What Won't Change During the Bye Week

We are 5 days removed from the disaster in Death Valley, and I still find myself completely at a loss for what to write. The reality is, I see lots of good things. I really do. I think about 70% of the pieces are there for this to be a great football team. No, I am not kidding. The defensive line has been turned loose two games in a row, and without having the robotic responsibility of slanting to a gap and holding the space rather than pursuing, they have looked like the dominat unit we expected in preseason; a unit that can demolish without parlor tricks. Against both Duke and Clemson, the offense moved the football when it followed a coordinated, sensible plan of attack coupled with reasonable execution. I saw terrific effort, passion, and nastiness from critical players. We have evidence this can work.

5:42–5:50

Yet, the proof is in the pudding, and that's a stinking 4 up and 4 down record that makes my skin crawl and has the fans gathering pitch forks and lighting the torches. In the past, I have tried hard to not be part of the "fire the coach" drum circle every time some player screws up, as 20-year-old kids are prone to do. I thought that Mike O'Cain did an excellent job in his first season as a play caller, and attributed some of the offensive weaknesses to David Wilson's limitations as a running back and the weakness of the interior of the offensive line. I recognize the upgrade in talent on the offensive side of the football during Stinespring's tenure. At the same time, I repeatedly see the same fundamental errors in teaching. I see an offense that has no attention to detail. What they regard as innovative is actually nonsensical.

Regardless of whatever system the Hokies run year to year, there are a couple of truths of offensive football under the direction of Bryan Stinespring.

The offensive philosophy is a hodgepodge of "the newest thing" offensive ideas, but never a full commitment to any singular approach. With this year probably being the most committed they have been, defenses still only have to defend a small number of plays for each formation and situation.

Regardless of which players are on the field, the same fundamental errors occur:

  • Offensive linemen take poor first steps, don't place their head on the correct side, and do not communicate well pre-snap to ensure the correct blocking versus changing defensive fronts.
  • Quarterbacks (starting with Grant Noel) consistently hold on to the ball to attempt to make plays downfield. The end result has been numerous highlights that we will remember forever. More often than not, it results in frequent sacks that put the Hokies behind the sticks. Being behind the sticks means it is much more difficult to sustain drives. Problem number 1 this season? Sustaining drives.
  • Wide Receivers (with the exception of Danny Coale) have been horrible route runners. Routes are often rounded off, with the worst example being some of the route running in the Kansas Orange Bowl. (Aqib Talib sends his thank you card.) Also, the design of passing plays makes no sense. Play design features four receivers going vertical, or four receivers hooking at the same distance. There is no layering of routes, where one receiver pulls a defender out of a zone so the next receiver through can get open. A terrific example is VT's insistence on sending the running back to the flat 4 yards behind the line of scrimmage on passing plays from the shotgun, outside of the quarterback's line of vision and in no position to be any threat of getting a first down.

Play calling lacks conviction. In one critical situation, the staff becomes highly conservative. For example, the end of the first half of the Clemson game. A Corey Fuller catch put the Hokies on the Clemson 30 with 2:10 to play. O'Cain then called three straight runs, the clock wound down to zero, and they settled for a field goal trailing by 10. Then, as if reacting to the yahoos in the stands who are fussing about the conservative play calling, O'Cain pulls a ridiculous trick play at the worst time to call it, with a play design that would only work when facing the most complete breakdown of a defense that can be imagined.

All of these traits are things we have beaten to death until not only is the horse unrecognizable, but the glue factory is calling my cell phone and telling me to ease up. The offense FINALLY looks like it has some go-to plays in the running game against Duke, then they are abandoned against Clemson. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad. The players have some accountability. Logan has to make that throw to Roberts for the long touchdown on the first throw of the third quarter. Blockers must block. Receivers have to run good routes and block, and runners have to run with conviction (I am staring at you Mr. Toss Sweep Short Yardage Michael Holmes). But, as much as we have seen and documented, mistakes that are indicative of poor teaching are mistakes we have seen by players as long as this current staff has been put together. If one player screws up, it is an anomaly. If multiple players make the same mistake, you must look at the common thread.

