Is it just a lack of talent or coaching issues? I'm currently in my senior year at Virginia Tech and the first VT game I ever watched was in my pritchard dorm room with all my hall packed into my room as we took on Boise State. I instantly got hooked to Virginia Tech football as our game was in the national spotlight and still to do this day the most intense VT game i've ever seen (only been watching tech football for 4 years). We had so many studs on our team and we had a never give up mentality after a miserable 1st quarter to Boise facing adversity. Now I look at our team and feel like if we're down in a game there is a 95% chance were going to lose. No fighting mentality amongst the players. And I watch all the star talent FSU and Clemson have along with Miami finally off clean getting ready to bring in the #3 recruiting class as I get even more worried. Are we descending to irrelevance? Does the team need a complete coaching overhaul or am I just overreacting?
What has happened?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
And let's not forget we already DID have a coaching overhaul.
Give the new coaches time to put THEIR players into their system. We gotta let what was old wash through first before we make a decision. There will rarely if ever be an immediate turnaround of a team. Sometimes it's just not in the cards... you're like me and jumped into tech football and got comfortable with winning. Time to eat dirt for a little bit before things get better, just be patient and let the new guys get the players in they need.
Please see one of the other 8,000 threads on this topic.
To your questions:
It has been a lack of due to a number of facets related to coaching issues. We didn't have much of an offensive staff for a long time (read: Beamer is loyal to guys, which is overall a good thing but occasionally produces duds), and, as a result, we couldn't recruit effectively and couldn't develop the players we ended up bringing in. So it was a little of both, but the core came from coaching. We have a new offensive staff, so give it some time. A few years is required to get the new recruiting philosophy started and show results. The freshmen coming in will see the results during their VT tenures.
We are not descending into irrelevance. We've had a few years that were sub-par by VT standards, due to the answer above.
The team does not need a complete coaching overhaul. The defensive staff is fine, and we should all hope it remains intact for as long as possible. The offensive staff is new and needs another year or two to produce the results we'd like to see, which I believe is in progress. The special teams talent utilization/coaching may need more attention. I'll wait until after next year to determine whether this area needs an overhaul or not.
Sorry for the snark, but if you've been watching football for 4 years, how are you sure you want Vick back?
Fantastic, well thought out post, HOAT. Turkey leg for a calm and well-reasoned response.
All I can think to add is this:
Since getting to VT i've been following real closely since and have gone back and watched all of the old games available on Youtube. Mike Vick was just a highlight reel and I wish I could of been here when he took us to the NC. I don't know anything about off field issues with Vick if there were any haha
Ehh..... hey look, what's that over there?
Just so you know, iwvb, I'm just having fun here. No offense intended. Turkey leg for being a passionate fan.
But if you take techhokie13's advice and look around the forum, you are at the tail-end of a long string of similar posts, and I've decided to laugh instead of rip my hair out over this season.
I think if you look at the season objectively, take into account what HOAT said, with all the injuries, new coaches, new systems... you'll come away impressed that we did as well as we did this year, and maybe just find some hope for the next couple years.
Again, no offense. Just having fun today.
Interesting perspective. You think of the Boise game as an example of resilience and tenacity, yet those who have been fans for much longer think of the Boise game as another example of succumbing to the moment. Tech came out unprepared in another high-profile game, and promptly shit the bed in the first quarter. Then we failed again to perform fundamental tasks to put the game away after we took the lead. That game displayed everything that has been wrong with the program for the last few years and none of the killer instinct/toughness that we saw in the 90's. And did you mention Miami as being something to worry about?...have you ever watched them (the poster child for lack of toughness) or do you work for ESPN?
If by the 90s you mean the early 2000s then you're right
Excluding 97, 1995-2000 and 2004 & 2005...so mostly the late 90's. Hell, even some of the later Dooley teams had incredible toughness and work ethic
Agree. I would also say that Boise was the most visible game whereby I started seeing VT being used, and failing miserably, as a litmus test for other teams, and by journalists and TV personalities. Stanford that same year as Boise. Clemson beat us, they arrived. Duke this year. Kansas before. East Carolina in 2008.
Every one of those games were deemed stepping stone games for the other team and we were the stone. I really hated it, but Boise was the big one. They said it for like 2 months leading up to the season and then all season kept saying it as Boise made it's run.
You (iwantMikeVickback) were at VT during some exciting 10 win seasons but all frustrating for the wrong reasons. We kept losing to the wrong teams. Kept showing we haven't reached the top. But I agree with Horse. What you see now is a course correction and I honestly haven't been as excited for VT football in a long time. 2014 may again be a tough year as I think 90% of the starting players will be between Redshirt-Freshman and Redshirt-Soph. But 2015 and 2016 should both be incredibly fun to watch. Hopefully it just keeps building from then on.
2014 should be better.
Eh... god I hope so
I stopped reading at "the first VT game I ever watched was against Boise State", not because that means he doesn't understand the nature of building a program and down cycles, but because that feels like yesterday and it made me feel older than the Sphinx.
