I'm just an average fan who loves Virginia Tech more than cake and pie combined. I've been reading TKP for a while and talking to people around Hokie Nation, and these are just some of my thoughts after watching this bowl game and reading some of the reactions.
Yes, we are down and out. This was not the Hokie team we were used to seeing from the 1990's-2000's. However, Every football program that has existed, has down years, they are inevitable. and If someone told me that our down years would have 7-6 and 8-5 records, I'd take it. Look at Florida they went 4-8, they're not even in a bowl game this year. Many program's down years dont include bowl games. I'd like to keep that in perspective. The true test will be, can we come back to that same national prominence.
Leal is a backup. He's spent 4 years as a backup, therefore he practices as a backup. It is not fair expect a person who's spent 4 years taking back up reps, to come in cold off of the bench and play like a starter. Leal made mistakes yes, but this game shouldnt count against him in terms of the starting qb competition for 2014. Speaking of which, that's going to be fun to watch. lots of talent, lots of youth, I look forward to reading Andy Bitter's articles and TKP insight on this topic once spring practice has started.
This Defense was good. they were very good. But they're not the dominating defense that we've had before. We've had players just take over games (Corey Moore, Deangelo Hall, Macho Harris), this defense (partly due to injuries) did not feature any of those players. Yes, Kendall Fuller will be special, but the key word is will, he was not a dominating player this year, a player who damn near shuts down 1/3 of the field. One of the tall tale signs of this is the lack of defensive touchdowns, we had 1 this year and before that we went i think 2 years w/o one. D-hall and others had a nose for the endzone/big time plays. Jack Tyler was a great player and I truly enjoyed hearing his story and watching him play, but he didn't dominate games like a Cornell Brown or Xavier Adibi did.
Our offense did not have a playmaker outside of LT3, and when he went down it showed. Will our offense have a playmaker next year? Edmunds will be back, Mangus and Wright looked pretty solid. but solid isnt a playmaker. The last time we were lacking playmakers on the offense, we put Macho Harris into some of our packages, maybe its time to have a repeat and use Fuller or Facyson? get some athletes in space and see what happens.
One of the key reasons we were so good at returning punts was because teams were so afraid of our punt blocking rush so they could not put as many resources into covering the punt return, allowing for easy returns. They are no longer afraid of our pride and joy, so our return game has suffered. As to how to fix that issue, and the kick return issue...you got me stumped on that one, but that's why i'm not paid the big bucks to coach.
I'm all for being optimistic about recruiting classes. But remember, many recruits turn out as busts for a variety of reasons. so while being optimistic, keep caution. Also remember, Virginia Tech has won many games with recruiting classes that were not even in the top 30 if i remember correctly, so its not always about recruiting rankings.
I will admit, the game may have passed Frank Beamer, it may be time for him to go. But for me, CFB is the guy who brought us from the depths of suckville. I've heard a story, before CFB started coaching, we played Alabama and got shellacked something like 50-7 or something absurd. Later that Year Alabama Beat auburn alot to 0. A bama fan had a bumper sticker that read "come on Auburn, even VPI scored 7." Thats how bad we were, we were the butt of jokes. CFB comes in, in the middle of NCAA sanctions, when no one else wanted the job, and brings us to the edge of a national championship, brings us 5* recruits, ESPN college gameday comes to our campus multiple times, we get more money, better facilities, all of this and more as a byproduct of his coaching. Am I extremely disappointed at the lack of a national championship and the end results of these two past seasons, yes. But I will never want to fire CFB (unless he does something illegal, but that's beside the point). He is, in my mind, The Man. you dont fire The Man. CFB can coach as long as he'd like, he's earned it, and I will ride w/e wave we get with him.
And my last point, We are all Hokies here....except for a few spies. We love Virginia Tech. some people have different ways of showing it and have very different opinions. Please be respectful, here and in person, remember our community guidelines. We dont downvote because we disagree with someones opinion. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion regardless of what facts there are/arent or what the future may or may not hold. If someone says "we suck," dont downvote them. It's their opinion, let them have it. Apply that to the real world as well. Dont wage personal attacks against each other please. We all love Virginia Tech.
Hokie Football is taking a break, but If you're looking for someone to root for in the absence of football....our Women's Basketball team is 10-2 right now....just a heads up.
Go Hokies!
Comments
well written! I was afraid this was going to be a doom and gloom type of article before reading and was pleasantly surprised. It's a disappointing end to a tough season. It's an even more disappointing end to a career for one of the greatest Hokies ever. Logan Thomas may not have been the best QB we've had but he was a great Hokie. And a big reason he has all of those school records is because of the sheer volume of playing time he has. But from what I could see, he laid everything on the line for VT on EVERY play. He did what he was asked to do and for the last 2 years he hasn't had much help to do it. He never wavered. Tyrod Taylor was a much better QB IMO, but LT3 really was a true Hokie through and through.
I love my Hokies and this loss hurts. I hate that it was such a large margin of victory. Blowout losses hurt the most :(
Thanks for giving my article a chance, I was worried no one would read it haha
I will have lots of fond memories to look back on of LT3
It was a tough game to watch but I will also have great memories of LT3 and this years seniors! Good luck to them! I'll put in a plug for the Women's basketball team - they are having a great run, look entirely different from last year's team. Monet Tellier and Uju Ugoka are playing at a really high level. Come to games and cheer them !
I really like Vanessa, she's smart, she passes well and sees the floor, but the big thing for me is she doesnt demand the ball or tries to force the issue, but scores very easily when called upon
*10-3 after today. Not a bad non conference record. Just have to win 5 in the ACC and they are eligible for the WNIT which looking at the schedule, it is very doable with this roster. Having a point guard this year is what separates them from last year. They are fun to watch for the most part and is a breath of fresh air compared to the headache that is the men's team.
I wouldn't assume we have hit rock bottom. Next season we lose a ton of seniors on D and the players we're returning on O haven't lit up the world so far. We could drop 6-7 games next year.
6 losses still equals a bowl. and I dont think we'll be that bad, realistically I see another 8-4 season.
or we could light it up. next year is next year, let's just let it happen and back up our boys no matter what. after all, there have been some pretty insane true freshmen (ahem, myles jack) in the fbs these past 2 years...
lets just hope our freshies dont get laid out like he did!
Nice one. Glad to see a piece in perspective, and not just slamming where we are.
I missed some points in this, such as our field goal kicking unit. But honest was just a piece of bad luck, Had no clue Cody Journell would be such an issue. hopefully we get Carson Wise next year and we'll be set at that position for a while with him
We have that santamaria kid, so that's promising.
I agree 100%. Great post.
Good insight. The QB battle in the spring should be interesting. And I agree with you, in spite of his shortcomings, Coach Beamer has earned the right to go our on his own terms. GO HOKIES!!!!!
I have taught myself to be patient.
It's sad that people can't move past the "Frank Beamer deserves it" thing. He earned it to a point, but at some time, that has to end, and we have to move on. Why waste seasons on a coach because he deserves it? Sure, he may have earned himself a few years, but zero national championships over 27 years really isn't deserving of much in my mind.