If I was a donor, Curt Newsome and Kevin Sherman would be tearing tickets at a Cinemall in Kuwait. Stinespring would be the offensive line coach until a better fit was hired. (I am available Beams, for around 86K per year I'd be a steal.) And, Mike O'Cain. Oh, Mike O'Cain. I have spent more energy than I should have over the years defending O'Cain. I admit to you, today, that it was under the false pretense that Mike O'Cain was the head coach and play caller for Phillip Rivers at NC State. For those of you who know me, Phillip Rivers falls into my elite of college quarterbacks. Well, I am watching ESPN Classic a week or two ago and sure enough, Phillip Rivers is torching Florida State, and that handsome cuss Chuck Amato is roaming the sidelines. So much for a memory damaged by a couple of knees to the head, and one too many jugs of gin mixed with grapefruit juice.

So, now I get where NC State, UNC, and Clemson fans have this horrible opinion of O'Cain. At each school, he created a hodgepodge of other offensive ideas, and usually the mix ended up not looking so good, especially at Clemson. Only someone with that track record could come up with a double pass off the screen, and choose to use it at that moment in the game? Why you ask? The play design was terrible, and Clemson was attacking to the screen side aggressively at the mere faint of setting up for a screen at the snap.

The Hokies have two versions of their screen game. The first comes from a variety of cross blocked setups from an I formation with twin receivers to one side away from the tight end. The offense successfully runs a variety of screens from this look, and teams tend to play passively against it because of the run threat, as well as the Hokies tendency to also throw deep from the I. The Hokies did not run a single screen from the I formation. Instead, they ran several varieties of what I have heard called "diamond formation" screens out of the shotgun. The concept is simple. The receiver getting the ball lines up several yards behind the ball, with either twin or three receivers in front of him, who in theory will block.

The theory is well and good, but in practice, it fails, especially for this team. First, the Hokies to my recollection have not showed a diamond formation one time all season. So, seeing it would suggest a "special" play, most likely a trick play. Second, the intended wide receiver is well behind the line of scrimmage, so even a normal screen from that formation must be perfectly blocked, because the defensive backs most likely will get upfield as soon as the receiver takes a bucket step backwards indicating screen. Finally, any scout in the ACC could probably tell you that Davis was a high school QB, so if the Hokies were to throw a pass after a lateral, he would be the guy to do it. O'Cain may as well have shot a signal flare in the sky above Death Valley.

So, you would think that in order to use the double pass, you must run the screen successfully to get a defense to bite. Am I on crazy pills? Well, O'Cain must be. On his first attempt, Clemson sent a loud message that they would attack the screen aggressively.

3:15–3:19

As soon as J.C. Coleman takes his side step, the corner explodes upfield, past the unprepared blocker, and was actually too fast because he overran a sure interception. I tell you, nothing makes me feel better about setting up a double pass than seeing the defender on top of my passer BEFORE HE GETS THE FOOTBALL. But, as madness started to set in, O'Cain went to the well again!

8:46–8:50

This time, either Logan botches the throw or Davis sets up wrong, but Clemson is in position to defend the screen even if Davis makes the catch. Freeze the clip at 8:48, and you will see that Clemson has a safety and a corner bracketing the receiver on the opposite side, and Coleman would be covered by the short man (or the safety could step in front of the throw easily) if Davis had looked backside.

But Mike By God O'Cain said in the post-game interview that the staff saw something that made them come back to that look a third time! Viola!

And six points goes the other way. I don't know how anyone can defend this call. What, you ran it so poorly the first couple of times that maybe they would fall asleep on it? What is the justification, especially when the offense has moved the ball with quick slants all game long?

Finally, I leave you with this. Here is the Ellington touchdown run.

14:39–14:45

Now here is the very is the very next Tech play from the line of scrimmage.

14:59–15:07

They may not look similar since Clemson scored a touchdown and the Tech gained a yard, but they are the same basic play (a counter/read.) Watch every aspect of the play. Note how the Hokie defense gets tricked by a sharp play fake by Tajh Boyd, and watch how he dives into the line to sell it. Watch how Clemson has bigger splits, but still seals the front. Watch how Ellington finds that seal, and aggressively hits the hole. Watch the speed and precision, then watch Tech's version. Nothing is as fast. Nothing is as sharp. Clemson's defenders ignore the fake. The screen option isn't an option because the play design leaves Logan's back to the receiver. Nothing is sharp. Why? Because the folks who designed this offense "learned" it during one week in Texas (you know, because when I think spread/veer, I think Texas and their dynamo offense the last two seasons). They don't know how to teach it.