..if it makes you feel any better my gf went to her first football game in 1990
I've been following Hokie football since the mid nineties. All these damn whippersnappers.
damn, I'm mid nineties. When did I stop being the whippersnapper? *sigh*
On the plus side we can now talk to everyone like this
Yeah, I always kinda figured I was a young VT fan. Then people get on here talking about how they've been fans since the Glennon era as if that was ancient history. Then suddenly I'm an old fogey.
Also all these damn kids want to see the spread.
I want to see five fat guys, A running back, a quarterback, and then everything else tight ends. And since that's too many guys on the line of scrimage, two of those tight ends get to be wing backs. and maybe one of those wing backs splits out wide as a receiver. And maybe one of them comes back and is a blocking back, or also splits out as a wide receiver.
Damn kids.
Dooleyball!
The spread is the worst.
anyone who resists the present is unlikely to live in it... get over the 3 yards and a cloud of dust already. There's only two teams that do this to any success (alabama & stanford) unless you'd like to include the B1G. It's ineffective because your opponent is guaranteed to score 21pts...just on offense.
"Get over the three yards and a cloud of dust already."
Sorry boss. These offenses represent the past. Every element of the running game in a spread system comes from offenses considered to be antiquated. The Clemson/Ohio State/Auburn versions feature a great deal of Single Wing and Wing-T principles (note, the last team to win a national championship running single wing were the 1951 Volunteers. Meanwhile, the Baylor/Oregon etc. version of the spread running game is the splitback veer that Houston perfected in the 70's, but from a spread formation. The passing concepts stem from Sid Gillman and Don Coryell's "force the defense to defend the entire field" theories from the 50's and 60's. The only innovations are the screen concept triple options coupled with the alignment of receivers closer to the boundary. The passing game systems are much less complicated than when college powers tried to emulate the pro-style Bill Walsh systems in the 90's.
Defenses are adjusting personnel and recruiting to defend the spread, and therefore are getting smaller and quicker. As result, schools that can execute power football against smaller defenses will have a huge advantage because it is a matchup problem AND because it is so rare these days that it serves as a curveball for defensive coordinators.
The time will come folks. The veer and triple option had its day in the 70's, and the Miami 4-3 almost single-handedly ended that era. Everybody runs the spread now, and with each passing year it will become easier and easier to defend. The team that can innovate with Stanford's attention to detail and ADD the elite level of athleticism found in the southeast will be the next dominant program. Mark my words.
I think the important thing really is to just pick a system, recruit to it, and perfect the details of it. Plenty of teams run the spread that have lousy offenses, and same with the power offenses. If you have the talent to run the scheme, and you execute it properly and with attention to detail, you will have success regardless of what that scheme is.
At least, that's my opinion.
haha... 1 QB and 10 TE's? Yah pretty sure that's what Stanford kicked our ass with
You are still a whippersnapper.
I am one at heart.
I want to see power running and a crushing defense. None of this spread stuff, no trick plays. You blow the opponent off the line, you run it down their throats, and you grind them into submission. And on defense you punch them in the mouth and make them wish they could punt on first down.
Early to mid 90s here as well.
A young fan has to start somewhere if he became a fan of VT after a loss like that then Here's to many more seasons
I've been around since the Metro (irony?) conference... I get a discount on coffee on Wednesdays, right?
Have you ever read anything g on this site?
Deshazo was the first VT I saw play live. I hate the spread too. Anymore, I will actually watch any game where a team is running a power I formation and imagine that it isV t running it like the good ol days! I know I am sick
No offense to the older guys on the team, but we are about to graduate some of the worst recruiting classes in recent memory. 2008, 2010, and 2011 were forgettable when it comes to recruiting, which is why it should come as no surprise that the team that those years produced is sub-par. Give it another years or so and you'll really start to notice an increase in talent.
The 2008 class had a few studs with Ryan Williams, Jarrett Boykin, Antoine Hopkins and Bruce Taylor
2010 is really where it started to go downhill.
Perhaps a bit too early to judge, but the 2012 class looks to be underwhelming - which would mean 3 straight below VT standard classes.
The 2013 & 2014 groups appear be a step in the right direction.
Season summary (simplified): I'll leave out the hows and whys and focus on results (scores) from 2013.
There were four games that stand out where the either the offense or defense significantly over/under performed leading to a win when we were the underdog or a loss when favored. In each game the other side of the ball held up their end.
Wins - GT-Defense held them 2 TDs under projection. Miami-Offense scored 3 TDs more. (note: all scoring was lumped under offense).
Losses - Duke-Offense underperformed by 2+TDs. MD-D let them score 2+TDs more than expected (all scoring against lumped under defense).
There were four games where one side of the ball under performed but the other over performed to almost compensate.
Three wins; ECU: O-D+, Pitt: O-D+, VA: O-D+. (offense under performed in eight games but improved in the last third of the season)
One loss; BC: O+D-.
In all there were eight games where at one side of the ball did not play to expectations (with scoring results only). To me this points out major inconsistency. Everyone was not showing up every week. That is something the coaches can work on.
There is another team is on scholarship as well. Individual match ups and style of play make games. Some of those outcomes were dictated in part by teams that the Hokies didn't match up well with.