though,
But you're doing exactly what you said not to do, and that's comparing two COMPLETELY different situations.
Harbaugh and Briles are head coaches. Loeffler is an offensive coordinator. They both had to rebuild everything about their teams, Loeffler has one aspect of the game he needs to start working. Completely different, therefore using your logic, irrelevant.
It's something that's been proven the norm more often than not across college football: rebuilding takes time. Totally different than comparing VT and Auburn's situations. Not to mention it's a good example of even an excellent coach not being able to come in and magically fix everything overnight. Plus, he came into a very similar experience to Lefty: pretty much no talent and a program without an identity. Happily, Lefty only has to rebuild one half of the program.
Who is the "excellent coach" you are referring to? Malzahn won right away.
Harbaugh. And once again, Malzahn came back home after a one-year hiatus to players he recruited and coached. He wasn't starting at square 1.
I'll quickly agree the cupboard was bare for offensive talent around LT3 last year (and the year prior), but a program without an identity? I don't think that's true at all. Beamer sets the identity and, based on al the quotes from the hiring, I think he tried to hire Loeffler with that same identity in mind (run first, ball control offense to complement the defense and special teams).
the difference between a 2-10 going to a 7-5 team is alot easier to turn around when you cant really do any worse. its alot harder to get from 7-5 to 10-2. i believe we will be there again. honestly we are 3 plays away from being that this year. subtract a brewer pick from the GT game, any # of times our beloved DBU gets rosted by ECU and the complete wif by keyshoen on the TD pass last night and we are sitting in the top 10 undefeated and quite happy with our offensive growth from last year to this. the #s show growth. the numbers are trending up. maybe not raplidly. to piggy back with what was said earlier even if we brought in chip kelly CFB would pull the reins back and we would still only be a middle of the run offense. we want to dominate TOP, rushing yards, and take a shot every once in a while and let bud fosters D play aggresive and 100mph by letting them rest. the penalities have been killer yes. those are mental errors, sometimes thats on a coach sometimes thats just on lack of focus. you can scream it till your blue in face but kids have to execute. false starts and snap infractions are not on a coach in my opinion. thats basic stuff taught since the 1st time you put on a helmet. its lack of focus. the motion and stuff like that is on the coach and the kid. but most times kids run these plays and learn this stuff for atleast 2 years before they ever see the field. these kids are learning on the fly. im just as tired of hearing that we are a year or 2 away as anyone trust me because i see the potential to win now. but i do believe in the depth we are creating through recruiting, the offense as a whole and this team in the future and even more i believe in them now. there was no point until the last incomplete on 4th down last night that i didnt think the O was going to turn it around. in the past i knew once we got down it was going to take a tyrod miracle to get us back in the game. with this team i only think it takes some execution, from everyone. one the TD drive we scored on everyone was involved. RBs caught, sam ran, WRs, TEs. everyone! some will loook for reasons we arent turning a corner while others will look for reasons we are, when your only 1/2 way there its easy to look on either side of the fence and say this side is better depending on your opinion on the matter. but as a hokie i think i just have to believe in what we have.
I'm also just kinda curious about these real playmakers that we never would have had a chance of getting. I'll give you Shai, an out-of-state 4*, and maybe Isaiah Ford, but we haven't been pulling in absolute monsters that we've never seen before. And this isn't just Loeffler recruiting them himself, it's also Moorehead and Stiney pulling them in, so you can't give all the credit to him. In addition, I have no expectations of these studs doing anything on the field because we don't know how to design a proper play to use these guys. It is literally, just try random ass things and hope it works.
Our recruiting under Stinespring was absolutely awful and without a plan. Due to this, we think it's so amazing that we recruit now to a position, rather than to a body - this is something most quality schools expect from the program. We fell behind and now that we actually know what it's like, we consider it blowing recruiting out of the water. It's not. It's called being a good program.
The future has been bright at Tech year after year, yet this brightness never comes to fruition. I can't tell you how many times I've read the words "just wait" or "if we had" when talking about VT football, and I'm sick of it. We can expect success from our freshman because you can in this day of college football. Stop losing games to inferior opponents consistently. I understand losses happen, and sometimes the team just plays poorly for whatever reason. But there has not been a VT team under Beamer that does not under perform against inferior play (minus 1999). I'm tired of it.
I've been reading your comments and you are on fire. Thank you for your level-headed approach. I've only followed VT football for a few years but I know about the greatness of our past, and I know that there's greatness ahead. I get excited with our recruiting, and I know that it's due to our coaching staff. I'd go so far as to say that Loeffler has the potential to be a good OC, he just hasn't had the tools or the time to do anything great.
I just also want to point out that there are certainly not the same players from a couple of years ago, guys that would have called it quits in the 3rd quarter if they were down. These guys have some grit to go with their talent, and I know that's gonna take them a long way.
College football as a landscape was not moving as fast when Beamer was close to getting fired as it is now. The two aren't really comparable. College football has absolutely exploded in the last two decades.
Here's the problem I have: we keep calling it 'rebuilding.'
The last three years have been 'rebuilding.'
When do we stop 'rebuilding' and start actually doing something? Or is 'rebuilding' just a term that makes us feel better about our team's mediocrity? If every year is a 'rebuilding' year, then we aren't rebuilding; we're just bad.
I wouldn't call the last three years rebuilding. 2011 was largely successful. 2012 was failure as a result of poor recruiting. 2013 was stopping the bleeding with new coaches. 2014 is now rebuilding.
The difference between our offense from last year to this year is almost none. Average to below average QB play, poor running game, consistently bad offensive line, and talented wideouts who have "POTENTIAL" written all over them. Oh and not to mention, third and long. It is always third down with this offense. The only real difference from last year to this year is the TE position, which is an improvement. Other than that, I see very little change
I see more running plays starting in shotgun...running for five yards to get back to line of scrimmage and then getting stuffed for only 1 or 2 yards, if that.
2013 VT offense: 4.7 yards/play, 106th in the nation
2014 VT offense: 4.7 yards/play, 107th in the nation
Using F+ from Football Outsiders:
VT offense, 2013: -5.9%, 85th in the nation
VT offense, 2014: -2.3%, 76th in the nation
Pitt's defense was 70th in the country so the numbers will likely be worse once this game is added to the system. There may be improvement but you have to squint to see it. Last year the excuse was that Logan was ill-suited to Loeffler's offense. What's the excuse now?
Injuries, which is such a sorry excuse and makes me cringe every time I hear someone use it. Sometimes I just wish Beamer would come out and say "we suck and I didn't do a very good job of making sure we don't suck."
I disagree with the sentiment that our playbook is to big or that our offense is too complex. Tonight I saw terrible play calling, and practically no attempt to establish a run game (fun fact BREWER was the first VT player to have a rush attempt, then Coleman, then Newsome, and FINALLY then Caleb). Brewer may not be a Heisman Candidate, but Leoffler is not doing what he needs to, to setup Brewer and the Offensive unit for success. WE ONLY HAD 26 RUSHING YARDS TONIGHT. Also, we threw the ball more than twice as much as we ran it. It's a miracle that Brewer didn't throw an interception, and we got 16 points in spite of everything that we screwed up. I haven't even mentioned penalties and timeouts. For the first time in The Tech history I've been conscious for I truly believe the talent on the team is greater than our coaches.
End Buzzed Rant (which is much different than a Buzz rant, but I don't see myself making one of those)
Wait a minute I think I repressed the Stinespring era, but I'm still tired of having an undercoached offense while having Bud on the other side.
I agree with this.
Also I lose hair each time I see a 3rd down play with routes that aren't putting receivers past the sticks. I believe that happened 3 times last night. That's bad play calling, in my eyes. Wiser minds may know better, but that's how I see it.
Agree with you. David Pollack and the announcers were flabbergasted at the fact that the Hokies kept throwing 2 and 3 yard passes, short of the sticks, repeatedly. We kept doing it in situations where we needed more yardage. We were giving ourselves no chance for the first down. This didn't just happen once or twice...it was all night long.
I am sick...
The primary routes on these plays were not the underneath routes that Brewer was choosing to throw too, they were Ford on a 15 yard slant route or Cam Phillips on a go route with a double move. Brewer until the second half though seemed overly gun shy. I think the interceptions have gotten too far into his head and so rather than sling the ball like he did against Ohio State, he is throwing soft worthless passes that even his receivers cant get to, even on those little two and three yard routes you are referring too. Loeffler can only do so much, Brewer is the one that has to execute. Even worse on many of those plays where he tried to go to the two or three yard route, he had already scrambled and could have easily tucked the ball and run for a first down, yet not once did he create with his feet in the game.
The one play call that definitely got me was the route to Willie Byrn on the critical fourth down conversion attempt late in the game. That route has got to be thrown to Bucky Hodges but even then I am not sure Brewer would have completed it.
If Brewer cant get the past out of his head, then it may be time to see what else we have at QB considering how unlikely it is for us to advance much in the post season.
Agree. Brewer should have been pulled last night in the 2nd qtr. Sometimes it's just not your night. I saw maybe one throw last night where he put it on the money.
I respectfully disagree. I was all for giving Loeffler a chance to sit down with him at halftime and get his head straight, and give him a drive or two in the 3rd quarter to show improvement.
and further more what makes you think these are not execution errors rather than play calling errors. i dont believe for a second that any of those routes are supposed to stop short of the sticks. i coach and have played WR for a long time. situational offense says get to the sticks ive never played on a team that had a play call that had me running a route short of a 1st down on 3rd down unless said play was designed for me to get yards after the catch. (unless it was an unmanagable 3rd down) sometimes as a WR you see things differently. you feel like a guy is dropping off you so you cut your route short or you just dont judge the field well. (common freshman mistake). i know we hear alot of blah blah about execution from the coaches but sometimes man thats just what it comes down too. we used that excuse for logan time after time after time that the WRs werent in the right spots but now that its brewer its a bad play call?
agree with this. seeing guys run a three yard cross when it was 3rd and 5 or a 7 yd out when it was 3rd and 9 was infuriating.
