Well, the shoe has dropped. Frank Beamer announced today that Trey Edmunds will be redshirt and won't dress the rest of the season.
I was very vocal prior to the season that Edmunds is an elite talent at linebacker, yet for reasons I still don't fully understand, the lack of experience at tailback caused Edmunds and the staff to put Edmunds at running back. It was a absurd decision. The staff clearly saw that Holmes and Coleman were going to be 1 and 1a, and both have four years of eligibility. When you add Chris Mangus, Drew Harris, and Derrick Green's sudden increased interest, running back is a position that is solid for years to come, even if it struggles this year. Meanwhile, the only backer/mike prospect of any "starter" ability is Deon Clarke, and Edmunds looked like a more polished product than Clarke at linebacker coming into camp. After watching the Peay film, Chase Williams looks more like a short term caretaker rather than a long term star. He is also much more of a mike than a backer.
Then, I attended the two scrimmages. In the first, Edmunds gouged the 2nd and 3rd team defensive units. He operated exclusively from the I and ace formations, and ran in between the tackles. He looked polished, exhibiting huge burst, sharp subtle cutting, and the ability to drag tacklers. He got the most work of the backs. In the second scrimmage, he worked with the 2's against the 2's and the 1's. Edmunds didn't get quite as much empty space, and he had two fumbles which I think blinded the coaches from the fact that he was MUCH more dynamic against the #1 defense than any of the starters. He also was outstanding in blitz pickup, so I don't buy that he is a liability in passing downs or doesn't understand the scheme. I honestly think that if you asked any educated football person which tailback has the ability to be a superstar in the ACC, every one would have picked Edmunds. He looked like a man, surrounded by kids.
Nevertheless, it makes sense to go with the four running backs on the dress squad. Scales and Gregory can both play special teams. Holmes looks like he can be a solid workhorse, and Coleman is the one back who can provide big plays. Edmunds would need 20-25+ carries a game to really be effective, and there isn't a scenario short of 3 of the aforementioned backs being hurt that he would get that degree of work.
At the same time, depth is an issue at linebacker with Taylor dinged, Edwards not getting better, and the two deep having a true freshman in Clarke. And, you have a kid who is good enough to be in the two deep on both sides of the ball, who was a top recruit, and who KNOWS that he is better than guys who are playing ahead of him.
I have always been a "best players play" guy, and some of the personnel decisions that Beamer and the staff have made have caused me to grind my teeth. I recall some classic examples, such as Lamont Pegues starting over Shyrone Stith or Jim Davis barely seeing the field until his senior year. More recently, Bruce Taylor was moved all over the scout team (yes, defensive end) and we all know my feelings about the safe/limited upside of some of the recent offensive line starters.
At the same time, decisions not to redshirt David Wilson in 2009 or 2010, Tyrod Taylor in 2007, and perhaps Ryan Malleck last year all have had negative consequences.
I just can't agree with Beamer's decision. Because of it, Edmunds is a year behind in learning linebacker if he changes position. If he stays at running back, we have one of the 3-4 most talented football players on the team who isn't seeing the field, or we have three 4-star caliber running backs/athletes who are angry about playing time, while there are talent-gaps at other positions. Talent gaps killed national championship aspirations of several Hokie teams (defensive line in 2010 being a great example.)
Comments
Other points of frustration:
1) 3rd string right guard/2nd string right tackles (of course, if Painter went down Via would be moved) that have more talent than the left guard not getting a chance to play. Based on his limited snaps last year, 2 scrimmages this year, and the play against Austin Peay, I would go with Wang and Gibson splitting snaps at left guard. You can not tell me it is a huge adjustment from right guard when they have had no problem moving Gibson around (3 positions in the last two years.) Rotate Wang and Gibson the next two games, and the better player should get every snap against UNC and beyond. My lineup for UNC would be:
Becton-Gibson-Miller-Benedict-Painter
And, I am getting to the point where if he could learn to snap better, I'd play Farris over Miller. I am getting sick of Miller not getting push against good nose tackles. Even though they are not big guys, this running back group will be much better in between the tackles instead of outside.
2) JGW and RVD. I get the senior thing, but the coaches are paid to win games first. Coverage depth is a weakness. RVD is better. JGW doesn't take on blocks well. RVD is better. He is learning, but if you didn't know their age, the eye test would tell you after 5-6 snaps that RVD should be starting. And, the first time they play a team with a power running game that targets the whip as the point of focus, JGW will get Wally Pipped. (I apologize for the dated reference.)
