
The last time the Hokies rushed for as few yards as they did in 2013, many of the players on Tech's roster were in grade school.
You have to go all the way back to 2006 to find the last time the running game was as limp as it was last season, and that team finished with two more wins than last year's squad did.
Suffice it to say that the coaching staff is looking for more from the ground attack this season.
"You hate to be a running backs coach of a team that's 13th in the ACC," said running backs coach Shane Beamer. "It's a challenge for myself for us to be better as a running backs coach, you want to be the coach for the team that finishes first, not next to last. So it's a source of motivation for all of us, we know that's not what Virginia Tech's about, we know we need to be better for us to be successful, and that's the plan."
With the paltry results came not only pressure on the staff, but on the players as well.
"As Virginia Tech Hokies, we have big shoes to fill," said starting running back Trey Edmunds. "Guys in the past, you've got David Wilson, Darren Evans, Ryan Williams right before us, so we definitely have shoes to fill so we go out each and every day and work on the little things, perfect the drills and play hard, and let the chips fall where they fall."
The Hokies insist they're not trying to make excuses for their poor performance a year ago, racking up just 1,557 total yards on the ground, but the younger Beamer does point to a few things that could've held the team back last year.
"Trey was learning the running back position kind of on the run," Beamer said.
There's no doubt that Edmunds' inexperience was an issue early on — after all, he was still learning how to be a running back full time after the coaches worked him at linebacker when he first arrived on campus.
"He improved as the year went along, but if you go back and look at the first half of our season, we were talking about his footwork the other day," Beamer said. "Trey will be the first person to tell you he was kind of all over the place in terms of the steps he was taking, the angle he was supposed to be on. He knew it, but doing it in games was a different matter."
Edmunds really did seem to get in a groove as the season went along, running for 228 yards in his last three games, but the broken leg he suffered in the final contest of the year prevented him from using the spring to build on that progress.
"Trey's showing improvement each day. He looked better day two than he did day one, day three better than day two," Beamer said.
Edmunds seems to have almost completely recovered, but the coaches are still a little unsure he'll be ready to start the season. As if the broken tibia isn't enough to deal with, Edmunds seems acutely aware of the burden on his group.
"We see what we have to do, we definitely have the expectations we have to live up to," Edmunds said. "We're going to try to perfect our craft on Saturdays, and this year on Fridays and Thursdays, we're going to go out and do all we can as a running back group to help the football team."
But while Edmunds had to bear the brunt of the load early last season, he'll have a little more help early in the year from fellow veteran J.C. Coleman.
Coleman had ankle problems throughout the year, famously managing to sprain both ankles on one play in practice, and that put a strain on the offense.
"Early in the season, J.C.'s hurt, he's not playing. You're going with Trey basically every snap until J.C. gets healthy," Beamer said.
The junior had a promising freshman season in 2012, but the overall malaise that settled over the offense that year limited his development. The staff was looking for him to play an important complementary role in 2013, but the persistent injuries really hampered him.
In response, he decided to work on his strength.
"I've gotten a whole lot stronger, picked up weight, so I feel like I can do it all," Coleman said.
Coleman will never look imposing on the field at just 5'7", but he hasn't let his diminutive stature deter him from working to out-muscle his opponents.
"I would definitely say I'm one of the strongest guys pound for pound on the team," Coleman said. "I kind of take pride in that. Since I'm not the biggest guy, I have to make up for it in other ways, whether it's my speed or my strength as well, so I always try to make sure I work hard in the weight room and make up for the height with the weight that I do have."
But the question becomes, where can Coleman help the Hokies on the field?
He's largely been considered a third down back before, but after just returning two kicks last year, he might be a prime candidate to get involved in special teams as Tech experiments with multiple players on the return unit.
"You've got to have a return guy and we'll have two back there most of the time," said head coach Frank Beamer. "I think with the way things are going with the rugby kicks and the ball gets all over the field, they start kicking away from one punt returner, so I think we get two and make sure we get the ball caught... We even thought about having three guys playing like in the old days."
The team will likely have to find ways to use Coleman elsewhere as freshmen Marshawn Williams and Shai McKenzie push for playing time right off the bat.
"I think those two freshmen I talked about are going to make us a lot more explosive outside," Beamer said.
McKenzie in particular has been the talk of fall camp. After missing spring ball while still recovering from a torn ACL, he's made fast progress so far.
"I've been pleasantly surprised actually. Physically he looks good," said the younger Beamer. "He didn't do anything in the spring except sit in my meetings and just watch, so you worry about how much he's hearing and absorbing, but he's been great. He sits in those meeting, he doesn't say a whole lot, but he's picked things up well. I like what he's about."
