Well, much hotter than I thought... title is mine.
Anyways, SZD/Steven Godfrey do a regular episode where he summarizes and brain dumps all the hot seat info he gets from agents, ADs, coaches, etc. From the most recent one (VT talk at 23:30):
Another job I want to talk about real fast before we get into one that's open is Virginia Tech... ...It does not help Brent Pry's case at all that Fran Brown had the season he did. Totally honest.
There are there are fast emerging better case studies on how to do this [rebuild a struggling program] quickly and efficiently in the portal era... look, I sat in the guy's office and - I've said this on the show before - where he said it's going to take like it's going to take four years.
So he's 16-20 overall, and he's had one winning season in the ACC. They finished 6-6. Obviously they beat UVA, which you know.
This is a job that, I don't know if it opens this cycle, but if it did, I think it might come with some larger changes in the program.
There is a kind of an existential issue here going on. I don't want to say full blown crisis, but again... ...Pry came in and wanted to rework all of the things that Fuente had done opposite of Beamer, but neither plan is workable in 2024.
I don't know if I said that right, but... ...the idea 3-4 years ago might have been like we need to get back to the Beamer idea of things. That can't exist in the modern game.
Now you're in a Position where... ...you assume to be a power, but there is no proof of concept of any kind of modern success.
I'm not saying it can't happen. Look at Vanderbilt.
But, You know, Vanderbilt eked its way to six and [Vanderbilt was] a completely different situation and setting, but... ...Clark Lee was absolutely DOA going into the season.
Transcript lightly edited for clarity
Comments
I hope this is true - not that I want to get rid of Pry, necessarily, but it would indicate that SOMEONE in the AD is holding people accountable for the results they deliver and change is possible.
Yea... As someone who is emotionally invested in the program, it's validating to hear that there's a sense of urgency and concern around the program.
I didn't listen so I'll defer to your interpretation, but is he implying the VT administration is losing faith in Pry's vision or just that he's starting to doubt it given how succcessful some other coaches were in year 1 this season? The summary reads more like the latter IMO.
I'm not Team Fry Pry right now, but I also don't think if we just give him a few more years that he'll magically learn how to win games.
How much is "learning to win" vs getting a better DC? I've seen a lot of scheming this year on offense for 3 different QBs and several different RBs that I feel like Bowen can really adapt to players and put points on the board. Clemson is the one case where we couldn't really score, but maybe he figures that out, he's seemed to figure it out in a lot of other games.
But why does our D always seem to implode in the second half and especially in the 3rd quarter? Our defense can't be gassed in the 3rd but not the 4th quarter. I looked it up during the UVA game - we're 13th in the ACC in run defense. That's on Marve (and possibly/probably Price). We're 6th in the ACC in pass defense, which I would guess is because of Derek Jones's group.
We're sixth in the acc in pass defense in spite of our secondary play, not because of it. We get a lot of sacks
Aren't sacks counted as run plays (since they count as negative rushing yards)? Or are you suggesting QB rushes related to the sacks causes bad passes that makes our secondary look good? I mean, after seeing Delane some, I can see that, but Strong seems VERY good, and I'm assuming why he's ranked so high as a CB in the draft rankings.
He's saying that our DL is so disruptive that making our secondary look good (as in, QB is rushed so he makes bad decisions)
100%. Our secondary play is ATROCIOUS sometimes and if not for our pass rush we'd be toast. They'll make good plays on one possession and then completely whiff on coverage the next.
By my unpracticed eye, it seemed to be because there was no confidence in the safety play. Thus the other backs were cheating to help and got caught out doing it. The Duke coach spotted it and took advantage early.
Yeah that was kind of my point. Giving Pry a few years because he said that's how much time he needs to "get the program where he needs it" doesn't make sense and isn't any likely to solve the issues we've seen.
Will getting a new DC solve all of the issues? Idk but I'm willing to test the hypothesis that it will help some
I think it would take several years. Year 1 PF (post Fuente) was a dumpster fire, but I incredibly doubt much of anyone could have done better. There's the 10 scholarship running backs everyone points out, but the other is how many players that were on the roster that transferred out that wound up going to G5 or FCS programs that didn't seem to contribute much. That's not a roster we were going to win many games with.
And Pr6 had to rebuild relationships with coaches and start new relationships with kids in the recruiting window. Fuente built relationships with specific kids, but we saw how often that panned out for good recruits (almost never). So Pry couldn't just bring in new recruits the way some programs with big names or existing relationships might be able to. And it's hard to fix an entire roster through the portal for a couple reasons.
ANYWAY, year 1 was a throwaway. Year 2, we could kind of expect to see some progress. I think year 3, there's been enough time between this year and last, to see the defense (at least specific parts) aren't doing well, and are highly subject to 2nd half meltdowns. And our offensive line needs to be better. But Bowen definitely seems to be able to scheme with what he's got. I'm just hoping Pry cares enough about winning to make hard choices about staff.
They got a bit of good news on the O Line front. One of the recruits that had Hokies in final group but committed to Georgia Tech opened their recruitment after GT flipped a lineman from FSU.
He will be visiting this weekend.
GT is going to be a problem in the near future. They have improved their recruiting especially OL.
Brent Key is a good spokesman for that team, mainly cause he can speak firsthand about what it takes to play college there.
I think the offense's problem vs Clemson was that the QB and RB were injured. Now, Bowen and/or Pry made the choice to start Drones, but he and Tuten were clearly struggling. I think the coaches waited too long to replace Drones and, hindsight being 20/20, should probably have started Schlee (who was also banged up) or Pop.
I'm a bit more understanding of 'mistakes' around personnel like this because it's not straight forward - you have the medical team telling you something, the player telling you something, the family asking you something, you have to build a game plan around a player, you have to decide who gets snaps with the starting team, etc.
That is - if Pop is looking fine, but not amazing with/against the 2's in practice, and you see Drones is operating at 75% of his potential, and the doctor says there's 10% risk of re-injury, the family says play him, and the Drones says he feels fine and just needs practice reps to start playing 100% himself again..,. Do you really build your game plan around Pop instead of Drones, give Pop the practice snaps instead of Drones, etc?
It's not as obvious as clock management during the 2 minute drill, or not putting kids with the same number on the field at the same time, for example.
Editorializing here... There are a lot of people in the media who think VT is a great job. There's also a lot of people who think it's a middle of the road P4 job, and a hall of fame coach just capitalized on a specific moment in the ever-shifting college football landscape.
If you believe the latter is true, it means that sustained success at or near the level of the late 90s through the aughts is out of reach for VT. That's a scary conversation for Virginia Tech.
I interpreted the "There is a kind of an existential issue here going on" paragraph as an indicator that VT admin might be confronting those fears.
But there are a lot of others here who are regular SZD listeners. I'm curious if they agree.
I am more of a Fullcast guy, but I dabble in SZD from time-to-time. I agree with 2hokiesin1, to me, Godfrey isn't saying that Pry is really on the hotseat this year, he is saying that the admin may have finally realized that a bigger change may need to happen for success to occur for VT football. Maybe if the stars aligned something happens this season, but the Lea DOA comparison is interesting to me, because that makes it sound like there is some pressure on Pry to make changes and take a step forward next year or there will be consequences.
I do wonder how much of this blurb came from insider info vs his intuition on things. It does feel like there is a lot of complacency within the athletic department and university admin, but Mehul and others that appear to be close to the program have been pretty clear Whit and Sands understand that football is important to the university and results matter. Since the last 3-4 Fuente years I have definitely felt like I'll believe that when I see it and we haven't seen it yet.
Yeah this is where I'm at on Whit. He destroyed any confidence I had in him to do what is necessary when he waited 3 years too long to cut Fuente loose.
