
Greetings friends. After a night in damp, dour Heinz Field that made me hate caring so much, I'm in the Outer Banks. Thursday's game was an abysmal performance by an offensive group that was beset by penalties, erratic quarterback and offensive line play, a non-existent running game, and questionable play calls. The offensive questions are difficult to answer, and I need another look at the film to really understand what ails that unit. A quick bird's-eye analysis from the south end zone, any chance for the Hokies to win against Pitt without being able to run the ball was stymied by inconsistent quarterback play coupled with receivers who were struggling to get open. This was a game where Josh Stanford's absence from the program really hurt.
While the offensive film is confusing, the defensive film is crystal clear. For long stretches of the game, Bud Foster's defense played like a dominant unit. They overwhelmed Pitt at the line of scrimmage with numbers, movement, and quickness. Corey Marshall and Dadi Nicolas made plays in the backfield. Chuck Clark played a strong game in coverage and in run support.
Of course, there were a handful of breakdowns, and, in a scenario which is becoming painfully repetitive, those poor plays end in opponent points on the scoreboard. Some of that came from solid game planning by Pitt. Last season, Bud Foster handcuffed Pitt's running attack by slanting hard to the strong side and using Dadi Nicolas as a whip, usually aligned to the strong side. On the back side, the contain players could afford to be aggressive because former Pitt quarterback Tom Savage wasn't a threat on zone reads and bootlegs. The 2014 Panthers quarterback Chad Voytik is a much more effective runner, and Paul Chryst used that ability to throw off the Hokie defense early.
In order to take advantage of the Hokies aggressive front's effort to overwhelm James Conner at the point of attack, Voytik was featured early on a variety of counter plays and zone reads. The concept was simple. When Conner offset to one side of Voytik in the shotgun, the Hokies slanted hard to the opposite side to take away the likely running lane. Pitt took advantage of that over pursuit, first with an inside zone read with a whamming H-Back.
Before the snap, you can see nose tackle Corey Marshall shift from a one-technique (inside shoulder of the guard) down to an eagle weak (aligned on the left shoulder of the center). The Pitt H-Back pulls from the right side to the left, where Kyshoen Jarrett is playing a force technique. Ekanem is unblocked and crashes inside after Conner, so Voytik keeps. Jarrett goes up field as he should in force, which leaves Deon Clarke and Detrick Bonner to fill the hole. Clarke doesn't get square in the hole (which has been the one big weakness of both inside linebackers this season) and the blocker gets just enough of Clarke to turn his pads and give Voytik a running lane. That leaves Bonner as the alley player filling the inside lane due to the force call. He gets steamrolled by Voytik. While Bonner is an excellent coverage safety, his lack of physicality in run support stings on this play.
Inside zone read isn't anything new to the Hokie defense, but with Conner being such a focus, Voytik had opportunities to make plays with his legs.
Later on the same series, Foster again shows his commitment to overloading on Conner. Pitt aligns their strength heavy to the field, and the Hokies respond by aligning Marshall again as an eagled nose. After adjusting, at the snap the Hokies have five of their six box defenders to the right of the left guard. Pitt runs an inside zone read, this time without the pulling/whamming H-Back, and most of the defense bites on Conner.
The Hokies almost get lucky, as either Corey Marshall has a called loop stunt with Ekanem or freelances his way almost into Voytik's lap when he keeps. But Marshall (who is being held) can't prevent Voytik from getting the edge. Derek Di Nardo (who has been excellent most of this season in spot duty) gets eaten up by the tight end and Voytik gets a nice gain. Di Nardo earned the starting job, but from a matchup perspective, playing a bigger whip like Trimble or Van Dyke may have been a better choice as Derek had trouble getting off the blocks of the bigger Pitt blockers.
As the game went on, Bud Foster adjusted appropriately by having his back side defensive ends widen their alignment and slow play the dive. It worked well through the third quarter, with some notable highlights including Dadi Nicolas's earth shattering second quarter hit on Voytik which hurt me up in the upper deck. In the fourth quarter, Pitt adjusted by using Voytik on lead plays and using a shovel pass, but the Hokies kept Pitt off the scoreboard until a basic fundamental breakdown resulted in a huge run by Voytik.