McKenzie seemed headed for a redshirt while working back from the injury, but now he looks like a legitimate contender for playing time right away.
Williams has had similar trajectory — it just happened a few months earlier. He had a superb set of spring practices and could bring some much-needed physicality to the running game.
"He's a guy that can move the pile," Shane said.
Williams seemed destined for a role as a goal line and short yardage back before concerns about his weight and his health surfaced. But now that he's back working in practice, albeit with limited contact, he seems back on track to contribute.
"All I can do is grind and get out there, but if the coaches say I'm not ready, I'm not ready," Williams said.
Williams and McKenzie certainly lack for experience, but Edmunds' injury let him focusing on mentoring the two newcomers this spring.
"Trey is a leader no matter what he's doing, if he's sitting on the sidelines or in a game," Williams said. "He helped me a lot I know, with my plays and just with knowing what to do in those situations and with Shai, he's taken a lot of strides to get better."
The one problem with such an influx of young talent is how to balance who plays and who sits. The freshmen seem ready to push the veterans immediately, which makes redshirting them difficult, and Beamer has admitted as much.
"We've had some young guys to the mix and I really like them all," Shane said. "It really is wide open."
He's made waves with his comments that all the running backs will play this season, but it seems like he's only allowing for the possibility of situational roles, not proposing a six-man RB rotation.
"You can't play four, you can't play six regularly and be any good," Shane said. "My biggest challenge right now is figuring out who goes out where. We'll have two or three that will be on the rotation."
But sorting out the running backs' roles is only have the equation in re-establishing dominance on the ground. New offensive line coach Stacy Searels is tasked with picking up where Jeff Grimes left off in overhauling the unit.
"In a perfect world, these kids would have the same coach and they wouldn't have to adjust to a new guy and a new way of doing things because we've all got our different way of doing things," Searels said. "But it's still football. It's not rocket science, it's football."
Yet figuring out the right combination of linemen that will pave the way for Shane's runner is probably closer to advanced mathematics than Searels lets on.
Searels made a number of changes to the line heading into the summer — most notably moving Laurence Gibson to the left tackle spot and moving 2013 starter Jonathan McLaughlin down the depth chart — but with Brent Benedict and Mark Shuman done with football, Searels has been forced to adapt once again.
Luckily, McLaughlin has the skill to slide back into the starting spot at right tackle without the team missing too much of a beat.
"I think Jonathan has got the ability to play both the left and the right," Searels said. "You've got to be able to move around."
Beyond just figuring out who to get on the field, Searels is also coping with implementing his own, more straight ahead, physical approach.
"If you play with toughness and be physical, you're going to be successful and these kids are working their tails off to try to do what we want to do," Searels said.
The staff also has to get the players used to a tweaked scheme now that Logan Thomas is off to the NFL. The inverted veer is no longer the end all, be all of the running game, and in comes a new emphasis on the inside zone.
Naturally, Searels isn't willing to say they've committed one way or the other just yet.
"We're going to be multiple offensively," Searels said. "Inside zone is part of our offense, but we're going to be multiple and be able to do a lot of different things."
Behind closed doors, Searels is a little clearer about what he wants from the running game.
"Stacy came into our running back meeting room one day and, we were putting in a couple runs...and the play that I had on the board when he came in the room was a little more spread out, and he said 'hey forget that spread out stuff, we're getting back to hammering people' and I think that's our mentality," Shane said. "That's Virginia Tech football and that's our best chance to be successful each week."
Instead of worrying about the new scheme or the new players too much, the coaches are focused on one number for the renewed running attack — 4.5.
"4.5 yards per carry is what we'd like to have per game, that's our goal as an offense," Shane said. "When we go into that Sunday meeting, we go in as a team. Scot (Loeffler) gets up in front of our team and says 'here's our goals each week. Here's the one we hit on each week.' Bud (Foster) does the same on defense. We do the same team on special teams. And it says 'average 4.5 yards per carry' and there's either a 'yes' or a 'no' right there."
The Hokies averaged all of 3.2 yards per carry last year, and disastrous results followed. Maybe keeping an eye on that simple goal will help them field a running game they can be proud of this time around.
"I don't think there's any question we're going to be better," Shane said.

Comments
The RB talent is there. The RBs want to be good. The coaching staff has to use those guys better. The o-line has to create some holes for them to run through. Its as simple as that.
O-line has not been the major problem the past 12 months. Healthy, athletic, physical tight ends and some explosiveness in the passing game will definitely help our rushing production.