3) Running backs. I don't care about the committee approach. I do know that the offense is better when they get work inside. I think that in the first 4 drives (1st 2 of each game discounting the Coleman fumble) Holmes has had 3 carries. Shane Beamer's comments tonight was infuriating. I know all 4 guys work hard and deserve a shot, but the guy who is the best player should be getting most of the work. This team will be better when that happens. Holmes is good enough, and Coleman gives them the big play counter, but Coleman will be even more effective if Holmes has worn them down. Plus, it means less wear and tear on Logan Thomas, who already looks worse for wear.
As you pointed out, Gibson had a great game against Austin Peay, but it was against Austin Peay. He came in fresh late in the game while everyone else was fatigued, and he didn't play on Monday night. Before I'm as bullish as you, I'd like to see him dominate like that against a I-A team.
Farris will never play center unless he can snap better than what he did against Peay. The last sentence doesn't come off sounding too well.
Farris has shown problems at center (likely because he has been getting work at guard spots as well as center.) Based on his work in the spring, I was not high on Farris. He looked top heavy and not particularly athletic. However, the Peay film tells a different tale. The snapping issue aside (and Miller has had some snaps that have messed up the timing of plays as well), Farris got significantly more push up front after he was inserted into the game than Miller was getting against the fresher Peay front.
With Gibson, I appreciate the level of competition and the fact that they were worn down. At the same time, he was dominant against Austin Peay (even if they were tired) and Wang wasn't. Wang's inability to be dominant against such poor competition is a huge red flag, and justification for the discussion about other options. The fact that Newsome suggests Arkema is almost neck and neck with Wang when Arkema had an absolute disaster of a series with the starters in the 1st quarter only confirms that, and based on what I have seen, Gibson is a far superior talent to Arkema.
Bigger, stronger, faster. If they want dominance up front, they have to put their five most dominant blockers on the field and let them make mistakes and learn. We have a mountain of evidence to show that the safety blanket approach doesn't work.
We definitely agree that the best players should play, regardless of class or age. I think that approach yields the best product on the field, and helps with recruiting--see Pete Carrol at USC. I just don't know if Gibson and Farris have done enough on the field to say they're better than the players ahead of them. The coaches have the benefit of being at practice while we don't, so who knows what's happening behind closed doors. At the very least, it's good to know they're progressing, because we'll have to depend on them next season.
Recruiting Promise
I went to Cav's recruiting talk back in the winter, I believe he said they told Edmunds when they recruited him he'd get a shot at tailback. As far as I know, that's why he started there, and not linebacker.
I think you are correct, he had an excellent senior season
at tailback, and they probably not only told him what he may have wanted to hear...but like French said...they may have seen something they really liked.
The coaches have also talked about him playing both ways. Is that possible for those two positions? If so, is it more advantageous to start him at RB or LB?
It's frustrating because we need two of Edmunds. He's the best tailback prospect we currently have (Harris and/or Green may be better) and our best LB prospect. I would have preferred they committed to Edmunds at tailback to start with, saying something like "He's an elite talent, gotta play him" as justification of moving him ahead of Holmes. He would have been a great complement to JCC. But, if he's redshirting, for 2013 the team will likely be better with him at LB and allow Harris and/or Green to push Holmes.
I don't get it
Its very confusing what the future will hold for him then. I mean next year are they really going to work him in at tailback? With Holmes and Coleman getting a whole year of experience in and as many years as Edmunds left, what's the plan? Either he needs to bump one of the backs that plays poorly this year, or he needs to switch over to defense. You make a great point of his need next year on D.
and, Harris comes in, which gives them the power back that they don't have now (sorry Scales4Heisman fans)
Have they explicitly said the redshirt is to save him for RB?
redshirt Wilson?
Are you thinking he would have returned for his Junior season still, albeit a year later, and we would have him now to fill our needs? He probably would not have been a first rounder/early second after 2 years like RMFW.
If their logic is that they should not have redshirted Wilson in 2010 (when they had Williams, Evans, and Oglesby coming back who had all used redshirt years) and used him in a limited role because he was too good to keep off the field, then the same logic should be applied to Edmunds, who potentially can fill a more critical need at linebacker. If the logic is to redshirt Edmunds because he isn't ready to start and that means an extra year of a great talent, then they should have redshirted Wilson. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If Edmunds gets on the field next year, he leaves as a redshirt sophomore or redshirt junior. He is that talented.
DMFW would be at VT this season if he had redshirted. i understand redshirting edmunds but if they intend on keeping him at running back because they think that he'll be THAT good, they need not take any running backs in this recruiting cycle (though green already seems like a stretch). they're wasting schollies. at this point, i'd say that edmunds ever being a LB (exclusively) is doubtful. i'd hope the staff would have enough brains not to let him waste a season working out in a position that he's never gonna play.
definitely a head-scratcher