He and the admin in general seem to be absolutely allergic to being proactive in their decision making, and instead are reactive to an insane level of fault.
So... I won't believe it until I see it.
This is where I am at the moment. We've been a mostly .500 team for over a decade. And it's not like we've had very stiff competition. The ACC has easily been the weakest power conference for most of the last decade, save Clemson. We had a couple of years where we had the easiest schedule in the P5 and still struggled. Pry has done very little to indicate that he can win at VT. I don't know if it's him or if it's VT, but 3 years in it is very apparent that something about the combo just isn't working. Something needs to change.
Exactly. Don't tell us. Show us.
Both - he's likely getting comments from a bunch of agents, plus Pry and Whit (both of whom he's spoken directly to often over the years) and is using his intuition to roll all that up into cohesive blurb.
I had a question that I posed in an SZD Single Wing (Godfrey solo mailbag type show for those who don't follow / subscribe to SZD) about how to evaluate a staff in a rebuild like at VT given the context of where things were when Fuente started which Godfrey answered a few weeks back.
His take at that time was we would need to be realistic about the scale of what progress would look like and a 1-win improvement year over year would be a reasonable starting place for a yard stick, especially given the poor talent level Pry had coming in. At that time Godfrey felt better about Marve than Bowen and he encouraged me / us to wait on more data, does the offense continue to sputter or do we see improvement? Does the Defense do the same, etc.
The biggest, most immediate caution light that I saw when Pry came in was a brand new coach with a very green staff. That was mitigated by the experienced hand of O-line coach that came in at the time (Joe Rudolph). With Rudolph cutting ties after one year that left barely anyone with a real depth of P4 experience on staff.
Fast forward to the end of the season and we haven't seen an improvement in win total. We continue to see evidence of poor preparation to play. Strength and conditioning is suspect. The offense actually looks pretty good but we still suffer from a lack of talent, i.e. guys are getting open but can't catch a pass that hits them in the hands / numbers.
I don't think Godfrey's take points to an immediate opening at the HC level this year and if you listen to the rest of this episode you can see why factors like the uncertainty in judicial proceedings with the House settlement in particular are going to make all but the most monied programs very hesitant to take on more dead money in buyouts (remember Fuente is still drawing unemployment from VT) but I think we are facing a come to Jesus moment with VT sports and football in particular that is larger than just the turnover of a few staff or even head coaching positions. We are facing a "can this level of football and the investment that it requires in House payments, NIL support and staff salaries commensurate with the level of quality that is necessary to compete be supported in a way that makes the financial math work at all in the next five years, let alone ten," type of crisis.
This is partly a VT problem but it's also an "everyone outside of the top 15 brands" problem.
Ultimately I think our goose was cooked when we missed out on an opportunity to join the SEC back in 2010/2011. And even then look at big ass brands like USCw who made the jump to the most monied and stable conference just so they could flirt with .500.
This is the bleak future of college sports in a line go up, number go up world.
In terms of this season, I was really hoping to see the team improve week to week. I did not see that. Like last season, we had a decent spurt, but did not improve in November- Duke may have been arguably our worst game overall. I know we had injuries, but so does everyone else. At this point, I honestly dismiss any win against UVA. We have beaten them 22 of the last 24 games. We are in their heads like no other. Any win over them I take with a grain of salt at this point. You want the team to improve and play their best football at the end- at any level of football. Bellichicks teams played much better in December than they did in September, etc. Saban's teams played better as the year went on. That is what is most disappointing to me. We got off to a slow start AND we lost 3 of our last 4 games too.
Start slow, finish slow is the worst possible place to be for sure.
I've said many many times to my football buddy that I split season tickets with that we may not be well resourced but being smart doesn't cost anything, and we're not even smart most of the time. Cristobal and Pry are neck and neck for this year's Les Miles Memorial Trophy for Coaches Who Don't Manage Games Good.
Are these your opinions, or those from sauces?
No sources or sauces. Just my interpretation of the excerpt in the OP, informed by all the other stuff he's shared about VT/Pry/Whit over the years.
Step 1 would be consistently managing the clock better at the end of both halves
In fairness, I thought Pry managed the end of the first half against Uva pretty well. That said, he's been so miserable for most of the season that it's going to take more than one game to convince me he's making any strides there
Pry managed the end of the first half against Uva pretty well
Only if he knew he was going to get the turnover.
When UVA got the ball, he had 2 TO's left and UVA had 3. Pry burned his first on 2nd and 5-ish iirc. Then his last TO on 3rd and 3. The first timeout after the 5-ish yard gain on first down wasn't the best move but also wasn't a disaster. The announcer thought UVA called it...and so did I...that should have been their move. I don't think he should have called the 2nd TO at all. Fact is, if he waits another second or 2, UVA may have called both of those. UVA then made the 3rd down conversion with a full load of TO's. And followed that with another first down.
So at 1:07, Pry's "management" resulted in UVA with the ball at the VT 48 and all three timeouts. At that point Pry is probably kicking himself that the half wasn't already over or at worst UVA had only 1 TO left.
Pry got really lucky with Jones' pick and return. And then he got really, really, really lucky with the penalty on UVA that not only stopped the clock, but turned a makable field goal into an automatic chip shot. Without the penalty, VT would have been scrambling to spike the ball in less than 7 seconds...iffy at best.
All that is correct but, the actions were taken to put themselves into that position to decide if they wanted to push forward or shut it down.
if UVA is behind the chains after first down, TO is the percentage move for Pry and I'm not complaining. But they weren't and Pry should at least take a couple of seconds to see what Elliot is going to do...like calling TO.
Usually. but IIRC UVA had under 100yds offense the 1st 1/2 and 3 pts. The defense was stopping them.
We were up 17-3 and were in absolute control.
I'd have rolled those dice that the def would get a stop and they might get into Love territory.
You are correct - our D was having their way with them in the first half. Better to try to get more points on the board before the obligatory 2nd half meltdown. /s (kinda)
I mean, you're right though. Not so much a meltdown IMO, more that the opposing OC makes halftime adjustments based on what he saw from Marve's game plan. Marve seems to be incapable of making counter-adjustments and gets blasted every second half
I mean, I'm not the best at keeping track of this, but it seems like we come out in the second half and don't attack the line of scrimmage the way we do in the first half. We play our linebackers back some, a little cushion from our backfield, and just seem to play reactionary ball rather than trying to make stuff happen. It doesn't seem like an adjustment to what the offense did (since we often seem to have shut down what the offense was doing in the first), it just seems like we decide we're going to try playing a prevent defense to hold our lead, only it never has worked this year.
I get the logic (though UVA did score on their previous possession); you are winning and have momentum, let's make this half last as long as possible.
But you also need to give Elliot a couple seconds to show a card. Is he going to wait to see if he can get a first down before using his TO's, or is he going to stop the clock and accomplish the same thing? There's 1:42 left at that point; Pry could afford a few seconds to find out.
That makes one half in like 35 games. I'll need to see a little more than that, haha
The trend is in the right direction, though.
It should be very hot, i think we there were improvements from last year, but it's year 3 and players arent in the right spot on defense. There are lots of spots to be overtaken and no one stepping up. The staff seems to want to win conference games instead of just win games. Recruiting has been okay but we need to be 20-30 no 30-40 in class ranking. Lots of work needs to be done.
I think it remains to be seen how to build/rebuild a team in the modern NIL era. Especially concerning long term success.
With a game like football i think you will always need at least a "core" group of players that are not "one and done" to maintain long term success. How many that is I'm not sure. Defintely seems like you still need to at least mostly more or less build your OL the traditional way.
If anything, I'm starting to think that with the ability to go and get pieces to plug or fix your weaknesses every off season that it is starting to expose the caliber of coaches.