I think one of Frank Beamer's greatest attributes is also one of his biggest weaknesses. He's a nice guy. I love his compassion and desire to do things the right way. He tries hard to respect everyone and everything. But he just doesn't have that killer instinct. I love Frank and he is great for VT. I truly believe that he will be one of the greatest coaches in the history of college football never to win a National Championship.
Frank Beamer has earned the right to finish his contract. Barring something illegal being dragged into the light, he's done nothing to warrant being let go before his contract expires. After that, yeah we need to find someone else, someone to light a fire under the program and get us to that next level.
Be careful what you wish for. A 7 and an 8 win season are NOT reason for panic. You can't just say "he hasn't won a championship. Fire him." That's not the way the world works, or else 125 head coaches would be fired every year. If you get greedy as a fanbase (hello, Texas) and fire a guy for "only" winning 8 games, you end up with a UVA situation or Stanford in the mid-2000's (hint: they lost a LOT more games than they won). Give the new staff a couple years to get the offense back on track and make one last run for Frank. At the very least, he'll leave the program in a better place for the next guy.
I don't consider waiting 27 years as necessarily being greedy. Sure, if it was the first few years in and I was expecting a championship, that's insane. But I've waited nearly 3 decades and nada. I don't view Texas as being greedy at all, I view them as progressive. They realized, just like Florida State, that you can't think with your heart and you have to think with your mind. Look where that got FSU this year. I wouldn't feel bad at all about pushing Frank out the door if it put us where FSU is this year.
I think it's nuts to replace him when he is obviously making changes and they may be good ones.
I'll take a guy that gives me year after year of 10-11 win seasons and drops to 7-8 wins in down seasons when he makes huge changes.
"If it put us where FSU is this year"
There's the problem. There's no guarantee, not even close, of that happening. We don't have the resources, facilities, fan base, tradition, etc. of FSU. We have no way to get a sure-fire thing at head coach. Even if we did, with the talent limitations in the program, it'd probably take a good 2-5 years to actually see results. Over the past 27 years, there are a total of about 3375 teams that have not won a national championship, compared with 27 teams that have. That's less than 1% of college football teams. It's really, really hard to win national championships, and having that as your only metric of coaching success is insanity. TSL had a good article a few months ago which, long story short, said that Tech overachieved by even GETTING to the NC game in '99. We're the only sub-$100 million athletic program to even make the BCS title game. Here's what we do have: one of the highest graduation rates in the NCAA, a clean program, multiple, recent conference championships, a solid recruiting platform, a solid-to-very-good coaching staff, and an influx of young talent into the program. This is NOT the time to think about cleaning house because we're not satisfied with 8 wins. That's how you end up looking like UVA.
Actually, less than 27 teams have won the NCG in 27 years.
Account for multiples by 1 team like Alabama and now FSU and that number drops.
I mean actual 85-man rosters, not programs. Easier that way, and not accounting for changing numbers of FBS teams, just left it at 126. Point still stands. There are a LOT more teams that do not win championships than do win.
Sure, winning a national championship is hard, I'll give you that. But in 27 years if you want to be considered a national powerhouse, you have to do more than just APPEAR in one. We are not going to be considered one of those top tier teams if we appear once every 27 years. Frank has hit a plateau, and while other schools are improving, we're staying put. I haven't just been calling for this Frank change because of the 15 wins over two years. I've been on this ship since my brother was at Tech during the Glennon-era. I'm not just an emotional, fire everyone kind of guy. I've put a lot of thought in to this and I don't believe that changing a few coordinators and coaches is going to put us at the next level. I believe it starts with the head coach, and I don't believe Frank Beamer has that instinct to put us at the top. Yes, we do have all of those nice things like the graduation rates and such, and that's all hunky dory, but when I talk to people of other schools and discuss my fan-dome of Virginia Tech, I get assaulted with the National Championship question. Should I respond with graduation rates or clean programs? I'm done telling myself that our time as Hokies to finally have that elusive ship is coming, because I do not believe it will. I believe this EXCELLENT recruiting class is going to be wasted. No matter who the coaches are, Frank Beamer's teams have struggled to be consistent week after week. Good teams win those games that they don't play their best, because I get it, you can't be 100% week after week. Yet I always see us losing those games we are undisciplined or sloppy. I believe the story of this recruiting class will once again be the "well if we hadn't lost to (insert any team), we'd have been in the NC."
Do you disagree with the national consensus that Tech's past two recruiting classes are drastic improvements over the previous years? Do you disagree that the offensive scheme was better this year than previous years?
Seems to me that the talent and the tactics ARE improving.
Not at all, I think the recruiting was an improvement. But when the actual product was on the field, I saw the same Virginia Tech team that I have in previous years. As for schemes, sure it seemed at times that they improved, but I also saw a lot of questionable schemes. Once again I would watch us move the ball 20 yards doing one thing, and then it would switch to something else, causing a drive to stall.
I guess my point is that the program isn't stagnating, it is definitely moving in the right direction. Obviously it'll take more than one year for a recruiting class to make it's presence felt on the field and although the schemes have improved DRASTICALLY over last year, Loeffler didn't have the talent at WR that Stinespring did in 2012 (Corey Fuller and Marcus Davis would both have started this year if they had returned).
Also, while some programs have improved in recent years many haven't. Many programs have withered after getting new coaches. IMO, Tech has a much better chance of getting a national championship with Beamer at the helm than they would at getting a replacement. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Tech has the type of pull to get a national championship coach from outside of the program.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Tech has the type of pull to get a national championship coach from outside of the program.
This can't be emphasized enough.
I agree with everything you just said, except for this. Davis wouldn't even play a down if Moorehead was his coach. He made it clear, to start at WR you need to work your ass off and block. These are the two things that eluded Davis the most.
Corey Fuller would have been the man though.
People seem to forget that Marcus Davis was far to explosive to leave off the field. Having a player of his ability at the WR position would have made a huge difference in the passing attack this season, regardless of what blocking shortcomings he may have.
He also never had as bad a case of dropski's like everyone else at the position did this year.
Was he really explosive? He was a freak athlete for sure but inconsistent at best, and not a team player. He may not have had lengthy dropski fits like current WRs but he dropped a lot of passes that hit him squarely in the hands. I just remember Sherman always saying this line but had Davis been benched then Fuller would have been moved up to starter earlier and thus much more productive. Younger WRs would have been forced up as well, giving them more experience which would mean better production this year for them. He was never held accountable for his lack of effort, except for that one half of one game, and it showed. He knew coach was looking for him to breakout... always waiting for him to breakout. Problem was his only real breakout was made into an infamous video of his sheer lack of effort.
Davis was explosive but not dependable. I'll take dependable every time. Give me Corey, Coale and Byrn over Davis any day of the week.
I'd be willing to bet we would have seen a different Marcus Davis with Moorehead as his coach.
Would have threatened him with #anaxe10foottall
I would definitely take Davis over Byrn. No question. Davis was much more dependable, he was able to actually win his one on one matchups. Byrn was productive only when Loeffler was able to get him matched up against linebackers or drag him across the field against zone coverage. Davis had over 900 yards receiving his senior year. Byrn had 660. Davis had 5 touchdowns. Byrn had 2.
I love The Paperboy as much as the next guy but Davis is a better receiver, no doubt about it.
Davis WAS the better receiver (minus working ass off and blocking which, thanks to fern, made me spit my drink out). Now what's he up to?
