I have a question: why is it that the Hokies seem to come out rusty at bowl games? I do not understand it. Some teams enjoy the time, off, heal with the rest, and come out with intensity. Maybe most teams do. Tech on the other hand, seems to get rusty and flat with the time off. Am I correct on this view? Any thoughts on that?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Yes you are 100% correct. That is another subject of unending frustration among Hokie Nationdom. I am in the camp that feels (strongly) that Beamer has the team underprepared. Of course I'm not there for the practices, but the performance on the field leads strongly in that direction. I also feel that it is best to over prepare for something (an opponent). That way you'll be ready for pretty much anything they dish out. Of the entire coaching staff I (obviously) feel that Foster has his unit best and most prepared.
Here's another statement that makes me curious. I love Bud, but his guys were NOT the most prepared unit on that field yesterday. The first drive was nothing but penalties and blown plays. They came back and had some flashes, but then they got continually torched late and gave up. Our team, as a whole, was not in a good place to play that game. If the D was the best prepared, that's simply an indictment of our bowl preparation as a whole. Hard to tell when the offense looked pretty much like they have all season - occasionally good but mostly ineffective.
Let's put it this way, in the history of bowls in which CBF is DC, the D has been the more consistently prepped facet of the team.
I think Bud Foster is prepared, but the defense is not.
I've noticed in most games that one team usually starts out hotter than the other. My rule of thumb at this point is that both teams need to have two drives on offense and two drives on defense before they really get comfortable. Sometimes, by that point, it's 14-0 or so (see: Duke vs. A&M), but it evens out sooner than later. I give it one drive on both sides of the ball in the second half,
Bad luck after bye weeks too.
On that note, what is our record after bye weeks (starting with when Beamer became HC)?
If I remember correctly, Andy Bitter did a great piece on this very subject with numbers and research and stuff, and it was actually not bad at all, (feels like it though.)
The first drive was terrible, but up until the 86 yard Hundley run, it was a pretty even contest. And after that VT got the ball deep in UCLA territory with a chance to tie. We needed to punch that in, I think it would have been a difference maker pychologically to punch that one in; maybe wouldn't change the outcome of UCLA winning.
I really thought after Logan's diesel run that the tide was turning in VTs favor, then well, that whole helmet to the head hit.
I agree, not that it matters now but at the time when it was like 4th and goal at like the 3 or 4 and with pretty much an entire 2nd string offense in I thought we needed to go for it while we had the chance to score a TD, but of course we went the conservative route and kicked it. I didn't trust a Thomas/Edmunds/Cline-less offense to keep us in the game if we didn't tie it while we had the chance.
Those were all big loses considering the lack of depth. I wanted to see more Josh Stanford downfield throws, but I'm sure it was not because Loeffler didn't want to do it as much as they just couldn't get him open. Was surprised that the Paper Boy went M.I.A. too.
Totally agree with the comments. We do not seem to be prepared in many of the bye week / big bowl game scenarios. Might it be too much conservatism...... We have to at least try and punch it in on a 4th and 3 with 3 key starters out and with all the momentum.
Against UVA, how many times with a trick play/ onside kick / 4th and .... going for it did the coaching staff surprise even those of us die hard VT fans with play calling????? That is the attitude we need in all future bowl games... Have fun, believe in one another and go for it. UCLA was favored and we looked to be predictable and tight during the early part of the game. After the LT truck experience / run, the VT sidelines was going crazy and we seemed to be really pumped. At that point, maybe a physical running game with some beef is required.
Bring on the new recruits. We will return to 10 win seasons again. This new staff will be fine, RIGHT?
I think part of the problem was all the injuries too.
With all the playmakers out there was a lack of leadership.
I am hoping one of these years my friends will wise up and go to vegas instead of the bowl game. At least I might enjoy dropping several hundred in vegas. Every year it goes like this:
"Jsketch, you want to go to the bowl game this year?"
"Uhhh no. Do you remember that feeling in your stomach during that 16 hour ride back from the Orange bowl?"
"We can fly this time"
"So, you want to spend more money watching a team you know will disappoint? Can we just waste money in Vegas instead?"
TL;DR - You can only milk the fan base so many times
If I can swing it, I'd go to the bowl game every year, win or lose.