It might not have been THE major problem, but until they prove otherwise, the OL will always be A major problem. We need our boys to get mean in there and start opening up some holes for the RBs to squeeze through. Ya can't just keep runnin guys into a brick wall and expect success.
True, but as French pointed out repeatedly this past season, there were far too many plays where the 5 guys up front did everything right and we still didn't have success running the football.
The transition to the all out zone blocking scheme was pretty bad. The RBs weren't good at finding the holes and the OL had trouble moving people to the side. I really like Searels' mix scheme. We will still use the inside zone but also have guys pulling and trying to move the defense backwards instead of side to side. I think it will work much better especially with the OL we have currently.
To be fair, with how badly Newsome recruited and coached the OLine, just about any scheme would have been challenging. That said, I'm a big, big fan of Searels. I think he's an outstanding coach, he knows what he's doing, and his mixed scheme is going to let us do a whole lot of good stuff.
i still think they're going to have to be pass first and show teams that you can't stack the box against VT any longer. I think Stanford, Byrn, and I. Ford are shaping up to do that. I'm not sold on Knowles but I suppose he did get better as the season went on. It'll be interesting to see if the TE talk is more than just coachspeak.
I like Coach Searels.
Yep. Go all Stanford on us.
I don't know about forgetting the spread stuff. I feel like I may be in the minority here, but I actually really like the idea of a spread offense and how it operates. I know it isn't "manly" or "real football" or something, but it is really fun to watch executed well. I feel like its a useful tool to have in your arsenal as well. I love the idea of enforcing your will on an opponent, but I think you can do that just as well 4 wide as you can in an offset-I. It is more about the strength and mindset of your team in my opinion. But, if we go offset-I with no split receivers and score touchdowns, I won't cheer any less.
Spread is fun to watch, but it's not compatible with our strategy. Bud's aggressive defense means that our D needs time to rest. If the D holds and you get the ball back, scoring in 1:00 tires the D out unnecessarily. We need to control the ball. Managing the clock and playing field position is the most compatible and complementary approach for our D. As long as Frank and Bud are coaches, that won't change.
Like cds7c said, Stanford's model is the way to go. There's a reason why Frank targeted Pep Hamilton first during the OC search in 2012.
This is a good argument. You have convinced me. +1 for you.
I'm not sure we have the OL yet to go full Stanford. Probably another year of transition there.
Very true. I think that's what our goal should be, though. Big, strong O-line that will exert its will on opponents. Run the ball, win the game.
Maybe not on an individual basis but we have 3 TE. So, 7 guys on the line and a HB goes a long way towards OLine support.
Is the spread about big plays? I feel like it's about short quick plays and trying to get RAC and YAC (or is that west coast and they're totally different?). You're 100% right that the defense needs rest and I support any system that keeps us from going 3 and out constantly.
edit to add: Spread isn't synonymous with no huddle is my point. But even if it is, just get some first downs and the D will be able to rest.
Right, I'm not equating it with no-huddle. But matching up quicker athletes against a defense, out in space, has a much higher potential for quick gains, big plays, and marching down the field. Look at Oregon - they ranked 120th in time of possession last year among FBS teams. For our defense, that's not a tractable approach. It worked for the Ducks because they could score at will (3rd in scoring offense) and had the athletes to do so.
Well that does have a fun ring to it, and we do have lots of TEs. But I absolutely agree that the VT D doesn't have the depth for the VT O to run a constant spread, unless they actually convert into TDs.
ETA: Oregon does run no huddle with speed as their emphasis, because they do bank on the fact they'll convert and the other team won't have as much success. I feel like they can now recruit more great players due to scheme, saying that even if you're second team, you're still going to get plenty of reps to show off your skills.
My $.02, and take it for what it's worth:
I think being the outlier is almost always a good thing in football. If the majority of teams are going spread, you're better off being a smashmouth team that can bully the 4-2-5 teams with quick backs to combat the spread. If smashmouth is the norm, you should go spread to outmaneuver the slower defenses that have adapted to handle the power of the Stanford Offenses.
Play to the weaknesses of the norm defenses, and attack them from directions they aren't able to defend against as easily. As the spread is currently in, and more and more defenses are going to lighter personnel to cover ground fast and engage in space, going heavy to overpower the defenses at the point of attack would be my approach. But you need to keep your ear to the ground and be ready to change when the winds blow the opposite way.