He had to have shoulder surgery and got cut.
You have a much kinder view of Davis than me. After all a coach did get fired for how terrible his and the overall WRs, except Corey played. You can't believe Beamer was not supremely pissed at Sherman when that video came out. There was no accountability.
yes, he had better stats and I agree he could have crushed it if he actually tried. He was faster and he was better after the catch. But he did drop a lot of balls too. And for every catch he made, he also missed or half-assed or never bothered to even try to block his man, sell the dummy route or create the diversion on even more plays. Opposing DBs/LBS would see that so easily and know right away he was out of the play. That's like making our team a 10 player squad, instead of 11. So I agree Davis was more explosive when he did actually catch it but a better WR he was not.
I agree Lefty changed things up for Byrn and I know you need the explosive threat. But Knowles was there and needed experience. Davis should have been benched and Fuller and Knowles moved up on depth chart. If that wasn't the correct coaching decision then Sherman would still be here.
I was coached this way and from everything I hear from Moorehead he both played this way and coaches this way.
Sherman was/is a good coach, and other than Billy Hite was the only successful position coach on the offensive side under Stinespring. Sherman wasn't fired by Beamer, he got a job at another program. If I remember correctly, he left the program weeks before Beamer cleaned house. Sherman coached a lot of great Hokies and I don't think it's at all fair to trash him because he had ONE player that didn't want to block. What was he supposed to do, bench the best offensive weapon the Hokies had that year?
If Frank Beamer thought Davis's blocking and attitude was unacceptable then HE, not Sherman, is ultimately responsible for fixing that problem
As far as the better player... If I had to win a football game to save my life and I had to choose between Marcus Davis and Willie, best believe I'm choosing Davis 100 times out of 100. In fact, I'd choose Davis over Willie, Stanford, Knowles, and this year's DJ Coles. And at the end of the day, Moorehead would have started him as well. Frank Beamer's staff is in the winning-football-games business and as much as we all love the character of our current receivers, none of them can beat an upper-echelon defensive back in press coverage consistently. Davis could. None of them can stretch the field and catch an imperfectly thrown pass. Davis could. None of them are mismatches in the redzone. Davis was.
You mean the Beamer is more responsible for fixing a players positional coaching than the actual position coach himself? No way. Then why hire a position coach at all? Beamer is ultimately responsible for fixing the problems of coaching. The position coach is ultimately responsible for fixing the problems with the players they are coaching.
I'm not trying to trash Sherman at all. Sherman was a good coach, except for that last year, but his leaving was tied to Beamer cleaning house. It was not merely coincidentally made at the same time as the rest of the offensive coaches getting removed, rather he was allowed to leave on his own terms. I expect nothing less from a class act like Beamer. Sherman put in a lot of great years at VT and coached good players who went to the next level, but Beamer specifically made a point in stating that what he loved in Moorehead was his workmanship on the field. That even if he wasn't the star receiver he worked his ass off and it paid dividends. Something our WRs needed to learn. Moorehead made the point of emphasizing that the days of WRs not working hard are over. There is a reason why this happened.
I'm not disagreeing with you that Davis was the more explosive athlete. But he was not dependable and extremely selfish. I want players I can count on out there.
Eh, we're probably arguing over semantics. But I think that at some point a player's production speaks for itself. And Davis had over 900 yards receiving, which is hard to do if you aren't dependable.
Regardless, I stand by my original point. It's unfair to point at offensive production as evidence that the program is stagnating because the offensive staff has less talent to work with this year than last, especially at the WR position.
Which kind of raises the question of why Sherman couldn't recruit better receivers.
I think he was a decent coach. I also think we'll look back in a few years and be thankful he moved on. Based on this year's recruiting, and the obvious growth of our current receivers throughout the season, I'm already glad we have Moorehead.
I think Davis would have played plenty this year, but I also think that unless he started showing more effort on every play, Moorehead would have ultimately put him in on passing downs only, as DB's didn't generally have to guess whether Davis was a target.
yes. very good points
Yep. +1 Totally agree with your main point and sorry to take it on a tangent. Like French and Joe watching the OL, WR is the one position that I watch religiously as I played it and coached it (youth league only) before. I really dislike players like Davis that don't try if they aren't directly involved in the play. I admit that colors my perspective of him but I also think that's precisely what makes him undependable. But as you say, just semantics.
You have no idea how bad Marcus' shoulders were while at VT, do you?
We get that you think your work ethic is 1000x Marcus'.
You're wrong. 100% wrong.
Hope the kid gets his shoulders fixed and gets into the league. Certainly has the talent and the work ethic.
Kid busts his arse for VT instead of getting his shoulders fixed and being selfish and all he gets is a bunch of internet heroes talking about his laziness and lack of work ethic.
Seriously? Why was he cut so quickly by NYG? NYJ? Tell us genius. His shoulders were completely f'd up. How'd they get that way genius?
As I understand coaches for both teams kept complaining that he wouldn't block.
First, I didn't start the conversation about him being lazy. Davis did when he didn't even try on plays. Second, His shoulders were messed up the last year but not his entire time at VT. The effort was always lacking, not just in the last season. Third, I never said my work ethic was better than his. What I said was that I would choose a more dependable WR that tries on every play, not just on ones where he is involved.
Also I would like to say that many players play hurt. It's part of the game. Hell, Nosal had part of his finger torn off. Both Wang's played hurt practically their entire career. The difference between them and Davis is despite being hurt they gave an effort every play. You don't see Wang just not block someone. I hope Davis recovers from surgery and plays in the League as well. I hope he succeeds. None of that changes how he performed at VT unfortunately.
Fourth, That entire season Beamer, Stiney and Sherman all commented on waiting for Davis to have his breakout game that would light the fire under him. All the way up to the bowl game. From what I recall they never mentioned that he was playing hurt and that was a contributing factor to his performance or lack thereof. I think that would have come up, especially after the video surfaced. Don't you? If you know of a time they did please show to me as it would definitely help put his lack of effort in better perspective for me.
Davis himself didn't even mention it in his response to the video. HERE
Finally, would like to close with a quote from Marcus himself found HERE from 2010
"I'm not saying it's a lot, but I know it's going to be a lot more than I played last year," he said. "If it's two or three plays a game, I'm going to give it 100 percent on each one. Effort is what we talk about in every meeting, and I'm going to go out this year and show that I have the fire to play the game."
If he had followed his own advice we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As in Dick Hurtz. See what you did there. Giggity.
I just want to say, if his shoulders were that bad why would he get signed in the first place? Players have to take a physical before they can be signed by a team. If his injuries were as bad as you're claiming, I doubt any team would spend money on him.
You know, the crazy thing with recruiting is this: the recruits don't get onto the field until they actually attend the school. So all this improved recruiting doesn't mean that suddenly we get a bunch of new players halfway through the season. You have to wait for the students to actually get here first. So that may explain why you didn't see this years 'recruiting success translate to improvement on the field.
