Happy birthday to one of my favorite recruiters @CoachSBeamer #Hokies— Ricky DeBerry (@TheFranchize__) March 31, 2014
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Happy birthday to one of my favorite recruiters @CoachSBeamer #Hokies— Ricky DeBerry (@TheFranchize__) March 31, 2014
Comments
Can't be bad.
Cuddy was so hot.
Wasn't his cut down announcement today?
Yup, think I saw he's supposed to make an announcement at 6:30
Update: We made his top 20. Gotta feel good about that.
The only sign I even remotely care about is the signing of his LOI. Until then, this means absolutely nothing to me.
Ah, another linebacker that we'll turn into a defensive end if we get him....national championship teams aren't doing this sort of thing every year, you know....
You know what teams do to get to the National Championship Game? Play the players at the position they will thrive at, not be afraid about what a recruit might think about potentially moving positions.
They will thrive at *in bud fosters system*. our Defensive ends don't typically thrive at defensive end in the NFL, neither do our linebackers. Don't misinterpret that as not showing love for bud foster, please. Many times our front 7 is undersized and we're not playing the kinds of defense that is played in the pro's.
eg. Bama wants a linebacker, we're looking at the same kid for defensive end. Not saying that's a really bad thing, but I am also not saying that it doesn't matter at all. Hopefully my point is not lost here. Just an observation.
Your point is lost because you're not consistently arguing the same thing. First, you say that National Championship teams aren't shifting people around. Then you say players who shift can thrive in Bud's system but say they don't translate at the next level. Winning a NC and succeeding in the pros are different things. I, for one, fully believe that a properly trained defense in an effective system is the backbone of a NC team. That's what Bud's trying to do - get the best guys in the best spots at the right times.
And the Seahawks just won a Super Bowl built on the back of a defense that doesn't have traditional roles and skill sets. Plus, Foster's defense got Virginia Tech to a BCS title game. No other school with comparable resources made it to that level.
Listen, this discussion is going in circles. There are a couple of things that are FACTS
1) Bud Foster's system and it's track record for NFL success probably is used against Virginia Tech when recruiting for top tier DL and linebacker recruits.
2) There is no guarantee that playing a traditional 4-3 and getting those players translates to success. Foster's defense has resulted in tremendous success. And, Bud Foster's job is to win college football games, not put players into the NFL.
Making opposing Offensive Coordinators cry themselves to sleep is just a perk.
Bud Foster is a big fan of Huey Lewis and the News.
Nothing makes Bud cry, but "Walking on a Thin Line" does make him feel a little melancholy.
I completely disagree with this notion. Working for an academic institution, his job should be preparing these young men for their future. For most, he should be teaching them leadership, hard-work, loyalty, etc which are extremely important attributes in all fields of work. If the player has NFL talent, he should be preparing them for the next level. As recruiters, VT needs to sell this notion.
I think you're missing the point here. All the attributes you listed are what the program is built on. The point French was making is that, as a college football coach, he's judged much more harshly on how many football games he helps win than how many players he puts in the NFL. If it was all about draft numbers, no coach would ever be fired from Miami.
Maybe I missed the point, but I thought this forum was about recruiting. So, my point was to explain what I think is extremely important to recruits. And I think preparation for the NFL is extremely important for Foster to sell to recruits. I agree winning games is more important, but in my opinion, Foster's job is much more than that.
His job definitely is much more than just winning games, but he won't sacrifice his scheme just to maybe get another 5 star or two. He's been consistently putting a high-quality product on the field and producing high-quality young men for what? 20 years now? I see no reason for him and Charley to completely change what they've done for the past 30 years, so long as we continue to put successful defenses on the field. Maddy was a 2-star, Tyler was a walkon, Facyson was a 3-star, etc. If we land a couple highly-rated guys in the front 7, awesome, go us. But I don't see that as absolutely vital to our success.