I would absolutely gobsmacked if Pry seat is actually even lukewarm unless 2025 wraps up with another 6-6 season
You get a QB. Simple as that. Cuse had a 5* QB. If we had Tyrod on this team we win more games. If we had Hooker this season we win more games.
I agree with this. Look at Fuentes first year. It was awesome! We played Clemson to within a TD late in the fourth in the ACCCG in his first year. We also Evans for that one year.
He obviously made that offense run. We saw what happened with out him.
I feel like I heard that Syracuse has another good QB coming in but I may just be making that up. And Syracuse is a place that if a coach does well enough he's gonna jump to another program.
I mean, we had Drones who was expected to be in that conversation. He just didn't improve anywhere near as much this offseason as we expected, and then he got hurt.
This hits on one of my biggest areas of frustration. We had a lot of returning production this year. A LOT. And sure, you can say "well they were all kind of mid" but that overlooks that this year was the first time we had enough continuity to see if/how these guys got coached up between last year and now. We got to see how well this staff engendered growth. That, primarily, is why I expected us to be 2 or 3 wins better than we were - guys maybe turning the corner developmentally, guys having the light bulb come on even more.
And on the whole, it didn't happen enough. Tuten was beast mode, of course, but that was a known quantity. Drones didn't progress. Jennings didn't progress. Felton didn't progress. The defense outside of APR didn't really progress. LBs and DBs consistently underwhelmed. The OL played one good game vs BC. One good game out of 12. And by the time enough season had been played for any evidence of evolved elevated play to be visible, all the key guys were hurt. And half the key guys' backups were hurt too. But none of them save Tuten were lighting the world on fire.
If we're going to let Pry out of his mandatory offseason time management bootcamp, it should only be to make some staff changes, at bare minimum. The guys he has aren't getting it done. Sure, recruiting has improved modestly and that's not nothing. But I expected so much more than we got out of our veteran core, and I think saying "well it was clearly the players, not the coaches" is wrong and a cop-out. Think about a guy like Andrew Motuapuaka when he got here, vs when he left. If he'd played under Pry/Marve, he'd still be playing at Freshman Motu levels as a senior.
Extremely well said, Beard.
I would go further, however, on the point about mandatory time management boot camp. I think Pry should be required by the AD to do whatever is possible to train the staff in better gameday preparations (everything, including time management). For too long the Hokies have been a mixed bag over a season: sometimes we come out hot, looking good, hyped, executing well. Other times we looked like we woke up 2 hours before kick off, ate a big pankcake breakfast, skipped showers, skipped stretching, etc. In several games it appeared as if the coaches & players are on different wavelengths about what personnel should be on the field, what play is going to be executed next, what the strategy is for managing time outs, field position, points before a half, etc.
Next season, the staff should be so well-trained & cohesive about their gameday operations & plans that it is not even something they need to think about...it becomes second nature. Pry had a deservedly long leash for the first 2, 2.5 years due to fixing the dumpster fire and bringing in a lot of newbs, but at this point it has to be fixed and a non-issue moving forward, or Pry's ass should have to pay the price.
'Modestly' might be a bit of an undersell... the average recruit rating has increased every year, and iirc the '25 class has the highest average recruit rating of any class in VT history.
BUT, I obviously recognize that Pry has not landed any top end high school guys - no Tyrods, Machos, RMFWs, DWs, etc - and until he does that, this narrative that recruiting is moderately improving will remain.
I go back and forth on this... on one hand, I was thinking this would be an 8/9 win season, and I saw a lot of wins left on the field. On the other hand, Vegas put our win total at 7.5, suggesting (roughly) that 6 wins was about as likely as 9. I didn't expect LB or OL to improve much, but I was hopeful we could scheme around that.
With all due respect, our current recruiting class is all vaporware until we are past Signing Day. We've been burned way too many times to at all feel good about recruiting until names are put on the dotted line, and even then the Portal sucks a lot of joy out of it
To be fair, Fuente seemed horrible about keeping guys committed. I don't think there's been anybody Pry has recruited that hasn't signed that hadn't decommitted long before signing day. Am I misremembering something about Pry's recruits?
Have average recruit ratings become inflated, like everything else in life?
"I obviously recognize that Pry has not landed any top end high school guys"- exactly... so the mental gymnastics of average rank, etc. are meaningless to me.
Recruiting trends up when either the floor is raised or the ceiling is raised. Recruiting is overhauled and accelerated when both the floor and the ceiling are raised.
I am "okay" with Pry seriously raising the floor of the recruits we're taking. We aren't putting all our eggs in the 0.95-rated basket only to wind up with Plan C 0.82-rated project we've flipped from Directional Rustbelt Tech on NSD.
That alone signals "improvement" because it's hard not to agree that the floor has been raised. And a lot of the guys who represent that floor haven't even really seen the field yet due to redshirting etc. It also doesn't change the fact that we need to be and should be landing blue chippers. but so far it appears that the strategy is to build out the foundation of the roster via solid but unspectacular 'crootin and then land difference makers at the positions of need in the portal. I don't think that's particularly sustainable, but i at least follow the logic. But i definitely want blue chippers. but i get it.
I agree with all of this.
It was probably easier to raise the floor than the ceiling, and I'm glad Pry was focused, but we do need to get some of them blue chippers. And some of them OL folks. Again, I know it's hard, but this is the job.
Funny, every time I start one of these comments, it ends up being advice to Pry.
Absolutely - by definition, there's only 32 five-star recruits and under 470 four-star recruits each year, so it's easier to raise the floor.
If you want to see someone who's done the opposite, look no further than Mike Locksley at MD - dude gets 2-6 blue chip recruits each year, and then the bottom of the barrel everywhere else.
Yeaaa... the thing about OL is that it's the position that's hardest to accurate grade out of high school and the position with the most potential for development... that means that it's the only place we can really out-scout recruiting services or be better at developing than other teams. But we need to get the right people (players and coaches) to do that.
Locksley has superior connections in the DMV. He knows every AAU coach there personally. He is going to land blue chip kids from DC/MD based on relationships alone. He can and does walk into living rooms and tell kids parents that he grew up where they did and he can relate to them. The B1G is no joke though and big business- pardon the pun. Locksley better win next year or he is out of there.
This is correct. Pry has rebuilt relationships in VA, and is more personable than Fu. Pry has added recruiting resources and the floor is improved. But having "solid" HS recruits and not total busts gets you back to back 6-6 seasons- it makes sense if you think about it. We have mid HS recruits- not bad ones- and we have mid results. If you want to win 9-10 games eventually- and there is no way around this- you have to sign better players- more 4 stars, more interior lineman that are better than what you have, etc. 12-12 the past 24 regular season games doesn't lie.
Do you think those 4-star quality players can come from the portal, or do they have to come from high school?
The reason I ask - Pry has gotten 4-star quality players from the portal (I'd call Drones, Tuten, APR, Lane '4-star quality'). Obviously he needs more than four players per year at this level, but throwing it out there for the sake of discussion.
Sure it can come from the portal, but they need to be ready to play- as you typically get 1-2 years eligibility remaining. I agree with Dabo and Saban... the portal for the sake of the portal never helped anyone. The players have to be GOOD and the right portal guys. Brumfield and Ali Jennings - meh at best ... for example.
I hope that Pry can persuade some portal talent to come to Blacksburg. Based off of this year's results (which I think we can all label as a step backwards) I wonder if the interest will be there from a donor and/or player perspective. Given the expected turnover on the roster, he better fill the holes with better players or hope the guys on the squad are ready. All indications point to the latter as being very unlikely.