The Glennon-era??? i graduated during the Strock era, the stadium held 35,000 people. We loved our Hokies then whether they won or lost. I DON'T CARE WHETHER OUR TEAM WINS A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. And, i bet the vast majority of the fans agree with me. It will be great. It has been fun to be in the hunt most of the year as has happened most years in the first decade of the 21st century. But, it is not a requirement for me to say that Frank Beamer has been a successful head coach. And, if you can't accept that then i suggest you adopt Bama to cheer for. Frank Beamer with the support of Jim Weaver caught the imagination of the college football world which were critical to the school's acceptance into the ACC. In the ACC all sports have thrived, not just football. Our women's soccer team made the College Cup this year, the Final 4. Every sport at Virginia Tech has benefited from the success that Frank Beamer has brought to the football team. Fire Frank Beamer, i think not. You have your head sooooo far up your butt you are looking at the world through your belly button.
See Oregon for the first portion of your comment. Seems legit to me.
Replacing a longtime head coach does NOT mean you make the NC game the next year or two. Ask Tennessee.
There are a lot of teams that won less games than Frank's Hokies this year, and a lot of those teams have more talent than the Hokies do. Frank deserves it because he's a good football coach and the program has positive momentum right now.
Also, I think you are underestimating the difficulty in finding a "national championship quality" coach. Do you have anyone in mind who would be able to take Tech to the promised land AND Tech could convince to coach here?
A list of the "national championship quality" coaches in the past 15 years:
Without doing research, I can tell you that about a third of these coaches have had some sort of NCAA controversy, a third got fired/retired for having multiple subpar years after their National Championship, and a third are currently coaching at a team where they had not yet won a national championship.
And a couple had wins (including NCs) vacated due to violations of NCAA rules.
Larry Coker won because of Butch Davis.
Without Frank this program is East Carolina.
We will be very fortunate if the next head coach manages to keep us on the current path we are on, much less the "next level" most fans think we deserve.
Based on what? That's the hypocritical argument to pro-change people like me when we say changing a head coach would make us better. There is no proof of the matter that we would not be here without Frank Beamer. Don't get me wrong, I'm ecstatic for what he's done over the years for us, I love him for it, but I'm looking to the future and not what he did in the past. But there is no evidence to say we would be a lackluster program without him
Just to entertain the idea, who would you propose to head coach the Hokies?
I obviously do not have the knowledge to propose the idea, and even if I did, it would be a moot point. All I'm saying is that I've given this coach 27 years to bring us a National Championship and it hasn't happened. Because of that, I'm ready to move on. I'm not afraid of switching coaches and possibly having losing seasons, it very well could happen. I just would rather test the waters to change it up than stay where we are. And I know, we changed up offensive coaches; I just believe it has to be a head coach change to make a drastic difference, because the mentality of the program starts with them. I've never been a fan of Frank's kind nature. Obviously he's a great figurehead, but I prefer the coach that's ready to beat the snot out of every opponent. While most fans didn't appreciate Mora's tactics at the end of the game, I respected the message he was sending - we will continue to beat you even after you've broken. Scoring with a lead doesn't bother me.
I don't know that you've given him 27 years; you said above you've been following since Glennon was playing. So really it's less than about 8 years...
Anyway, take a step back and consider the perspective. Beamer has not been in a position to succeed for 27 years. He spent the first 10-15 years fighting severe NCAA penalties at a school that had no tradition, no history, and no respect from anyone. We were weak sauce, didn't even play in a real conference, and couldn't sign more than 15 scholarship players per year. His book has an awesome history of what was going on then (I swear I don't work for the publisher, it's just a cool read). He took underdogs in the middle of the 90s to top-tier bowl games. He changed the way special teams is played.
Our program has been attracting talent for a long time, and the vision and plan is getting better. There is great value to Beamer's personality, especially with families. When he shows up to recruit a young man in high school, it is impressive to the family when Frank is able to say, "I care about your son. I care about how he develops as a man first and as a successful football player second. We will take care of him in school." Showy crap like running up scores and that doesn't mean jack to that family.
His reputation will give him the benefit of the doubt in my mind, as well as that of the university administration, until he chooses to leave. Barring scandal, he is in the anomalous position of earning a respectable exit. His players love him. His assistants respect him and consider him a friend. That's a great environment. I'd rather not be like the SEC where everyone is pounding Tums at the end of every game because someone might get crucified after a loss.
Haha yes, I haven't personally given him 27 years, he's been coaching longer than I've been breathing, but you understand the point. If he had won a single championship even before I was born I wouldn't be having this discussion.
Okay, then what did Beamer's personality do in terms of recruiting say, Da'shawn Hand? This whole kind and gentle personality doesn't necessarily beat all other recruiting tactics. The best recruiting tactic, regardless of how big of a dick you can be as a head coach, is coming in and laying your national championship ring, or your bowl game ring on the table.
Yes, I'm sure that's a terrible environment to be in, but it's also that sort of attitude that has brought them the past 7 National Championships.
You can't nitpick one player and condemn Beamer. Hundreds of other schools missed out on him too, and we were in the running long after he had passed up offers from other schools that have won championships. We'll see how much he plays in a system for which he may not be well-suited. His situation was a strange one, what with the changing major and all. Sure, Saban can talk a big game, and yes he does have a lot of championship rings to pull out, but no one is invincible forever. Maybe Saban is even a better coach than Beamer, but he's got a lot more people that despise him than Frank. I'll take a good guy, having a good amount of success, and doing it the right way, over anyone else.
Well respectfully disagreeing, I'd take a crystal ball.
Look, I know you're ending your argument with VTguitarMan, but, I'd like to say a few things. First of all, I've been following this program since I was 5 years old. I remember 1999. I remember the Sugarbowl in 2000. A lot of people wanted to fire Beamer after we didn't make the MNC in 2001. A lot of people wanted to fire Beamer 2006-8 when we didn't make the MNC. A lot of people wanted to fire Beamer when we didn't make the MNC in the 2010 season. You're just the latest version of a long running stream of people calling for Beamer's head.
So, let's not discuss why I think you're wrong, let's discuss why it hasn't happened in the past.
PART I: WHO THE HELL WANTS TO COACH IN BLACKSBURG, VA?
Let's talk about some of the draws of Blacksburg: It has Virginia Tech football. It has some nice hikes to go on. Biking in the mountains is pretty cool. The bars are filled with young people.
For a prospective college coach, none of that is actually a draw. You might say that Virginia Tech football is a draw, but frankly that's circular logic. That's your job to make it interesting, it's not inherently interesting. The hikes are kinda pointless because you're going to be on the recruiting/coaching trail all of the time. The same goes for the biking, and I'm not sure there are a whole lot of coaches in the NCAA who are in the cardiovascular shape to try and tackle Montgomery/Giles/Pulaski/Roanoke County on a bicycle. (SIDEBAR: If someone can find a gif of Frank Beamer riding a bike, I feel like that would make me really happy)
I really don't want coach who's amped about the fact that our bars are filled with young people. That's weird. I don't like it. Make it stop.
That basically leaves coaches who are alumni or familiar and comfortable with southwestern Virginia. I don't know about active coaches, but that basically leaves the Beamers. There are some others as well, but a large number of them are already coaching at Virginia Tech or have already coached at Virginia Tech. All the others would just look at Virginia Tech as a bullet point on their resume. We could get someone capable of acquiring the chrystal ball, but they wouldn't want to stay. They would rather go coach a powerhouse like an Alabama, a Stanford, an Ohio State, or a Florida State.