Nit-picking, but go back and watch that first rushing attempt by Brewer. It was actually triple-option, and Pitt was ALL OVER the dive and pitch man.
Yeah, but when I heard 3 TE package at the beginning of the season and then see what we were running last night, I get extremely frustrated. We should have given Caleb more and better opportunities to run, or at the very least why can't we let Rogers smash. I understand we have people hurt, but I don't feel like we had the best game plan/play calls for the players we had out on the field.
3 TE package, except we're gonna do it out of the shotgun because obviously when you're inside the 10 the best formation to come out in is the shotgun. Hell, we were in the shotgun on 2 yard to go situations more than once last night. Loeffler logic.
It's because Brewer isn't really a threat to run. I know he's made some good plays with his legs, but he's no Logan or Tyrod. Same thing with our read plays. Defenses know that Brewer isn't going to pull it and run, so they just crash to the RB. The read shouldn't even be in the playbook at this point.
The fact is, Brewer threw an AWFUL interception...he got bailed out by a roughing the passer. The interception was a killer...we should have had a touchdown in that situation. We ended up settling for a FG anyway...which seemed to be the theme of the game for the offense.
We had a first and goal and then took 3 penalties....pushing us into yet another FG.
They showed the graphic of the Hokies having SEVEN pre-snap penalties. This is inexcusable....you have to put some of this on the coaches and the the players being unprepared and undisciplined.
The first half offensive performance was painful to watch, and maybe the worst I have ever seen by the Hokies.
This offense is NOT WORKING....we have no identity.
I have to say my patience is wearing thin with Loeffler.
With what shall we run the ball dear Liza, Dear Liza...
Joel Caleb would do well if we were able to get him into a rhythm, and Sam Rogers averaged 3.2 yards per carry on 6 attempts.
3.2 is not enough
Sam did great and he sniffed the endzone paint. but it's not enough.
It's better than three straight incomplete passes.
Is it?
3.2 average doesn't net you a first down. Either way you're punting the ball
I'm just impressed that we have less of an identity than when Stinespring was coordinating. I literally thought that was impossible.
The one constant is Beamer himself. Maybe I was too critical of Stinespring.
no
I'll agree with you there Egbert.
What about that comment deserved a one word retort?
He was suggesting that we were not 'too critical' of Stinespring.
I was denying his premise was that the entire problem was Beamer AND that he was too critical of the previous OC.
The drive where we proceeded to take three penalties after getting to the two yard line has to be placed on Beamer after the first penalty. There was minimal time left in the half so taking one of our two timeouts on a second and goal from the seven, to make sure that we have the right play and that the team is ready to execute it has to be on the head coach there. He was tossing his headset to the ground getting upset with the penalties but it was obvious that the team was unsettled. Those are the kind of decisions he gets paid to make. No way to know if it would have worked but a touchdown there goes a long way on making last night a much different game.
BAM!!!!!!
Why the Hokies did not spend a timeout right at the end of the half is probably the most confusing decision that I saw last night.
The problem is that you should not have to settle down an upperclassman filled O Line, late in the second quarter, only down by a score. It is not like the Freshman WR's were jumping offsides or had snap infractions.
There is a difference between being ready to execute and teaching how to execute.
Beamer threw his headset because he thought they were on the same page and the Line was not. Brewer was not. Frank can't go holding linemen in place until the snap. He can't remind Brewer to look at the play clock regularly. VT has been able to replace some of the underperforming upperclassmen with performing freshmen (Juice/Shai/Trey -> JCC also Cam and Ford -> Knowles, Stanford). Can't do that same thing on the line because of the lack of quality O Line recruiting over the years. We lost two possible subs before the season even started. Couple that with bad QB recruiting since Tyrod got here, and this is what you have on offense.
For that I blame Frank. Procedure penalties are cured by replacing the guy who does them. Problem is with whom do we use once you get past A Smith, and Wyatt?
This article is on point what all that I'm feeling here as I await my delayed plane in Pittsburgh international airport.
Let's have faith in Beamer, Loeffler, and the program. It's easy for all of us to sit back and criticize after a demoralizing defeat. Believe me, I feel your pain... but I also have the faith that the program will get turned around and we'll look at these last few seasons as growing pains. Take a look at every quality program in college football, each of those programs have had "down" periods at some point in their history. We were just blessed with so many great seasons in a row that we don't know how to handle seasons such as the last three. Let's keep our head up, the players need our support. #Hokieon
I don't think anyone is blaming the players necessarily. I think it is fair to criticize the offense that's been put together by Loeffler. It's a fair question to ask if Loeffler is outsmarting himself and getting too cute. You can't try to have an NFL level complex offense with college practice time limits in my opinion or you end up trying to have too much of a Charlie Wiess "schematic advantage" offense.
true but in CSL's defense he wasn't lining up in the backfield wrong or jupming early on those penalties. Those are players mistakes. I don't know what the confusion is on that but that's players. I don't know how a pre-snap penalty on the offensive line is caused by a complex system. I can understand the shifting of wr's and such maybe getting confused but the line just has to line up and be still until the snap.
Everyone needs to calm down and remember this loss was Pitt. , a team that lost at home to Akron. A team that had lost 3 games in a row.
That is supposed to calm us down? I am hoping this is sarcasm.
Illegal formations, illegal shifts, false starts, Snap infractions, illegal substitutions...these have been plaguing us all season and it is not getting better. The run game has been awful...wildly inconsistent. The QB has been alternately brilliant and awful. Huge turnovers are killing us. Interceptions and last night...fumbles all over the place. JCC killed us with one of them. We got lucky on the Malleck fumble being overturned.
Jarret blew it big time on the Boyd TD...he tried to line up the big hit instead of making the play.
Once again, our defense gets TORCHED by a QB running all over us. Voytik was a better runner than I thought, but to allow over 100 yards rushing to a QB yet again is just awful. It is getting old...QB's just continue to run all over the defense time after time.
The defense played pretty good besides that, but we again blew some tackles and let Conner and Voytik break free for extra yardage time and tiime again.
The offense has zero identity and is wildly inconsistent and largely inneffective for huge stretches at a time.
I also have to say, especially in the first half...Brewer looked awful. He looked like he lacked confidence, he was throwing 3 yard passes, and he he also looked like something was wrong with his arm. All his throws were soft, underthrown and had no zip on them. We weren't looking down the field and Pitt was just stacking the line.
I am really disheartened by the loss last night. I was feeling positive about the team coming off the bye week, but I really feel we came out unprepared and uninspired. I can't help but put a lot of this blame on the coaches for not having the Hokies ready to play.
Everyone needs to be held accountable.
Sarcasm. Yes and agree with every thing you said . Just a horrific & pathetic performance by coaches & offensive team.
I think we should stop using their losss to Akron as an indicator if how bad they are. We lost to JMU at home in 2010, and that team ended up being pretty damn good. Teams have bad nights, it shouldn't define their ability to beat you the next week (flip side: beating a top 10 team on the road shouldn't give you ridiculous expectations...)
We have had too many bad nights lately. Pitt has had more than one bad night ( lost 3 straight games)
A few thoughts.
- I know the players aren't executing, but that's also on the coaches. False starts in a stadium that is 2/3 empty? It was the same at UNC and that place is a church. Coaches need to coach up the players and the players need to concentrate.
- The play calling sucked. No other way to put it. I really didn't think we gave the RBs a chance to really get into a rhythm and run the ball. I wanted to see more of Caleb. The short 3-4 passes on 3rd and long drove me nuts.
- I wanted to see the TEs get the ball in the middle of the field.
- What the F was wrong with Brewer in the 1st half? It looked like me throwing balls.
- OL continues to be a joke and I hope Searels can bring in some talent because we need it.
I started to write out a long forum post and then my hand bumped the mouse, clicking on a different page and losing everything I had. Instead of going in a long diatribe about why everyone needs to calm down, I'll just get to the main point.
The level of underclassmen talent on this roster is such that the coaches are setting us up for future success. If you think we are stuck here forever and headed towards mediocrity and irrelevance, you're wrong. For 2 straight years, we've played more freshman than we've ever played before. We have talent that can gives us 3-4 year starters at nearly every skill position. This isn't Burger King. As a fan, you can't have it your way and it's not going to be given to you once you pull around to the second window. It comes in time after the pieces have all come together.
I know that losing to lesser teams is infuriating. The common thing I hear right now though is that if we beat #8 Ohio State, we shouldn't lose to "lesser" teams like ECU, GT, and Pitt. First, ECU is not a lesser team if you actually watch them play as we've all discussed many times. Second, should we have even beaten Ohio State? One game is not the barometer by which we are all measured. As we've seen, things can come together once and fall off the bus the rest of the season. BC beat #9 USCw but they lost to Colorado State and Pitt as well. For now, we are building up to where we need to be. We thought we were farther along than we really were, but we will get there.
THIS. Young teams go through growing pains.
There are days when you play your best, and days when you play your worst. Our best game should absolutely be our barometer, but fans have to recognize that it is not possible to play at that level 14 weeks in a row. Even National Championship teams have ugly games that they squeak out. The more experienced your team, the more likely the team's performance will be steady. The younger the team, the more ups and downs.
The best teams inter-mingle lower and upper classmen, and keep the machine running. The best teams continue to win even with underclassmen. And they do it year on year. The comment be patient we are young does not fly in my book. I have heard this for the last three years. And it looks like we will continue to hear it in the future.