Directional Rustbelt Tech ain't played nobody, PAWWWL
Directional rustbelt tech's best players transferred elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure most of our players under Fuente ended up transferring to Directional Rustbelt Tech
To be fair, we got Tuten from NC A&T and Lane from Middle Tennessee. Kinda nice to be on the flip side of that equation.
Not only did they transfer there, but had one meaningful play or less of contribution all year.
To me, the number of drops in the WR group was really disappointing. In each loss we had drops in critical situations that ended drives. I know drops are part of football and even NFL probowl WRs have had them, but it just really felt like we had more than normal and had very few catches of 50/50 balls. It was either catch a wide open ball or have no chance. I can't remember a single contested ball that was caught other than that insane Benji Gosnell sideline acrobatic catch, but that was more amazing due to the sideline than due to taking it from a defender.
Aiden Greene is a critical turnover waiting to happen. That young man MUST improve his hands this off season. He's got great speed and potential, but Mines won't put him out there if he can't catch and/or hold onto the ball.
What "larger changes in the program" is he referring to? Changes in the whole AD (or with a new AD)?
I agree with him that the Beamer approach is no longer effective, and obviously the Fuente approach is a disaster. If he can put together proof of concept that year 4 is the right way to do it, it will be interesting for teams that are not that patient.
I think this is the info reading between the lines.
I've heard (allegedly from the townie rumor mill) that at this point Whit and Pry are tied together so to speak, so if one goes they both do
Godfrey has said in no uncertain terms that "Whit will not get a third chance to hire a football coach"
Idk if that what 'tied together' means, but I assume Whit will not make another football hire.
I'd caveat the Whit piece if Pry really turns things around and wins a string of 10 win seasons before going somewhere with a lot more money. Basically if Pry turns out to be a success story and then leaves, I'd assume Whit gets another football hire.
I mean whit isn't getting a 3rd chance. So unless Whit is fired next fall when Pry is 8-0, they're going together.
Kind of sums up a lot of the frustration and fears we have expressed about Pry that are mounting. Don't know if doing things the Beamer way is feasible in the modern age of college football. Coaches don't get 5-6 years to get things going. You can flip a roster in a year and use NIL to attract key talent. The speed of the game doesn't tolerate long, slow, plodding rebuild jobs. And the worst part is, this was supposed to be Pry's proof of concept year. Validation that his plan was working. And we have more doubt than ever about him now.
It is good to hear there's some palpable concern trickling down from Godfrey's sources on the situation. I just don't know that VT can afford to dilly dally around any longer or we are going to be left in the dust. This year was a major, major disappointment. No two ways about it.
Yep. And our doubts about him are well founded, because we all watched the games and saw that at times the bright lights were just too hot for this staff.
Most of us thought we'd win 8 or 9 games this season, and with the regular season over I think it's pretty obvious we had the roster to do that. We're not likely to have anyone as talented as Tuten or APR next season, and I'm not sure there's any reason to think we win more than 6 games in 2025 - with the caveat that Pop Watson looks really good.
Is Pry even doing things the Beamer way? He was part of the Beamer staff long ago and he knows what to say, but I don't think it really resembles a Beamer team. It is referential to Beamer with focusing on VA, but realistically we go outside of it and get transfers when we can. We sure as shit don't play BeamerBall. At this point he has improved the roster year over year, the problem is dumb mistakes and our defense getting gashed. I think Pry has done a good job marrying the feel of the Beamer years while modernizing the way we build our roster, what he hasn't done is build a staff that will make us successful.
Beamer teams didn't make a lot of mistakes, we don't resemble that
Beamer also, let's be honest, got lucky with a former player of his from Murray State developing into one of the greatest defensive coordinators to ever wear a whistle. Maybe that's what Pry was trying to do with Marve but Marve is no Bud Foster and is unlikely to become Bud Foster with time.
Good defense covers up a lot of ills. We need to get better on defense.
Beamer teams were also mean as shit and weren't afraid to fuck somebody up with a late hit out of bounds in the first quarter in order to set the tone.
Jake Grove has entered the chat.
Back then even the kickers were mean. I remember in 1996 or 97 Jimmy Kibble kicking off and then driving some guy all the way to and through the Gatorade set up. He was a character.
What I'm reading into this...
An ultimatum is about to be told to him... Fix your shit in the coordinator positions or you're out of a job.
If that's the case, and Pry is being told make changes or else, I'm really going to find it hard to believe in much of what Pry says moving forward. For a guy that talks about being unafraid of difficult conversations, if he didn't have some idea that he would have to shake up his staff after this season without being forced to do so, then his words ring hollow and he's just another coach that can't fire his buddies. If he thought status quo was acceptable after this turd of a year, then it just signals to me that he wants to coast into a golden parachute with this job and has no intention of making tough decisions for the program.
The really crappy part of all of this is even if Pry is forced to fire Marve and/or Bowen, thanks to Whit extending them through 2027 last year, they're going to be owed a decent chunk of buyout change. Read on the other boards that Marve's buyout alone is just shy of $3 mil. That could be limiting on who we can pursue if we have to eat $3-$6 mil in buyouts in addition to finding new coordinators for around $1 mil annual salary each.
I've been banging this drum for weeks. How the hell does Whit keep repeating the same mistakes by signing 💩 contracts? He did it with the Nike deal, Justin Fuente, and now our coordinators. There was absolutely no reason to extend those guys after last season. Zero. If another school wanted them, then good riddance.
So now when the very likely scenario of us needing to change DC popped up, we are hamstrung financially because of Whit. Again. Get rid of him.
I don't understand the buyout on 90% of CFB contracts anyways. Is Pry not taking his only shot at HC because they buyout isn't large enough? He was making just under $1.5 mil at PSU. That's what his max per year buyout should be then. Lower based on years coached at VT based on his $4+ mil salary. He's already out earned being a coordinator he should be at just about $0 buyout.
Coordinators are even worse, Bud makes sense, he should make sure he has a deal to keep him at VT unless he gets an HC job. But he is one of the GOATs. Marve, Bowen, keep them at two yesr contracts and pay bonuses for good work until Jjob security is earned
My understanding is only head coaches have buyouts, nobody under them does. The idea being the head coach is the one needing protection, but if he goes, most of his staff should go, so you don't want to add buyouts for them. And a buyout isn't to keep a coach from jumping ship, it is to protect coaches from schools firing a coach before they're given a chance to succeed. I'm sure certain SEC schools might try firing a coach every year if they didn't meet some threshold if there wasn't a buyout in place. And buyouts aren't based on yearly salary (other than as maybe a multiple of a yearly salary) -they're designed to make it PAINFUL for a school to let a coach go before they're get the chance to succeed, which is why they go down over time. Once the coach has had the time to recruit players and do the things they want to do, their performance should stand on its own merits. From there, schools can also put clauses in a contract where if the coach jumps ship, there are financial disincentives.
Basically, coaches want protection to not be fired after one year because they haven't had a chance to bring in the players they want, but shouldn't be protected (or have much protection) like 5 or 6 years in, when they should have been able to set up everything the way they want and be performing as well as they'd be expected to.
Previously VT has simply done one- to two-year letters of appointment for assistants. However under Pry, his assistants have also signed multi-year contracts with buyout protection. His assistants were all on three-year deals when they were hired, and after 2023, Pry convinced Whit to extend everyone three more years through 2027. So yes, we owe Marve and Bowen close to $3mil each if we want to fire them.
Also, you could debate the intent/purpose of the buyout from a few perspectives. But generally, success and potential interest from other programs sniffing around leaked by your agent is the leverage for getting you a decent buyout. I'm not sure what the leverage was for extending Marve and Bowen after a 7-6 year, as they weren't going anywhere. If anything it was just a sign of commitment from VT, that ultimately has come back to bite us yet again.