The reason for this will be covered later in Part II.
PART II: WHO THE HELL WANTS TO PLAY IN BLACKSBURG, VA?
In part one we established that there's basically fuck all to do in Blacksburg, VA, unless you motherfucking love being outside (hence why I think it's a great place). There's a lot of the same for players too. They're going to want a few things out of a program that they are considering committing to: Bitches, Stuff to do at night, places to work out, piss easy classes. (NOTE: This is not the case for all recruits, just some of them.)
We got bitches. So that's a plus.
There's stuff to do at night, as mentioned before, and it's not weird for players to be amped about bars filled with young people. Awesome. (NOTE: There is an asterisk here. We don't offer nearly as much to do at night as, say, Miami, Palo Alto, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Boulder, Denver, or Eugene).
The places to work out have largely expanded due to the Beamer effect. When you drive up Southgate, you are driving past the house that Beamer built. Thank him. He makes it much easier to get people to come to our school.
The classes are where it starts to get weird. We have the highest graduation rate of any NCAA DI school along with Stanford. To a lot of recruits that kind of looks like "They want me to learn stuff that isn't the playbook. Fuck all that noise." We have to gun for the recruits who think "CAN'T WAIT TO LEARN." This greatly limits the players available to us. To Beamer's credit, he doesn't use this as an excuse like our friends up north. I can see a lot of coaches hearing that and packing their bags for another town, like Tuscaloosa, Columbus, or Tallahassee.
Honestly, off the top of my head, I can think of UVa, Stanford, and VT who brag about the acedemic standards they hold their players to. Of course, UVa is disqualified because they lose games and don't graduate as many players as we do. Seriously. UVa, what the fuck?
We need a coach who can take all of these things together and say, "I think you'll love it in Blacksburg." While at the same time convincing the parents of Johnny A. Recruit that they will love their kid going to Virginia Tech. That's a pretty tall order, requiring someone with experience with Virginia Tech and southwestern Virginia. Now the requirements of some one close to Virginia Tech have gone up even higher.
PART III: HOW THE HELL IS THIS GUY GOING TO PULL ALL OF THIS TOGETHER?
Our best options at the Head Coaching jobs are:
That leaves:
*Bud Foster is not a graduate, and spends a lot of time on the lake instead of in town experiencing Blacksburg.
Jeebus that's a short list. I still take Frank Beamer over Bud Foster. Frank Beamer is experienced managing an entire staff. He's experienced making tough calls about moving players around. Bud Foster has some of that, but Frank Beamer has more experience doing this. Does this mean Bud Foster shouldn't get a shot? No. He definitely should. But let Frank Beamer decide it's time. He just brings so much to the table.
PART IV: WILL HE EVER SHUT UP?
Yes.
Haha you really put some thought into this, kudos to you. I can't really respond to it all, but one of the main things I want to say is that I believe Virginia Tech would be a great school for an up and coming coach to go to. It has a small history of success now, is in a pretty decent recruiting area, and has some fairly decent national recognition. I wouldn't mind a guy that came from small-town nowhere to make a national name for himself. Obviously though, typing what I want in a coach is a lot easier than actually finding that, but that's what I'm looking for going in to the future. I'm not very keen on hiring in-staff for a head coaching position because even though it may be a new person, I still feel that the previous head coach has influenced them too much over the years. I worry that if Bud was the head coach we'd have an even more lopsided defensive team rather than a balanced one.
Eh. I don't think so. He does a lot to encourage the offensive players. You get the impression that he's glad to see improvement on the offense. The better the offense does, the better the defense can do. He understands that. I can't really cite any evidence that that's what would happen though. We can really only say if he gets the chance. Honestly I think he would be our Gus Malzahn.
'We got bitches. So that's a plus.'
This should replace 'Ut prosim.'
I get the funneh, but:
No.
Saban also has an incredibly larger budget both for the team and recruiting.
I think (and this is just my opinion) that you have to have a little bit more perspective on where Virginia Tech football has been (pre-1995) and where it is now. A national championship, while a goal of Virginia Tech's, is not the end all, be all. There is more to a program like VTs than chasing a dream of winning the national title.
To find a national title school who is not one of the traditional big football powerhouses (the ones that have had sustained historical success at one point before 1995) you would have to go back to Washington - 1991, Colorado in 1990 and BYU in 1984.
Its amazing to think that we haven't had one of the non traditionals win in almost 25 years - but that's the way the college football landscape is.
Oregon has come close, Boise St came close, Virginia Tech came close.
I would even say that Virginia Tech's recent success is more impressive than the other two schools I mentioned.
What Frank Beamer has done and where he has taken us from is more remarkable than many realize.
I can't even come up with a really fair/comparable example.
Oregon's is closest I could come up with - but their success hasn't been as long and sustained as ours.
BYU's run in the 80s and early 90s would also be comparable. They were fortunate to win a national title before the BCS era - not sure if their strength of schedule would have gotten them one back in the day.
And let's not forget that Oregon's success has come on the back of significant (almost unparalleled) contributions from Nike and Nike's CEO. Nike gets a ton of exposure because of Oregon's national rise, and if Tech had the type of money coming in that Oregon does I would expect Tech to make strides on the field as well.
Ah yes, we can put Oregon and Oklahoma State in the Nike/T Boone Pickens league of not winning squat until the money started rolling in.
Boise State is a good football program for comparison. Most people would agree that Blacksburg is a bigger draw for coaches and recruits than Idaho, and they had a similar rise from obscurity. As much as the UCLA Sun Bowl game bothered me, the loss to Boise State to open the season in 2010 was far more painful to me as it signified how another program with similar rise from obscurity had surpassed us. Or maybe it was because I was there in person and we should have won the game. Either way, I think some of the frustration around Hokie Nation has to do with the fact that we climbed so far and then failed to reach the top only to fall back down again.
Pro-change people? Making changes for the sake of making changes? If it isn't broke then don't try to fix it. The problem here is that while you think the football team is broken, many of us do not. Our team doesn't have problems, our team has situations. Big difference. You say there is no proof that changing coaches would make things worse, and i say that YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT CHANGING COACHES WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER. The reality is even with a new AD and a new University President there is a 99% chance that Frank Beamer will not get fired any time soon. That makes me very very happy and you sad. I can live with that.
It's a shame that people are downvoting, because I Miss Tyrod is making valid and respectful points. Downvotes are for disrespectful comments, not for opinions you disagree with.
If we agree that the ultimate goal of the program is to win a national championship, then every decision (including firing Frank) made should be made to increase the likelihood of achieving that goal. I Miss Tyrod, lemme ask you a question that I think cuts to the core of the disagreement. Do you think Beamer is incapable of leading a team to the national championship?
If your answer is Frank Beamer is incapable of winning a national championship then of course your desire to hire a different head coach would be correct. Any coach would improve the programs odds of filling the glass display case because having Frank as head coach would eliminate Tech's chances.
But, if your answer is Frank Beamer is capable of winning a national championship then the real discussion isn't about whether Frank should go, but whether his replacement would improve Tech's chances. Considering at one point in his career Beamer had the lead in the third quarter of the national championship game, I don't think it's insane to say Beamer could get back there.