Tell me where we have talented upperclassmen that should be intermingled more than our underclassmen? Byrn has earned his, but who else would you like to see? Knowles? We were set up behind the 8-ball with lackluster recruiting, a topic that has been frequently visited on this site numerous times.
Can we agree that if Lefty isn't getting it done in 2016 he needs to go or are we going to make up more excuses?
... more excuses
I kinda want to make one of the GT parodies and be like, "EXCUSES..........We're at Virginia Tech and we can do that".
But I'm not sure how well that would go over.
We are Virginia Tech!
If there is *one thing* we do really well on offense, it's make excuses about why we're not doing well on offense. I don't envision that stopping anytime soon.
Remember, you're talking about a program and a fan base that made excuses to keep Bryan Stinespring employed at OC for a literal decade.
I don't remember much in the way of excuses from the fan base. We were pretty much all-in on him getting canned for years before it happened.
I'm sorry, this isn't accurate at all. Did you never read TSL? *At Best* the split was 50-50, but that's being general. The people ahead of the curve on Stiney were regularly getting shouted down as "not real hokies" "he just needs time" "he doesn't have the players" blah, blah blah. It's the exact same stuff we're seeing now. The Excuse book is almost exactly the same.
Even to the bitter end there was a very large contingent of "trust the coaches!" people against canning stiney.
In hindsight, that may have been why I never read TSL much. I'm just remembering the sentiment both here and with the bunch of Hokies that I know, between classmates, family, friends, etc.
Why are we waiting that long?
I wouldn't give him that long but it seems like the general opinion is let him recruit and have his players before the final judgement. I just feel like at a school like VT where the talent is always decent no matter how young they are, you should be doing better than this in your second year...
I wouldn't say the talent is always decent, at least compared to other schools with championship aspirations. 2 years ago we were starting a mix of Michael Holmes, jc Coleman, and demitri Knowles...
Our skill players were terrifyingly un-skilled in the playmaking department for the last two years. What's just as concerning though as far as the other schools with championship aspirations go, I think I would legitimately take Western Michigan's o-line over ours this season.
Because that's how long it's gonna take to get the dumpster fire extinguished and something legitimate built. Massive changes don't happen overnight (unless you're Auburn and hire Malzahn and essentially change back to what you just changed from the year before).
I'm starting to think Mike London is going to have something legitimately built sooner than we can put together anything that resembles competent offense.
There are 2 dichotomies: 1) Loeffler's scheme and 2) Player's youth. Right now, they don't mesh. I'm seeing confusion of the offensive players which is leading to a lack of confidence and poor execution.
The issue is whether the players will learn and grasp Loeffler's complicated scheme or is Loeffler just "outsmarting" himself and the team. I'm leaning on the latter, but I'll wait until 2016 to reevaluate.
I would add 3) Talent Level. I don't think it's there yet, especially, and perhaps most importantly on the OLine.
But I agree, these three issues seem to compound each other when we lose.
ooo I've got to disagree on the talent level. On the O-line I completely agree, I've never seen a line capable of successfully blocking for any back on our roster, and it's been a sad experience.
The rest of the offense, however, is ridiculously loaded with talent. Look at us before this game, talking up our NUMBER FOUR running back. We have All-ACC TRUE FRESHMEN wideouts. We have THREE amazing tight ends. And the depth is so good that we're really not even missing last year's top receiver (Stanford) in terms of production. Plus, Cline, Carlis Parker, and Caleb have rarely if ever seen the field this season. The offensive talent is off the charts as far as skill position players are concerned. If we had competent coaching, we could get past the O-line issue at least temporarily.
The question I have regarding talent: Is Brewer talented? I can't tell. Loeffler's offense makes it difficult to determine how good Brewer is. We can tell he's confused all the time, makes poor decisions, and has executed poorly on passes. But how much can we attribute that to his actual talent and how much do we attribute that to Loeffler making it so difficult for any normal college QB to operate.
Perhaps I was spoiled having Evans as our running back my freshman year, but I don't think VT can be good without a player of similar quality getting 60% of the snaps. I think a healthy Shai or Trey might've been able to be that by year end. I think Marshawn could be next year. I don't think JC has every down back potential and I have not seen enough of Caleb.
Won't argue here, they're on the way to greatness.
Two of those tight ends are injured.
IMO the three 'positions' that must be solid if we are to win 10 games are QB, OL, and RB. Our QB is struggling (possibly b/c the OL is struggling, possibly b/c he's not that good, possibly a combination). Our top 3 RBs are out, and our OL gets pushed around.
IMO, Lefty sees this and is trying to use the talent at the receiver in creative ways to make up for the struggles of the other positions.
About the tight ends, I was merely addressing the talent level, not the current health status or ability
The talent complaints have to stop. Our talent is nearly as bad, even on OL, as many offenses in the top 30. Colorado State, Toledo, Western Ky, Iowa St....these are FEI top 30 offenses. Our talent level is not worse than theirs.
Its not all on 1 person. Its a combination of:
1. Inconsistent, terrible at times, QB play by Brewer
2. Offensive Line HORRIBLE and getting a push up front with the run game
3. TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, and yes, TERRIBLE play calling by Loeffler.
Loeffler's playcalling is so inconsistent like he is trying to be too cute like Stiney. So frustrating.
So, all the penalties aren't a factor at all? They sure do seem to move us backwards at critical times.
Obviously the penalties are a huge factor too. Just didn't feel like typing out an essay of all the problems this team has.
VT (season): Average Per Play5.1
That actually works on offense when you start off with first and 10 situations.
First and 15 or more? Not so much.
If we get rid of these GD inane offensive penalties...we can consistently move the ball.
I'm sure of it.
Now...actually getting rid of these GD inane offensive penalties? For the love of God, here we are at the end of October...
It's easy to watch a game, see the mistakes, and try to share our opinion on what's wrong. Everyone does it. It's part of human nature.
Last night was not good, but you have to consider that we are young and inexperienced. Let's calm down and try to understand that we are still lacking OL talent. We've had 2 coaches at the position in as many years. It will take time to turn the unit around. I speak from experience when I say, that as a coach, it's EXTREMELY hard to save a sinking ship (VT offense under the previous OC).
Our offensive recruiting was not good for several consecutive years. There are threads on this site that have spoken to the same sentiment. The learning curve for OL is steeper than that of a WR or RB.
If we continue with a solid commitment to recruit talented offensive players we WILL BE successful. We may not make an overnight rags-to-riches turnaround, but we will be consistently good long after Beamer is gone.
The OL is mostly upperclassmen. They have been playing the position for a while, and it's not bloody rocket science. We're more than halfway through the season here, and the OL is arguably *worse* than it was to begin the season. What is that?
You should be able to see at least some improvement in a unit over the course of a season if the coaching staff is actually doing their job. Making excuses, throwing up your hands and saying "They're not good, what can you do?" Well, if your senior-laden OL is a dumpster fire, you put in their backups. Get them experience. It's not like they can do any worse. When David Wang wasn't blocking literally no one, he was getting driven back literally 10 yards straight. He's a nightmare. So why is he playing? Why not get teller in there more, or smith, or anyone who is going to be in this program after this year?
Because you know what the excuse is going to be next year, right? "Of course the offense sucks! we lost 60% of our OL to graduation last year!"
I'm so over the excuse train, I've been riding it for a decade now.
So what is your proposed solution?
Realistically? The only solution is to drink heavily. Also use our entertainment hours wisely. I have two children under 4, I get precious few entertainment hours a day/week. If an entertainment product, which is what football is, is no longer entertaining me, use that time more effectively on something that will.
Because I either said it in this thread or the last one - there's nothing *to* change. This is who we are under Frank Beamer. That's not going to change under him, and he's not going anywhere until at least 2016. He's not firing the OC, so that's not going to change. Nothing's going to change. We are who we are. Accept that, and plan accordingly.
If I was Frank, and I was more open to the notion of letting Offensive Coordinators in 2014 play football like it's 2014? I'd let the leash off of Loeffler. I'd let him run what he wants to run. You brought the guy in, it's time to actually succeed or fail on his merits. It might work, it might not, but I would at least let him try. Because you know what's not working right now? This. This serving-two-masters, keep the head whistle happy with the "Controlling the clock", while still actually trying to run what you want...it's a recipe for disaster and it's what you're seeing on the field right now. I think if you knock that out, establish one identity, and play that way you eliminate 90% of the pre-snap penalties and I bet OL play even improves because you're not changing what they have to do every other play.
Establish an identity, ANY identity, and succeed or fail by that identity, that would be my solution and I would let the person I hired to run an offense do that. I think the reason we don't see an identity is because the identity we would see based on OC and personnel isn't the identity the head whistle want to see.
Not trying to be cheeky or anything but I'm honestly curious. I've been hearing a lot lately this sentiment regarding CFB not letting SL "do his thing". Is there record of this anywhere? It just surprises me because I just don't see Beamer as a meddling type of coach. In fact I was leaning towards the opposite direction.
Also is this indicative of Lefty not being able to sell his vision if he's finding himself in these coaching situations consistently?
I believe there were reports that against the directional Michigan, one of the Beamers (not sure which) instructed Lefty to run the ball. The quote was something to the effect of "we had a heated halftime exchange. Beamer said 'We're Virginia Tech and Virginia Tech we pound the football!'" (paraphrased). Then we actually ran the football.
It was Shane. I also don't think it was heated, but he basically said, "give my guys a chance." Then he told the RBs, "don't make me look like an idiot."
And then we went out and had a productive half offensively which carried over to UNC with the same type of playcalling. So...I'd say we need a shorter leash on Loeffler using those examples.