See my other response with article link. The article shows a buyout, but the buyout is if they leave, they owe the school money. Unless you have some other source that shows they'd get $3M, I couldn't find it searching google. Plus, buyouts for head coaches tend to go down year after year, so even if it was $3M in year 1, it wouldn't be as much in year 2. But again, I couldn't find anything showing any buyout like that.
I can't find any better link, but I'm willing to bet the school doesn't just get off scot free if they decide to fire or not retain assistants with remaining money on their deal. It would be great to see the full copy of those deals and the language in there. But I doubt it's a unilateral buyout where only the coach pays the school in the event they leave. I'm pretty sure we had to pay some buyouts for Fu's staff with remaining years when they were not retained.
That is a BIG assumption. Most of any assistant contracts probably do not have buyouts. I've never heard of any having buyouts, even at schools with tons of money, so I don't think you speculating on a $3M buyout makes it a thing. Read the article I linked, it had various aspects of their contracts, including retention bonuses and buyouts they owe the school if they choose to go to another school. If they have that much specificity, they are unlikely to leave out a buyout they'd be owed if the school cans them.
Categorically false. USA today estimated that in 2023 alone, $32 million in buyouts was owed to assistant coaches and strength coaches by mid-January (source). They do note that Assistants are more likely to have offsets, so if they get hired somewhere else, that number will decrease.
This makes it sound like it used to be uncommon, so I'm probably just behind. But still, "increasingly common" is not the same as "common." Edit: sounds like it's on its way to being a common thing. Plus, I'd bet it's more common for existing, in-demand assistants than new ones that haven't proven themselves.
Right now, I think coordinator buyouts are common for HC retreads like Chip Kelly and soon-to-be hired Gus Malzahn. Those coaches have leverage. Other coaches with leverage are ones with multiple offers, and a coordinator would take the offer with the better buyout language.
To the original point, I would find it hard to imagine that Bowen or Marve would have buyout requirements if they get fired. If they do, VT may have the dumbest athletic department. Those two coordinators were hired and re-signed with no competition for their services. They have no leverage. They have no reason to be given a buyout.
I have tried to look into Marve's and Bowen's contract language and have not found it, so I have no idea what their contract actually contains. Someone could FOIA request it and get the answer.
Sure but the numbers just don't add up, the buyouts are huge and it really promotes coaches to fail in lots of places. Jimbo was never going to live up to his 100 million dollar contract. As I stated that Pry was worth ~7.5 mil over 5 years. That's the number we have to beat to make it worth his time. We'd probably pay him around $20 mil total if we fired him today. We messed up in thr buyout.
Whit extended Fuente after a first-year, 10 win, ACCCG appearance where he was within one score of the eventual national champion (who shut out Ohio State, don't forget) and won the bowl game. I'm pretty sure he was wanting to keep him from jumping to another program, and when he did it, I don't think anybody questioned whether it was a good idea or not. From all appearances after that first year, we were headed in a good direction. I don't think ANYBODY questioned his potential or prophesied a downward spiral from there.
The first Fu extension after 2016 was definitely warranted. The second extension that he got the very next year was the unnecessary one that really hamstrung us as far as getting rid of him. That was the seven-year deal with the big buyout. You literally just signed him to an extension the year prior, and 2017 was a solid but definitely step back year with some warning signs. And Whit doubled down and extended him yet again. That was the big mistake. Whit got played big time by Fu's agent there.
This sums up VT football perfectly. We won 10 games- but we played an extra game, lost 4 games- 2 to bad teams and "almost" tied Clemson. Yep. Let's extend that guy who did this with Frank Beamers players- cause you know we almost had a great season. If Bret Beliema would have taken a knee the entire second half, Fu would have been 0-fer in bowl games here.
You gloss over so much. Yes, Beamer's players PLUS Evans that Fuente brought in. And the best Beamer could do with them was 7-6, losing to a bad Wake team after a 0-0 regulation, then losing in OT. And "almost tying" Clemson is such a downplay of what we did. We scored more points on Clemson than Alabama, they shut out Ohio State (remind me again how much better the Big 10 is than the ACC), and "almost tying" someone downplays that we were in a close game at the end with the eventual National Champion, scoring more points than the best of both the SEC and Big 10.
Who were the 2 really bad teams we lost to? Syracuse was bad, but our other losses were to Tennessee and GT, both 9-4 teams and Clemson.
"We scored more points on Clemson than Alabama, they shut out Ohio State (remind me again how much better the Big 10 is than the ACC), and "almost tying" someone downplays that we were in a close game at the end with the eventual National Champion, scoring more points than the best of both the SEC and Big 10." - what does that get you? nothing. My point - this is where VT is- moral victory land.
How is a 10 win season a moral victory? That was the benchmark under Beamer. And before you say we needed the bowl game to do it, that was also true under Beamer with some of his 10-win seasons.
Consistent 10 wins is a consistent winning team and very tough to do.
What $3M buyout? Their contracts were only extended 2 years and their salary is less than a million per year.
Extension article
So it looks like only the coordinators were extended to 2027, not all staff. So two year extension not three you're right, but they had three years left as of the beginning of 2024.
The reporting on the contracts is pretty spotty, but this article from 247 indicates that buyout protection is included in these extensions for assistants: Link
So two years of compensation for each would be around $1.7 mil a piece. Not as bad as three, but still around $3.5 mil if you replace both coordinators.
Pry is also owed a buyout of roughly $10 mil with three years left on his deal. So there's really some interesting math to consider. If you're VT, would you rather pay $3.5 mil in buyouts to replace two coordinators now, and if things still don't work out in 2025 you'll have two new coordinators with likely two year deals that you'll owe a year for, so $2 mil in additional buyouts plus around $6.5 mil for Pry (so roughly $12 mil total hit)? Or, if you replace Pry now, you'll owe $10 mil plus $3.5 and a little more for the rest of the staff (so let's say $14.5 mil). You're only saving really a couple million by retaining Pry and hiring new coordinators in the event things still don't work out next year.
You appear to be reading hard into stuff. It lists the buyout amounts per year and its only $100k for the coordinators. And if you read the article I linked, it specifies that's if they choose to go and it's money they owe the school, not the other way around. Paste the specific wording you're seeing that makes you think it's two years of their salary, because I'm not seeing anything to that effect. The numbers look the same as in the article I shared, only that the other article is more specific to the coach choosing to go to another school and the buyout being what they'd owe the school.
Zero chance this is true. He signed a 3 year deal for ~$850k/year - his buyout is NOT more than his contract. That poster is flat out lying and/or completely uninformed.
I think there was confusion stemming from the extension. It was a two-year extension that the coordinators signed this year that gave them three years remaining including 2024, but there are only two years left on their deal now.
If the buyout language is 100% of their remaining compensation, then Marve's buyout now would be around $1.7 mil. But it's hard to say for certain since the exact details reported on those deals are incomplete/spotty at best. As discussed in the back and forth in this thread, I sincerely doubt there is zero buyout included for the coach in these deals in the event the school terminates them. That doesn't appear to be the case with other schools and recent deals either.
It's not uncommon for assistants to have buyouts. TAMU assistant pool had
~$20m$8m in buyouts (not counting Jimbo's $50m buyout).Correction: $8m for staff buyouts at TAMU (source). That was about 25% of the total $32m of assistant coach buyouts in 2023 (source).