So I Miss Tyrod, let's see if we can't flesh out this discussion. Do you think Beamer is incapable of winning a national championship in today's CFB landscape? Or do you think that he is capable, but that a replacement could be found who is more likely to win a national championship?
I do honestly believe that Frank Beamer's time to win a national championship has passed. I have never seen that killer instinct in his coaching that shows he's willing to take that risk to reap the benefits. Something I always revert back to is LSU's fake field goal with the toss over the head that went for a touchdown. I can't/haven't seen a Beamer team run that sort of play in my years of following the program. The thing that sticks out to me when I say that is the Danny Coale fake punt in the Sugar bowl. I believe a "killer instinct" coach would have called the play they wanted - punt, fake, or go for it on 4thd down - without having to call that timeout. I'm a fan of the gutsy coaches that don't go for field goals and occasionally go for that first down or touchdown. Which, obviously is the exact opposite of what Tech does, seeing as we are on the higher end of field goals attempted year after year. I foam at the thought of having a coach like Cutcliffe who seems to just be so good at what he does with what little he gets. Cutcliffe reminds me of Frank in his early years - little talent, high success. But as the talent Frank, I was expecting that success to amplify. Sure we make it to bowl games, but we don't have a very good record in them, something I view as a very indicative of a coaches success.
Eh, respectfully, I think you're putting way too much importance on gutsy playcalls and killer instincts. Very, very few national championship teams get there because of ballsy play calls. Take FSU for example, they haven't had a do-or-die play call all season long. Their closest game was a victory against Boston College where they won by two touchdowns.
I think that Frank Beamer is definitely capable of going back to the big game, but that it will require his program to improve recruiting even more than it has this year. Like everything football related, momentum is key, and with the new class coming in I think it's not too far fetched to see this new staff bringing in National Championship talent.
Foster is unquestionably capable of fielding a great defense. If Loeffler can mold one of these two incoming freshmen into a NFL 1st round QB (and I think he is capable of doing just that) than it's not unrealistic to think this program will get back to where it was.
With the young talent in the pipeline, it's not unlikely that Foster fields a defense in the near future similar to his mid-2000's defenses. If Loeffler can give him even a competent offense to go along with an elite defense (which I fully expect he can), we very well may be looking at a legit postseason run.
I agree. Foster's best defenses came with very good linebackers, and I'm not sure he's ever coached a "great" linebacker. His scheme would be absolutely devastating with physical freaks at the linebacker position. If he could get his hands on a player that was smart and was a mismatch for blockers, then all he'd need is a competent offense and Tech would be title contenders.
IMO.
Great point that is not so obvious.
We haven't seen great linebackers at VT in 5 or 6 years, and the defense has suffered for it. I think his recent change back to the 46 alignment may have been due to coverage liability of the LBs.
I've heard that the gap-fit scheme that Foster used to run was hurting the recruiting; I wonder if the 46 scheme is expected to fix that too?
I view it as more of a mentality that comes with those playcalls. It's a sort of "I'm not afraid to face you head on. I think I can beat you." I do think FSU has a we're better than you attitude, but I never feel that coming from VT.
We NEED to land more of the big names we go after. Obviously we won't get all of our top recruits, but we need to start landing Kendall Fuller's more often. If we do that, it would put us at that next level, and maybe even give us the championship.
Fair enough, that's a valid point.
I agree completely. A class of 9 or so four stars is nice, but it's not good enough to get to a national championship unless one of them turns into a once-in-a-generation type of player (think Mike Vick). However, I do think that the staff in place could start pulling in that type of talent. I'm not sure that the type of replacement coach that Tech's limited national relevancy could attract would be able too though.
This is just my musing while I sit on my couch reading TKP and watching the UCF/Baylor game and not necessarily something that has to do with Beamer's status as a coach. One of the things that I have started pondering after reading everything that has been discussed lately on this site is this offense that Lefty and Beamer are trying to implement the right offense for Tech? I believe it was you or French not entirely sure but someone said that the point of the spread offenses such as Baylor's or UCF's was to spread it out to make the field almost an equal playing field against superior athletes. One of the points being made was that there isn't necessarily the national pull at VT to get a coach who will immediately get a National championship doesn't that maybe apply to recruiting as well? Obviously our class this year is ranked and etc so maybe not that so much but it has been well documented that prior to this class and maybe the one preceding it has not been that good and has lead to a lack of talent that was on display against UCLA. If that were the case doesn't that mean that perhaps Tech should go to a spread offense to equal the playing field? I'm just curious about your opinion on that after watching this game and the overall trend in college football.
Crap sorry some how I replied to the wrong message, I thought my previous comment was to one of I miss tyrods messages about needing a ballsy coach
Very good question, and a great writing prompt. I may choose to do an article on this down the road...
But basically, when the spread first hit the scene it did give smaller teams advantages over the power houses because it was so unique (similar to how PJ's offense gives him an advantage over other teams). However, now that so many schools use it, there isn't really much of surprise factor to gain anything by switching.
There is a reason that most national championship winners are pro-style offenses. The only exceptions in the BCS era were Texas, Florida (the 2nd time), and Auburn. All three had all-time great rushing QB's at the helm. Vince Young, Tim Tebow, and Cam Newton. Repeat, the only spread offenses that have won a national championship are the teams which had to rely on their quarterback to be a very large percentage of their overall offense. I think there is a fundamental flaw in asking your QB to carry that much of a load (good dual threat QB's are damn rare and have a tendency to get hurt). The rest of those national championship winners? They had strong rushing attacks, explosive vertical passing games, and devastating defenses. AKA, Beamer's formula.
Regardless of what system of offense you run, you have to have great personnel to win the big game. If Beamer and Co. can keep improving on their recruiting classes, then he'll have a shot before he retires. If they stagnate on the recruiting trail again, then he won't.
Not sure if you've read this before, but I just recently saw this article about Chip Kelly's spread offense and when you mentioned needing a running quarterback to win with that type of offense it reminded me of this.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8631595/the-success-chip-kelly-orego...
I make a point to read everything Chris Brown writes, dude's the best in the business.
As much as it pains me to say it, I want Mike London fired, and then brought on to Virginia Tech's recruiting staff. The man can't coach worth a damn but by god can he pull in a good 757 recruit. Just DO NOT hand him any sort of gameday responsibilities haha!
I haven't downvoted you yet (actually upvoted you to counter some of the downs), but this comment almost made me pull the trigger.
A thousand times no, if for no better reason than I don't want him bogarting the Carol Lee donuts.
CAROL LEE DONUTS FOR EVERYONE!!!
He can pull in a 757 recruit. I don't want one recruit. I want an actual team. That guy has inflated people's perception of his recruiting abilities by getting two top recruits. Sorry. Rant over. I just really don't like him.
No need to get him on our team.
If he's no coaching anywhere, he's not recruiting at all.
While i recall MV being a 4 star recruit, he was not the #1 recruit in the nation for quarterback. Everyone expected him to be excellent even outstanding, but everyone was surprised that he was special. The same went for Cory Moore. It was truly special to watch the two of them playing at the same time.
Recruiting is not about stars by names, it's about doing homework and selecting players who fit your system.
This plus a million.
Vick wasn't even the #1 recruit in the state. That was Ronald Curry if I'm not mixing my years up.