It's the Fan/Coach Paradox. When the leash is too long, and Lefty can do whatever he wants, we want him to dial it back. When CFB limits him, we want a longer leash. When the running game isn't working, we want him to go to the hurry up. When we're moving too fast we want him to slow down.
I've seen everyone of these complaints over the past 18 hours. I have faith that over time our coaches will make the correct decision more often than not and over time it will eventually translate to wins. In the mean time, I'm willing to drink some bourbon and ride the rollercoaster.
Not trying to make excuses and pass it off, but the problem is deeper rooted than play-calling and coaching.
My original post was an attempt to calm everyone down. I've been frustrated with our offense for a long time too, but for the first time I feel like we are headed in the right direction "long term". Again, it might not take place immediately, but it will be consistently good in the years to come.
There is a lot that goes into having a successful college football team, recruiting is one of aspect. It takes a while for OL to understand their responsibilities in a DI offense. While some of the backups may be "better" athletically, if they were to get on the field right now it would be worse because of missed assignments, failed protections, and poor technique.
EDIT: attempted to make my thoughts less confusing.
Pitt has the number 4 ranked D in college, so that could have been a contributing factor last night. Brewer did not look good most of the game by making bad throws and not running when he had opportunities.
We all figured this year we would experience some growing pains, since the vast majority of our offensive playmakers this season were only here for 3 months before the start of the season. Nobody at the outset of the season expected an Orange Bowl this year, or even a Coastal championship. Obviously, the win over Ohio State raised expectations immensely, but honestly we're not that much behind preseason expectations.
Yes, Loeffler's playcalling has been suspect ever since he arrived on campus. There could be any number of reasons, ranging from personnel to gameplanning against weaknesses to not understanding the flow of the game, and I know I'm not enough of an expert to know which one that is. I do know that Pitt's front 7 was expected to be better than their secondary, so it wasn't necessarily a bad idea to come out throwing, especially considering that our top 3 running backs were out injured. Our chances of "establishing the run" were somewhere between slim and none unless we were able to use the pass to open it up, which it seemed like Loeffler tried doing.
Brewer made some conservative decisions, with his only glaring error being the pick in the endzone that was called back by the penalty, so I actually count that as an improvement over the last 5 weeks. Our young receivers dropped a couple passes, including one in the endzone in the 2nd quarter that would have completely flipped the complexion of the game.
Honestly, for the first half it looked like Loeffler had planned a ball-control passing attack from the start, and the execution wasn't there. Brewer missed a few open receivers in the first quarter, plus we had the dropped passes, and Brewer was generally playing very conservatively, looking at the flats more often than not, even on 3rd and long, which is somewhat of a departure from his tendency to force bad passes earlier in the year. Also, at one point we fumbled the ball on at least 3 consecutive offensive snaps. Those combined with all the pre-snap penalties and you have a recipe for disaster. Considering the youth on the team, you can't place the blame entirely on Loeffler. He stepped into a tire fire and has made an effort to put it out. If we're still having these conversations this time next year, maybe it'll be time to do something about it, but for now I don't see how we have any better options available.
First let me start by saying I have been a BF fan for years but I am starting to question his idea of a D lineman. The teams we play with big O lines and backs always run all over us (BC, Pitt, and Stanford etc). I understand speed kills but I'm thinking we need to start looking at the SEC D tackles and recruit that type of player to clog up the middle. The 6'3-6'5 and around 300 lb D lineman would look pretty good in Maroon and white. It's hard for our 240-260 lb line to hold up against a 300 pounders leaning on them the whole game. I'm also beginning to think moving Teller to O line may have been a bad idea. Teller is big and fast enough to cause a lot of problems along the line. In Bud's defense he may not be able to get the SEC type lineman and he is doing the best with what he has to work with but I just get frustrated watching teams run over our smaller lineman. Also if I did not know better it looked like some of our D backs where taking dives at the bigger back last night to avoid the hit. Our safety gave up two big plays and both looked like he was avoiding the big hit. I know you are going to say the TD pass Jarrett had to avoid the illegal hit etc but if he goes shoulder to shoulder and lays the guy out at worst it would have been pass interference and not a TD. As for SL and the O. I think all the penalties are a reflection on the coaches. It is there job to have the team ready to play!! I also question the direction of our offense. We where told three tight ends and running but we have yet to see it. I know we have injuries but moving Wang out to TE works for me and 15/45 look pretty good at running back. As far as the passing game I will give Brewer a pass d/t he is a first year starter and he missed spring practice but the play calling is questionable at best. 3 yard pass plays on 3rd and 9+ does not work for me! Also, why are we not using 20 in the passing game? If he is truly one of the fastest receivers on the team why are we not using him to create the explosive plays we have all been asking for. End Rant!
These are the thoughts of a arm chair QB that does not claim to know all the ends and outs of football so take it for what is worth. Just my opinion...LOL!
We have tried (and mostly failed) to recruit bigger d-linemen. Those failures force smaller guys to move down and the cycle is perpetuated. That's why a guy like Settle is an enormously important recruit for us.
I'm pretty mellow about last night's loss. I'm a Hokie fan... last night is every night for us. But I 'm gonna get riled up if we bring the defense into this.
The Hokies did everything they needed to do on that side of the ball to win this game. They forced fumbles, DT Cory Fucking Marshall got a pick, and they got off the field mostly when they needed to.
The defense feeds off the offense. The drive where the Pitt QB ripped off that big run, and then Connor walks into the endzone came after the failed 4th down conversion. That had to be demoralizing.
We all saw what the defense did after the Hokies finally scored the late TD. They shut Pitt down and gave their offense a legitimate shot to win the game.
This team's problem is not the defense not being able to get off the field. It is and ALWAYS has been the offense not being able to stay on the field.
Leave Bud Foster out of this. He's a genius. Personally, I LOVE the defensive strategy this year. Send the house, and dare anyone to throw to Kendall. FTW. It has failed for about 17 minutes this year (1st qtr ECU and 2 minutes of the GT game). Bud's defense won the OSU game and the UNC game. Period.
Preach
SEC still plays defense?
Not gonna lie, this is one of the whiniest, most uniformed, nearsighted football-related posts I've ever seen on TKP. We all knew this season wasn't gonna be all sunshine and butterflies, and things definitely didn't get better when our top 3 backs got hurt. We've got an O-line that was mostly recruited and coached by one of the worst in the business and is still being rebuilt. We've got freshmen manning all the skill positions and joined by a QB who's been in the system since August. I have zero explanations for the deluge of offensive penalties that we didn't see last year, but people have to keep in mind that *this* is the definition of rebuilding. Scot Loeffler knows what he's doing. He was handed a dumpster fire at Auburn and he was handed a dumpster fire at VT. He went from having no talent but experience last year to having talent but no experience this year. Let the man play with at least half a deck before you throw him under the bus. That is all.
Oh yes, last nights performance on offense was really indicative of "knowing what he's doing"
What do you want him to do better/differently? Sure, a few more deep shots early might've helped, but other than that, what have we got?
Don't run a double reverse fullback pass at literally the worst possible time to do it. Don't roll out on 4th and 2 and give your QB one option when he had been reading the field well and making good throws that entire drive. Don't run JC Coleman up the middle when you have Sam Rogers as the obvious choice to be the power back. I could keep going but this is going to turn into a profanity laced tirade and I don't wanna get that angry this early in the morning.
I'm just glad we finally benched JCC after his fumble. I don't remember seeing him on the field at all, and a ctrl+f for "coleman" on the play-by-play shows he didn't record a single stat after it.
He did get benched. Although I'm ok with that fumble because while it sucked, at least he was fighting for extra yards. The ones I'm not ok are from Malleck and I believe it was Byrn who fumbled it out of bounds. Those were just being lazy with the ball.
And the fact that he was being facemasked the opposite direction when he fumbled, but I digress...
On that 4th and 2, are you sure they rolled the pocket? I thought Brewer just got flushed by the pressure.
It was a pick play for Byrn in the flat. Pretty sure I remember Brewer rolling out immediately. I don't remember there being any pressure on him while he was making the throw. Also, Byrn was a yard short of the first down anyway.
I thought the same
Edit: n/m, I'm thinking of our last play of the game. Wrong 4th down.
Ah, yes. I just realized that I, too, am thinking of our last 4th down play. Don't remember the 4th & 2 right off hand.
Establish a semblance of a run game, run an offense that gets into a rhythm, specific plays to get Brewer with a good feel of the ball. Honestly he could have done anything different and it probably would have been an improvement over last night.
I would like you to answer your own question and tell me what it was about last night that showed he can build an offense
"Establishing the run" wasn't going to work last night. Pitt's front 7 is a strength, and we were without our top 3 running backs from a rushing attack that has been lacking all season. Our only hope of getting the run game going was to open it up with the pass, which Loeffler actually tried to do. Our first quarter game plan actually wasn't that bad when you actually consider the circumstances, our execution was just terrible all around.
I can't look this up because I've got a test in about 30 minutes, but how many times did we run the ball in the first quarter? We didn't even try and get a run game going I felt, and honestly, the few times we did, it wasn't our low depth chart running backs missing cuts or lanes, they just didn't have anywhere to go. It was a consistent brick wall, which Shai or JC, no one can run through.
4 rushes in the first quarter (threw out a rush by Brewer because I can't remember if it was a scramble on a broken play). One of the 4 TB runs was wiped out by a holding penalty. Total of ten offensive snaps, one of which was wiped out by aforementioned holding penalty. So we attempted to run 40% of the time in the first quarter. (Official stats will show 33% because of one of the ten offensive snaps getting nullified by penalty.)
EDIT: Just realized that rush by Brewer might have been the zone read that fooled the cameraman. If so, that should count as a legit rush, making it 50% rushing attempts.)