The play in question, like the first play I highlighted above, was an inside zone read with a wham block. It also appears to be packaged with a pass option to Boyd, as Boyd swings to the sideline at the snap. Bud Foster actually has a perfect defense called; a corner blitz. Kendall Fuller comes off the corner and eats the kick-out block by the H-Back. Ekanem is the unblocked option man.
Ekanem, who has to bite inside on the dive because he has Fuller blitzing off the edge, has a chance to make a play and runs past Voytik. Jarrett is the unblocked free hitter. With Kendall blitzing he could have initial pass responsibility on Boyd, and that threat seems to trip him up just enough. He watches the play develop, and once he reads run he doesn't plug the alley. He should aggressively fill the gap between Fuller and Ekanem, and instead he not only fails to tackle Voytik, but he takes a strange hop to open himself up with his shoulders pointing at the goal posts, widening the hole for Voytik. This should at most be a 5-yard gain. But, with the evil ghost of Walt Harris-past looking on, Jarrett's snafu turns into perhaps a season salvaging run for the Panthers. I'm just not used to seeing Jarrett's run support fundamentals break down like this.
Failing to Execute Basic Technique
Unfortunately, Jarrett's failure to execute basic technique for his position was a theme that accompanied every big play Pitt put together. Basic gap fits were a major issue. Here, Pitt runs their variation of the "G Lead" play, pulling the play side guard while the tackle blocks down.
Foster's design works perfectly, as mike linebacker Chase Williams finds himself completely unblocked and right in the hole with Conner. Williams just plane misses the tackle. Again, the unblocked defender must make the play because the other defenders are either occupying different gaps or have coverage responsibility.
Later in the first half, the Hokies again have a perfectly executed defensive call against Conner that leaves Williams and Jarrett awaiting Conner in the hole.
Williams tries to go low on Conner, but doesn't even cause the big man to break stride. Then Jarrett, who has been one the Hokies top run defenders for the last year, gets plowed by Conner. This just is not good enough against a good running back by two senior leaders who are counted on for solid tackling.
I'm not intentionally focusing on Jarrett, but he was on the wrong end of many of Pitt's explosive plays. Pitt's first touchdown saw Jarrett not play proper leverage against Tyler Boyd. Pitt faced a third-and-long, and you figure that the Hokies will make someone other than Boyd win. While Kendall Fuller was aligned on Boyd in the slot, Foster has him double covered.
Boyd runs a vertical route from the slot. While it looks like Kendall Fuller is in man, look closely at his technique. Through the entire play, Fuller maintains outside leverage. His butt is to the near sideline and he stays one step outside of Boyd through his backpedal and coverage. This indicates that the Hokies were using the same "bracket coverage" that failed on the Georgia Tech fourth-and-15. With this technique, that means Jarrett, as the inside leverage defender, should've tracked Boyd through his inside shoulder.
If Boyd runs an out, comeback, post-corner, or corner route, Kendall will have him. Kendall is also looking at the quarterback, so he can peel off and try to intercept any throws in the general vicinity. Jarrett has to take away any throw to the inside, including an inside leverage vertical throw, a post, or a crossing route.
Jarrett is incredibly late, and I can't tell if Boyd subtly fakes the corner route, but Jarrett takes a wide angle like he thinks Boyd is heading to the corner. Jarrett has to let Fuller handle his assignment and play his own. By trying to help Fuller to the outside, Jarrett takes himself right out of the play.
Like I said, it wasn't all terrible for the Hokies, and we saw some young defensive players step up and show they could be difference-makers in the very near future. Chase Williams played well after some early struggles, but Andrew Motuapuaka was all around the football after he replaced Williams in the second half. Chuck Clark had his best game as a Hokie, as he was not beaten once in coverage and was a force in run support all night. While Jarrett and Bonner struggled filling the alley, this play from Clark really gets you amped up.
Pitt runs an inside zone with leading fullback to Conner on a third-and-one. Dadi Nicolas seems to miss the snap, and then bunny hops inside where he gets a bit blown up by the down blocking tackle. Deon Clarke runs up field, making the seal block by the tight end easy. That leaves Chuck Clark as the alley responsibility player, looking at a huge hole with a 250 pound stud running back and a leading fullback bearing down on him.