I have become one of those guys. I don't know where they get an offensive mind who will have the power and authority to develop a real offensive concept, and be given the ability to recruit to that skill set. I don't know how they cut loose some of these coaches who can recruit, but clearly can't teach the positions they are responsible for, but it needs to be done. Offenses have caught up to Bud Foster's defense, and Tech's offense requires an attention to detail that this staff has demonstrated time and again it can't achieve. Burn the house down.

If my apathy will overcome it, there will be more to come this bye week. Topics include:

  • Sliding pass blocking schemes to address blitzes: Poor Offensive Communication and Terrible usage of Running Backs.
  • The Struggles of Vinston Painter (his worst game of the season).
  • Bud Foster changing his approach to defensive line play. Pro's (Great pass rush) Con's (exposing the lack of athleticism at linebacker)

Thanks in advance for your comments!

Comments

I have made it no secret on this site that this stupid fucking WR-screen does not work. Yet, O'Cain has an erection that has apparently lasted more than four hours for the WR-screen, and I'm pretty sure the blood has left his brain in order to service his WR-screen boner. I'm convinced that Mike O'Cain's day goes something like this:
1. Wake up.
2. Crush and snort 3 Ciallis tablets while watching video of last year's UNC game in which the Hokies threw no less than 2,000 WR-Screens.
3. Get to the office and inform Stiney that he's got play that'll guarantee a Hokie victory for [insert team name here]. "It's so simple! THE WR-SCREEN! THEY'LL NEVER SEE IT COMING!!"

On Saturday, I was on my couch calling plays...My non-Hokie brethren who were over to the house to watch the day's slate of games were absolutely astounded as I would call every play in the 3rd quarter BEFORE it happened. No shit, I think I miss-called 1 VT offensive play that entire quarter. However, I'm a 20-something weekend alcoholic who often loses my keys and such. I'm not getting paid Brent Venables (Clemson DC) money. Therefore, I imagine Venables, who is getting paid a fuck-ton of cash to coach at Clemson, was more mystified at how easy it was to call defensive formations for the entire second half. As in, if my dumb ass can call every telegraphed play before it happens, then I'm pretty sure that the only time Venables missed a call is when he overestimated O'Canspring's collective idiocy.

As always, excellent work, French!

"You know when the Hokies say 'We are Virginia Tech' they're going to mean it."- Lee Corso

I disagree with you. The Hokies are very effective in the screen game, and it becomes a tremendous tool for putting them into effective down and distance.

The problem that I have is that they changed the way they ran the screens. We didn't see a single one from the I-twins set, which has been bread and butter since last season. While "screen" doesn't sound like a sexy call, they had the ability to run it a ton of different ways, which prevented the defense from attacking it. One could involve the outside receiver criss crossing with the slot guy and slipping inside. The next could involve the outside receiver option stalking the corner and the slot guy moving wide at the snap, so it in effect becomes a toss sweep. Or they could quick screen to either one against off coverage. There was variety.

O'Cain scrapped all of it for this game. Every screen was from the shotgun (I showed three. There was also a quick screen to Demetri Knowles, oddly enough on the play after he lost 15 yards on a Darnell Jefferson reverse. Five points if you know the reference.) The diamond formation that O'Cain used took away all the flexibility that the normal twins I gives them, and Clemson attacked it accordingly.

The solution should have been to fake the screens and slip a "blocker" behind the aggressive DB's. It is a simple concept. Have the screen guy set up, but the blocking receivers ole the block and get downfield. The Hokies ran it once or twice last year for significant gains, and they even managed to run it for a nice gain AGAINST CLEMSON on Saturday. http://youtu.be/CTvOD0OS2yU?t=17m34s With how Clemson was defending the screen, I would have come back to it again and again until the Tiger DB's started playing back off a bit, which open the screen right back up.

Viva El Guapo

Forming it in a Jeopardy answer...

What is "The Program"?

"You know when the Hokies say 'We are Virginia Tech' they're going to mean it."- Lee Corso

Ed-die Ed-die!

I still call it the Eddie Royal (because that's when it worked) play--it's so adaptable to any defense...it can go right...and then BAM left! What kind of insane defensive mastermind can keep up with that?! Coupled with, my personal favorite, play-action QB throw the ball as far as you can down the center of the field; we are truly an unstoppable offense.

LBC

Another great column, French.