How many teams with an "outlier" offense have won the championship?
hmm... Depends on what you would call the norm when 'bama won 3 out of 4. Sure were a lot of spread teams around, but they played mostly old-school football from what I understand. Also, Stanford seems to be able to handle Oregon better than anyone else, maybe because they're one of few power teams
I'm not talking about this being the key to a championship. I'm just saying that you can create an offense that is disproportionately successful given the talent level in it. I'd say that currently, as more and more defenses adapt to the spread (including ours - more nicklebacks on the field, a de-emphasis on the whip position, smaller and quicker d-linemen), teams like stanford or bama will only become more potent on offense. This will be the case until people start copying those teams in earnest, hoping to gain the same advantage, and the pendulum swings back the other way.
A stellar defense is still the key to a championship, but nobody has won without a functional offense either, and I think going against the grain is the easiest way to get that.
Those puns, they'll get after ya.
I've been waiting 2 years to see this.
Edit: Dammit Guitarman...beat me to it
Okay, if we are now going to be "hammering people" we are going to need a big back, say, over 220lbs. Wait...

4.5 yds per carry as a goal.
That's quite a jump from last year, IIRC 3.2 yds per carry.
If they find that big an increase as perfectly achievable then there must be a big improvement in the running game. This only feeds the fire to see if they can do that next Saturday.
Yeah, Coleman is absolutely NOT a 3rd down back.
He's definitely not a 3rd and 1 back, though that didn't stop him from getting carries on 3rd and 1.
If the coaches used him as a 3rd and passing back like Darren Sproles, that would be one thing. But they didn't.
See that is completely understandable. Didn't we also do that a number of time with another Tech TB that wore #4 (DW)?
That's how I took it, too -- pass protection, or catching the ball in the flat.
Historically, no doubt.
It's just hard to get over his lack of productivity. Yes, it's hard to show off this strength he's supposed to have on two bum ankles.
Yes, it's hard to show any ability to cut and make a guy miss on two bum ankles.
And yes, it's hard to run between the tackles if the O-line isn't making any kind of crease.
But at some point, you would have thought the coaches would have accepted the reality of the situation last year, and not put him in the position to fail.
Every year is a fresh start. But if he struggles in the same ways against W&M, it's going to be awfully hard to sell anyone on the prospect of him doing better against bigger, stronger, faster opponents.
J.C. is a great team-player, and I would love nothing more than for him to finally be healthy and show the promise he had coming out of H.S. But if he just can't do it, I really hope our coaches can accept reality.
So far it feels like the ONLY TBs that aren't dealing or healing up from some sort of bum injury are Caleb and (now) McMillan.
Hence 6 backs could play this year.
I was about to say:
Please don't put JC in on all the offensive plays and all the special teams plays. If he's a RB, let him be a RB. If he's going to return kicks, let him return kicks. Unless he is far and away the best at both, let McMillian and Caleb take the kick and punt return duties, maybe throw Carlis Parker into the special teams mix.
I want to see Newsome out there too. Dude is supposed to have some nice wheels to him.
If I remember correctly, Newsome had a very good spring game as receiver. Think he had one drop, but was repeatedly getting open and looked pretty good running after the catch.
He did, but it seems that Ford and Phillips have been so very impressive that he has fallen a bit in terms of noise this fall. But, he is still a high quality young play-maker and I look forward to his future as a Hokie.
I totally forgot about Newsome. We have so many new skill position players with hype I can't keep them all straight.
Every time I hear the name "Newsome," I have to suppress the involuntary tic in my eye. But then I remember that this is "Good Newsome" and I calm down.
I agree with being hyped about the concept of getting back to power-football, but it's the part leading up to it that concerns me.
I really, really hope that day was a long time ago, and not this past week or two.
I know I'm just hyper-sensitive about this and probably jumping at shadows, but the prospect that the RBs have been wasting blackboard time this preseason on plays that aren't a match for Searel's blocking schemes makes me nervous. If there was a disconnect in the playbook over the summer, then someone wasn't paying attention for way too long.
We will know after W&M. If it's another head-scratcher of a rotation, head-banger of missed holes or missed blocks, hair-puller of a final score, it's most likely going to be a long season.
May be a bit premature to start freaking out. Also, I wouldn't put much stock in the W&M game, cause that's gonna a be a glorified spring game. We're probably gonna see a lot more flexibility with distributing carries and such in that game. I'd be surprised if any one back got more than 8 or 10 carries.
And I think this would be a big mistake, especially if we are trying to get the backs & the OL valuable reps at game speed to develop consistency with the starting back running their offensive sets.
And I think it's also a mistake to not practice more of the playbook. Great. Hide a play or two for OSU. I'm good with that.
But don't hide half your playbook, and expect your players to just turn it on at OSU.
If we had players who'd been in the system for 3 years, yeah, then you have some confidence that they have internalized the basics.