This play got me all kinds of amped, even though Conner got the first down. Clark rejects the block of the fullback, slides to the right, and even without forward momentum, Clark aggressively wrestles Conner to the ground. Bonner and Jarrett better take notes. Duke Johnson may not be 250 pounds, but he is much quicker and runs just as hard. Miami's offensive line has terrific leg drive and really dominated a pretty good Duke front. And Brad Kaaya, who was supposed to be a liability for the Hurricanes, is tied for the lead in the ACC for passing touchdowns (16) and is third most in yards per attempt (9.0). While the offense is the story this week, the defense will need to improve in order to defeat the Hurricanes.

Comments
You know the offense is befuddling when French needs a few extra days to take a look.
Miami is going to put some points up this week. They have a great O and a crappy D, hopefully our O can take advantage and try to keep pace and we get a Foster special or 2 to keep things close. And rain would be great on Thursday night if you can work on that weather Gods...
Hahaha I like the optimism
Phil Simms? Great breakdown, as always. Enjoy the outer banks. What's in season right now?
We are chasing after red drum. Unfortunately big (6-8 foot) sandbar sharks are making life miserable on my gear.
I hope that Kysheon can bounce back and have a great game against Miami, we're gonna need him.
He's really done a lot of great work the last two years, and Bonner has been great most of the time this year. It's a shame to see the two of them slip up in a close game against a heavy, strong opponent.
"Handful of Plays Derail Otherwise Dominant Defensive Performance at Pitt"
Fair enough (though I don't necessarily agree for this game -- for some reason seemed like more than a handful of plays, but I digress); but I'd like to make a point (and not necessarily to you, but to those who agree with your title / philosophy), and my point is this:
If (proverbial) you think that the defense was only a handful of plays away from dominating Pitt and (presumably) winning an outright sloppy game for us, then are you also of the opinion that when Beamer says we were only "a handful of plays away" offensively from beating a team, that it's a poppycock notion? Boise game comes to mind as an example of this (amongst several that have happened over the years), but why agree with this view of a loss for the defense but not for the offense? Admitidly we've been more consistent on D than on O over the yeras, but I don't think that's really a basis of argument to agree on this type of view for the D and not for the O.
Well they scored on a 53-yard pass play to Boyd, a short field after JCC fumbled, and on the next play after Voytik's 49 yard run. If you take away their explosive plays (there were only three over 20 yards, totaling 131 yards) we held them to 200 yards offense. So yeah, I'd say it was actually just a few plays that killed us.
Thanks, but that wasn't really my question homie.
I was responding to this part of your post, homie:
To respond to the rest of your post, I don't reject the idea that the offense can be a few plays away. I just don't think that was what happened to us Thursday. Even if we score on one of the long passes that went incomplete and win the game this wouldn't have been a good offensive performance.
Again, agree -- but was talking about previous performances that Beamer has said "we're one or two plays away", and not necessarily about this one.
Without a more specific claim it's hard to be more specific in the response, but I will make a couple points:
1. Coach Beamer always says the same thing to the cameras after a loss. There is no insight to be gained from watching him in a press conference, particularly after a loss.
2. The offense has not been 1 or 2 plays away from anything. On any given drive, if you spot them one catch where a pass was incomplete, or one 7-yard gain where a run was stopped for a loss, the drive still ends with a punt. The offense is bad.
Ok, I'll bite. Spot me the foul that negated Phillips EZ catch last game.
Win.
Spot me the non-call facemask that was JCs fumble. That's a maybe.
You guys are so fatalistic. Get some smile and a little less EMO.
fatalistic wont win you anything. You gotta have confidence.
I'm trying, I really am. I know I got too high on this team after the OSU game. It took the beating by ECU to get me back down to earth. But I feel like I'm down-to-earth now.
I would say that the GT game this year was those 3 interceptions by Brewer away from being a pretty good performance, even though we didn't run the ball particularly well that game.