I have a better opinion of Sherman than you do. He did, after all, take two relatively unheralded receiver prospects in Danny Coale and Jarret Boykin and turn them into the two most prolific receivers in school history.

But as for Newsome, I'll chip in for his bus ticket. The sooner he's on his way out of town, the better. Nothing personal against him. I'm sure he's a very nice guy. But he's not a good OL coach and his schemes are too difficult and too passive.

As for O'Cain, I'd been pretty happy with his play selection this season up until last week. But last week he was awful. Why we insisted on repeatedly trying to run the zone stretch play to the edges for minimal gains when Clemson was vulnerable up the middle is utterly beyond me.

But on the attempted screen out of the diamond formation that was nearly intercepted, if you'll look carefully at the film clip, the Clemson DB actually had a running start BEFORE the ball was snapped! Not only did he know what play was coming, but he also apparently knew the snap count!

I will always have the greatest admiration and appreciation for Frank Beamer and what he has accomplished at VT. I will always support my Hokies 100% no matter what. But if Coach Beamer doesn't see the need for significant changes on the offensive side of the ball after this season, then he never will.

On Newsome, they continue to reach block everything, and I don't know if the 1960's Packers or the 70's Raiders, or even a Madden special line of Jonathan Odgen-John Hannah-Dwight Stephenson-Gary Zimmerman-Jonathan Pace could reach block EVERYTHING. Simple line calls and option blocking would solve many of their problems blocking, but the communication and recognition is attrocious (please see my next column on sliding protections to a blitz).

Give Sherman's performance this season, and years prior to the last two, I would have to assume that Coale and Boykin were products of the hard work and awareness of Coale and Boykin instead of anything Sherman did. You can't watch the film of guys tanking their blocks and quitting on routes and think he is doing a good job and holding them accountable.

Viva El Guapo

When I read your comment

about Steinspring and his penchant for the next big thing,

"The offensive philosophy is a hodgepodge of "the newest thing" offensive ideas, but never a full commitment to any singular approach. "

it brought this to mind. I bet if you were to go to the Steinspring household, and open any closet door, you'd find a bunch of products with "as seen on TV" labels on the package. It also brought this classic to mind, with Steiney in the role of Opus.

Bloom.County

Take the shortest route to the ball and arrive in bad humor.

If the offensive coaches are evaluated by the production of their players on the field, then they have all tremendously underperformed. Like French wrote, I too believe Newsome and Sherman are the most guilty parties. However, from an organizational standpoint, the offense is a mess. The dynamic of O'Cain calling the plays and Stinespring formulating the game plan isn't working. Among the coaches, there's just enough cross-distribution of responsibilities, so there's minimal accountability, and it never falls on the Frankinator's desk. However, this is his offense, and he's picked the people to run it. He needs to be the one to clean up this mess.

I don't care what offense we run, I just want us to have capable people to execute it. Weeklong seminars at various colleges where our staff learns schemes second hand won't cut it. The media guide lists our offense as, "Multiple". I cringe every time I read it. A little bit of what Florida did in 2005 + what Ohio State did under Tressel + Texas' new offense + Clemson's motioning + Nevada's Pistol + ... = an unfocussed attack with too many concepts to be successful. If you want to be loyal to your staff, then let them do what they know and are good at, whatever it is.

I think you hit on the problem with ....

..."straightening out the offensive staff." The answer is "fire everybody." Clearly Newsome should go. Clearly Sherman isn't coaching his position well (and isn't much of a recruiter). Clearly we need a new OC, who likely will come in as a QBs Coach, so MOC is gone. Clearly we need an OLine that is the basis of our offense, so go get the best guy you can find.

So, realistically, that's not going to happen.

We know Shane isn't going anywhere (and he shouldn't) but he can coach about any position (as well as he is coaching RB's.) Of note, what's Cornell Brown doing? We hardly play Whips, he's not recruiting anyone. Should we move Shane to defense to replace Cornell?

Go get a OC/QB coach. Go get the best OL coach money can buy. Find a place for Shane and Stiney. Gray, Wiles and Foster are safe. Everything else is up for debate.

That's a lot of potential turnover.

