Jack Hollifield Moving to OL?

Bit of interesting news...sounds like Hollifield is moving to OL.

Given this is a legacy recruit that the staff has been recruited for several years and he's been on campus for less than a semester, this is a little odd but I trust Vice and Shibest to make the best decision for him.

@French, what are you thinking here based on his HS film? 6-3 245lbs doesn't seem like the starting point for future OT but what do I know. If he's anything like his brother, I know he won't have trouble putting on 60 lbs over the next couple of years.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

This is a surprise to me. Unless he is much longer than 6-3 and still growing, I don't know how his frame could support the weight. He looked like a pretty physically mature kid, similar to a bigger version of Gallo. This is... odd.

Five star get after it 100 percent Juice Key-Playing. MAN

OL or TE? Still he would be a small TE.

Seriously? Seems like a waste of athleticism. Would make more sense on DL but there's a logjam at end. Maybe the OL is a temporary move for depth? Weird

There is a log jam at DE? Bodies or contributors?

Ahead of Hollifield if he moved? Right now at least 7, after summer probably 8 or 9.

So bodies... got it. I was looking for people that are proven and could possibly hold UNC under 400 yards rushing.

You are the Colin Robinson of this board.

Gobble Till You Wobble

Not gonna lie, this comment just cracked me up

Such a great show, and a well used reference

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Myabe he can finish the bennys challenge to add on the weight!

Danny is always open

What is the source of this information?

I haven't seen anything about this besides the OP. I guess we will see as information on spring practice continues to trickle out like a man's pee stream with a prostate the size of a grapefruit.

Five star get after it 100 percent Juice Key-Playing. MAN

Apparently spring practice has already ended. Lol who knew?

....that's a new expression I've not heard before

Classic SWVA πŸ˜…πŸ€£

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

I had a conversation with a friend of mine who's as plugged in as an outsider can be, he relayed it to me.

I can confirm as well

Tears in my eyes
Chasing Ponce de Leon's phantoms
So filled with hope
I can taste mythical fountains
False hope, perhaps
But the truth never got in my way
Before now, feel the sting
Feeling time bearing down

Because they read the info elsewhere and then you pass it along, or because they are actually "plugged in"?

I'm semi pluggedπŸ˜‚

Tears in my eyes
Chasing Ponce de Leon's phantoms
So filled with hope
I can taste mythical fountains
False hope, perhaps
But the truth never got in my way
Before now, feel the sting
Feeling time bearing down

Gross

I just sit on my couch and b*tch. - HokieChemE2016

Maybe he's just practicing with OL to understand the position and techniques (make him a better blocking TE).

We put the K in Kwality

I could see him as a good interior lineman - undersized guys like Jason Kelce have made it big, the question is does he have the athleticism and footwork to be a strong interior guy. I don't want to be rude because I love Dax and I think Jack has a lot of talent - but Dax hasn't exactly shown a ton of speed.

I wanted to include Jason Kelce's draft spider chart because his profile is similar to Jack's. If Jack can gain 35-40 pounds in two years (he's listed at 243 on the VT roster), and can keep a sub 5 forty times this could be a coup for us and his own development.

Last thing I wanted to add, was that Dax and Jack's dad seems like a smart dude when it comes to his kids athletic futures, I doubt they'd make this decision without getting him on board.

6' 3" 285 won't get you to the next level as an OL. Not even sure that gets you on the field at the collegiate level, at least on a consistent basis.

I did like NitWhitt's thought of practicing with the OL to help develop his technique as a TE. Of course, maybe he should be practicing with the WRs to develop his pass receiving skills. /s

We may need a new quarterback too (only slightly /s)

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

Jason Kelce, the comp I provided, is 6'3" and 295 pounds - and I just looked this up, he started his career at Cincy as a walk-on running back. I'm not saying he has to gain all that weight overnight but hasn't Dax given numerous quotes about how hard it is for him to make weight? Can we maybe assume that Jack is similar?

Again, I don't think this was an obvious decision but I actually think that interior line play is where you could get away with being "undersized" so long as you have the hands and feet down. Given a couple of years' time, this could pay off well. Plus, besides Jordan and Hoffman - who do we have coming down the pipeline who can play center?

I was wondering about center myself.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

I think the biggest question to me is how are his feet? Strength and mass can be added, but its rare for a guy to pack on a ton of weight and get quicker too.

While all that is possible. However, this type of Recruiting is why we continue to have depth issues.

Hokie Love!

I respectfully disagree because he's coming in at a relative position of strength (as either a tight end or linebacker). At TE we have Mitchell, Gallo, Deuiliis, Gibble, Pene, and at least one already signed for 2022. At LB just currently coming in we have Etute, Johnson, Keller, Lawson, the McDonald Twins, in addition to the guys already there (and I think that includes safety convert Lakeem Rudolph).