We ran the ball 5 times out of 11 first quarter plays (not including punts).
Establish the run? With who? Coleman? Caleb?
There's a reason these guys are 4th and 5th on the depth chart. If we have to rely on them to win us a game, we're not winning that game.
I understand they're low on the depth chart, but it didn't look like they were missing cuts that should have been made, or good running backs would have seen. To me, it looked more like the offensive line gave them nothing, and since our backs available couldn't do the Shai thing of bouncing outside, or the Juice thing of running everyone over, nothing happened. I don't believe Caleb would have had a terrible night if he actually had holes to run through.
I don't think caleb would have had a bad night if he got the chance to actually play more than 1 drive a game. If there was ever a time to see what the kid has it was last night. We all know JC is an undersized rb that looks like sproles plays like hot garbage. Its nothing new.. I can't remember 1 game where JC actually played well .
However I do think the coaches benched him for a good reason, but then decided to not even try caleb due to not trusting JC to even hold onto the ball. It would have been a stronger point had they let caleb get a crack and say look at that hold onto the ball make good reads and playing time will come.
If you shook Loeffler's hand at a picnic you'd understand why he's such a great OC.
Have we not learned that through victory and defeat, we must always blame the play-caller and whine about something, mostly the coaching staff? That's just how it works apparently.
Very well said. The trio of O'Cain, Hite and Newsome continues to haunt us. When Frank was so angry last night I wanted to be there and stick a mirror in his face. Then say: "This is the guy you need to be angry with. You created this "offense" by keeping those guys around."
Interesting. This is the first time I've heard Hite lumped in with OO'Cain and Newsome. Any particular reason?
His complete disdain for recruiting during his latter years. He simply didn't do it. And Frank allowed it.
Ah, okay, gotcha. I kind of assumed that's where you were coming from.
Not sure I'd lump him with O'Cain and Newsome. Hite was a good coach, which can't be said about the other two names on your list. He regularly produced fundamentally sound running backs. He was just awful as a recruiter. And now I have to wonder if we haven't put ourselves in the exact opposite situation.
Hite kinda checked out recruiting-wise the last few years or so. He said repeatedly that if modern college football coaching didn't involve recruiting, he'd be willing to stay in the game a lot longer.
I find myself flipping between "we are too young, inexperienced, and injured to have a good team this year" and "I have no idea what our coaching staff is trying to do".
On one hand, yes, we're completely young across the board, and our experience is lacking, to put it lightly. We have freshmen starting (when fully healthy) at QB, TE, 2 WR positions, and our 2-deep at RB. Even the best programs are going to have a down year with youth like that.
On the other hand, (outside of the QB) the freshmen are the ones making plays and bailing us out when the going gets tough. I could buy the youth excuse if they were the ones continually screwing up, but thats just not the case. If anything, they're the sole reason we have any offensive identity this year.
Then, we just have way too many injuries this year. Defensively, we're gutted, on a team that was already thin to begin with, and offensively... well I'll just put it this way... For those wringing their hands about the lack of trying to establish the run last night... You really think the 5th guy in our depth chart (Caleb) is the answer to our offensive woes? If we ever get to the point where you need to lean on the 5th player in any depth chart, you're epically screwed.
At the same time, its not like we were really playing lights out when we were healthy. Our defense got gashed against ECU, couldn't stop that GT offense when we needed it most, and they were embarrassed last night by as one dimensional an offense as it can get. And offensively, we've been spinning our tires from Day 1. Most of this has to do with the fact that Brewer is just not a consistently good enough QB to have consistent success in this offense. Every single game this year we've had wide open guys going deep completely missed with either a bad (5-10 yards) overthrow or (like last night) a horrible 20 yard underthrow. Even the easy passes to the flats are bouncing 5 feet in front of the receiver. His accuracy absolutely sucks, and at this point, its costing us games. And not to mention the questionable at best decision making where he's still forcing the ball into stupid situations where he's getting picked off with regularity. He is hurting us badly and something needs to be done to stop it.
Well then you can just blame it on execution, right? Well yeah, of course, thats exactly what it is. We're simply not executing any phase of the game well right now. We're just not. But stopping there is missing the forest for the trees. We're hearing the exact same excuses from our coaching staff while seeing very similar (albeit with a ton more penalties peppered in) play on the field as we saw with our previous offensive coaching system. We cleaned house of everyone on offense, and brought in an entirely new offensive coaching staff, and our playcalling really hasn't changed that much, and the excuses (i.e. blaming the players for our teams misfortunes by labeling everything as a lack of execution) have remained the same. This doesn't point to an offensive staff that doesn't have a clue, it points to a head coach who is so stuck in his ways, he's unwilling and unable to change. Its very, very, very clear at this point that the offense performs its best when we allow it to go out there reigns off, and let them gun for it. Why the hell are we playing a slow down churn the clock offense that is essentially designed to hold itself back? When we press the ball downfield, our WRs and TEs are making plays and moving chains. When we so small ball and run plays near the LOS, we struggle to get 8 yards in 3 plays, especially when we're using JC Coleman as our starting RB.
Take the reigns off this offense. Let them open it up and run 25 plays per game that are designed for 15+ yards through the air. Let these young stars in our receiving corps go out and make plays to keep us going. Force the opponents defenses to spread out, and that'll open up the middle of the field for our RBs to run, and we'll be a better team for it. We've shown we are fully capable of running an offense like this, but we're just so stuck in our ways of the 90s of 3 yards and a cloud of dust to control the clock and keep our defense off the field (which is an absurd premise to begin with... if our defense is our best unit as a whole with the most playmakers, put the game on their shoulders every week and tell them outright that our offense is going to be pressing, which will lead to TDs, but will also lead to mistakes and turnovers... don't let the turnovers kill us).
Even with all the issues we saw all over the field we still had a chance to win the game last night, and with better QB play (still dumbfounded how you can underthrow a wide open streaking Ford that badly... that was an easy TD to a guy who had blown past all the defenders, and he underthrew it by 20 yards, minimum, directly to the defender), we likely would have. And the reason we really got back into the game and had a chance is because we started to open up the playbook and started to press the ball downfield. We desperately need to see more of it. Take the handcuffs off this offense, PLEASE.
In an alternate reality, here lies a post on an Auburn message board two years ago, defending an offensive coordinator's honor by making a plethora of excuses for an offense that clearly has not been taught to execute. The post also would go on to make a case that he is a great coach and none of the offense is his fault, and he definitely he should not be fired at the end of the season.
Well, we all know what happened next season at Auburn. And we all know, of course, that those Auburn players didn't have learning disabilities, or any other deficiencies for that matter (except maybe the qb's passing). But you, for damn sure, would've keep him on the Auburn staff and continued to make excuses as he ran his schizophrenic offense that continually fails to execute plays year after year with horrible results. Where would Auburn be now with your informed and farsighted opinions, I wonder? I'll give you a hint: numbers don't lie, and a somewhat competent coach doesn't let the numbers get this bad, no matter which players he's inherited.
Vince Lombardi only went 7-5-2 with Washington in 1969, and was outscored 319 to 307. Not every coach, good or bad, pays immediate dividends
The Skins were 5-9 in 1968 and outscored by 108 points. Seems like immediate dividends to me.
Don't know the scoring differential, but the Hokies went from 7-6 to 8-5 if we're counting small dividends. I was more talking about a big jump, like at Auburn when Malzahn returned
A lot of that was the defense being a lot better. The offense has been a mostly flat line the last 3 seasons.
That's true, and I'm not trying to say Loeffler's had any sort of groundbreaking success here. I don't have the stats, but I know the offense has barely moved from its slightly below average position. Luck of the draw, too, in who we played.
This post is totally unfair. The problem with Auburn was obviously Chizik. There's a reason that guy was fired 2 years after a national title - he was a terrible head coach, and had the program circling the drain. It was clear when he was hired that he wasn't qualified, and he just lucked into having a great OC, a stocked cupboard, and a once-in-a-generation qb waiting to transfer in that his bagmen could afford. As soon as those things departed, he was in way over his head. Any OC in the country brought into such an environment would struggle.
Then, you proceed to put words into other posters' mouths, and trash the strawman you've made for yourself. You're right, the offense has problems. A lot of them. Improvement can be made across the board. But you said yourself - numbers don't lie. Someone above posted offensive rankings, and we are consistently trending in the right direction across the board. Maybe not quickly, but there is clear movement.
This right here exemplifies everything wrong with college football. You're trying to compare two COMPLETELY different situations linked by one guy. I'm gonna go ahead and assume you've never actually talked to the guy or seen any practices, so forgive me if I don't follow along with your assessment of what a "competent" coach is. As I mentioned before, Loeffler was handed a dumpster fire at Auburn and he was handed a dumpster fire at VT. Numbers don't lie, but they also don't tell the full story. Hiring Gus Malzahn wouldn't fix our lack of talent in 2012 or the woeful failings of our offensive line recruiting/development pre-Grimes/Searels. We all knew this was gonna take a while and the only surprises really have been nice ones (such as Ford, Philips, Hodges, Marshall, etc).
You're right, I've never talked to the guy or attended one of his practices. I'm am a completely non-bias observer, and the only thing I base my judgments on is the product that we see on the field. I don't see how this is a problem, unless you are implying that Loeffler is competent and our players are incompetent. Either:
A. You are blaming the coaches for a lack of preparation and/or game-planning.
B. You are blaming our players for a lack of execution and/or talent.
It is really that simple, man. The execution is not there, and that is derived from practice. If you are saying that we severely lack talent, then how is it that teams like USB, Duke, and Middle Tennessee, have more talent than us? And if it's that we do have talent, but have horrible luck on the field when trying to execute, then how do you explain the huge sample set which should give us a pretty damn good confidence level that this level of execution is not an outlier?