I think the reason that you can buy into the notion that the defense was only a handful of plays away from domination is that the defense was making those plays all night, and even in the situations where the defense whiffed, the play call from the sideline was the correct call; somebody just missed an assignment, or failed to make a tackle.
On offense, there was consistent poor play, and poor play calling. Those one or two plays away from winning the game were a lot further away from being realized than on defense.
For this game -- absolutely agree; offense was no where near 1-2 plays away from winning the game. But I'd argue (ie: the Boise game I referenced) that we were probably 1 or 2 away in a few of the previous games. Heck, you might be able to eek out how one or two plays in the GT or ECU loses this year on offense would've saved the games (though I'd have to think about that a bit more myself).
I'm just trying to stir up a convo re: is 1/2 plays away a moral victory that we allow the D to use as a crutch when we don't allow the O to at all?
You actually answered your own question in your original post, I think. While I think you're actually begging the question here, the reason why "the D gets to use it as a crutch" is because they weren't "a handful of plays" from being successful, they were successful for the entire night. They were a handful of a plays away from "domination" i.e. completely shutting down the opponent. At the end of the day, the offense put up...11(?) yards in the first half of the game and one first down (this is all by recollection, forgive me if the numbers aren't accurate. Hopefully they are still representative), and we still only lost by 5 points. That's the measure of a successful defense no matter how you look at it.
Usually with the offense, the issue is that we are a "handful of plays" from being successful at all. If the overall performance of the offense in a game is below-average, and it's the handful of plays that would have resulted in ...anything...then the notion rings much more hollow.
TL;DR: It's not really a valid comparison, no one has ever said that we were "a handful of plays from complete domination" on offense.
Hmm. Fair point. In order to be a fair comparison, it would have to be -- what? An offensive slaughter where we'd be outgaining a team 400 yards to 100, but shoot ourselves in the foot with turn overs and lose the game? The JMU game comes to mind (though the stats weren't that much in our favor), but we had 3 turn overs to their 0.
I think an argument for a fair comparison could be the 2011 Sugar Bowl. We pretty much dominated that game on offense up until the Red Zone, when "a couple of plays" each trip caused us to settle for FG attempts or worse. I think we legitimately were a couple of plays away from completely blowing the doors off of that one, and in the end lost...
+1. Great example.
... where "lost" means won, but the replay official gave the trophy to the other team.
Anybody that tries to use the Pitt game as a crutch better get used to spending a lot of time on the floor.
Actually they were. As abysmal as they looked there were three TD's that should have happend that didn't.
1. Ford's catch where he just landed out of bounds in the endzone.
2. The free play when Pitt jumped offsides and Brewer launches for Philips in the endzone. Philips was hit in the hands and he should have caught it for six.
3. the quick TD to Ford from the 3 that was backed up due to a penalty....and then another....which then led to a fg.
On play's 1 and 3 we ended up with FG's instead of TDs where there should have been a td. That's 8 points (six at the very least if we didn't make the extra point) which would have been a win.
Make play number 2 and we win. I believe we punted on that drive but could be wrong.
But we were actually only a handful of plays from winning on the offensive side of the ball as welll.
Agreed -- Original point of the article was about being dominant, not winning the game. My point was about "winning", so it sort of morphed into a quasi-dual argument re: winning and domination, which sort of gets lost.
Huh? It was a 5 point loss. By definition, it was one or two plays away from a win. It's amazing how people also forget you were often just one or two plays from a loss (see OSU)...
The fact of the matter is many games are decided by just one or two plays. And VT is 2-3 in those games so far this year. It's the difference between being 4-3 and 7-0. It's also the difference between being a great team and being a good team (albeit capable of being very good).
"The fact of the matter is many games are decided by just one or two plays. And VT is 2-3 in those games so far this year. It's the difference between being 4-3 and 7-0. It's also the difference between being a great team and being a good team (albeit capable of being very good)."
Sure -- but for some reason, when Beamer says that, people seems to get up in arms about it. I just don't understand why.
Are you thinking of Coach Beamer's comments on Brewer, that if you take away a few plays each game he has played well? If that's the case, I think you have your answer. Since the OSU game Brewer has been one or two plays away from acceptable. Another word for that is unacceptable. The defense is usually one or two plays away from dominant. In other words, nearly dominant.
