This week, you're going to get a little bit of analysis, and a little bit of commentary. Let's start with the boring stuff (analysis) first.
It's no secret that Virginia Tech leans hard on Logan Thomas on offense. But in reviewing the film from Saturday's game and pondering things, I can add a little bit to the discussion of exactly what the means.
Well, dummy, it means that when the guy you lean on turns it over four times, you're going to lose.
Okay, I get it. But if you're reading this, then you're looking for something a little more in-depth. If you're not, then you don't have a subscription, you're focused in on the four turnovers, and you're screaming on the message boards for the coaches to put in Mark Leal, and for Frank Beamer to retire.
Since you're here, let's start by comparing Boston College's offense to Virginia Tech's offense.
Like VT leans on Logan Thomas, BC leans on one guy: Andre Williams. But it's not the same, and not just because LT had four turnovers and Andre Williams didn't. The difference is that Boston College leverages Andre Williams into success in other areas, whereas VT's offense starts and ends with Logan Thomas.
Would you say Chase Rettig is a better quarterback than Logan Thomas? Is he more physically gifted? Does he have a higher ceiling? Will he impress the scouts at the Combine next spring, more than Logan?
Of course not.
Is Chase Rettig more efficient in Boston College's offensive system? Ah, that's a different question, and yes, he is. Going into this game, Rettig was #47 in the NCAA in pass efficiency, and LT was #100. Coming out of it, Rettig is #41 in the nation, and LT is #93. There are 51 quarterbacks between Chase Rettig and Logan Thomas, in terms of efficiency.
On Saturday, Logan slung it all over the field and made some impressive throws. He was 24-41 for 391 yards, 2 TDs, and 2 INTs. Rettig was quietly efficient: 11-14 for 91 yards and 1 TD. Logan's efficiency rating was 145.0 (not bad, actually) and Rettig's was 157.9. Not a huge difference, but it's how the offenses are structured that made the difference.
Defenses are so justifiably keyed on Andre Williams that it takes the pressure off Rettig and allows him to operate. It allows him to do things like run a QB draw on 3rd and 10 for 19 yards, as he did two plays before Williams' first touchdown run. It allows Rettig to run play action on 2nd and goal from the 2, after five straight grind-it-out runs by Williams, and hit wide-open tight end Jake Sinkovec for the TD. It allows Rettig to play-action into the line and throw an easy 12-yard buttonhook route to a wide open receiver to pick up the first down. It allows him to play-action and roll the pocket, and make a pass unmolested.
You get the idea. Chase Rettig and his fellow skill-position players, outside of Williams, are not great players, but they're in a system that frees them up to make plays, and to be opportunistic. Not to dominate, but to be opportunistic. There's a difference.
Contrast that with the Virginia Tech offense we saw Saturday (and have been seeing most of the year). The offense was strictly shotgun. I counted three plays out of 70 that were run with Logan under center, so small a number that it doesn't matter what happened on those plays.
The Hokies ran the read option out of the shotgun set, which usually makes the Virginia Tech running game pretty easy to defend. Here are a couple plays where BC defends VT easily. On the first one, BC linebacker Kevin Pierre-Louis steps into the read option unblocked, forces Logan to keep it, then knifes down and tackles him easily. On the second play, DB Manuel Asprilla run blitzes, unblocked, and defends both options. He's there to tackle J.C. Coleman if he gets the ball -- he doesn't -- and then he runs Logan down from behind, easily. My guess is that both players were keyed to run blitz by the offensive set.
In the second play, the blocking was set up pretty well. Imagine if LT had the speed of Oregon's Marcus Mariota, or former Duck QB Darron Thomas. Asprilla would still be chasing him.
If the defense keys on the run or run blitzes, as shown here, VT's blocking isn't good enough, the play doesn't develop fast enough, and Logan Thomas (if he keeps it) doesn't have the speed to get away from unblocked defenders.
With the mountain of tape we have now of the tailbacks not being effective out of the read option, and Logan's lack of raw speed, running the read option like VT does pretty much leaves one productive option: LT bulling straight ahead. And even that's only intermittently "productive," and completely not explosive. Here are the longest runs by VT's principle ball carriers, since the GT game, when Logan had a 26-yarder:
- vs. UNC: Coleman 9 yards, Thomas 8 yards, Edmunds 6 yards
- vs. Pitt: Edmunds 14 yards, Thomas 12 yards, Coleman 8 yards
- vs. Duke: Thomas 17 yards, Edmunds 8 yards, Coleman 6 yards
- vs. BC: Thomas 13 yards, Edmunds 6 yards, Coleman 3 yards
That's four games without a single run over 20 yards, and the tailbacks have one run over 10 yards in the last four games.
Running so much shotgun set also limits Virginia Tech's ability to run what I would call true playaction, where you fake the handoff from under the center and roll out or drop back to pass. VT does run some playaction out of the shotgun, where they fake the read option and throw it downfield. The play action freezes the linebackers -- heck, sometimes they come charging into the backfield -- and opens up the slant patterns that we've seen to D.J. Coles and, in this game, Joshua Stanford.
Another sterling example of playaction from the shotgun set is the fourth-down touchdown pass to Kalvin Cline that made it 17-10, VT. Logan faked the read option handoff to Trey Edmunds, the BC linebackers predictably charged the line of scrimmage, and Cline slipped behind them completely uncovered for the short TD pass.
So the playaction passing game exists, and it's effective, but it's not very common.
This insistence on running the football using the read option from the shotgun set, where Logan Thomas keeps it most of the time and the tailbacks aren't very effective, isn't what I would call "predictable," as many fans do. I would call it "easy to defend." The Hokies occasionally leverage it into some easy passing plays, but there's no arguing that the Virginia Tech running game is non-existent.
Why not "predictable"? Because predictable offenses don't run playaction to the tight end on the goal line, or screen plays that score touchdowns, as VT did twice on screens to Edmunds, like this one (and great googly-moogly, how did the refs miss the hold on Joshua Stanford at the goal line? Wow.)
Back to the rushing topic: Why does Scot Loeffler insist on running the ball in this fashion? I don't know. The answer when grilled is that Logan is the best runner. Perhaps Loeffler's not comfortable with Logan's footwork when he's dropping back from under center, or he doesn't feel that the Hokie offensive line can hold their blocks long enough to give Logan the luxury of setting up in a 5-step or 7-step drop. Quarterbacks like the visibility the shotgun provides of already being in their drops, and being able to observe the field and make decisions.
But there's no question at this point that VT's running game, with this personnel, is neutered by the read option out of the shotgun set. We suspect the Hokies could have more rushing success with some I-formation, but Loeffler sees them in practice every day; we don't.
The Result? Pressure on LT
In the passing game and in the running game, it's all Logan Thomas. There are no other options.
This is the correct strategy. He is your redshirt senior quarterback, and he is surrounded at every single skill position by freshmen and sophomores, with the exception of D.J. Coles, who can't go a full game.
And through the Pittsburgh game, with VT 6-1 and ranked #16 in the country, the strategy was working. The defense was awesome, Logan was hitting his stride, and the plan was all coming together.
Then Logan's wheels flew off, not just for one game, but for two straight.
And the questions start coming. I think this email sums up some of them quite effectively:
Will:
As always great work from Chris and yourself over the years. I'm on the site as much as I can be. I can't post as much as I used to but I'm always reading your material.