Also, I contend that if we hired Malzahn in 2012, we would have much better execution at this point in time.
The talent we do have is young talent. Which offensive upperclassman would you say you really have confidence in to do his job consistently? Couple that with the fact that we're essentially in year 1 of a new system (after we had to scrap everything last season and go with the Logan Thomas Show), and you're gonna have execution issues. It's easy to say, "look! That pass was incomplete and the QB sucks!" But do we know what the playcall was, or whether the WR ran the right route to the right depth? Do we know what key the QB has to check to a run or flip the play? No we don't, which is why I can't stand people basing judgments on "the product we see on the field." We don't know the whole story. Now, clearly something is different about this year compared to last year. In 2013, we committed 6.6 penalties per game for an average of 51.7 yards per game. This year 2014, we've committed 9.3 penalties per game for an average of 69.1 ypg. Part of that is definitely youth (see Cam Philips lining up wrong to wipe out Juice's first TD run). Part of it is likely the fact that Lefty has tried to build on last year and expand the playbook a bit to take advantage of some mismatches (which he finally has) and to mask some weaknesses (which he definitely still has).
So to sum up, it's a little column A, a little column B. Yes, the coaches have to prepare their players. However, that job gets significantly harder when you're relying on young players (and you don't know exactly how much they can handle this early in their careers) and then you have injuries piled on top of that. Considering we all knew this was going to be a major rebuilding year, forgive me if I'm not so quick to go all doom and gloom and start calling for guys' heads.
Finally, as for that last sentence, the grass is always greener. Way to go comparing completely different situations yet again. That's not how college football works. You may be right, you may be wrong. We may also have better execution if Stiney was still running things. It is 100% impossible to know how things would go with a different coach, and there are plenty of teams out there (UVA, Redskins, Cal, Stanford in the early 2000's, Washington State, Michigan, etc.) who have shown that simply getting a new coach doesn't magically fix everything.
Patience, people.
Well there's always going to be a backstory, successful or unsuccessful. The reality is the product on the field is the culmination of all of the stories put together. We still value our victory at Ohio state, and no one should be interested in hearing the story about a back up redshirt freshman QB forced into action. The bottom line is we won because we played well and would have lost if we didn't.
While I can appreciate positivity and optimism, there is much more historical evidence to the contrary of Loeffler's effectiveness as an OC than in his support. The guy changed QBs three times at Auburn, in one season, and we're still unsure what "his guy" looks like. If your system requires a specific type of player, then part of the job is knowing how to quickly recognize and get that guy (see Malzahn).
We can all go on and on about what we think should happen going forward, but it probably won't make any difference in the outcome. My thing is, being optimistic alone isn't a justifiable defense of what we're all looking at. UNC and Miami both recruit exceptionally well and it has yet to translate on the field; poor coaching is a real thing and VT isn't somehow immune.
Loeffler is going to get a pass for a few more years due to the OSU win. Called a great game, did it with a new QB and freshman, and took down an experienced, top-5, Urban-Meyer coached squad. Epic win for VT, and it exorcized some demons.
We can start calling for his head if we don't make a bowl or finish worse than 100 in total offense in both of the next few years (this year is already a given.)
IMO you should disregard anything said about Loeffler coming out of his year at Auburn. His hiring at Auburn was such a colossally bad move, not because of anything Loeffler did but because of the way Chizzik was trying to transition from Malzahn's offense to a pro-style without a damn clue of how to effectively do it. Loeffler is a much better fit with the offense VT has tried to run dating back to Rickey Bustle.
I'm not calling for Loeffler's head. I'm just a fan with a comparatively infantile football IQ, and I'll leave those decisions to people more qualified than me.
But...all this coaching change talk has got me thinking...what would an Aaron Moorehead offense look like?
I...I like that thought.
Again, I'm not saying it should happen. But I think the consensus on Moorehead is he's an excellent coach, on his way to bigger and better things, and it seems like he's our best recruiter (myself notwithstanding). I'm just spit-balling here, but hypothetically, if we we're to change OC's, and we wanted to make sure Moorehead doesn't bolt for a better gig...
Maybe this is just the cynic in me... but what makes anyone think that we will see any change with another coaching change without a major shift in philosophy from the top?
Frank wants a churn the clock offense that runs the ball more times than we pass, regardless of where the talent on the offense lies. Until that philosophy changes, and he allows his OCs to coach and playcall to the strengths of their players, we aren't going to change the way our team plays the game. The issues we see right now are the same issues we saw throughout the last regime. The only constant throughout this process has been the head coach.
Something like this:
And here is what our offense looked like last night....
He runs the "12 Men on the Field Offense".
The strategy behind this offense is simple - I have more guys on the field than you. I win.
I'm not saying I've completely given up on Lefty but a few things are very apparent.
1) We most certainly do not have an established offensive identity, we have looked wildly different from week to week.
2) Lefty absolutely gets too cute sometimes trying to exploit individual matchups as opposed to overall schematic defensive weaknesses. However, sometimes he doesn't even make good individual matchups. I know Ford can snag a fade on a defender, and we've seen it, but why not throw that to Bucky, we telegraphed the fade anyway.
3) Lack of discipline with penalties, and execution is hurting our offense but that doesn't mean the play calling isnt also at fault. Theoretically, any play can work, but making those calls relies on situational analysis and exploiting established weaknesses in the defense, strengths of the offense, or hopefully both. That said, I find myself wildly frustrated by the play calling each game, not unlike during the Stiney years.
4) I reject the idea that somehow in two more years the offense will look totally different and allow me to explain:
When Malzahn came to Auburn their offense immediately changed, their identity was evident and while their personnel may have just happened to fit the scheme the identity was evident from day one. When Malzahn left, the offense was completely different and noticeably so. Then when Malzahn returned with a different variation of his offense it was immediately clear what their identity was.
When Chad Morris came to Clemson they immediately had a Chad Morris offense, their identity was clear and the offense was immediately successful with guys recruited for another system.
Granted, these are both great offensive minds, but neither needed 3-4 years for their offense to be installed and their offensive identity to be established. It was immediate for both. The same can be said of the changes to the Ohio State offense, or when Oklahoma changed to the spread in Bradford's sophomore year. The changes were immediately evident and the identity was clear. With Loeffler we are a season and a half in and your guess is as good as mine as to how our offense is going to look each week. However if we were betting men, we would win a lot of money if we guessed "bad" every week.
LMAO, I love it.
"What's the Virginia Tech Offensive Identity?"
"I dunno...'bad?'...does that count as an identity?"
The difference at those other programs is that those other head coaches allowed the OC to determine the identity of the offense. That does not happen with Frank. His primary objective of the offense has ALWAYS been - eat up enough clock to allow the defense to rest, so they can go full force'.
We don't know what a Scott Loeffler offense is because it has been overlaid with the Frank Beamer directive. That overwhelms everything. Why else do you think the mid-season directive suddenly became - 'We need to get back to running the ball more often'? Why was Loeffler hired? Because he was willing to accept Beamer's hand on his shoulder at all times. And that is practically literal. What other TE coach & recruiting coordinator sits next to the OC in the booth? Stinespring is there as a reminder.
I know this won't quell any criticism of Loeffler, but he is only capable of doing what Beamer allows him to do.
See, i like this, because of all the criticism of former and current coaches, of all the identity questions, recruiting questions, etc... the one thing constant is Beamer.
So, we can all be hokie fans, take it for what it is, and cheer them on no matter the outcome, because IMO things are not going to change all that much until the Beamer ride is over and a new ride begins. And again, the Beamer ride is not a bad ride, but you have to take it for what it is worth.
And as far as rebuilding, most other dominant schools reload, not rebuild. I am interested in seeing what other rebuilding schools (I guess one example might be Texas) turn around time is compared to our rebuilding.
God I hate being *that* asshole who responds point by point like I'm doing an autopsy on your post. But you posted in bullet form and if I don't reply in kind in going to forget something. So please don't think I'm trying to troll in my style of response.
1) How much of this schizophrenia is due to injury? It's not a negligible amount. TBH, I felt like we were regaining balance through the first half of the season, and then the proverbial bomb went off on the backfield. I don't know if I can say we have looked wildly different from week to week. We went from a team that couldn't run, to a team that could kind of run, back to a team that couldn't run because of injury. Did we really look that wildly different against Pitt than we did against GT?
2) I hear the "too cute" thing about Lefty more and more, but it's also at odds with what I understand of his scheme. Package plays are a cornerstone, as is a way more complex passing tree (check downs!), and Scot is all about giving his QB reads and options. So maybe the formations are designed to find individual mismatches, but there's no guarantee that's where the ball is going on any given play.
3) I don't hate the play calling. I absolutely abhor the procedural penalties in game seven. And I see a big, big improvement in play DESIGN, which I find to be what most people are taking about when they complain about play calling. In general, Lefty provides his QB with a vertical, intermediate and check down route in passing plays, which so long as the OL can give him four seconds to make a read should be sufficient.
4) I've talked about thus before, but Mahlzahn was immediately successful at Auburn because he inherited his own players who had played in his system for all but one year. The table was set for Malzahn in much the same way as it was for Larry Coker at Miami years ago. Perfect situation to walk into.
And Chad Morris might be the best OC in the college game. We could probably have as immediate a turnaround if Whit is willing to pay a million plus to a coordinator and Frank is willing to relinquish all control of the O to whoever it is. Neither of those is happening (though I see Whit cutting a literal blank check week before Frank would cut a proverbial one).
YES!
I just want to see to see French's review.
so i have taken some time to relax and think of some things about the game.