I will not comment on the redundancy of "consistently arguing the same thing".....oh shoot, I just did. (I wouldn't bring that up if the tone of your response was something other than I don't know how to argue a point.) I never said that other teams don't shift people - what I was specifically mentioning is that we turn safety-sized guys into LB's and LB's into DE's, and DE's into DL's. What I am saying is teams that win national championships, to the best I can tell, are not consistently playing undersized guys at their positions....we do that ALOT. No?
This comment was intended as a response to GUITARMAN. FYI. I'll keep going.
There is no tone intended. I was observing that you made one point, then backed it up by trying to make another, unrelated point, hence no consistency.
I will ask you this - if we're "consistently playing undersized guys at their positions," is that a bad thing? Bud consistently produces top defenses every year, with only few exceptions. I'm sure he could do wonders with other types of players, too, but we're not hurting for defense.
I made an observation (essentially, as an example) Bama isn't playing 265 pound guys at DT - a guy that size isn't even being considered at that position. Then I brought up the point that no one on here should call me a Bud Foster hater because of that very obvious note. I don't feel like the sum of those points equals inconsistency. "I like our leader, but what if we chose to lead in a different way?" So, do I have to be on Bud Fosters side or not? Is there no room for consideration otherwise? Dang.
I would say that consistently playing undersized guys is a bad thing in the scope of playing with the best teams in the country year in and year out - what I've noticed is that elite players are just as fast as VT's players and a good 20-30 pounds heavier at their respective positions. We beat a great deal of the teams we compete against because the kids are smart, fast, good tacklers and well coached. I love our results from week-to-week.
You're correct in what you are saying. Some in this thread seem to forget the guys we recruit (and miss on) at d-line. We did offer Andrew Brown, Da'Shawn Hand, Allen (the Bama signee 2 years ago). It's not like we see large, talented d-linemen and pass because they don't fit the scheme.
Let me see if I understand your point... to paraphrase, no kid minds playing the position they played in high school, winning a NC and getting well prepared for that same position in the pros (as per Alabama), whereas some kids do mind being shifted out of their position and not being directly prepared for that position in the pros (as per Bud's tendency). Therefore, we lose some kids we might otherwise get. Not all kids, because some want to play in Bud's system, stay close to home, etc., but Tech loses some kids. Losing those kids hurts our chances at a NC.
If that's your point, I agree. I love Bud, and I know he's incredibly talented, but I think when we are talking about big time talent it's easy for other schools to recruit against his scheme and his tendency to move kids to new positions.
Your point is lost because you didn't make one. At best you subtly criticized Foster's personnel decisions, then immediately backpedaled. If Bud doesn't think a kid will work as LB in his scheme, then why would he recruit him as a LB? Foster wants to win games, not Rivals.com star contests.
You know what all championship teams do, they recruit, then play, the best players to fit their scheme. They assemble the most talented roster to fit their scheme. Then they go out and win games.
donuts?...
#InBudWeTrust
Well, I didn't set out to make a point, Joe. As you put it, I subtly criticized personnel decisions (which is actually a critique of the scheme as it pertains to landing the BEST talent) and then said that I LOVE BUD FOSTER. Cause I do. You took this as a bud foster bash, when I intended to be thought-provoking. What if VT went balls to the wall on a 3-4 defense and challenged the status quo? (LSU, EFF YOU, we're coming after the southeast....etc.) We got Ryan Williams, David Wilson, Tyrod, Mike Vick, Marcus (i just died a little for saying that) and others on offense. With our reputation of excellence on defense, why would a stud prospect be less likely to accept an offer from us if we ran a program that focused on playing a pro-ball style? Just questions guys. Same team.
Sorry, had to :) I think this post explains what you're thinking a lot better than what you said before.
That WAS your best out. :) My biggest mistake was not to say "the point" rather than "my point."
When coaches suggest that the average fan has nothing more than a video game IQ about football, this is what they mean.
Sorry for questioning how our defensive approach might impact the perception of the best high school players in the country. Sounds like the "not so serious" coverage just got pretty serious.