But a system gels when it is practiced and played AS a system. We've seen lots of analysis showing how Loeffler gameplans and adjusts, and how some plays set up other plays. You can whiteboard those plays, and have all your players be able to spout them off from memory.
But you must train those bodies to execute the system out of habit. When you are tired late in the 2nd half, and your mind is starting to get a little bit like warm jello, sometimes you need your body to do what it has learned through repetition.
I think whatever we lose in the element of surprise, we at least make up for in execution.
A win at OSU would be great.
But the ACC schedule is what is going to make or break our season.
We need to be firing on all cylinders for that, and I don't think we should be limiting our opportunities to fine-tune the VT machine.
Uhhh....W&M's Defense is a LOT better than you give them credit for. Play however we have to to win the game. They are NOT a pushover team on D
W&M has a great defense. For an FCS school. Not for an FBS school. Not for a non-ACQ team. Not for a bottom feeder in a Power 5 conference. Not for a mid-level Power 5 team. Not for any level of team that should provide stiff resistance to a Power 5 conference team aspiring to reach Top 25 status. If we have any problem moving the ball and scoring on them, that is not good. They're FCS. F.C.S. We're on here talking about conference championships, beating OhState at their house, and there is no pretending we should have difficulty scoring on W%M's defense. The two do not equate. They are on the schedule to provide a chance to stretch our legs before playing OhState.
Similar things were said about a certain burg school 2 hours north. And that VT squad ended up in the Orange Bowl.
I give W&M plenty of credit on defense (see my preview of them from earlier this summer). Still, we shouldn't need to bust out every trick in the book to beat an FCS school. Plus, there's no point in giving your starter 20-25 carries and having the hell beat out of him first week of the season. That's why I think we'll see carries distributed a little more evenly.
Don't know if they'd release this quote if that was the case (the late disconnect). Sounds like a day one thing to meof spring.
I interpreted it as Searels being the typical offensive lineman. Those guys are always going to say, "hey forget that spread out stuff, we're getting back to hammering people." That's what offensive lineman get fired up about and will always tout publicly, but at the end of the day I'm sure the coaches want to run the plays/scheme that gives the team the best chance to succeed. So no, I don't think this quote is cause for concern about the coaches being on the same page.
I'm really liking this group of tail backs. I hope the coaches find the right pecking order for this season and a way to utilize them all.
I want Shai or Marshawn or Trey to become a Todd Gurley. A guy so dominant that everyone, even the good players like Marshall backing him up, are like, "Uh, yeah, that guy needs the ball."
Upvote because go Dawgs.
That is a real possibility for any of the 3, but I am putting my money on Shai. LOVE the way he runs.
Will this help?
How many fumbles did our RBs have last season? Just sayin.
Damn straight.
I am actually starting to get jazzed about our offense this year!
It's been a while since we had so many potential playmakers on offense and this is the best and deepest group of tight ends we have possibly ever had. The running and passing games should be ready to launch; can hardly wait for a preview against W&M. GO HOKIES!!!
I wouldn't get too excited about offensive fireworks that game. It is very Beamerlike to pound the rock against them and be vanilla and get a closer than expected win. Then again we may come out guns blazing showing it all.
If they're gonna be holding their cards close, then I won't mind a 21 pt W, but ONLY for that purpose so they can shock the sh*t outta the bucks. But if they're being vanilla because of inconsistencies and trying to work stuff out...against Bill&Mary, that's just unacceptable and inexcusable.
W&M have a very good defense even for FCS level. Best case scenario is we can run it for 4-5 yards a pop and we just grind them up and down the field. Boring and old school but dominant and close to the vest.
You know what I remember? 2004. Seems like we were throwing up 40-60 points, with a QB who wasn't expected to start before the season and 3 freshman WRs.
Even more recently in 2011, we crushed app state. I wasn't on tkp at the time, so I dunno how vanilla the offense was, but that year had our best offense of the Logan era. The year before we [redacted] JMU. I guess my point is a vanilla offense shouldn't necessarily mean we don't blow out an inferior opponent. 31-14 milquetoast wins seem to have been pretty telling in recent years, I'd love to see some fireworks
Nah...we scored 13, 16, 13 in our losses...16 in our W over Miami, only 24 vs UVA...we weren't lighting up the scoreboard at all.
I think, by and large, the player I'm most excited to see this year on the offense is Bucky Hodges. That kids ridiculous.
You haven't seen him yet? I mean, I'm 4 hours away and I can see the top of his mohawk over the horizon.
Another good Bucky joke. Have a leg, sir.