So Loeffler wants to establish the run.. so why on 1st and goal from the 5 are we not lined up in I-Formation? Why are we in shotgun/pistol to run the ball? If we're going to go shotgun throw the damn fade to bucky 3 times I would bet that he would be able to make a play for a td.
Loeffler wants to establish the run... with the dumpster fire we have for an o-line we can't put two blocks together to create any resemblance of a hole. Soo we have to get cute/tricky with wr reverse passes.. it worked against OSU but we had a huge block by redman to seal the edge.. last night it got blown up.. The pressure from the outside makes brewer step up and this is where/when he becomes inconsistent but no blame to him.
Loeffler wants to be balanced.. with the injuries we're having its almost as bad as last year and hard to even come up with a plan game by game. We all heard him say we had a huge plan for malleck and that hurt. With our top 3 Rb's out plan A,B,C and D went out the window and we went with plan F.
IMO this is exactly what happened to us last year, except there are more pieces to the puzzle that are missing. Malleck going down last year hurt a lot. But Kline stepped in and played a huge role. We still had Logan, Stanford played well, paperboy did well and Trey had a great year and got hurt late.. But look at the Marshall game, we snuck out the win.. those close games where we play bad this year are L's not W's like last year.
Good teams find a way to win when they're struggling..however when you're missing 3 rb's, a new qb, a confused o-line and a coordinator that's trying to juggle all of this its tough. I love my hokies sometimes way to much but I will still be there thursday night. If anything this will only make me be that much louder and supportive because when things get tough a fanbase needs to be the backbone that the team can lean on and get them through the year. Yes it will continue to be ugly but remember
SUCKS TO BE U
first off there is no identity to this offense. He said it was supposed to be Pro-Style and then he does all this shifting, gains no yards but there is no trust in some of the great athletes we have. I don't know what he is doing. Maybe the 4-start QB Bucky Hodges should have been a QB
What about a Pro-Style Offense means you don't shift? Pro offenses shift all the time.
ah, what does it matter, we are losing too much
Anybody remember this?
How many times did we give Joel Caleb the ball?
I don't care about the fact that he only gained 12 yards, he converted third downs and when you give the ball to your fullback, 5'6 running back and let your quarterback run the ball, Joel Caleb is not going to get in a rhythm. Shane has said a lot of things that he hasn't followed through on and I'm starting to get concerned.
can't give the rb 40 carries when the o-line is swiss cheese. I'm not saying we shouldn't have tried to at least run the ball but it wasn't a night where loeffler/shane/beamer/searels were all on the same page.
IMO 1st and goal from the 5 lineup jumbo no motion, no pick route straight up stanford looking line and smash the damn ball 4 times. if we can't gain 5 yards with that mindset I give up.
What worries me about these posts is that the coaches don't seem to be on the same page....
Another frustrating thing is that I didn't get to enjoy my delicious beer because I was pacing and worrying and losing hair the entire night. I drank it way too fast for an 8.1 abv in a larger bottle so basically two full mugs of it. I was irritated that Techs offense had driven me to that. A very enjoyable beer when you can sit and enjoy it. It still tasted good, but I couldn't just sit back and sip it and enjoy. I had to drink large amounts at random intervals of asking why we were throwing 2 yd routes and not giving the ball to Caleb more. It's not a cheap beer either.
The dream is to have to drink large amounts at random intervals because we are too busy celebrating.
It seems like everyone is at a loss after last nights game versus Pitt. However, I think it is quite obvious what needs to happen to return to being a good football team.
1. I don't care about the flashy names at WR, RB, QB, CB, etc. in recruiting. We NEED help on the O-Line. It is essential that we get more depth there, and actually build a line that can do more than just hold its own in the ACC.
If the offensive line dominates the game, we are UNBEATABLE. This means physically and mentally (no stupid penalties). It would open up the run game, which would allow us to control the tempo, clock, and overall pace of the game. Marshawn, Shai, and Trey are studs at tailback. Giving them more room to run would make us extremely dangerous. Instead of the defense being able to pin their ears back and just rush the QB every play like last night, they would have to stay honest, opening up routes that take longer to develop. In addition, running the ball effectively would create a lethal play action attack. With Malleck, Hodges, and Cline that would obviously be playing into our strength at the TE position. Lastly, it would take a ton of pressure off of the QB. It would allow Brewer, or whoever is playing the position to be a game manager. They wouldn't have to be the hero every play to win the game for us.
I think it is obvious. Brewer has his flaws, sure. Loeffler may not always call the rights plays, sure. Heck the talented freshman might not always make the best decisions. But a much improved O-Line is the only way this offense starts to pull their own weight on this team.
yes!!!!!!!!1 take the threats we have and put it with any competent O-line and dare i say we absolutely smoke the coastal... however we can't find a starting 5 that works well together so its a constant swap of roles week after week.
I know this...I prefer Loeffler's offensive scheme to Stinespring's 100% of the time. However, the number of pre-snap penalties at this stage of the season is unacceptable. That falls in his lap (and Frank Beamer's). Also, the excuse that his offense is too complicated and/or we have too many young players is not founded.
Scheme
a large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect.
Not sure we have one of those
Is it basketball season yet? Bring on the Buzz....
Coming in cold here, havent had time to read previous posts so sorry if this was covered already...
SL is a good OC, potentially a very good one.
I've only got one problem with last night's playcalling...early in the 4th (or possibly late in the 3rd), our offense was moving the ball for the first time. We were somewhere around the Pitt 40, and SL called the Sam Rogers FB-pass play. The timing of that was terrible. Wanna call that play when it's one three and out after the next? Sure, go ahead.
But calling that play when our offense has a rythm for the the first time all night makes no sense. Rogers was sacked, it led to a 3rd and 17, which ultimately led to the 4th down incompletion to Byrn. Two plays later, Pitt scores their last TD and we're in a 12-point hole.
I wonder if it could have been a different game had we just stayed with our normal offense then and put 3 or 7 points on the board, and drawn within 2 points (or had a 2 point lead).
The offense last night was terrible, but a lot of that is young players and execution. SL runs a good offense, but that one playcall was very poor.
Just my 2 cents.
Lot of posts here that I've been trying to keep up with, but I'll admit it's a bit too much as I haven't had much time to be here today. I'll offer one thought, something that has been nagging at me for a while, and something that (to this point) has been mentioned 28 times in this thread - offensive identity.
First, I would ask everyone how you define "offensive identity." Does it mean we do one thing and do it well, a la GT? Would it be the speed at which we operate the offense, though there is a good mix of plays, a la Oregon? What would it be?
I think what Scot Loeffler is trying to create as our identity is "keep the defense off-balance by being unpredictable." Now, unpredictability is total junk if the guys get confused or can't execute it. Is that why we're seeing pre-snap penalties? They're in their own heads too much? I saw a two-TE shift last night that left poor Cam Phillips totally unaware of what the hell was going on, so Beamer had to burn a timeout. Is it too much, too soon? I can't say.
It seems that Loeffler likes to shake things up in the middle of the game, as many have said, being "too cute." I tend to agree overall. Gadget plays are awesome when they work, but they've been peppered in at highly questionable times. A FB pitch to Rogers? Cool idea if employed correctly. It worked against UVA, and Sam tucked it and ran for 17 against OSU. Those instances seemed genius. Last night it did not work whatsoever, and probably shouldn't have been called in that case. But Loeffler probably said, "hey, they're seeing us move quickly with short passing, but what if I let my hardest working guy try to make something unexpected happen?" It failed and makes him look bad. But that's the essence of what I think Loeffler is trying to do. Make the defense think they know what's coming and then throw in something else. Exploit matchups. We're seeing him do that in the passing game, which is much better designed (but not necessarily better executed) than it has in previous years.
We don't have a predictable or known "identity" because this is the first year that Loeffler has a chance to establish one. Last year's identity? "The Logan Thomas Show Featuring Scot Loeffler and Some Athletes that We Picked Up." This year? The product of targeted recruiting and a developing cast of skill players. Of course, that means #*$^@-all when the entire O-line jumps on a false start...then does it again. But all the blame does not belong on one unit, and I think we have a highly cerebral system in the works. There is a learning curve, and maybe not all of our guys are up to it. But if our "identity" becomes what Loeffler is envisioning, that could be exceptional. An offense that is capable of exploiting matchups against any team because they can't know what we'll throw at them, even from studying a ton of tape? Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I think this is what Loeffler is trying to do. He just hasn't locked down all the pieces yet, in his own mind, and in the players' abilities at this time.
I'm trying to think of what I would define as our identity in years past. During the "peak" years I would say it was power running that opened up play-action (think Suggs and Jones in the backfield, Wilford and Andre Davis as WR), with the game-changing insane abilities of Michael Vick. We tried to carry that forward in various ways in the early 2000s, relying largely on sheer athleticism of the skill positions to make up for other problems. Think of how many "drawn up in the dirt" plays there were with TT making something happen, like finding Danny Coale executing the scramble drill to perfection, or RMFW just breaking people's ankles, and DW4 running backwards for 35 yards for a net gain of 20. I don't know how I would describe our "identity" from about 2005 onward. Maybe someone else can, but to me it looked a lot like "hot, nasty, badass speed" in hopes of doing enough, coupled with awesome defense. The idea was to just put fast guys on the field who were generically good athletes, and things would work. Then, we had a lot of recruiting misses and the bubble screen, WR pitch, bubble screen years produced absolutely jack. Hence the tailspin. I think it could be argued that we have as much of an "identity" now as we have for a long time. Thoughts?
I freaking love you, man. Best moderator ever /cries
Thoughts:
I definitely agree on the past identity. It was have the most athletic player at QB that can change the game, complemented with great RBs and WRs.
My concern is this
Is having a highly cerebral identity good for college football?