Because, you've called my comment out as "nothing more" than video game IQ, can you elaborate why that's so?
follow up question, is Bud Fosters scheme at least somewhat honed over time with the knowledge that VT won't land the amount of talented recruits it takes to lay out a defensive squad with the the size AND speed it takes to play defense the same way that the best teams in the world (NFL teams) play the game?
No, it honed over time with the knowledge that Bud Foster is one of the best defensive coordinators of the past 20 years.
One of the best....
Jason Worilds has 9.754 million reasons why you're wrong.
Bro, Jason Worilds is playing.....you guess.....no, you guess......LINEBACKER in the NFL. Not Defensive End.
Technically yes. But considering Steelers run a 3-4 and Worilds is essentially a blitzing linebacker, he's actually more of LB/DE hybrid than a linebacker.
Acutally Jason Worilds is a perfect example of how Bud Foster's scheme would be beneficial to Ricky DeBerry if he came here.
Bingo.
Jason Worilds is the 'only' example?
Pretty common for NCAA DEs play OLB in the NFL. Both Brian Orakpo and Ryan Kerrigan (OLBs for the Redskins) played DE at their college (Texas and Purdue, receptively).
But, yes, there is perception that playing in an NFL style 3-4 will prepare you best for the NFL. Yes, VT recruiters must overcome this perception by selling the successes of players that transitioned to the NFL. It is a recruiting disadvantage, but I wouldn't change Bud Foster's scheme for a recruiting advantage. Never.
Not all teams are running our scheme. Bud Foster isn't getting smaller faster guys to be his defensive ends for no reason at all. His system is based around speed, speed, and more speed. It's a high risk, high reward system with the number one goal being turn overs and scoring. The next goal is dropping the play for a loss. Next on this list of goals is preventing the other team from getting a big play.
This is handled by having speed up front. Our defensive line is built to get past the big fat guys in front of them faster. Next, if the quarterback scrambles, or if it was a running play all along, the ball is generally sent towards the middle because our fast guys have taken away the outside by way of being really fast. This guides the ball towards the nose tackle. Generally, this is the one guy on the line who's not super crazy fast. He's big, and he's going to hit you.
Should you make it past this veritable wall of man meat, you are coming up against the linebackers. The linebackers are faster than the linebackers on most teams because they are supposed to close in on a run play as quickly as possible, as well as make plays out in space. The quarterbacks who leave Virginia Tech are usually looked at as Rovers by other teams.
Speaking of rovers, let's talk a moment about rovers. Ours hit people. One of our old rovers recently won a superbowl by hitting people. The rovers we send out into the world usually look a lot more like undersized linebackers than most of the rovers out there (I follow the seahawks, and a lot of people were concerned that Kam Chancellor was too big and too slow to play the strong safety position in the NFL, but the plan was never to use him as most teams use strong safeties, he was just there to hit people). Then there's the rest of the defensive backs. Those glorious, beautiful, magnificent defensive backs. What could I possible say about the defensive backs that hasn't already been covered in "Virginia Tech Defensive Backs Are Good" magazine.
In conclusion, it is a logical fallacy to say when we make a different decision about a guy that is the wrong decision because team A(labama), B(ama), or C(an he relate this back around to Alabama) would not have made that decision because our defense is built around different principles than team D(at Alabama), E(lephants are apparently related to Alabama), or F(uck, it's Alabama). Let's all just keep in mind that Bud isn't just sitting on the sidelines, drinking Bud Light, Fosters, and Bourbon all mixed together, eating pork rinds, and recruiting guys who seem like they'd be swell fellows. He has a plan, and he's going to go out and recruit the boys he wants.
Furthermore, I apologize for anything I got wrong about our scheme. I read as much of French's stuff as I can, but at somepoint my eyes always glaze over and I have to go sit down, drink some Bud Light, Fosters, and Bourbon all mixed together and hope that it will all make sense if I come back and try again later.
He isn't? This throws my whole understanding of Virginia Tech into question.