We can only play so many people at those spots so seeing if he play OL isn't necessarily a recruiting failing in my opinion. If anything I think depth problem is the lack of OL and DL prospects that might have necessitated this move - but even we have a couple more people coming who this summer.

If anything I think depth problem is the lack of OL and DL prospects that might have necessitated this move

Wouldn't be much of a depth issue if we didn't have multiple blue chippers leave the team. VV tends to get the benefit of the doubt for me, but it sure would be nice to hang onto the good ones we already have

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

With the growing popularity of the transfer portal, coaches not only have to recruit players out of HS and the portal, but they need to keep recruiting their current players in order to avoid losing them. I think that last part has really kicked up a few notches in the last few years with the increasing popularity of the portal.

You shouldn't have to keep recruiting your starting offensive line. There isn't another sales guy trying to poach him from you. The athlete does this all by himself because he is unhappy.

If you aren't capable of recognizing this and it comes as a "shock" what does that say about our staff ? 1 maybe 2 is a coincidence ours is a trend.

It is an internal issue that needs to be corrected.

But in today's world you do. 50 years ago people stayed at jobs for 40 years. There wasn't a ton of incentives to leave. Fast forward and people job hop all the time and companies have started giving wild perks to keep "recruiting" them to stay. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that is the reality of college football.

Yep. I find that lack of loyalty goes both ways. Many companies have little-to-no loyalty to their employees and many employees have little-to-no loyalty to their firms, and this leads to a negative feedback loop that makes it get worse and worse. I am a massive throwback in that I spent 6+ years in graduate school, then 10+ years at 1 company and am now approaching 12 years at my second one. There are very few people who last as long as I have.

Part of that is that I have been fortunate that both firms are, for the most part, pretty good to work for. And the work is interesting and they do invest in training and ... Not all companies do that. My wife's one certainly does not. But part is that I reciprocate with loyalty in return. Very few stick through rough patches that are going to come up and a lot jump at modest benefits - real or perceived.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

22 years at the first firm, 4 years with the company that bought my first firm. Both companies have treated me well, arranged additional education when required, and rewarded my loyalty with nice raises.

I don't understand the job hoppers especially when they need to move constantly.

Well, an entry-level job from 1999 and 2021 are two very different things for starters. I recently saw a job posting for an entry-level staff position at a university that required a bachelor's, 3 years experience, and highly implied the need for a master's - and that job started at $27k a year. No thank you.

Exactly. You need a bachelors and in a lot of instances a graduate degree for an entry-level job these days, plus 3-5 years of experience. You need the experience to get the job, but how do you get experience without having a job? Go wherever gives you the best pay and benefits relative to your cost of living.

It so absurd when people post "entry-level" jobs that require several years of experience. I post the entry-level position for my office on the local university websites and I wrote the job description. It is phrased so that the job is for current university students expected to graduate by [insert whenever the next graduation period is] or for recent graduates with 0-2 years of work experience. And that 0-2 years would be someone who has worked in areas unrelated to what we do. If they have 2 years of work experience in the field, then they should be applying for the next position up the chain.

Glad to say that both my current and prior company take people right out of school and are willing to train them up. But it is then frustrating when people are there 2 or 3 years and are poached by the firms that don't invest in training but find it easier to just poach people by paying more after we have trained them. Happens all the time. And we have, sadly, started drifting in that direction.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

Do y'all not try and match the offers to retain talent?

Usually a bad idea to make counter-offers. Saw some stats a while back where the percent of people who are trying to leave and get a job that (1) accept a counter offer to stay and (2) are still there a year later or 6 months later is really low. If someone is looking and gets an offer that is higher than the structure your firm has, counter offers - even if you meet or exceed the one they got to leave and they stay on - rarely work out long-term.

Sorry, this was a while back and I don't remember the details. Can try and dig around for them. But the consensus is that it is usually not worth pursuing unless the person is absolutely essential. And almost no individual is absolutely essential.

EDIT: Here is the link and it has others within it. Key numbers - 80% of people who accept a counteroffer are gone within 6 months and 90% are gone within a year. Making a counteroffer is normally a waste of time and not worth doing. I don't make those decisions, but am not aware of any that either company ever made.

https://www.changerecruitmentgroup.com/knowledge-centre/why-you-should-a...

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

Ive seen people pull the "give me what I want or Im leaving" card and typically expect those people tk be gone soon. The threat of leaving burns so many bridges and lets the company know they should probably focus ln developing others.

Danny is always open

Do those companies not make the employees sign contracts? If I pulled that at my current job (matching an offer), I'd have to sign a 2 year retention or I'd pay the salary hike back.

I'd say this mostly happens in at-will states / industries. The company can fire the employee at any time, the employee can resign at any time. A recent pay action has no legally binding effect on that.