Something I'm starting to wonder with VT where we get saddled with these buyouts that seem to be problematic for donors to want to pay, which in turn leads to us hanging on to coaches longer than we should. Why couldn't VT in its coaching contracts just start offering more annual salary on a shorter term deal with nominal buyout protection? Like in Pry's deal of $27.5 mil over six years, where we will likely eat a buyout of 70% of his remaining salary if he is let go after four years ($6.2 mil roughly), offer a coach a three-year deal of $7.8 mil annually ($4.6 mil base salary plus the amount of a year year buyout at 70% remaining compensation prorated over the three year term, so additional $3.2 mil). That comes to a total deal of $23.4 mil vs $27.5 over six where you're going to eat a buyout anyway most likely. You could probably also attract better coaches with a higher upfront salary as well. Would go against the norm in contracts but would be creative. The school would basically be committing to at least three years with you as HC for almost as much money as you would get in six, but with the trade off of no buyout or long-term deal. Still could set yourself up well financially. With the transfer portal these days I think having a deal with a coach where you can recruit and say "they will be here all four years of your college career" doesn't really hold as much weight.
Because agents are essentially operating as a cartel, and they have all the leverage because somebody will pay them what and how they ask.
VT negotiated against themselves for Brent Pry- whom nobody else wanted. A Dan Snyder esque move.
Yeah I tend to agree here. We could have offered 0 buyout - what is Pry going to do, not sign it and continue being Franklin's DC over a P4 HC job? We do seem to negotiate against ourselves and are way too quick to sign extensions for very little. We extended and gave slight bumps in pay to all of Pry's staff (will grant you Mines for good recruiting work) after a 7-6 year. That is pretty small time.
I mean, if CAA says that their clients don't sign contracts without buyouts, then you're taking over half the possible coaching candidates off the table. If their other two rivals do the same, then all of sudden no one will sign with you.
It's a lot easier for three agencies to collude together than it for 130 schools.
Edit: I don't mean to suggest that Whit is a master negotiator who just happens to have a gun to his head. I'm just saying that buyouts are a reality of college football coaching contracts until schools start colluding together to stop it.
I'm not saying don't offer a buyout, even though it would be nice for schools to band together to stop it. But just with the Pry hire, what leverage did he really have for a buyout other than its accepted industry standard practice and his agent expected it? Couldn't VT have said well thanks but no thanks, we will explore hiring someone else? Maybe offer a more experienced current HC a buyout versus a coordinator with literally no other HC opportunities on the table. I just don't understand why we have to offer the basic same deal to all candidates when all candidates aren't equal. If there's a job opening in the real world, you might have to offer top salary or other fringe benefits in order to land the top target. But if you're down to options C and D who have far less experience, it seems strange to negotiate against yourself if you're VT. Offer little to no buyout and I don't know what alternatives Pry would have other than take the deal or continue to be a DC.
other than its accepted industry standard practice and his agent expected it
What this means, in a very small industry, is that if you don't play ball you don't get good candidates, and if one of the marginal candidates you get pans out, he leaves at the very first opportunity for someone who will give him the financial security you won't. There is no "one weird trick" here.
Seriously, you want the coach you recruit to feel good about his initial deal, or you'll immediately lose him if he works out. You can't start out with bad feelings about contractual issues, or it will surely not work out.
I get wanting to save money, but to some degree you have to play the game.
Exactly, this isn't like getting a job in the real world because agents are involved. If you don't play ball with the agents, then you stop getting candidates who are worth a shit. The handful of agencies involved in the CFB world can easily poison the well against an school or AD who doesn't toe the line.
Nothing about modern major college football represents the real world.
Are you kidding?
It's EXACTLY like the real world. People with money exerting influence so they can have even more money, with some limited turnover.
Do your new unproven employees/interns sue for unlimited money, movement and legal bribes? Does your company beg people that don't work there anymore for money to pay unlimited salaries to the interns?
This perfectly illustrates the pitfalls of absolutes. Both of you are wrong. It's neither "nothing like the real world" nor is it "exactly like the real world"
There are elements that resemble the real world and elements that don't resemble the real world at all. The truth is in between.
Fine- I get what you are saying. What real world company relies on donations to pay its salaries? Charities? who are by law non profit- I don't think the ACC or VT football operates as a non profit.
look I don't really have a dog in this fight. I just found it amusing that you and VTKey both were going to the extreme ends on this.
Let me frame it differently. You're both right. College football resembles the real world in that the sport is shaped and influenced by money - specifically by the select few who have it. College football is also unlike the real world in the way that players are compensated and fundraising is accomplished. VTkey is right. You are right. You're yelling past each other about different things.
I felt like I explained what I meant fairly well.
Doesn't matter where the money comes from. Matters who has it.
There are govt subsidies...
They both do?
They are both registered non-profit organizations. Well, VT is a governmental non-profit.
The NIL collective Triumph, however, is a registered for-profit organization.
Lol. So true.
Tell me again how RG3 is the future of the NFL!
I haven't seen many cases where assistants have buyouts. TAMU seemed to have gone ALL in on keeping Fisher, to the point of excess. But I don't recall hearing much about buyouts for assistants.
Edit: I saw your article about buyouts being more common now, I just haven't paid as much attention in the past few years.
Fuck Marve and his buyout. Fucking fire him. He is costing you much more than his fucking buyout by sucking and being largely a national punchline.
It is a shame they extended him. His first contract was set to expire January 1, 2025 anyway.
Pry could have been relieved of the responsibility of "firing" his buddy and just decide not to renew his contract.
Same result but probably easier for Pry to stomach.
A - I'm not sure Marve is his "buddy."
B - not renewing someone's contract if they are your buddy has to feel about as bad as firing them. One way or another, you're telling them you don't want them at the school anymore.
Listen to coach Cheetah on Boundary Corner. Pry was in touch with him and Marve about giving them jobs before he even got interviewed here. They have an active group chat after several of those coaches lived together at a previous stop. It's like a mini fraternity of coaches. If Marve wasn't part of the original group he was definitely added later. They all kept in touch and families did weekend trips together before Pry got the VT job
All that to say they are absolutely buddies and Pry will almost certainly not act rationally when it comes to making business decisions about any of those guys
Mack Brown- off the top of my head- is the only big time coach I can think of that makes random hires - Like Bryan Harsin as OC at Texas. Hey Boise is good - let's hire their guy. Point is- all coaches want assistants they are comfortable with/familiar with. Call it "buddies" or whatever, fact is you need to be comfortable with the guy. The issue is when you keep them around due to comfort, not performance.
I think it can be safely said that the case of Pry Marve Cheetah and Bowen it goes beyond "comfort" and into actual close friend territory. Where the relationship will be valued above the job
That will cost them all their jobs if the friendship is over the job. Whit and everybody has a shorter straw after Fuente/Corny.
I hear ya, but Fuente who was Pry's immediate predecessor is like a glaring case study in retaining buddies to the point that it puts your job on the line and then you lose it. If Pry ignores what happened to give him the job in the first place (and yes, I'm assuming had Fuente fired Corny somewhere before the last two years he may have been able to keep his job, at least for a little longer).
And considering this is Pry's first HC gig, if he fails, he's definitely going backward to a coordinator or position coaching spot. Loyalty is one thing, self-preservation is another. And as bar1990 said, he believes this may be Pry getting him another job. And if they are buddies, that makes even more sense that Pry would help him find something else.
Fuente got $32 mil from VT and spent 6 years coaching with his best men. I dont see the down side
Yes, but he may never have another coaching job in his life after being fired for incompetence mid season. Don't forget taxes ate at least 11 million of that.
oh noes, only 21 mil, that's not enough to feed Latrell Sprewells family. That's a lot of money.
Woah woah woah fired? it was a "mutual agreement to part ways" 🤣
The down side is not getting another 40 million if he'd continued to have a long and successful career. But, as for Pry, he wouldn't be getting the same level of buyout. And he has the same downside - greatly limiting future income by not performing well. Plus, if they're buddies, neither one would be doing the other favors by going down on a sinking ship together. Fuente made that mistake, let's hope Pry doesn't.