When I think of highly cerebral systems, I think Brady and Patriots, Manning and Colts/Broncos, and even Kapernick and 49ers. However NFL teams have an insane amount of practice time and "franchise Quarterbacks" that run the same system for many years; college teams do not have these luxuries. Brewer and Logan are very smart, but both have looked very confused running Loeffler's offense. And it seems virtually every offensive player has been making cerebral mistakes.
So, is it too cerebral? Will Brewer get a handle of the offense by the end of the year? 2015?
And what about the next QB? Will sitting on the sidelines on the clipboard be enough to learn the offense? Or will the learning curve be as steep?
What about WRs, TEs, RBs, and OLs? Will their penalties, missing blocks, etc. eventually come to an end?
These are philosophical questions that Loeffler will need to consider in the offseason. Ultimately, how does Loeffler turn his vision into a reality?
Well said, and I think you've hit on a lot of key points. I've been wondering many of the same things, and I often grumble about things being too clever by half. I know Loeffler can simplify, and it's one of the first things he did - the repetition of the 2013 Spring Game was a product of running all of about 4 plays - but will he do it again? I think he's facing a very critical moment that will tell us what kind of coach he really is. Can he (1) get the best performance out of his players and (2) design his game plan using the tools he has, which this year are many, while still teaching in the time available to him? I think this will tell us a lot about him. Many of us agreed that UNC was a key test for Loeffler and the offense, one that I think they passed, if only just. Now, can we avoid the slide and show some growth? It almost becomes cliché, but every week I think the game becomes even more important than any previous one.
This is a good point, but still, we have yet to see a QB go through more than a spring and fall camp in Lefty's system before playing a game. That's rough on a QB no matter what system you're in.
Not at Auburn.
Malzahn came home after a one-year hiatus to a team he had personally recruited and coached. That makes Marshall's job a heck of a lot easier as a guy coming in. Yet again, people need to stop making comparisons to other schools and whining about why we're different.
The first year Malzahn was at Auburn, he was an OC. Similar to Lefty he worked under Chizik. They won a national championship.
Cam Newton and a ridiculous O-line and D-line can cover a whole lot of problems.
Man, all these justifications you throw out make it seem like the only way any one can win anything ever is if they have absolutely every aspect of the game the exact perfect way they want it. Honestly, we just continue to make excuses for our football program and we will because we know we'll never take that next step. But hey, the future is bright right?
So hey, let's fire the head coach and the whole offensive coaching staff and we'll win a NC next year, right?
I mean, it's hard to win a national championship. Great teams fall off all the time during the season. Obviously every team works through adversity, but most championships are a convergence of immense good fortune on multiple fronts, as well as a strong base of talent and coaching
Actually, yeah, pretty much. Thanks for summing things up so succinctly.
That IS the only way you can win these days, at least if you want to win championships. Throw in a little luck and you might even make the playoffs. What you're describing is an elite team. It is a team that recruits well, has a deep experienced roster, and is led by top notch coaches. This is exactly what most here would like Virginia Tech to be.
I'm jumping into this waaaay late, and I only saw the second half because I worked late, and I could only see the skycam view because I don't pay for Comcast anymore but...
Loeffler: Simplify + Durkin/Ford. Now.
Corey Marshall is one of my favorite players this year.
So is Isaiah Ford.
That's all I can think of right now. Simplify the offense, and do it now.
EDIT:
I think I've heard that Malzahn gets his teams going so quickly is because he makes everything really really simple to digest and that makes it very easy to execute in real time. Loeffler may have the best offensive system in the world, but if we can't learn it, we'll never make it happen.
I seem to also recall that in the Shane Exchange about running the ball more and not being made to look bad, one of the OL said after the game something to the effect of 'yeah well we only ran three plays'. Do more of this. Please. For the love of all that is Hokie. Get really good at one thing and then build on it.
We see flashes of greatness. We have promising young talent. We've seen what our offense could look like (Miami 2013).
Bringing in a new OC is not the answer.
The answer is recruiting and it starts with the OL.
Who died?
The Elevator....from Hokie fans ranging all the way up and all the way down....
i don't want a new OC, just want better play calling and gettin this o-line going
The second problem is what makes the first one a problem at all.
The tragedy is that Lefty took over an offense with TEs and D linemen playing OL, and the best returning RB was JC Coleman, and absolutely zero proven receiving threats... we can already see the talent on the field he recruited in his first year, if we could avoid the injury bug I think we'd have a different outlook on the season
When Brewer is slinging all over the field many of us complain about the INTs, when he throttles it back we complain about that too... we saw a brilliant game plan last week vs UNC, but without a credible running game no game plan in the world has much of a chance to succeed
Coming into the year we knew it was likely to be another up and down year, let's let some of it play out before we start calling for peoples jobs, shall we?
Late night thoughts after reading all these posts...
JCC should never play another down. I have yet to see him run the ball effectively ever in his time at tech. Please just stop giving him chances.
If I see another jet sweep with Deon I'm going to lose my mind.
The Pitt game was one of the worst play calling games I've ever witnessed at tech including stiney.
I know what our offensive identity is under SL it's called Smoke and Mirrors
If we don't make a bowl this year I hope we fire SL it would be a shame if we gave him until 2016
Lastly someone way back posted a quote from a temple site that supported SL and yeah I'm sure they were happy with him...Temple sucks I'm sure watching their team churn out a bunch of bull**** smoke and mirrors trick play shenanigans was exciting for them...that ain't gonna work at a real program like auburn or virginia tech
Double lastly I thought 2015 and 2016 were gonna be big years for Tech but I've lost confidence in that.
Triple lastly Our recruiting classes will again barely crack the top 30 and we don't have the coaching staff to turn that into a playoff caliber team much less a middle of the pack coastal division team. As a fan base I think it's time to just support the team as best we can and lower expectations, acc championships are a thing of the past...we are like a poor mans Nebraska from here out, might crack the top 25 every couple seasons.
Sorry and goodnight
-sad hokie fan
Here lies my problem with Virginia Tech's approach towards offense; we want to be world beaters. For us to be competitive on a National level, all we have to do is be DUKE!!! You know the team that doesn't kill themselves with 5 yard penalties every other play, the team that has 1 or less turnover per game (on most occasions), the team that during the game that doesn't over power you but has 200 yards of rushing by the end of the day, the team that DOESN'T LOSE GAMES. , with a weaker roster has a SIGNIFICANTLY better offense than we do. Their ceiling might not be higher, but they are CONSISTENT! If you put Duke's offense With Bud Foster we would win the Coastal every year while we slept at the wheel, probably the ACC.
I think the title of this thread is ridiculous because it sets a premise which promises there will be heat and discourages thoughtful discussion on the topic.
It has been bothering me since it was created.
I remember last year when we lost if our execution is bad. This year that is still true, but we are also losing from poor coaching and game-calling. Yes the team is young, but up downs aren't going to fix mental errors. These coaches need to take responsibility of those mistakes. It is their system they are throwing these freshmen into. It is their system which calls for inside runs on every first down with an offensive line that isn't dominant enough for that. It is their system that consistently throws 3 yards short of the sticks on every third down. I can live with mistakes by freshmen playmakers, but I cannot live with mistakes by coaches who are being paid to coach. Every team we play against will crowd the line of scrimmage because we don't utilize our deep threats the way we need to. We are calling safe plays on every play and our stat sheet reflects that. We need to be shooting for the sticks on every 2nd down so that we don't end up in 3rd and long after an inevitable penalty. I find it completely ridiculous to try and run JC down the middle. Why not use bucky Hodges on more wild turkey plays? Why not run more end arounds and counter plays? These are all questions left unanswered and Lefty better answer them soon before all of Hokie Nation is asking him to leave. Fix it Lefty.
One receiver is consistently the underneath receiver, just like with most passing plays. If the QB consistently throws to him instead of the other receivers downfield, that's what happens. The other receivers either need to get open more effectively, or the QB has to stop throwing to his checkdown every 3rd down and try and make a play downfield. Without watching the tape I can't tell you which of these is what's happening, but saying "every 3rd down we run a play that's short of the sticks" is incorrect. It's not the system, it's the players in the system.
With as many times as that happened in the Pitt game, the coaches need to teach the receivers to get to the sticks. It seems like the receivers haven't been taught that what-so-ever. The fact that there is always a 2 yard route on the field is another problem in itself. The corners know that and play against it every time. Don't call a play with a bunch of underneath routes on 3rd and long. There's how you avoid that.
I thought Morehead was the best position coach on our offense? Now he's not teaching our WRs anything?
And you misread what I said. I stated that, as with all well designed plays, one receiver is a check-down that usually is well short of the sticks. This is an easy pass when all else are covered to at least pick up a few yards. The plays being called include a receiver running one of these routes because that's what all smart, well designed plays have. The notion that we called plays with a "bunch" of underneath routes on 3rd and long is simply wrong.
Yup. That's all that was remotely open and better to get it to a playmaker and see if they can do something with it.
End around or counter plays?
I'll start with counter plays. Counter to what? You have to be doing something effectively that defenses are keying on and reacting to which will take advantage of that over commitment. Otherwise, the "counter-play" is called a play, without something it is countering.
End arounds? That's what they've been getting our scat back, Coleman, to try all year with limited success.
Our offensive problems, in my opinion, have been because we have presnap penalties and things that work one game have limited success the next game coupled with significant injuries to our successful personnel.
The point I'm trying to make is that we have to use our players in ways that make sense. It still makes more sense to get J.C. to the outside or use our receivers more in the running game. When it comes to counters, we don't have to actually do something well for them to work, we just have to do something a lot. That would be the inside runs on first down that defenses are biting on. Play action on first down is another option. I'm just tired of seeing default plays on first down regardless of the personnel on the field.