Agreed

The fact that every summer we send our coaching staff to another program to learn a new offensive scheme indicates that the offensive minds we have are not capable of being creative enough to coach at this level. Sure, if you run a spread style offense and you want to incorporate a few new wrinkles to an offense that is currently stable and successful that's fine by me. Go visit Urban Meyer. Go check in with Nevada and learn more about the Pistol. But, you can't totally re-learn how to run an offense in one week. You don't go to school for 3 1/2 years then decide to change your major and expect to graduate on time. It's all common sense. Sometimes when something is broken, you can't fix it without buying some new parts (coaches) to fix it. It's not fair to the players or fans.

I'm sorry but I don't care if Stiney is a great recruiter and nice guy. He is wasting the talent with a failing offense. You know what really draws top players to your program?? Winning Big games and scoring lots of points. Change must be made with this offense. Losing 6 out of 10 games is not acceptable.

To touch on Frank for accountability... Beams was happy with 400 yards of offense against Clemson. Well, Clemson is giving up over 500 yards in ACC match ups this year. This makes me think he is completely out of touch with what is expected.

I agree with everything you say BUT.........

Frank is going to point to 1) the past success under this coaching staff leading to ACC championships and 10-win seasons (yawn), and 2) the fact that we have more successful offensive players in the NFL than defensive players which would lead you to believe they were taught the fundamentals to be successful. This includes 2 QBs, 2-3 RB's, 2-3 WRs, and a half dozen OL several of which are starting.

The other thing is that if we can beat Miami, then everything you point out is going to get glossed over as we back into the ACC championship game and this pitiful season will be viewed as a great rebuildig year where we were still able to compete towards the team goals.

In order for the radical changes to take place that you are asking for (and I agree with), then Tech probably needs to lose out in order to get peoples attention.

A last point - while lil Beamer can clearly recruit, I think he has some accountability to the running game. The biggest knock on Hite was that he rode the hot hand too much and kept underclassman (Ore, Evans, Wilson) on the bench too much. However he almost always had a reliable backfield that controlled the ball. Beamer is taking the opposite approach in sharing carries and the fundamentals / ball control seem to be an issue going back to Wilson last year. Wilson covered up a lot of that with his talent but Beamer is going to have to teach and coach this team - something he hasn't done on this side of the ball EVER.

A question I sometimes ask myself is do you think the offensive coaches from any other university have ever visited the Virginia Tech staff?

I'm pretty sure that has never happened.

Consider this...

...Great coaches leave a tree. How many assistants under Frank have gone on to be successful coaches other places? Answer: ZERO! Consider this: How many OC or HC jobs has Stiney been considered for...answer: ZERO! If he (and the rest of the offensive staff) is so good, why isn't anyone trying to steal them?

We put the K in Kwality

That's kinda counter to ...

...the "staff loyalty" that many have credited with our success.

Yet...

CFB let Ricky Bustle go to La Lafayette with little fight...probably because it was a HC job (there are other stories about his fights with Stiney). Do you think CFB would put together a deal to keep Stiney if he were offered a high profile OC or HC position?

We put the K in Kwality

No, he let Bustle go..

...because Tommy Reamon told him it was a perquisite to signing MV2.

Most have assumed Stiney would end up a HC at D1-AA soon, if not by now. The JMU job in particular is well suited for him.

Only 2 head coaches at the 1-A level that I know of

who worked under Beamer are:

Ron Zook (Beamer's 1st year in 1987)
Rickey Bustle (1987-1993; 1995-2001)

I don't know that you can consider either of these as "successful" head coaches...

I'm here for the memes, I just stay for the football.

Well done

Great post French... I think clearly boosters are going to drive the bus this offseason. Changes will be made is we keep up at this pace. I also think the quality of some of our upperclassmen are dragging this team down. I haven't seen kids with attitudes this bad since middle school. I think this is also a contributor to our offensive struggles as well. Curious your thoughts..

Win one for the Beamer...

VT has never had a culture where ....

...boosters gave a say in anything. It makes sense too, most of those boosters became legitimate "boosters" after Beamer built the program.

It may happen this offseason, but it would significantly break from precedent.

I didn't know the Zooker

was at Tech. Now that I've learned my one thing for the day, can I go home? I feel kinda ill now that I know Zook was on our staff.

Take the shortest route to the ball and arrive in bad humor.

I would love to see you replacing Newsome, just sayin.

"Go Hokies!" - Thomas Jefferson
@HaydenDubya

Not sure if I would go the alumni route, but Todd Washington is the OL coach with the Ravens and is a Hokie alum. The Ravens OL has struggled this season with lots of young guys on the interior, but Baltimore has always featured a precise power blocking scheme with great attention to detail. Also, when Washington coached in the UFL, four of his five OL starters got NFL contracts the next season, so he has some track record of developing guys. Seems logical.