The downside of course is the alternative... win games at football starved VT, embrace recruiting the state and the VT culture and coach a P4 program with great fans for 15-20 years. Sure he got his money, but now he is an analyst- not even an on field coach. For a football lifer, I bet you his buyout that he would rather be coaching VT right now.
How about just having the game management of the average Madden player? If he does that we win Miami and Duke. Slight gameplan improvements from the coordinators and we win Vanderbilt Rutgers and Syracuse as well, and maybe even have a shot at Clemson.
We're close but the improvement needs to happen on the sidelines and in the booth. It's the easiest thing to fix but also impossible if the staff refuses look in the mirror to do it.
For VT football, 6-6 isn't good enough.
News at eleven.
If you listen to the whole episode, there's some other interesting nuggets:
Eh, depends on expectations of course. Everyone on earth knows that Brent Pry is not Vince Lombardi or Joe Gibbs. Getting outcoached by Fran fucking Brown is just one of a million examples. He's lost to ODU and Marshall, and hasn't beaten a really good team in 3 years. It's no secret the guy is not a top notch coach. So what are VT's expectations? Beat UVA and VMI? and we're good? Or find a guy that can beat the dogshit of the ACC- of which there is no shortage? I'm not asking for Saban. I'm asking for Rhett Lashley- who found the ACC so hard, he won every fucking game this year and will likely be in the playoffs. Wow. Winning at VT is fucking impossible. Don't give me the fucking money horsehit either. SMU has had money for decades and Chad Morris couldn't win in the fucking American conference. How about we be an SMU? find a fucking coach that can beat Syracuse and Pitt- impossible? Only at VT.
The thing that always seems to get lost in the circus of college football discussions (recruiting, NIL, conferences, etc.) is that believe it or not, there are actually many things a coach can do during a season to increase a team's chance of winning their games.
I would like VT to have a coach that is capable of doing those things. I know it's much easier said than done, but still it's not rocket science and many schools manage to do it (SMU, Indiana, BYU, ASU, Iowa State to name a few)
Yep- it starts with cleaning up the fucking penalties, clock management, false starts, turnovers, the discipline- all of that can be done by the head coach.
Maybe I misunderstand, but what did any of these teams do in season? This seems to be a list of schools that actually didn't improve much from game 1 to game 12, but just had lower expectations going into the season. IU, ASU, and ISU were all good from game 1. BYU played worse in its last 4 games. Arguably, SMU season started slow and then changed QBs, but were pretty much the same team once Jennings took over.
They're all ranked in the top 25 (and been in the playoff convo at some point) while seemingly having about the same amount of resources to play with that our staff does.
So their success this year isn't due to massive NIL, sustained recruiting success, etc. all of the stuff that we like to say Pry needs time to get. They just have coaches that know how to prepare their team to win football games
Edit: my original comment may have been unclear. I wasn't saying that these teams improved greatly throughout the year. Just that these are teams arguably win games because of how they prepare/play throughout the season. Because sometimes we talk about teams in this revisionist formula and act like all of the success a team has throughout a season was pre-determined by XYZ moves in the offseason, when in reality sometimes teams just win because their coach knows how to coach football
Ok, yea. I 100% agree there.
It's almost like we need a fuck ton more money to compete at the national stage. Teams like ASU can pop off a good season here and there but to compete year in year out, it's pretty clear you need huge money.
Has there been a single non blue blood or blue blood adjacent to have sustained success for more than a few seasons?
There's absolutely zero reason to fire a coach. Without more money, our upside is having the ball break the right way in a season once in a while and getting 10 wins and a playoff birth. That could have happened this year, but it didn't.
The reason you fire a coach is to find a better one. period. And there is a guy out there better than Brent Pry- who is 1-12 in close games. There is a guy we can afford that could go 7-5 or better in close games and we can actually build back a winning program.
Off the top of my head - Kansas State, Utah, Boise State, Washington, TCU, Ole Miss, Cincinati, Iowa, Oklahoma State, JMU have all had sustained or reoccurring success over the last decade or so.
The common thread is that these programs have made (and kept) good hires:
The question I keep coming back to is 'what's our edge?'
From the late 90's to the early aughts, VT/Beamer had a variety of edges:
To keep Beamer around, VT made his staff the 3rd highest paid staff in the country in 2001.
But now:
So, what's our edge now? How are we going to invent the future? Are we willing to do something schematically unique? Can we create a recruiting pipeline that (most) others can't take? Can we outspend other programs (clearly not, but maybe I'll hit the lotto one day).
If we want Beamer-level success, then we need a hall of fame level coach. Those cost money.
Our edge should be the fact that 90% of the stadiums in our fucking basketball league are 1/4th full every Saturday and ours is not. That includes teams that beat us like UNC, Cuse, Pitt, Duke. Our edge is what Maryland and UVA have not had in 30 years... juice and fans around the fucking program. We sell out our stadium for a 6-6 football team- literally nowhere else in America does that happen. MAYBE aTm, MAYBE LSU. That's it- not fucking Pitt, not fucking Louisville, not fucking SMU, not fucking anyone but Clemson in out league. So perhaps we should parlay that into SOME kind of fucking success?
Whelp, those fans may be happy to yell and scream, but they are not willing to put their money where their mouths are, unlike Nebraska, LSU, Oregon, TAMU, etc
But your point is well taken - you're not talking about being nationally relevant; you're just talking about beating our current peers (UNC, Cuse, Pitt, Duke, etc), who spend the same that we do.
Beamer also had a legendary defensive coordinator.
Yeap... Today you need to pay that DC a bit more. Just look at Venables - Left KSU to go to OU to go to Clemson where he was making $2m/year
Without the magical invitation to the SEC or the BIG, which seems more and more like a pipe dream, this comment is our future imo.
Will say this again- Pry runs a very unique defensive scheme, with very few experienced coaches on that system's coaching tree. That tree is so small, Marve wasn't even coaching it as a LB coach at FSU. Pry's time will live or die with defensive success, and so far they have been a far cry from his units at Penn State. And losing Peebles is going to be really tough to deal with. I had some concerns because he was a 50 percent of the reps guy at Duke. But man, he had one heck of the year and got better as the year went on. Best DT since the Walker-Settle-Baron trio by far.
^^^this^^^
It is not less than an oddball set... like running a full Flex-Bone look on O. Not many high schools are grooming those Jamelle Holieway stylized Qb's just for you in '24 terms. Same diff' here on D.
That said... some of my coaching sewing circle "whisperers" say it is 'antiquating' as I type, too...
...is it? (Ill-suited for today's basketball on grass, era?)
🤔,
b.street
What makes you think the Foster gap-fit scheme doesn't work any more?
Is it like the triple option where you can't recruit players to it? Or is there something specific that gets exposed by the RPO or something?
Foster's kryptonite (aside from Paul Johnson's cut blocks) was a good QB that could stand in the pocket and expose the single high safety look. If you couldn't throw accurately, Bud beat you- plain and simple. If you could protect the QB and read the single high safety properly, you could hit big plays against Bud- Schaub was the only UVA QB to beat the hokies for a 16 year period. Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Aaron Rodgers, Rod Rutherford all played in the NFL, all had success against Bud.
But that doesn't answer the question why his scheme won't work anymore.
If you tell me that we're going to have defense that can stop anyone except NFL hall of famers, you can sign me up.
Well a couple of things... everyone from middle school to even some teams in the NFL run the RPO- there are many more skilled and trained dual threat QBs now- as in 90% of QBs. That puts more strain on a defense - you have to respect the QB run and pass- thus you can't be as aggressive. Less sacks, less pressure, less turnovers, etc. The days of a Charlie Ward being unique are long gone. The gap fit scheme can defend the RPO fine, however your chances of flipping the field, strip sacks, etc are less with a dual threat QB.