If an employee was considering leaving, and the employer offered a raise with that kind of string attached, I wouldn't expect many to choose to stay.

Why stay at a place that will only give you a cost of living raise at best most years despite how good you are at your job? You go where the money is until you make enough to be comfortable and then you can decide to stay a while if you enjoy the work.

Not everyone gets such a great job for their first job. I try to stick somewhere at least 4 or 5 years but it pays to move around if you live in an area that has options. I just got a 3% raise but I know if I were to go on the job market I could probably find something 10% more than I am making now. I wouldn't recommend doing that every year because then your resume looks bad but nothing wrong with changing jobs every few years if you can find something better.

It can catch up to you. As a supervisor, I am not turned off by an applicant bouncing around several entry level jobs. After that, I am looking for some consistency in a position or obvious promotions (not just raises). Otherwise, I know I am hiring a temp. When it takes 4 months to complete a hire and six months to train, I do not want to replace employees every two or three years.

It can also be a turnoff if an applicant was at one place for a really long time with no promotions.

Of course this is why we interview and check references. There can always be logical reasons for things that may look like red flags on a resume.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

You do realize that you are the exception rather than the rule, right?

So am I. Started working for my firm freshman summer 1987. Still here after 34 years.

My wife takes the kids and leaves the house while I watch my Hokie games.........nuff said

True. But I when I also review resumes for prospective employees and see that they change jobs every 2-3 years I suspect a couple of things.
A) Wanderlust, they aren't happy anywhere.
B) They are just looking for a raise and moving on.
C) They actually aren't any good at their job and 2-3 years is enough for that to be exposed.

When hiring, I want an employee who is going to be happy to stay and work. That can be trained and promoted. I try to get at least one tech intern every year. A lot of times they are trained and move on when they graduate, but some stay with the company.

I don't know what industry you work for but it doesn't seem like a tech company in any of the population centers. I have had to change companies 4 times in my 15 year career so far. The first I left 6 months before mass layoffs, the 2nd I left because the company was hemorrhaging money (my manager was actually let go the day I left) and the 3rd because a few months before the contract was up. This kind of churn has nothing to do with any of the 3 reasons you listed. Your experience is rather sheltered in general. A 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey found that people change jobs an average of 12 times over their lifetime.

The average person never reaches upper management either. Ideally, at least a few changes are promotions.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Yes, very true. Some movement is fine, but when you get someone (actual resume I got) who has been out of school for 7 years, is on their 5th job, and is actively looking for a 6th, why would I even consider this person? Maybe they are great (unlikely) but even if they are, they will be gone in a year anyway. If you are in a big company with thousands of employees, maybe you can do that. But if your office ranges from a low of 4 to a high of about 25, a person leaving is a significant issue. We do not have an HR department and all of us involved in reviewing and hiring do it in addition to regular duties. We try to find people who will stay.

1 firm in 7 years = great
2 firms in 7 years = fine
3 firms in 7 years = red flag; would not put them immediately in the no pile, but will ask about it in the interview
4 firms in 7 years = won't even consider, barring something extreme like they are a military spouse and have had to move around with their husband/wife but now their significant other is leaving the military and they are settling down in the area. That would be understandable. But they need to say that in the cover letter so we know that.
He was 5 firms in 7 years.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

That's sad to hear. I'm on my 4th job since graduating college:

  • first job I left to go grad school which I was very open about when I was hired (and something that was encouraged since there was not room for advancement with a graduate degree).
  • second job was temporary (it was a political campaign job so there was a clear end-date)
  • third job was a temp position I did to pay to for living expenses in grad school
  • and I'm in my fourth and current position.

This also doesn't include the fact that I took a year and a half gap to go home and help with family stuff while my dad dealt with and ultimately died from cancer. I get why you might be concerned by someone's resume, but unless you're at one of the big consulting firms with strict hiring rules it sucks that you wouldn't give someone a chance to explain themselves.

Sounds like your fourth job is really your first in terms of post graduation

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

It is and isn't since I took a lot of breaks, and it's a hard to explain in cover letter or resume. Then to graduate mid pandemic, also not great.

I'm not worried, but I've worked in hiring before at two of those jobs and given everything I've been through, it would be hard for me to say anyone is an automatic no. I'd at least try to give them a phone call first.

I agree with Frosty's dad but your resume would not concern me. You would have to butcher the application to hide the logic behind those moves. It's the 35 year old with 8 jobs since graduating that would get put to the bottom of the list. And even then, there may be valid reasons that could be explained in a cover letter.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Temp positions or part time jobs while a student don't count. I'm talking about real, full time jobs in the profession we are in after graduating school. This was someone who had worked 5 different places in the field we are in and is actively trying to leave for a 6th to be a senior person here. They will be gone in a year*.