You would be correct, but pretty much only because he just came off his 3rd straight state title for Hampton. And then he wasted his talent by trying to play basketball for UNC.
So does that mean Paul Johnson has a better chance then Beamer?
I'm going a little OT with this, but that Danny Coale fake-punt "option" play (see gif below if you can stomach it, it's not too late to look away!) still haunts my dreams to this day. But I don't think it's fair to blame Beamer for Coale not making the decision (seems like a executional flaw more than a playcalling flaw) to pull the trigger and punt the ball away sooner.
Haha posting the gif was like stabbing me in the gut. I blame Beamer more than I blame Coale on this play actually. You told a senior star in his last game to go out there and during the middle of the play decide whether or not to punt the ball. Obviously he's going to do everything in his power to get that first down. I believe the coach should make the call to fake it straight up, go for it, or punt it, not a player whose emotions are running buckwild during the play.
I'm sorry, but I can't fault any of them for that. Shit happens. You, at some point, have to trust your players to make the right decision on the field. Part of what makes great players great isn't that the coach is saying "Do this" or "Do that"...it's the coach saying..."Here are a couple of plays. Take a read when you get out there, and do whichever you think best for the situation." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. That's where a great player stands out. Do they make mistakes? Sure. CIP. But if the coach doesn't trust the player, then the player won't make it.
Nvm sorry again I'm reading where I put my comments wrong, I should probably stop commenting for now
This is not the same Frank Beamer who built up the program to the '99 NC game. Frank is at the twilight of his career, and he doesn't have that many years left. His energy level is much lower. He went 'all in' with a set of offensive coaches who should have been replaced years ago, and that is time he will never get back. He now has to dig the program out of a hole - and has little time left to do so.
In order to get another shot at the NC, we have to recruit like gangbusters, pulling in several consecutive highly-ranked classes. We just don't recruit that way. This recruiting class might be our best top to bottom, but as you say still it is not enough.
And there is one other major factor at work. Frank has at his core several philosophies that drive our strategies, and those aren't going to change. But the college football world has changed around him. Offense is far more important to program success than it was in '99. In '99 we led the country in scoring offense with a tad over 40 ppg. This year, Baylor led it with over 53 ppg. Seventeen of the end-of-season AP Top 25 teams had Top 25 offenses - compared to the 14 who had Top 25 defenses. And eight have both. Closer to home, teams like FSU, Clemson and UNC have raised the bar for offensive effectiveness and will make it much tougher to win the ACCCG.
So I'll chime in and say yes, Beamer is most likely incapable of winning a national championship, at this stage of his career.
Disagree. I think his philosophies are still valid, but execution is not there. A stout defense, mistake free, attacking special teams and a run heavy/low turnover offense can still win ACC and possibly national championships. The special teams blunders are inexcusable. Our offense and special teams have hardly been effective the past two years.
Obviously, it's up to the coach to teach players to execute, so I think that's a fair criticism of our coaches, but I don't buy the game has passed CFB reasoning. Bama, Stanford, MichSt, and others have had success with similar philosophies.
I'll go ahead and disagree with you on the philosophy issue. First off, how did Baylor do this postseason? Thought so. Look at Michigan State. They're the team Frank wants this team to be. Outstanding defense with an efficient quarterback and a good ground game. Same goes for Stanford. That Rose Bowl last night was 1) proof that Frank's philosophy still works in BCS-caliber football games and 2) proof that offense isn't everything. Check out what happened to Oregon in the 2010 NCG. They hit a brick wall called Auburn's defense.
As for recruiting, this year's class is solid-to-very-good and that's with the current staff having been on the job all of 11 months. I wouldn't be so quick to write off Beamer after two down years. Which, as I've said many, many times on here, STILL HAVE EIGHT FREAKING WINS. EIGHT wins in a DOWN year. He's made changes to get the program back on the right track. We all heard the long list of coaches he consulted with to choose the guys he did. We saw what they did this year with VERY limited resources. Just because we didn't win a national championship this year doesn't mean the program won't get out of that hole in 2-3 years.
Baylor did great. They made it to a BCS game and lost...to another offense-first team. Same as Stanford losing to Michigan State - you should be criticizing Stanford if you are going to criticize Baylor.
But most people's complaints are about how we make it to big games (for example BCS games) and lose. Most people point to the recent Orange bowl and Sugar Bowl losses as examples of how CFB can't win the big game.
So I don't think you can say you want to be like Baylor and that Baylor did great and then criticize CFB for doing achieving the same results.
All I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a defense-first, hardnosed team. Flashy, offense-first teams aren't always the most successful ones.
There was also Clemson who won as an offensive first team, and Oklahoma which is traditionally offensive. Then there are teams that made it and didn't win. It was said earlier that the winners of the past national championships have mostly been pro power running style teams. But I wonder if there is going to start being a change in trend toward more offensive spread teams like Auburn starting to go somewhere.
We may have had 8 wins this year but we had 7 last year and had to beat LOLUVA (duh) to make a bowl (and almost lost that game if not for the timecop). The bowl game was brutally ugly and if Rutgers offense was even partially competent we might have lost that game and been 6-7. This team/program would appear to be headed in the right direction but what if for the next 4 years go 8-5, or 7-6 or gasp sub .500. I think the changes have been made and there should be improvements going forward but to me the question is what is the goal? To just beat UVA, just win a bowl game, just win the ACC, just win a BCS bowl game or win the National Championship? I believe most of us would agree that the last one is the goal/dream for Virginia Tech. As everyone gets older they start to lose their edge that's just how life is. I think Beamer is fighting against that tide and won a major battle against the clock with the hires he made last year. Time will tell but I think we all expect to at least be in contention for something major in the next 3-4 years (closer to 3 would be nice).
Time will tell but I just don't agree with some of the members of this site that say Beamer is nearly untouchable. If you put him on that pedestal you open yourself up to a situation such as the Penn State situation. Not that anything like that is going on but we all need to remember that football is just part of the greater VPI&SU and that everyone is held accountable to try and be the best at what they do.
1. Punctuation is your friend, please use it.
2. We're not saying that Beamer is untouchable. We're saying that he's got the program going in the right direction (as you so astutely pointed out, we won 7 games last year and 8 this year, even with a brand new offensive staff and limited talent/experience just about everywhere not on the defensive front seven. Recruiting has picked up in a big way and we've seen drastic improvements in the scheme and techniques on the offensive side of the ball.
As for offenses, saying one scheme is superior because the two teams in the NCG THIS YEAR use the spread is ridiculous. The past few years, we've seen that the scheme run is largely irrelevant so long as the talent is there to fit the scheme and execute it and the coaches can maximize their players' strengths while minimizing weaknesses.
It's also worth mentioning that, except for the air raid, just about every offensive scheme is based on running the football. The only difference is how that is accomplished, with some teams (Clemson, Auburn) spreading the field and others (Stanford, Bama, FSU) keeping things tight.
Sorry I majored in science not English
FWIW, I'm finishing up my degree in Mechanical Engineering.
FWIW, there were three commas missing and two misspelled words. This is hardly unintelligible out of some punctuation mishaps. I am sorry I did not check the spelling or my comma usage. If you really want to get nitpicky, I used the passive voice a few times. Then again, this is an internet forum not a scientific paper.