I guess I don't understand why the gap fit scheme is less effective?
My understanding of what you're saying, plus my filling in the blanks based on what little X's & O's I vaguely understand:
Is that a fair summary, or did I incorrectly fill the gaps? (pun intended)
Foster's gap fit motus operandi is to stop the run first at all costs. Linebackers run down hill and fill the alley unblocked IS the scheme. What I am trying to say is that if there is an extra run option- the QB- that gets the defense on it's heels a bit. Even Saban's great defenses struggled more against a dual threat. Saban runs a variant of the Tampa 2 defense - but he has the best players, keep in mind. Bud never ran Tampa 2 with any regularity- sure a one off game or 2 where he wanted to "face" the QB with DBs playing zone, but Bud was a single high safety guy.
Asking because I just don't know: does the extra run option (QB) really matter if you have all the gaps filled properly?
It does not matter - see Clemson's last 5 vs. Paul Johnson- if you have NFL DT's that can blow up the read and get off blocks. It becomes challenging when you don't have 5 stars at DE - the option of the QB run forces the LB's to think vs. running to the alley to tackle the TB.
if all the gaps are filled properly, sure. but attacking the correct gaps means knowing to force or spill based on where the blocker is attempting to create the
gap(edit: hole). the option of the ball carrier getting the defense to step or lean the wrong way or to force/spill incorrectly is what creates the problemThis is the explanation I was looking for.
I still don't get it, need to rewatch some film reviews and stuff to actually understand, but now I see that there is an actually reason why the option/mobile QB is especially hard for a Foster/Pry/Gap-fit defense to handle.
If the mesh point is disrupted, no option can occur.
1. Fuck Paul Johnson and his fucking cut blocks and absolute shit passing game. 2. I love the fucking Fullers. all of them, everything about them.
The Fullers and Edmundi. Hopefully they'll all have kids and create a new pipeline for us...
I guess I always had the mental image of a gap/spill concept meaning that all of the gaps are filled and assigned at the start. Like that the gaps were the pre-identified 1,3,5,7 on left (?) and 2,4,6,8 on the right (?), and that the front seven (plus DBs in a run-scenario) had all of those gaps assigned, with one defender unblocked. Never really considered that something like a pulling lineman would then create two gaps where one gap existed pre-snap. And the more I think about it, the more complex it gets.
Not going to go down this mental rabbit hole much further, but yeah, I grok now that it's much more complex than I originally thought.
french is way more useful for explanation, but that's been my rudimentary takeaway from years of reading film reviews/previews of bud foster defenses
Leg for the stranger in a strange land reference'
Wild book, definitely a classic. A little long in the tooth at times, but worth a read and still enjoyable all these years later. I just read it last summer.
This is a quality in-Ring high I.Q. post.
+several.
me?
I see it as (now) very Safety (Fs1), 'avaliable'.
I do not see a multi-task Swiss Army (c.Grim, jack of all trades, covering/masking) pocket knife.
I do not see trustworthy ILb (pseudo-twins) play on tape. (suspect fills... rob us of otherwise clean plays).
And I do NOT see as much 'fast-twitch' or burst-type guys that Bud courted.
(We actually have a couple/few... tho' they make the MOST misQ's... dangnation... that systemic hurts).
Or, to put it another way... how many High Schools play this set in '24???
i.e., where do Eye go to look for good-scheme-fits for this set here?
🤔,
b.street
Need the BourbonStreetGPT link, but I think I get it:
We don't have the personnel on the roster to run the defense...
And it's going to be tough to find those guys going forward, because (unlike the triple option/wishbone/flexbone) very few high schools run a similar defense.
Right?
😂🤣😂🤣
This is kinds of a silly argument. Scheme doesn't matters, talent does. If Bud Foster's scheme had Clemson's talent, VT would have multiple national championships. I don't care about the exceptions, I care about the rule. And the rule is, superior talent trumps any scheme.
Yea, That's the question I was begging.
Not exactly a counter argument but something worth noting, imo.
We say this about offense all the time and I see no reason it can't be applied to defense as well. Talent is important BUT, a good scheme with well coached players can mitigate talent deficiencies.
If Bud's scheme is well coached and he has Clemson's talent then we have multiple titles. If Bud's scheme is poorly coached with Clemson's talent we probably only have acc titles. If Bud's scheme is well coached with VT talent we get acc titles. If Bud's scheme is poorly coached with VT talent we get what we currently have.
Talent alone won't bring us titles, just like scheme alone won't either. You need both. But a superiorly coached squad with inferior talent can win. VT has lost plenty of games to teams with inferior talent because we were out coached. It's more common to see well coached teams beat more talented teams than it is to see talented teams beat well coached teams with pure talent.
My point here is that talent does not always trump scheme. Scheme enhances talent. Good talent plus good scheme is ideal. If you can't get the talent you damn well better get the scheme right. If you can't scheme yourself out of a wet paper bag you had better bring in the talent. Bad coaches who can recruit have lost jobs because their scheme sucked. Look at Miami for 25 years. Talent ain't everything
Corny anbody?
Explain Vandy beating Alabama this year please. If that's the exception, also then explain how they were within 3 points of Texas. If talent rules everything, Vandy should have gotten obliterated by both.
And Indiana should be getting destroyed. Their team recruiting rankings (per 247) were: last year - 65, two years ago - 68, three years ago - 25 (I checked their roster, 2 of the 4 star recruits that year aren't on the roster now), four years ago - 55.
Don't forget Andrew Luck. That Orange Bowl second half was a fuck you masterclass.
I credit that orange bowl to the Stanford OL more than Luck.
Walt Harris' whole strategy against Tech when he was at Pitt was to max protect and attack us through the air.
If you had Antonio bryant and Larry Fitzgerald wouldn't you?
It's so wild to me that this coaching tree is so bare. Foster was a legend. Pry was very successful as a DC.
I get the flexbone comps, but there are a plethora of coaches out there who could run the flexbone. Not only that, but you've seen the flexbone evolve (I've read of the 'Tex-bone, the gun-triple, etc). Doesn't seem like there's a modernization of this scheme either?
French, if you were the one to pick a defensive scheme to counteract today's college offense, which alignment would you pick?
I was a fan of Jenkins at safety as a freshman, but he was moved to the second line in our scheme. Is our defensive issue not being able to get linebackers, or is it a scheme issue.? Our backers have issue with getting off blocks. Gap scheme is supposed to minimize being in the wrong place, but also seems to stifle guys that can make plays in space. Would love to hear anyone's thought on which scheme would help with our inability to get linebackers that can thump the run. I know backers are getting longer and leaner, but making tackles at 8 yards off the ball just opens up the play action in my opinion.
Rich Rods zone read spread, Art Briles 1 read air raid, Saban's power running game- any of them, you get the offense behind the sticks. That is the defense you need to run. When WVU had Slaton and Pat White, the key was to not allow explosive plays on first down. Make Pat White sit back and read a defense and throw it. When you allow 8 yards on a simple side ways zone hand off, you are going to get your ass kicked no matter what the defense is. The way to stop RG 3 at Baylor was to make him read a defense on 3rd down. So get them to 3rd and 8 as opposed to 3rd and 1. You need sideline to sideline linebackers, and good DT's to plug up the QB keeper on the zone read. It also helps to have a DE that makes the "read" meaningless- meaning he can get to the QB run even if he shows crash.
Welp
We are back to 1985... happy to beat UVA and VMI.
Coachspeak Translate:
"I'm hopeful" means probably not but this is the correct political answer.