It is not a win or lose thing for me. My reason(s) for not going is related to the topic. Are we calling it being rusty? Lack of preparation?
do you think we looked rusty or unprepared in the Sugar Bowl? I thought we dominated that entire game and just had a few things that didn't bounce our way..There were also a couple questionable calls (coaches and refs) that if they had been called differently could have resulted in a different outcome
The fact that we actually were prepared for that Sugar Bowl, that we actually were dominating them in the second half, and still found a way to blow it is a further evidence that Beamer's big game coaching is lacking something.
Its not often that a fake FG gets knocked in the air and then lands in a linemans hands, leading to a real FG (which would have been a 3 points VT needed to win in regulation) or that a TD gets called a TD and then gets overturned due to some shaky replay call (no indisputable evidence). Or that a team gets outgained as badly as Michigan did and still wins.
Recalling this just ruined my morning, DAMNIT!
I totally forgot about that fake FG play. They also scored on a 3rd and long up for grabs throw. We were in the red zone 6 times and got 1 TD. There was one of those infamous roughing the punter free first downs resulting in a score. And so much more.
We gift wrapped that game for them.
Didn't think I could be more pissed about that game; then I remembered David Wilson's breakaway run AWAY from the endzone.
Oh yeah. This game gets worse and worse the more I remember. It was erased from my memory for a reason.
Why would that be Beamer's coaching? How often during a game in college football does the head coach make a call that affects the outcome of a game?? Unless that head coach is the offensive or defensive coordinator that is left out of their hands. Head coaches are involved in planning before a game and then with changes at the half but for the majority of the time are not as involved with in game changes!
" I got an idea. Lets run a fake punt at mid-field with a WR as the punter in a tie game with our D playing lights out. Instead of pinning them deep lets run the risk of putting them at midfield"
THAT WAS ALL FRANK BABY. NOONE ELSE. IT CHANGED THE GAME AND WAS A TERRIBLE CALL. Especially since he called a time out to do it, which was a huge red flag that something might be up. DAMN. No I feel even worse about the Sugar Bowl, this is self loathing at this point.
Take it easy there, Chuck. Have another shot of wild turkey on me.
Exactly that. Thanks Blackout.
The offense definitely looked rusty in that game (of course O'Cainspring was there).
Yeah, that entire year the offense looked rusty every game, so the Sugar Bowl shouldn't be any different.
I'm sorry, but when even Michigan fans (and a couple players) are like "I have no idea how we won that game. You guys owned us up and down the field." I chalk that up to shit luck, not terrible coaching, or an ill-prepared team.
We owned them up and down the field...until we got to the RZ and stopped doing what was working (passing) to get to the RZ in favor of being conservative and playing for the FG attempt. It was terrible coaching exemplified. With the way we were moving the ball on them, the game never should have been close enough for "luck" to be a factor.
That was also last year. It's a lot easier to move the field than it is in the red zone, particularly with the scheme we were running. If I recall that game correctly, we not only had a TD pass get overturned, we had a TD pass in the RZ get called back for holding, and a couple where LT overthrew the receiver that was wide open. We settled for field goals, and yes, some of that is coaching, but a missed sure fire field goal, or a TD catch that was overturned, that's luck, plain and simple. I'm also, maybe it's a different game I'm thinking of, thinking that one of their TDs was our defender flat out FALLING DOWN on the field and allowing their receiver to be wide freaking open. That's not coaching, that's just a trip that has a terrible consequence.
We definitely looked rusty early on in that game. UCLA came to play and winning that game was important to them. It made me wonder if Beamer has shifted back to the bowl game is a reward mentality. He got away from that way of thinking after losing to Georgia and then Kansas (both games we should have won). Starting with Cincinnati, bowl games became business trips. Anybody hear any jet ski stories from El Paso?
Is there water in El Paso? More likely to hear a rock climbing accident.
Interesting and very excellent point. Is there any indication of that in his latest book?
Let's also not forget that we couldn't even score from the 10 yard line after they muffed the punt, that's tough to watch.
I think we were evenly matched with UCLA. Logan hit Cline with maybe his best pass of the season and then it went downhill from there. I really think Lefty loves to use the TE over the middle of the field/ attack the seams with these huge TE's. If cline doesn't go down I think we have a lot of success with those throws all game and then it opens everything else up. Logan going down was huge and it really showed that even though Leal was taking backup snaps that he is not anything close to LT3. Honestly I think #HokieNation as a whole was in a state of comatose as we saw Logan lie motionless on the field.