Oh no, he does do that. But he also does stuff along with that.
Where can I subscribe to said magazine?
I giggled and maybe blushed a little when I read this.
Name one player that had NFL talent and didn't go to the NFL, because they played in Bud Foster's scheme. If you can name one, I'll be surprised. I can name quite a few that wouldn't have had a chance in the NFL if it weren't for Bud. My point is that the NFL identifies talent and plays it where that team sees fit. Is that 100.0% the same as where bud had them play? Definitely not, but I sure as hell bet that NFL teams love the players that Bud sends them.
The devil is in your first sentence. I am absolutely not arguing that Bud Foster's defense prevents NFL talent from getting there. I am suggesting that VT's defensive system doesn't attract NFL-type talent on the defensive front.
So let me get this straight. You are in agreement that we do have one of the best defensive coaches/minds in the game, but he should change his strategy because 16-17 year olds are worried where they fit in it? I agree that i would love to get some of those better players, but if it ain't broke, dont fix it. Our defense hasn't been the issue when we've lost a lot of games. It's been our offense and we are working to fix that (Loeffler) .
We are not landing the high ranking players we target on defense. In essence, that is a degree of failure.
The failure would be if our defense was struggling because of the players we aren't landing, but that isn't the case. Our defense has been great without them. Does it matter if our defense is great with 3 and 4 star defenders as opposed to us changing our methodology in order to get 5 stars and possibly still being a great defense?
Would it truly be a change in methodology? Or would getting the 5 stars make the defense that much better because they could be in a spot that they already know and don't have to learn new techniques?
It has been oft-argued that we need to stop turning tight ends in to OL. How many people on this site (perhaps minus the true experts like Joe, French and 3rd&31) have lauded the 2 and 3-star littered OL recruits we've landed simply based on the fact that they are TRUE OL? We're playing guys at the position that they are accustomed...is that principle not applicable on the other side of the ball?
I love Hokie Football and I'll never stop loving it until I my ashes are scattered on the ground - even if I am just a big ole dummy.
I think the bigger reason for celebration is the fact that we're actually trying to recruit someone to play OL. The fact that they're true OL who played the position in high school, have similar skillsets and all look like they have the potential to be very good linemen for VT is gravy. Honestly, when you recruit 8 OL in 3 years (and only a couple of them who weren't DTs or TEs coming out of high school), getting 4 in a class is a step up.
Wont argue with that, sir!
Well said.
I think that this argument can be made FOR Bud and Charlie bringing in bowling ball DLs. Some positions in the scheme we run aren't the "ideal" position for much of the "top" talent. Please see Luther Maddy, et al. VT know what we are doing in recruiting. Period.
Losing on a guy like Jonathan Allen and some of the recent LBs does hurt in the feels, though
I think the perceived problem is that, because the scheme requires specific skill sets, there aren't that many kids out there who would fit the mold well.
I say just wait and see what these couple of extra positions the our AD has opened up yield. My feeling is that we will find MANY more young men around the country can fit really well in our scheme than we ever knew were out there.
so I just read through this entire posting and all i saw was a bunch of bullshit. calm down people be happy we have one of the best defenses in the nation. So what its not bama or a&m style it gets the damn job done. We played extremely well against bama on D. we gave up 2 special teams TD's a pick 6 TD (pre-cursor for the year) and then couldn't get things going on offense Logan went 5-26. yikes.
I doubt a kid would say oh if my position is going to get changed I'm not going there. Hellooooo that means playing faster and earlier with more exposure to NFL scouts. Sometimes it just works out that 5* guys want to go to VT then at the last minute an SEC school gets the nod... because they have a guy leaving for the NFL early and that creates a huge void/opportunity at "said" school. What kids going to turn down the opportunity of a 1 an done? *****SARCASTICA******Especially since football players don't care about school *****SARCASTICA******
I laughed, cause this is so true. You can tell there isn't really anything to talk about right now if we're resorting to questioning successful tendencies that have been built up for nearly 20 years.