This is the false dichotomy, if that's the term I mean, that I keep thinking about. Unless the margin is 21 points of more, you can usually find a couple of plays here or there that determine the outcome. You don't get to say, "we should have won" if the other team can reasonably say, "we should have beaten them by 21."
If you read the first paragraph, this has nothing to do with the offense. However, the long touchdown to Boyd was on a 3rd and long play. If that is an interception or incomplete, Hokies win 16-14, even with the offense looking like a turd.
My critique of the offense is more in depth. However, with Jeff Beyer doing an offensive review this week, it was going to be redundant to destroy the offense twice. So, I have recorded my notes focused on a mix of play-calling, offensive line play and protection schemes, and separation by the receivers and I will share it during the long week after Miami.
Is Jeff going to review the OL performance to the degree that you usually do? I was really, really looking forward to hearing what you had to say about the OL after the Pitt game. The thought of it was one of the few things keeping me medium during that game...
I am going to cover the OL in my off-week commentary.
Just a high level, the insertion of Teller with Wang at center generated much more movement up front during the first drive of the 3rd Q. But, they pretty much stopped running the football after that. The first half, especially the drive coming off their own goal line in the first quarter, was absolutely horrid.
I did indeed read it, and I wasn't referring to the offense in this game either. I was just simply stating all those times / coach speak that Beamer has said in previous games that we were "one or two plays away" from winning a game and if that's valid if we were "one or two plays" away from winning this one (though, as pointed out, article is about dominant performance and not about winning the game).
I'm (not) quite sure what (you) are saying as I am distracted by (excessive) parenthetical references.
I read it like a Mad Lib.
I do (tend) to overdo those. Just my (writing) style I guess.
I see what you are saying and agree that defense in Blacksburg gets the benefit of the doubt, they have earned it. But you have to think of the differense in offense and defense. One bad play on D can result in 7 points. One good play on O can result in 7 points. However, the difference is that one bad play on O, unless its a turnover or 3rd down, can be negated by the following play. I guess what I'm saying is that it is usually more definitive to look at solo plays on defense as being game changers. I would also throw out that redzone missed opportunities can be legitimate plays that make a team "a few plays away". Bottom line, not every game is equal and the phrase is usually thrown around in the hope of providing constructive criticism and promote better practices following a loss. And to be fair, I have heard Beamer use the phrase following a win to keep players grounded.
Fantastic breakdown. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Since I'm new to the key play and I haven't seen one of your breakdowns before, how much of our defensive struggles over the past few years can be attributed to simple fundamental mistakes?
Obviously, our defense is stout year in and year out, but often it seems we struggle to finish plays at the point of attack (e.g. wrap up, over pursuit, etc). Thanks!
Protip: click the "French on the Bench" link at the bottom of the article. That is a treasure trove of football knowledge, in general, and specifically as it relates to VT. Prepare to spend several days reading with no feelings of regret nothing at the end of that time.
Jackpot. Thanks!
French, on the long run by Voytik you mention that Jarrett doesn't fill the hole properly and his technique uncharacteristically breaks down. But what is happening in that play with Motuapuaka and Deon Clarke? When I first saw the play live I thought Motuapuaka lost his gap fit and should have been there to stop Voytik for the 5 or 6 yard gain. Instead, he runs right into Clarke, taking both of them completely out of the play. I thought it was a freshman mistake, and we make that play with Chase Williams in the game. I was surprised to see that two of Pitt's biggest plays in the game were because Jarrett hesitated and took strange angles.
You're not alone, I saw that play the same way.
AM and Clarke both have dive responsibility on Conner first, especially with the corner blitz on the back side designed to account for QB. Clarke recognized the QB was keeping before AM (not shocking given the angle, traffic out front, and experience levels of both) but Clarke has to retreat a bit to scrape across. Both COULD have had a role on the play, but Jarrett has to make that play. He is your senior, and your safety/last line of defense. He is also unblocked and has the best angle, and he doesn't have any responsibility for Conner.
I see that now after watching in slo mo. This is the reason I stay around here. That, and TEAMPIE.