Someone who works 1 job in high school, 2 jobs during college (1 in the dining hall at school and 1 at home over the summers) then has 1 job while in grad school has not hopped from any of those jobs. And working while in school is one of the things that I actually value greatly.

* And even those people that have had to move around do have a chance to explain that in their cover letter. If they are the military spose or something like that and are now set in one place, they need to know to say that in the cover letter and I'll understand. If you get 70 applications to a position that you hope to hire 2 people for, you cannot interview 70. Why I really encourage people to use the career services if their alma mater has them. Coaching how to write cover letters and resumes as well as interview can be huge. I remember getting plenty of interviews but 0 offers until I went in for interview coaching. Got 2 offers in (I think) the next 3 interviews after that.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

No offense, but how old are you? I hire 20 people a year and job hopping is an asset not a liability to me. I want people with different viewpoints who have worked with many different tech stacks. The job world is changing and people use it to their advantage. I've doubled my salary in 3 years because of it.

We want people who will stick around. Different people and different firms want different things. You mentioned hiring 20 per year. You are obviously at a much bigger place and people coming and going is probably not going to disrupt things anywhere near as much than if the entire office is 20 people and you hire 2 a year. People are welcome to job hop every year or two, and in some firms or industries, they may value that. But I don't want them. It's not an asset to me to have to replace people every year.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

You know, we should probably start a new thread with advice or suggestions for job seekers. I remember you posted the job board one and we - plus a few others here - could probably do some useful things.

One thing that will stand out is that different companies have different cultures. Just like you and I see value in different traits. Why is can be so valuable to understand what a firm wants and know people on the inside. I remember once when someone and I were both on the same group reviewing resumes and she and I took the exact opposite view on someone. I this case, I was supporting him and she was saying all he did was work at the same place throughout school and did not get broader experiences. I said he is loyal, sticks around, and is obviously good at what he does since the place wanted him back every year.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

Both companies have treated me well, arranged additional education when required, and rewarded my loyalty with nice raises.

People wouldn't job hop if they could get big raises and new opportunities at their current company. Most companies don't offer those things to existing employees.

Twitter me

I work in contracting, and the sad truth of the matter is that companies are more willing to pay for new talent than they are to keep good people in house. You see some terrible people brought in at the top of pay bands so you can fill seats, but good people who have been there awhile fall behind in comp. I can see where the frustration comes from.

So what do you think should have been done to keep Hudson and Nester on board?

Clearly fire Vice.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

/S

There were rumors that there was friction with Hoffman which lead to them leaving, IF that was truly the case that needed to be identified by coaches and nipped in the bud, even if that meant removing Hoffman from the team

VT '17

This might be against guidelines but based on how Hoffman plays and some of the stuff I've seen on social media he seems like he could be difficult to get along with in general, somewhat of a bully.

Well it certainly shows on the field when he gets bone-head penalties at poor times...(I still think he's a fantastic lineman)

I always call a T.O. before a field goal.

Nester should have been kept at all costs. We seem to win more games with kids that also had Ohio State/big time offers- real offers. It's uncanny. That kid can play, and would have been a beast moving forward. We will regret that one- as early as this fall.

100%. A good coach/leader/boss can spot when their star pupil is unhappy. Whatever needed to be done to keep him should have been done.

Like I said before both of those guys leaving is not a coincidence.

Unpopular opinion- I thought Hudson was a better player than Nester.

Five star get after it 100 percent Juice Key-Playing. MAN

I think Nester and Hudson is better than Hoffman and Jordan Β―\_(ツ)_/Β―

It probably would've been Nester Hudson and Jordan too. We're abysmally thin at the position. Really should've tried to convince Tyrell Smith and Austin Cannon to use their extra year as well.

Heard Tyrell is coming back

He's not on the roster right now but that would be amazing for depth

100%. OL is the one position group that could negate any of the gains made by the rest of the team. FSU's program went to shit for 5 years and counting mainly because of O Line depth Jimbo's final year. We're now thinner than they were that offseason.

Even if Parker Clements and Kaden Moore are as good or better than people say, 3 injuries still pretty much ends the year for us on offense.

That 2018 FSU offensive line was unbelievable. Not sure I have seen something like that at a P5 school in awhile. I am pretty sure their LT after Landon Dickerson went down did not start for his high school football team.

Based on the discussion above we only gave a 3% raise and they wanted 10% .... so pay them more?

I would guess that would be a really interesting conversation at their annual review. I would ask them why they feel that they deserve that raise and what additional they are bringing to the team this year to earn it?

Whaaaaaat??πŸ˜‘

Hokie Love!

This sounds like Alton Smith.
Related to hokie legacy, but moved to OL...

one of the nicest dudes you could ever meet

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Can confirm

It's Time to go to Work

Haven't had the pleasure. Maybe one day