After that we never were able to get back, you never know what watching that live by the players does to them. To see their leader dish out a huge run then be clocked by an illegal hit. I bet it puts things into perspective and I'm sure even the coaches were like uhhhh facckkk what do we do now. Hence the snaps under center.
I don't think you can make a sweeping generalization on this topic. Over the past few years: we prepared well and executed solid game plans in '08 and '09. I'd say we didn't prepare well in '07 and '13. We didn't gameday coach well (or had a bad game plan) in '06 and '11. And we were simply outclassed in '10.
I don't think this is a sweep gen. Plus, bad/poor coaching game decisions are more than likely attributed to by...poor prep.
Sure, isn't the real question how we keep finding ways to lose Bowl games? We go to enough of them, you'd think we'd be better at winning them by now.
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
There aren't a whole lot of teams with winning records in bowl games/against elite teams. That's the downside of making it to really good bowls. You play really good teams. Every game is its own unique animal, completely different team, completely different opponent, everything. You really can't generalize and say we should win more cause we're in more. Heck, Peyton Manning has a losing record in the playoffs. It's a fact: you lose more against very good teams.
Sure, but you would think we would win more of our share than we have, or at least I would. What's the last really good team we have beaten in a bowl? It was Texas almost 20 years ago.
When you're going to this many bowls, you should have your share of signature wins, as well. We don't seem to do that. We pretty much find a way to lose against good teams, and I think that's unfortunate. You think that's OK, and we have different opinions on this, that's cool.
the "headdesk" stuff strikes me as rude.
We found a way to lose against Georgia, Kansas and Michigan for sure. I blame those on coaching - both gameday and prep. Stanford was simply a better team and outclassed us. UC, Rutgers and Tennessee are games we should have won, and did.
That leaves UCLA, which to me is the anomaly. On paper UCLA was the better team, but not THAT much better. We just seemed more disinterested as the game wore on. And the D especially looked unprepared - which to me is the core of the anomaly. The O was the issue in Georgia, Kansas and Michigan losses.
I kind of like the way you say this, because I think is summarizes the bowl-related frustration pretty well. Our bowl performance is kind of like our usual regular season performances: We generally beat who we're supposed to, we generally lose the games we're supposed to. When it comes to bucking the trends, we lose to teams we're not supposed to far more often than we beat teams we're not supposed to.
And it's that last element that makes bowl games so fun an exiting - beating someone you're not supposed to. We haven't really done that since...1995? One or two more of those, and the "bowl scuttlebut" isn't even a dicussion topic.
I feel the temptation to slam my head against my desk repeatedly because I think a good deal of the fanbase has unrealistic expectations and are, honestly, generally ignorant. People are upset that we go to lots of bowl games and don't win a lot of them. Fact of the matter is, we do. Beamer is just under .500 in bowls (9-12 after Monday) which is pretty darn good considering we've gone to some very good bowls and played some very good teams over the years. We're not at the level, as a program, where we can go into a BCS game and just expect to win. There are only a handful of such programs in the country. Complain all you want about a lack of "signature" wins, but we've been to some good bowls and, unlike GT for example, we do not have a 7-game losing streak in said bowls.
Slam your head all you want. There are ALWAYS going to be fans whom you (and a good number of others on here) label (and mislabel) as "ignorant", "spoiled", etc. But they are still fans and they are not going away. And, what's more, the athletic department knows they need to be appeased to. If anything, they are gonna increase in number. I sincerely doubt that continually bashing them is the most effective way to educate them OR make them go away.
Upsets happen in college football all the time. With the number of bowl games we go to, you'd think we'd have more than one in our favor in the last 20 years. Certainly a relative equal number to the times we have been upset, but it isn't even close.
Well, most of us would. You wouldn't, and that's OK too. I just think you need more than one every 20 years to keep a fan base engaged. 20 years is a long time, and expecting a little more doesn't strike me as "spoiled" "ignorant" or any of the other flippant missives people seem all to ready to hurl at fellow fans.
Wow the downvotes are fierce on here.... I gotcha though