I have no idea if they have an interest in coaching, but Jim Pyne and Jake Grove would at least demand that they play nasty.

Viva El Guapo

"Curt Newsome's head must be spinning!" -beamerball.com

"It's worth it right? It's worth it to lay it all on the line for your brothers!"

"That kid you're talking to right there, I think he played his nuts off! And you can quote me on that shit!" -Bud Foster (both quotes)

Stupid Question About Offensive Play Calling

I just watched the duke game every snap and saw the same plays used over and over again sometimes back to back. Alot of end arounds and sweep throws out to a receiver and screens. The exact same stuff we called in the Clemson game. I am far from a football expert but want some clarity on this subject. Is it better for an offense to have several go to plays that they use 33% + of the time and call fakes off of that or is it better to use formation and varied playcalling (ie offset I, Power I, Tight I power run or half back toss then mix in play action and straight throws)? Is this a philosophy thing based on the offensive coaches or well practiced rule that you only choose between 10 different plays about 50% of the time? (honestly I never played or really studied football so I dont know the answer or debate on these questions) Also as a side note I think it would be interesting if someone went threw and recorded each play called in the Duke game and compared it to the plays called in the Clemson game.

In college, where you are playing with 18-22 year old kids with limitations on practice and film time, I would always lean towards having a simplified playbook where you have a limited number of plays, but each play has several counters built off of the same action. Those plays should be things you can run from multiple formations. If you are a veer team, you must have an inside veer, an outside veer, and a double dive. All three should look almost identical, but the execution is slightly different. A wing-T must build from trap, to buck sweep, to inside reverse, to bootleg. Each play has the same backfield action, except different people get the ball. I formation, you have your lead, counter lead, counter trey, fullback dive/trap, with toss sweep strong and the speed option weak as your wide plays.

Let's say the Hokies go full time spread. They need to run veer dive, the zone read with the QB as the dive, speed option weak, and the jet sweep read option strong. If you incorporate pistol, you use several of the same plays, and add the straight dive and the off tackle plays. The Hokies have all of them and have used them this year.

There are two problems with what they do though:
1) Each base play must be established in order to make the plays that have the smaller chance of success get you big play yardage. Stinespring and O'Cain tend to use those east-west plays before they establish the interior running game. When the Hokies run 15+ times between the tackles, almost without exception they have won the game this season. It opens up those jet sweeps, stretch plays, etc. that we have see tackled for a loss so many times this year. If the defense is not constricted on the dive, they ignore the interior and can fly unblocked on wide runs. See Demetri Knowles awful reverse against Clemson, where the Tiger defenders completely ignored the dive fake, and the Hokies can't get blockers out to lead for him.

2) Up front, they use different blocking philosophies out of the same formation. They will bounce back and forth from trying to reach block everybody on a pistol play, to using rule blocking (blocking down to the strong side and kicking out the lead guard) on the next play from the I. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. The end result is that OL will block rule blocking plays with zone technique, and vice versa. It is a muscle memory and speed of the game issue that would be corrected if they adopted one blocking philosophy. Alabama runs plays from a huge variety of formation, but those formations are eye candy. Their OL blocks the same rules every play, and then the talent, size, and strength take over.

Viva El Guapo

thank you for your response

I have another question about problem 1: Is it theoretically possible (perfect world scenario where players are evenly matched on both sides of the ball) to have a base play that can win (gain 3 to 5+ yards) against any defensive setup (defensive alignment/personal/ etc...)so that you can create that base to work off of offensively?

and a follow up question to problem 2: Who or What determines the blocking scheme? (does running the pistol mean only reach/zone blocking and running the I only mean rule blocking) If not does Curt Newsome/ Mike O'cain/ Bryan Steinspring/ Beamer have responsibility for picking the mix mash of blocking schemes we have? (I know all do in some way but is Curt forced to coach multiple schemes? Is it because of the play calling? or Game planning? or because Beamer wants different blocking schemes? I guess I feel if there are changes and different coaches come in are we going to have the same problems because the root cause is not being addressed.)

Finally a different question for you. I know you want a power run offense (at least I think I have seen posts where you call for it), how would it be different from the offense we see now?