How about we add a little....creme fraiche
Thanks for that! Usually our DB's are so quick at making reads and more often than not attack holes like that and make impact plays. Watching it again, because Jarrett knew Fuller was blitzing it looks like he was completely frozen by Boyd's motion towards the flat. I'm not sure if another receiver has that same impact. What a weapon to have!
Thanks for the great analysis!
I think he was frozen by the bubble fake on the outside. However, I do think he should be eyeing on the tackle. Tackle blocks down. KJ should have a quick read there and do a better job of filling the hole.
Can we please give Motuapuaka a nick name for the sake of the commentators?
Or we could rename all the non-Fullers Motuapuaka just for fun.
Hair: Like Steelers Linebacker Nickname: Head & Shoulders or H&S
Last name: Motuapuaka Nickname: Moto
The 2nd one likely fits best: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moto
Great analysis!
This was a rough game for one of our very best players; Kyshoen is usually lights out - I expect that he will have a big game Thursday Night to make up for it. Go Kyshoen and GO HOKIES!!!!!!!
This is why this is my favorite feature on this site: I had initially laid that Voytik run you discussed on AM, but your review showed that he was theoretically crashing in by design to take out Connor, and it was really Jarrett's job to stop that.
Maybe my recollection is wrong, but it seems really out of character for KJ. I wonder if he is/was sick or hurt? That hop or whatever on the same play was...weird.
The strength and ability of Miami's running game and OL vs. the depth of our front 7 at this point in the season presents a troubling prospect for this Thursday. I'm hoping we can force their Fr. QB into making mistakes, but I'm wondering if the opportunity to do so isn't going to present itself much.
Kyshon is from the Pitt area and was a Pitt commitment before flipping to us in one of their many coaching changes. Maybe some extra emotion going on there.
4 years later, I think not.
Jarrett is from an area in Eastern, PA. No where near Pittsburgh.
FYI, Josh Stanford listed as #2 SE behind Ford on 10/19/14 Depth Chart.
well that is really refreshing to see! We need all the help we can get and its nice to see him fix his issues and get on with life!
ALSO Joel is ahead of JC... I'm sure we all have to be excited to see that one.
Does anybody recall a play in the game (I believe a screen pass) that the announcers said was thrown at Kendall and could have gone the other way for a pick six?
I don't think they showed a replay, so I'm not sure if it really happened.
Not criticizing, just curious.
I believe it was the first quarter. The ball hit Fuller right in the stomach.
I do, it was a slip screen/wr screen and the qb threw a bullet into a huge pack of people.. Kendall got hands to it but it was more like him being in the right position at the right time.. IE- wasn't looking for a pick 6 just making sure he played his assignment ..
Thanks I only believe about half what the three stooges in the booth say!
I need help please.
"Motuapuaka"
Mah-TOO-ah-poo-AH-kah - is that right?
close...
pronounced mo-TOO-uh-poo-WAH-kuh
Also, when done correctly, it is nearly impossible to pronounce at a normal speaking volume and must instead be yelled at the top of one's lungs.
I can't wait to hear the announcers butcher the CRAP out of this. I'm going to set the over/under at 5 different pronunciations during the Miami game
I'll take over. Rece Davis was over by himself within a span of 3 minutes. I tried once and then just switched to Andrew.
Honestly it's not that hard of a name to pronounce. Sound it out announcer guys.
This was hard to watch.
Our opponents run the ball. They get their share of explosive plays by having their running back literally run over defenders in the gap. They break tackles, get to the second level, and they are gone for a big play.
Hokies just cannot seem to do that in our running game. We run the ball. Our running backs seem totally unable to ever break a tackle. JC Coleman seems to get pushed over like a piece of paper. Caleb was no better. Sure the offensive line did not do a good job getting off of the snap and making the push. But when there was any type of one-on-one situation, where you could break a tackle and get to the second level, our RBs went down like rubber bands.
The offensive injuries have taken their toll at the RB position.
I am not sure what to do on offense. Poor OL, RBs who just cannot make the plays, erratic QB. Just hope we get a couple of pick sixes against Miami I guess.