Well, here are my 2 main points in regard to your original post:
1. It's not unintelligible, but a simple grammar check does make things easier to read.
2. Beamer's got things going in the right direction and there's no reason whatsoever at this point to say he's not the right man for the job.
No, some punctuation and some paragraphs make long posts easier to read.
I agree with this wholeheartedly!! There are some posts on here that are very difficult to read. It's frustrating, especially when they're making an argument that I agree with. It's pretty hard to take someone seriously when it's tough to decipher what they're actually saying.
I have to agree with this:
Everyone should always have some fear for their job. Take away accountability, and you it would take damn nearly a saint to avoid complacency, or worse, permit corruption within your workplace.
I think Beamer's overwhelming sense of loyalty puts him at particular risk. Do I think he'd look the other way if something as terrible as Penn State happened here? Not in a million years, no.
But do I think he might believe he can rehabilitate someone who commits lesser offenses? Absolutely, yes, and his history demonstrates it.
The danger to the program there is, what is the cutoff for him to determine: Is this someone I can rehabilitate with a second (or third, or fourth) chance? Or is this someone who needs to be cut loose?
If he is wrong and the player who was allowed to remain does something far worse, the blow to the program could be devastating.
Ultimately I don't think I want a head coach making those decisions on his own. And I'm not saying Beamer does, because for all I know, with every problem athlete he's had he may have been working with the University president & or other university policing groups all along.
So, long-story short (I know... way too late), I agree that we should be wary of putting anyone on a pedestal, no matter their history. Plenty of time for pedestals after they have retired.
At this point though, I don't think the last couple of years are any reason to call for Beamer's job. He made seismic changes in the coaching staff, and I am very pleased with what I saw this year, despite many hair-rending moments.
Yeah, Beamer was too loyal to Cody Journell. I can only imagine the lengths to which he would go to protect Logan Thomas if he did something illegal. Logan seems like a good kid though, so luckily this never became an issue.
How does frank beamers philosophy differ from nick sabans. Or les miles. Or Jimbo fisher.
Year after year the best teams have pro style offenses paired with great defenses. Beamer just hasn't been able to recruit the caliber of athlete that those coaches have, and until recently didn't have an oc capable of drawing up a coherent scheme
Jimbo Fisher is an offense-first guy.
And if you are going to have that philosophy you have to stock the team with the right players to run it. This is where our recruiting strategy falters - the state of VA doesn't produce the kind of athletes to stock a power running attack. VA produces spread offense athletes. So your recruiting strategy has to rely on getting certain positional recruits from different regions. We only started doing that this past year.
Offense first guy or not, he still uses the same scheme and overall strategy.
And regardless of what Beamer has said in the past, virginia doesn't have enough talent to support a national championship team. Spread
Or not.
I agree with your last sentiment. But there is MORE spread talent in VA than pro style talent - which makes it easier overall to have a VA-first philosophy. Also, this strikes at the heart of your endorsement of the Bama and FSU methods - they are also fueled by superior talent. Sometimes when looking at big picture trends it's easy to lose sight of all the variables at play - a good coach with overwhelming talent can do wonders.
If I had Bama's talent, surely I would reduce risk by running their schemes. The thing about the spread - it vastly increases offensive effectiveness at a lesser talent level. Certainly there are drawbacks, especially as it pertains to the defense. I can't think offhand of a spread team that has a great defense. UF under Urban Meyer, perhaps. If you commit to the spread you commit to being an offense-first team, it seems. But I believe the spread coaches' strategy is to achieve short term success and visibility with an exciting spread attack, and use that to improve recruiting and make the defense 'good enough.'
I think when Bud talks about adopting the spread he has something different in mind, which I would be interested in seeing.
That's not true though. That was the case when the spread first made it's appearance because it was something unique that defenses weren't prepared for, and often the offenses 3rd WR would be a mismatch for the defenses nicklebacks. Nowadays defenses have gone a long way towards closing the schematic advantage that spread teams have. Add in how many high schools run spread now, and defenses are also able to stock up on athletes used to operating in space.
In fact, we are starting to see offenses that go spread without great athletes get demolished. Placing mediocre offensive athletes in space against superior defensive talents isn't a great recipe for success.
Exhibit A: Cal - bad talent, spread team. Remember how high everyone was on Jame Franklin out of LA Tech? Ugly season this year for the bears.
Sonny Dykes, you mean? James Franklin is at Vanderbilt.
I'm not sure how exactly to go about this, but I'd love for the Hokies to somehow get a recruiting hand out west. Maybe get some sort of game out with a Big 12 team or something, but I really wish we'd even get low star players from the midwest region and slowly work up. I know it's hard with all the quality schools out there, just a bit of wishful thinking
I don't really see what that would accomplish. We're already hitting the NE hard and I think that's where we should keep focusing our recruiting efforts.
I just don't see the NE putting out as many solid recruits as some of the places out in the midwest
Well said! Probably the best perspective I've seen on this site.
I agree. I'm a 50 year old with a tremendous soccer player for a son. I would love for my son to play for a coach like Beamer. He is pure class. Can he win a NC, Yes. If we continue to recruit the kids we seem to be now getting, Bud will always coach them up on his side of the ball, we give special teams to anyone different and Scott delivers a real NFL QB along with a playmaker RB and WR, we have a shot. We play in the ACC, so we always have a shot. At best, we need to beat two top 10 teams to win the conference. It will start with better athletes. UCLA had them, we did not. That simple! Go Hokies. WE all start 0-0 again, THANKFULLY......
I can't help but think that to win a NC, you have to play dirty in the background a little bit, nowadays. There aren't many coaches out there today that have won more than one NC. There aren't many coaches that have taken more than one program to a NC.
An NC is an incredibly tough thing to win. You can have all the pieces of a great team together, and STILL not win it. Is it coveted, yes...but if it were the end all be all of the sporting world, then a lot of good schools are wasting a lot of money on something they will never attain.
Being a division 1 athlete I would like to share some insight that I have had while playing. There's this saying that goes a long way and it is" Don't pick the school you want to play for, instead pick the asshole that will bring you down, tear you apart but be right there with you celebrating that NC". This is sooo true, my college coach was an absolute punk, I hated him so much but for some reason he was one of the best coaches ever, we went on to win the NC in men's soccer in 2010.
Look at Les Miles, Nick Saban, kevin sumlin.... I'm sure they are absolutely brutal in practice and games but they can also show the kind warm CFB side to them, but at some point that warm, kind CFB kind will only get you so far.. I'm not saying treat them like crap but sometimes.. "You'll have to get after them"..
Have you not seen Foster/Loeffler/Moorehead at practices? They get after everyone plenty.
'they'll get after ya!'
yeah but then I'm sure there is ole CFB letting them off/ telling them its ok. I mean how many chances did Journel get??
I've seen enough Frank on the sideline to think he's not always so warm and friendly when the cameras are off. I just don't think he's gonna dress someone down in front of outsiders.
I am nearly certain this is the case. He's just a master of PR. He really doesn't want to talk about what he's doing and how people are playing. I was shocked when he said Branthover was kicking better than Kristensen so far out from the bowl game. It just seemed out of character to me because I'm so used to him publicly keeping his cards pretty close to his chest.